Mini BOOM Takes First Flight

This was a cool video but it will be more exciting when they are able to suck up the gear, climb higher, and push the throttles up.
…and keep the boom to sound more like a fart in church.

Look at the elevators...

Wow. Is it intended to fly like that or is the plane nose heavy?

The tail arm is tiny which is why they are so large, a really big percentage of the wing area.

Also, horrible place for the registration number given there is this completely blank fin.

Mike C.

I’d guess backside of the power curve with all that drag, she’s built to be clean and fast

I like the spot for the silly registration, I mean nothing is sexy about goverment ID numbers, more out of sight the better

Not sure which Pitot system is accurate at that high AoA, but looks like rotation speed is right around 200 Knots. Sporty. Avionics are pretty nice.

I can't see what testing that airplane has much to do with the one that will be required in airline service, unless maybe a biz jet is their goal. That thing won't scale up to airliner airframe size and engine(s) requirements. I'm skeptical, but am also skeptical of anything that flys without steam gauges in the panel.

What is the point compared to a rebuilt or new Concord. More seats, Proven airframe with airline service history. Add modern engines and much lighter instruments / avionics. eliminate flight engineer for automated systems. Wouldn't that solve the same problem without advanced composites.

It's interesting to look at the other amateur YouTube videos of the test flight from runway edge showing the AOA on approach and climb compared to a T38 chase seeming to have no effort doing the same thing. Probably at a higher weight and with two seats.

The goal is to reduce perceived sonic boom on the ground, so it can fly over populated areas.

That’s impossible with Concord.

The goal is to reduce perceived sonic boom on the ground, so it can fly over populated areas.

That’s impossible with Concord.

None of the suggested routes on their webpage are significantly over land.

DC to Dublin, Atlanta to Madrid, Tokyo to Vancouver, New York to Rome, LA to Tahiti, Taipei to Brisbane, Singapore to Dubai, Miami to Santiago.

It is basically a modern Concorde. Speed is mach 1.7 "over water", and 20% faster "over land". This suggests subsonic over land is the best they can do.

I don't understand the pylon mounted engines. The drag from the nacelle to wing junction at supersonic speeds must be pretty high given the air jammed into that space. I don't know of any supersonic aircraft with pylon mounted engines for that reason.

The odds this goes into service is 1% at best. If you are a potential investor, you would be better off lighting your cash on fire since that at least got you some heat.

Mike C.

Not sure supersonic is all that practical domestically unless it can go a lot higher, otherwise it will still be in the Mach .78 lane. FL450+ has it's own physiological issues to consider too.

Non aviators are always shocked when I tell them airliners were often faster in the '60s-'70s than now.

That's the goal of a different plane (X-59). Not the XB-1

At a personal level it's nice to see the GRT Avionics "Mini" in the lower center position in the panel. I've been flying for years with one of these, the "Mini-X" from their first production batch. What a terrific little EFIS!

I'm impressed by the "fineness" of the fuselage shape.

Another Experimental aircraft takes to the skies, pushing forward yet again the envelope of aviation.

Plane I fly will do .85 all day long in cruise

So that’s more like 10%, which is still impressive