Archives for posts with tag: Blake Scholl

Symphony at work

Two announcements by Boom last week caught the attention of the aviation ecosystem. Both announcements made simultaneously and represent an interesting pivot in the manner an aerospace company goes about its product development cycle.

Boom announced a fresh funding cycle of $300 Mn not for its aviation business but for a subsidiary Boom SuperPower. SuperPower is a 42MW natural gas turbine delivered in a 40 foot container, optimized for AI data centres, the turbine is built on the Boom Symphony’s supersonic technology and the launch was announced with a 1.21GW order from Crusoe Energy.

The Boom Superpower aeroderivative gas turbine

Boom Supersonic has been developing its Overture airliner since 2014. The Overture is to be the spiritual successor to the legendary Concorde. After multiple years of hunting for the right supersonic engine (a partnership with Rolls Royce fell through as RR wanted to shoehorn an existing subsonic engine) Boom decided in 2021-2 to develop its own Symphony supersonic engine. (Full Overture story here : The Boom Overture : A Return to Supersonic | theaviationevangelist ). The engine is designed and projected to develop 40,000 pounds of thrust and four such engines are slated to propel the Overture to Mach 1.7.

As per their CEO Blake Scholl the power turbine was always on their roadmap, it was just expected to come later after the Overture went supersonic, but Boom’s pivot came last week when the gas turbine slotted in before supersonic happened. The pivot happened because of an urgent need in the energy ecosystem and an opportunity to find a niche here in addition to their primary vision of a return to supersonic. https://x.com/bscholl/status/1998372107215122910?s=61&t=94iDmeURmA5WeYayiLPshA

Data

While the concept of data has always existed, we are very interested in the last 25 years. Data units have grown exponentially from Bytes to Kilobytes to Megabytes to Gigabytes to Terabytes – Petabytes – Exabytes all the way to Zetabytes and Yottabytes. To further illustrate the data growth, 1Zetabyte = 1 billion Terabytes, the unit we are most familiar with.

Mankind has always known that data & information is power. The advent of computers helped ease the laborious process of typing and handwriting massive amounts of data. The next logical step was having the data at one location to ease access.

Early data centres from the 1940s (remember ENIAC) were massive machines that filled up  buildings and needed tremendous amounts of power (hold the thought) , generated huge amounts of heat (data centres need a lot of water) and needed tight physical security (to control who has access, we now do all this online!!). The data centres were stand alone in the pre-internet days. The idea of time sharing on these massive machines would come about in the 1960s.

Data Base Management Systems would only happen in the 1970s and they provided a structured way to organize and retrieve data files. These systems were housed in corporate / military / government facilities and came with rigidity and maintenance issues. Furthermore such data centres continued to be very expensive and were considered rare. Scalability meant ordering fresh hardware, connecting to the system and configuring it. The process could go on for weeks or even months and entailed significant cost. The service bureau model emerged where the equipment was owned and maintained by an external organization and the space and time was sold to the company that needed the space. This is considered a precursor to the cloud model.

John McCarthy first proposed computation as a public utility back in the 1960s. By 1999 Salesforce.com launched one of the earliest Software as a Service (SaaS). SaaS along with Platform as a Service (PaaS) and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) together form the three pillars of what we call the cloud!

It is the IaaS providers such as Amazon Web Services (AWS) in 2006  and Microsoft Azure in 2010 who were behind taking the idea of cloud computing mainstream. 2010 is also the year the Zetabyte era started with 2ZB processed and stored. In 2025 it is projected to be 181ZB up from 147ZB in 2024. The availability of easily scalable and cost effective models directly facilitated the manner in which organizations work. Decision making increasingly passed from human hands to a machine.

As of 2010 the US had approx 2100 data centre facilities all together that number has swelled to between 4,100 – 5400 facilities with cloud computing having widespread adoption by 2035 we should see a quadrupling of data needs from 2024 levels to over 500ZB. We are already seeing increased applications of generative AI in our everyday lives and the use of big data working with machine learning for our screens telling us what we need, when we need.

All this computing power means the power needs of these data centres will quadruple from 25GW in 2024 to over 100GW by 2035. U.S. data center power demand could reach 106 GW by 2035: BloombergNEF | Utility Dive.

Energy

Data centers with their exponentially growing power demands need sources of cheap and plentiful energy. The primary source of power in the United States is the electricity grid. The issue that comes up is data center growth and grid build out are running along completely different timelines.

In the past the average data center needed 40MW which is enough to power 30-40,000 homes. The same is now at a planned power need of 100MW or more. The largest of the data centers now have a projected power need of 500MW and more, going as high as 1.2GW.

Before we get to the power needs, a typical data center needs a minimum of between 10 – 40 acres of land and hyperscalers can go as high as 500 acres and more. Companies wanting to set up data centers need to look at land prices and water availability in addition to power needs. The combination of land pricing and water availability (taking into account existing water table loads) necessarily means that data centers have to sprout up in places with minimal population and cheap land prices. This also means that power infrastructure might be minimal to unavailable. In such a situation the data centers need to put down an application for a power line off the grid. Between 2010-2014 data centers accounted for 2% of total electricity generated in the US, by 2024 this had gone up to 4% and the same is projected to be 12-15% of all the electricity generated by 2035.

Power infrastructure is unable to keep up with the current and projected data center growth. By 2024 the grid build out rate had slowed down to 300 miles per year (across the USA) from 1,700 miles per year in 2010. The projection for 2035 is expected to be approx 300-400 miles per year. FEWER NEW MILES The rate of grid buildout has fallen by about 80% while data center growth is accelerating. The timeline gap only widens from here.

Data centers typically take anywhere between 2-4 years to be completed (depending upon size and complexity). Data centers with modular constructions can be completed in as little as 12-18 months! By comparison the grid with its slowing buildout rate takes between 7-12 years to fulfil data center connection requests for grid connections. The National Grid is already facing severe congestion and data center hubs like West Virginia consume 26% of the state’s total power, something that power authorities across the board are wary of. Furthermore the costs associated with laying out fresh/upgrading infrastructure vary anywhere between $100-300 per kW making the typical 40MW connections needed today cost anywhere between $4-12 Mn per connection and the developer is expected to bear the cost.Underground vs. overhead: Power line installation-cost comparison and mitigation . All these factors come together to delay electric connections to upcoming data centers. But hold on! 

The US is one of the biggest producers of oil globally and gas a by-product is vented and flared!! Approx 63% of all the gas generated in the US is flared/wasted. What if gas could be used to power the data centers and data centers go BTM (Behind The meter)? All the growth issues faced by the centers disappear overnight and growth stays on track! The data centers have their answer to cheap energy, gas & aeroderivative gas turbines.

Aeroderivative Turbines

The concept of gas turbines finds its beginnings with Leonardo da Vinci back in 1550, however the designs could not be implemented then due to non availability of materials. Gas turbines finally came about in the early 20th Century with the first commercial industrial gas turbine going online in 1939 at a power station in Switzerland.

Today gas turbine manufacturers such as GE Verona / Seimen’s Energy have a lead time anywhere between 3-5 years, in Asia the lead time can be as much as 8 years. Better than the electricity grid, but still much longer than the time it takes for entire data centers to come up. The gas turbine manufacturers have seen several growth and consolidation waves in their industry as demand peaks and falls off. This cyclic market behavior has made the turbine manufacturers reluctant to add on capacity and they are happy to have a backlog for their industrial gas turbines. 

By the early 1940s we saw the development of jet engines and engineers quickly saw multiple applications for the amazing engineering marvel. As early as 1947 we have the Metropolitan Vickers G1, an aeroderivative gas turbine based on the F2 jet engine that became the first marine gas turbine when it completed sea trials. By the late 1960s aeroderivative gas turbines emerged as a distinct turbine category for industrial and marine applications. Their strengths being their light weight, higher efficiency, compact size and quick start up times. Most importantly the engine cores were proven reliable with millions of flight hours and their modular construction meant maintenance was simpler than traditional gas turbines and down time was mitigated. In 1968 a GE turbojet from 1955 was converted into LM1500 for industrial and marine use. But what are the modifications that need to be made to a jet engine for it to become a gas turbine?

If the engine is a turbojet or low bypass then the front fan and nacelle are removed and an air filtration system is fitted directly on the engine. If the engine is high bypass just as the CF6-80C2 used in the PE6000 the integration is much more comprehensive, in either case the front fan is normally removed. A comprehensive filtration system is a must to avoid foreign object damage (FOD). The engine might be light, tough and powerful, but FOD can result in expensive maintenance.

The most important part of the modification is the Free Power Turbine. In a normal jet engine hot exhaust gasses are expelled out the back of the engine to create thrust. In an aeroderivative gas turbine the exhaust gasses spin the turbine before venting out. The turbine is connected to a generator via a shaft and the generator is where electricity is generated.

The engine’s fuel system is modified to work on natural gas instead of ATF. The modifications to the engine include fuel nozzle replacement in the combustor, gas feed lines are added including gas valves and compressors, the combustors are modified to optimize the mixing of air and gas and the engine fuel mix computer is modified to optimize gas combustion.

Finally the engine is housed in a compact 40 foot container that is easy to transport. Installation needs some ground work, but typically such turbines can be installed in well under two weeks.

Data centers repurpose old jet engines to meet AI’s power demand

aeroderivative Gas turbines

The Aeroderivative Gas Turbine  Ecosystem

The Aeroderivative Gas Turbine ecosystem is dominated by a clutch of players. Some of them include GE Verona, Mitsubishi Power, RR, Siemen’s Energy, Baker Hughes. GE & Baker Hughes dominate with a 63% marketshare of the current ecosystem. The market currently valued at just under $4 Bn and is projected to be valued at $6.79 Bn by 2034, to add there is an untapped market yet to be realized. [Latest] Global Aeroderivative Gas Turbine Market Size/Share Worth USD 6.79 Billion by 2034 at a 6.34% CAGR: Custom Market Insights (Analysis, Outlook, Leaders, Report, Trends, Forecast, Segmentation, Growth Rate, Value, SWOT Analysis)

It is into this market that Boom sees a clear opportunity. A quick look at the partners in this pivot. We first have Crusoe. Crusoe is a young start up that is about 7 years old, they specialise in  providing infrastructure for AI data centers. They have an out of the box approach to the energy needs of data centres. They go where cheap energy is available, a case in point is their site at Abilene, Texas. Abilene is in West Texas, an area active in oil and gas production. Furthermore there are a number of wind farms that we loss making until Crusoe stepped in with their data center project, taking in all electricity produced. Crusoe has placed an order with Boom Superpower for 29 gas turbines that will generate 1.21GW of power valued at about $1.25 Bn. This order is only part of their order book, they have over 4.5GW worth of orders with GE Vernova & Chevron.  Crusoe is building data centers where power is abundant and cheap – FastForward.

The second is Darsana Partners, an investment and advisory firm that has a portfolio valued at over $4.25 Bn. They are known for their fundamental research, and making high conviction investments in companies and industries undergoing significant change. They are the lead investor in Boom Supersonic’s ‘ Superpower’ turbine business which raised $300 Mn in funding.

Supersonic – Superpower – Supersonic

At the end of my previous piece on the Boom Overture we had briefly discussed the Overture funding and the funding gap that existed (link at the beginning of the article). The Superpower move by Boom is an excellent step towards that direction.

Boom promises its turbine cost will be at $1033 / kW this stacks up well against an average cost of between $930 – $1500 / kW by competitors such as the GE LM6000 & Siemens SGT-A45 , the plants generate power in the 40-50MW range. How much does it cost to build a gas power plant? – Gas Turbine World Where the Boom Superpower plant scores over the competition is its operation at high ambient temperatures. In summers when temperatures in many parts of the USA climb over 100°F Superpower promises to maintain power output of 42MW even at 110°F while competitors suffer from power derating.

Boom expects to commence deliveries to Crusoe by 2027 and expects to ramp up manufacture to 1GW by 2028, 2GW by 2029 and 4GW p.a by 2030. These translate to 24 units by 2028, 48 units by 2029 and 95 units by 2030 at 42MW each.

In revenue terms it translates to a topline of $1.03 bn in 2028, $2.06 Bn in 2029 & $4.13 Bn by 2030. The overall size of the aeroderivative gas turbine market is limited by the number of jet engines being converted to aeroderivative gas turbines and Boom expects to carry a backlog through towards 2035 (ideally).

Typical margins in the gas turbine business range between 10-15%. Since Boom Superpower has priced aggressively a conservative margin could be in the 5-8% range and this translates to a bottom line of between $51.5 – $82.4 Mn in 2028 and a bottom line number of between $206.5 Mn – $330.4 Mn in 2030.

While the numbers are sizable as a standalone revenue stream, they do not cover development costs of the Overture and the timeline seems to run parallel to the Overture timeline, the Superpower program does run significant add-on benefits.

The Overture is expected in service by 2030 and the Superpower program provides a revenue stream two years before anticipated commercial flights. Blake Scholl appears confident no more money will be needed to fund the Overture program, for this to truly happen the turbine program needs to accelerate by at least a year. For now their Superpower Superfactory expected to come up near Denver is still a grass field, but Boom have shown they can move quickly once permitting is complete in the past (their Greensboro factory).

Since the Superpower turbines will be using the same Sprint Cores as the Symphony, their use directly translates to real world use of their technology and this accelerates learning, validation and improvement required for their Symphony engines. Furthermore scaling up production at their Superpower facility builds supply chain and vertical integration experience that can be transferred to the Overture Superfactory.  Superpower.

Overall it looks like Boom has fast tracked their Symphony & Overture development timelines.

This is what pivots are all about!

Before you Leave.

Read More Amazing Content at: https://theaviationevangelist.com keep scrolling down.

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist/?hl=fr

Intro

On Feb 10th 2025 the Boom XB-1 completed her 13th   and final flight. Baby Boom got to 36,514 feet in altitude, went supersonic all the way to Mach 1.18, flew for 41 minutes and was captured in vivid schlieren images going supersonic. While all these are stunning achievements, there are several standouts. The first is boomless cruise, the XB-1 went supersonic with no audible sonic boom and the second was this aircraft was almost directly responsible for having the 52 year old supersonic over land ban in the United States overturned and finally the Boom XB-1 is the very first privately funded aircraft to go supersonic. This is the story of ‘The Little Plane That Could’.

A Schlieren image of the XB-1 going supersonic. Pic Source : Boom Supersonic website

The Idea

The idea of the ‘Baby Boom’ as a technology demonstrator finds its underpinnings in 2013. Their CEO Blake Scholl was always interested in supersonic flight post a visit to the British Airways Concorde G-BOAG at the Museum of Flight in Seattle and had set up a Google alert if anyone ever came up with the idea of making a supersonic airliner, nothing ever came about. 

A X post of mine with Blake’s reply saying that’s where supersonic started for him.

In 2013 after yet another transatlantic flight delay, he pondered if this was something do-able. Like most ‘cowboy entrepreneurs’ he just decided to do it and Boom was born in 2014 with seed funding of approx $1-2 million and 10 driven engineers.

By 2016 the team at Boom had its first iteration of what the Boom Overture airliner would look like. It was a trijet design with two engines underwing and the third buried inside the tail. The aircraft looked very similar to Concorde being a tailless delta and was designed to carry 65-88 passengers and cruise at Mach 2.2. The aircraft renderings were unveiled at the Paris Air Show and the Boom revealed a letter of intent from Virgin Atlantic (that is a story by itself and speaks volumes of Richard Branson & Blake himself). This triggered a Series A funding of $50 million . The media highlighted the idea of ‘democratization of supersonic air travel’. 

The first iteration of the three engined Boom Overture. Pic Source: Flight Global

Developing a full scale airworthy Overture is a $8bn venture. There are designs to be proven, manufacturing processes to be validated and of course the need to prove that a small start up with almost no background in aerospace can build a supersonic aircraft.

It’s around this time a pivotal realization emerges within the Boom Team. They needed a ‘Falcon 1 moment’, they needed a demonstrator.

The Demonstrator

Small aerospace companies such as Boom have no track record but are extremely ambitious about their disruptive technologies and need a proving platform. Successful subscale (a percentage of full size) demonstrators provide the foundation their technologies and capabilities need at a fraction of the cost (Boom spent $13 million on the XB-1 & $156 million on the project, including early Overture development costs).

The Falcon-1 moment that Blake was referring to was the fourth launch of Space X’s first little rocket. After three failures between 2006-08 and on the verge of bankruptcy Space X had enough money for one more launch. The fourth of course proved private rocket launches were viable and the rest is history.

The XB-1 was a 1:3 scale prototype of the full scale Overture (first iteration of the Overture was a trijet which changed to four engines in 2022. The XB-1 was ready to start testing by 2020 itself, and hence stayed a trijet) and the project goals were to prove privately funded supersonic flight was possible by validating aerodynamic design & highlighting Boom’s manufacturing capabilities.

A mockup of the first iteration of the XB-1 at the Wing over Rockies Museum: Pic Source: Wing Over Rockies

The Design

The XB-1 had two designs. The first iteration had a length of 68 feet and a wingspan of 17 feet. The final iteration had a length of 62.6 feet and a wingspan of 21 feet. The increased wing span of the slender delta on the latter gives the aircraft an improved aspect ratio (even though the wing had a shorter chord at the root, the original had the wing chines right up to the cockpit, while in the latter the wings chines end behind the cockpit and the aircraft was shorter by over 5 feet) which in turn improves aerodynamic handling especially at lower speeds. The wing itself is an ogival delta, where the leading edge has a S shaped curve on the leading edge to manage vortices as lifting devices.

A front view of the XB-1 showing the nose curvature, merged canopy landing gear, underwing inlets & the leading edges of the wings. Pic Source: Boom Supersonic site

The XB-1 uses area ruling right through its entire length. Area Ruling a.k.a Whitcomb Rule is an aerodynamic principle that states the wave drag on an aircraft flying at transonic speeds (Mach 0.8-1.2) is minimized if the total cross sectional area of the aircraft changes smoothly and gradually along its length. An example is the manner in which the cockpit canopy tapers off where the wings begin, and a top view of the XB-1 shows off the horizontal stabilizer roots beginning where the wing trailing edge root ends. 

The underside of the XB-1 clearly shows the metal to the rear and the silhouette of the wings trailing edge root merging with the root of the stabilizer leading edge. Pic Source: Boom website

At the very tip of the nose is a ram air pressure sensor (works as a pitot tube). The ram air pressure tube reads the speed of the aircraft. The tube has two vanes attached to it , the alpha vane for the AoA of the aircraft and the beta vane to measure yaw (lateral directional movement relative to oncoming wind). Such a set up is used on experimental aircraft where data is still being gathered in real time as against an aircraft which already has a data history and is in clean air (undisturbed by the aircraft’s turbulence). Such a system is critical to validating the performance of the aircraft across the entire speed regime.

The nose of the XB-1 looks like a cone that has been flattened on the bottom. The contoured underside of the nose is critical to aircraft stability during take off and landing when the aircraft has a high Angle of Attack (AoA).The original iteration of the XB-1 nose was more conical but computational fluid dynamics (CFD) directed the nose to be flattened on the bottom. The nose design itself took about two years! The shape of the nose had a direct impact on the shape of the wing,the leading edges of the  wings of the final XB-1 are much further back on the fuselage than the original iteration as this combination gave the maximum stability at low speeds (more on this later). To sum up, having a perfectly conical nose means it sheds vortices in unpredictable directions to small changes in aircraft speed and attitude which interfere with the lifting surfaces and the vertical stabilizer. Behind the cockpit on the port side is the AC inlet that creates cold air via a turbocharger inside and bleed vanes behind.

The nose slopes up towards a canopy that is contoured into the curve of the upper nose cone. This gives the canopy a very merged look relative to the nose curve.  The nature of the curve of the canopy in tandem with the overall design of the aircraft means the pilot has very low visibility at landing and takeoff (slender delta wings have high AoA at low speeds). The Concorde had a dropping nose which is a relatively heavy mechanism, The XB-1 uses augmented reality, more on this later.The entire underbelly of the aircraft appears to be relatively flat and heavily contoured, all the way to the rear trijet configuration. The contours merge with the redesigned wings seamlessly. Right through the length of the underbelly of the aircraft  are a series of access panels that merge seamlessly with the surrounding fuselage contour. The panels are held in place by quarter turn fasteners such as those made by Howmet Aerospace. These panels give access to various avionics bays and fuel tanks (refueling happens off the top of the aircraft).

The landing gear on the aircraft have been optimized at the lowest possible cost. The first thing that strikes you about the nose gear is the heavily machined trunnion and pivot arm, they are made of titanium, these parts are mated to mechanisms salvaged for an F-4 & a T-38 to complete the gear. On the gear are two HD cameras and these are part of the augmented reality system that XB-1 uses to overcome the poor cockpit visibility mentioned earlier. They have a 12.5° down angle to compensate for aircraft attitude at low speeds. There are two cameras for redundancy and are spaced more than a standard bird wingspan apart, this ensures a birdstrike cannot take out both cameras at once. As the gear retracts, the strut first compresses to have a smaller profile as it sweeps up & forward into the fuselage.

The main landing gear continues the heavily machined theme and is capable of taking a hard landing load of 200,000 pounds and bouncing right back! The gear is a combination of three arms. The main strut is made of Aermet100, an ultra high strength steel alloy. The alloy has iron, cobalt and nickel as additives. The drag arm is grade 5 titanium as is the main shock absorber. The arms converge just above the wheels and radiate out into the bay. The twin main gear of the aircraft converge into the bay with the wheels laterally radiating out. The bay has two hydraulic reservoirs for redundancy, one on each side and an emergency DC pump as a backup. The XB-1 has no RAT, the DC pump is the back up. The landing gear bays are absolutely packed with different systems and include a generator control unit in there as well. All extremely well laid out. This gear was the second iteration.

Under each wing is an engine inlet (the third is on top of the fuselage with an S shaped duct to the third engine). The inlets look relatively small for a supersonic aircraft, what strikes you is the careful contouring of the inlet to slow supersonic air down to subsonic speeds for the engine compressors to work optimally. The front profile of the engine inlet is rectangular in 2D. The upper lip of the inlet starts about two feet in front of the lower lip. The sideview of the engine inlet shows a line running from the upper lip and converging with the vertical line running up from the lower lip at about 80% of the height of the inlet (there are no specs in the public domain).The inlet has no moving parts and the air is slowed by the inlet shockwave off the upper lip. The third engine of the trijet has a similar looking inlet, only thing is the geometry appears to run in reverse to the under wing inlets.The engine inlet geometry took about a year and half to finalize and hugely enhanced the engineering team’s capabilities.

The inlet architecture clearly visible and the main gear. Pic source: Boom site

A subtle design feature on the XB-1 is the gap between the underwing engine inlets and the wing. This gap is a boundary layer diverter to ensure the air the engines operate in clear air free of any turbulent vortices off the aircraft. While the diverters under the wings are thinner when compared to the center engine diverter on top of the fuselage as the boundary layer there is much thicker. The boundary layer itself is the layer of air that clings to the aircraft and is pulled with it. It is generally much thinner at the nose of the aircraft than the rear. In fact the boundary layer to the rear of the aircraft is so thick, the fasteners on the titanium engine bay covers do not need to be recessed and they actually protrude a bit with no additional drag.

The rudder on the vertical tail which is around six feet tall looks small but actually has about 20% higher authority than predicted by CFD. The all moving horizontal stabilizer (necessary for supersonic flight) is pivoted on a titanium torque tube that runs through the fuselage and connects to the stabilizer on the other side.This ensures the two horizontal stabilizers always move in unison. The horizontal stabilizer itself is positioned below the wings on the horizontal plane to avoid being blanketed by wing vortices.

The XB-1 has five fuel tanks running longitudinally down the length of the aircraft. The onboard flight control computer controls the centre of gravity by pumping fuel forwards or backwards depending on the acceleration or deceleration regime.

The Assembly

Industry 4.0 has revolutionized manufacturing by integrating digital technologies for efficient design, simulation and production. An example of this is computational fluid dynamics (CFD) where engineers ran thousands of simulations to optimize the aerodynamics of the XB-1 at a fraction of the time and cost. Traditionally the designs were validated in physical wind tunnel testing and reiterated upon, but now computers and artificial intelligence run the process end to end. It needs to be acknowledged that modern computing power and software have enabled Industry 4.0. 

Virtual prototyping has ensured a digital replica of the actual physical XB-1 is available at the touch of a keyboard. Generative design has ensured that algorithms can create complex component designs beyond human capability. End to end digitization is a digital information thread maintained from initial design to current status.

Boom has excelled by compartmentalizing the entire end-to-end creation of XB-1 by optimizing each component through the most suitable design and manufacturing process, and then bringing them together in perfect synergy across the whole aircraft.

A quick glance at the XB-1 immediately tells you the aircraft essentially has two colors. Most of the aircraft is white and towards the rear of the aircraft the engine bays are metal. All the white on the XB-1 is carbon composite and most of the metal on the aircraft is titanium.

The two dominant colors of the Boom XB-1. Pic Source : Boom Website

Boom has designed and constructed the composite parts of the XB-1 inhouse at a facility close to Denver, Colorado. The carbon fibre composites are used for most of the fuselage, wings and tail empennage. The material is lightweight, has very high tensile & flexural strength in addition to high impact resistance & a high strength to weight ratio. The heat resistance is very good. Additionally composites are easier to work with when creating complex aerodynamic shapes as compared to traditional materials such as aluminium.

Boom partnered with TenCate Advanced Composites (now Toray Group) to supply high temperature epoxy resins & prepregs for hot sections such as leading edges (temps as high as 307°F/153°C) and nose. Incidentally these are the same materials used on the Space X Falcon 9. Wing spar load testing was done in 2017.

For the Carbon composite Boom used the hand layup process where engineers manually layered carbon fibre prepreg sheets (pre-impregnated with TenCate’s epoxy resin) into molds to form the fuselage halves in addition to other components such as the wings. The sheet fibers are layered at 0°,45° & 90°, such layering gives the final product the longitudinal, shear / torsional & transverse strength we spoke of earlier. The process began in 2019, the fuselage halves were joined together in 2020. 

Post the layering the layered sheets with their molds, Boom used both autoclave & out of autoclave (OoA) curing using an inhouse oven for the curing of parts. The difference between an autoclave and an oven is the autoclave cures the composite sheets under heat & pressure while the oven heats the composites & their molds in a vacuum. 

During the post processing, the cured parts are checked for fit, surface quality & performance. Excess material is trimmed out and subjected to non destructive testing such as ultrasonic scans or tap tests to detect voids or delamination. Finishing involves surface preparation with primers and cleaners specific to the composite materials, followed by painting. The XB-1 was painted in high gloss white PPG Aerospace CA 9800 paint and added roughly 125 pounds to the aircraft while staying within the centre of gravity limits. The choice of white paint was prioritized by thermal management. The titanium sections were unpainted.

The titanium parts of the XB-1 are at critical high-temperature or high-strength areas of the aircraft . The XB-1 had a total of 21 titanium parts including engine bay covers, exhaust components and structural elements such as parts of the landing gear. Titanium has a high melting point and thermal stability which makes it ideal for such sections.

Boom partnered with VELO3D to produce the titanium parts using additive manufacturing (3D printing). VELO3D used their Sapphire 3D printing system which uses laser powder bed fusion (LPBF). In this process a laser fuses titanium powder (probably Ti-6Al-4V a.k.a titanium-aluminium-vanadium) layer upon layer on a digital CAD model. This method allows for complex geometries & reduced material waste for rapid prototyping which is ideal for XB-1s small batch, high precision needs. The precision & complexity enabled by the process is far superior to traditional processes such as using CNC machines. VELO3D’s expertise helped accelerate XB-1’s production timeline.

The post processing of the 3D printed titanium parts involved heat treating to enhance mechanical properties, surface finishing to remove any surface irregularities & non destructive testing using X-rays and ultrasonic testing. The finished titanium parts were integrated with the carbon composite fuselage.

The use of 3D titanium parts validated additive manufacturing processes for the Overture. In fact the XB-1 has a total of 193 parts on it that are 3D printed!

Most of the avionics used on the aircraft are standard off the shelf and a few that have been created specifically for the XB-1. The XB-1 sits midway between a fly by wire & a manual system. The reason for this is Boom needed the reliability and simplicity of a manual system for the experimental XB-1 at the same time they wanted to develop engineering expertise for a digital flight control system. The Overture will be a fly by wire aircraft. The engines on the XB-1 are General Electric J-85s with afterburners that produce approximately 4100 pounds of thrust each. The engines themselves date back to the 1950s. The XB-1 was rolled out in 2020, it was only much later (2022) that Boom decided to make its own Symphony engines which were unveiled at the Farnborough International Airshow.

The Overture

As of Jun’24 the Boom Superfactory was completed in North Carolina and currently the Superfactory is being tooled up. The factory will eventually produce 66 aircraft per year. 

Boom is currently prototyping its Symphony engine sprint core using surprise surprise 3D printing! Boom Symphony expects to produce thrust early 2026.

The Overture prototype should be ready by 2029.

The XB-1 ‘ The Little Plane that Could’….. 

The Overture. Note the similarity in wing design to the XB-1. The aircraft underwent a change in design in 2022. Pic Source. Boom website
The original mockup of the XB-1; Pic Source: Wings over Rockies

Read More Amazing Content at: https://theaviationevangelist.com do keep scrolling down, and do share

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr