Archives for posts with tag: construction

Prologue

In the Research & Development Gallery at the National Museum of the USAF near Dayton, Ohio stands an aircraft towering over all the other aircraft in the gallery, the centre piece, in the shadow of its wings stand several other aircraft appearing to shelter there.

This is the XB-70 Valkyrie, arguably one of the most influential aircraft of all time.

The XB-70 Valkyrie with the B-58 Hustler

The Nuclear Deterrence

Before we dive into the XB-70 Valkyrie, it’s important to understand the backdrop which led to her development.

The 1945 nuclear events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly established the importance of nuclear deterrence. The cold war was ramping up and the modified B-29s used to deliver the nuclear ordnance were inadequate. 

The Enola Gay & Bockscar the two B-29s that dropped the atom bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

By 1941 Britain was at the risk of falling to Nazi Germany. America was looking for a new bomber that had at least a 5,700 mile range ( Gander – Berlin roundtrip), the ability to deliver a 10,000 pound ordnence load and return. Furthermore the bomber had to have a service ceiling of 40,000 feet and a cruising speed of approx 275 mph. The events of Pearl Harbor ensured the B-36 would only enter service post WW2.

The ten engined B-36 Peacemaker

Convair won the contract and the aircraft was originally designated the B-35, later switched to B-36 to avoid overlap and confusion with the Northrup YB-35 flying wing. The aircraft first flown in 1948 was huge with a wingspan of 230 feet and a length of 162 feet, was propelled by six pusher props. Later models had four turbojets  on the outboard wings making a total of ten power plants ‘ Six Turning & Four Burning’(the maximum on any production bomber aircraft ever), could carry over 80,000 pounds of ordnance. 

The ten engined B-36 . Six turning & four burning

The B-36 was relegated to obsolescence with the advent of the MIG 15 over North Korea by 1950. It was too slow for the faster interceptors Russia was producing. America needed an all jet powered bomber that was quicker.

The B-47 Stratojet entered operational service in 1951. While the requirement goes back to 1943 for a jet powered reconnaissance bomber, the original model 424 was essentially a version of the B-29 . Following the 1945 inspections of captured top secret German documents on swept wings the jet powered game pivoted on its head. With a 35 degree sweep and a wingspan of 116 feet with wings mounted on the fuselage shoulder, the aircraft was powered by six turbojets. The nuclear capable bomber had a max payload of 25,000 pounds and a range of  2500 miles. With a cruise speed of approx 500 mph the B-47 was the backbone of the Strategic Air Command’s ( SAC) bomber fleet through the 1950s. (Note: The B-45 operated from 1947-59 however had many shortcomings that severely curtailed its usefulness)

The six turbojet engined B-47. The very first jet engined bomber ever.

While the B-47 operated in tandem with the B-36 there was a clear gap in the Range / Payload / Speed doctrine and most importantly reliability, enter the B-52.

The eight jet B-52 is a venerable veteran among bombers globally, first entering service in 1955 and still in active service to this day. With a wingspan of 185 feet and a length of 159 feet, the aircraft cruises at 525 mph, has a range of 8,800 miles and service ceiling of 50,000 feet. The aircraft can carry 70,000 pounds of ordnance and is nuclear capable. 

The legendary B-52 with its eight engines. In service for 70 years and counting.
The B-52 prototype with a B-36 in the background.

Through the 1950s aircraft got faster and the push for air superiority quickly moved aircraft into the supersonic era. Starting with Gen. Chuck Yeager’s famous 1947 first in the Glamorous Glennis. Aircraft such as the F-86 Sabre and the F-100 Supersabre made sure that supersonic was here to stay. The Russians were making supersonic strides themselves with their MIG 19 ‘Farmer ‘ . Bombers needed to go supersonic.

The B-58 Hustler. The very first supersonic bomber.

The B-58 was designed with nuclear strike capability and was the very first operational Mach 2 bomber. While the B-58 was a clear statement of intent the aircraft had a limited range of 4,000 miles and payload capacity of approx 20,000 pounds. The delta wing (a recent innovation) made low speed handling very difficult and the aircraft had a high incident rate. SAC issued a fresh directive for new aircraft.

WS-110A

In 1955 the SAC  issued ‘ General Operational Requirement No. 38 ‘ the foundation for an operational bomber that had the capabilities of both the B-52 and the B-58. The conventional fuel powered jet version of this requirement was called ‘ Weapons System 110A ‘ or WS-110A.

The specifications of the bomber was a cruising speed of Mach 0.9, 50,000 pound payload and a combat radius of 4,000 miles. Boeing & North American Aviation both were included in round one of the development along with other leading companies.

By the mid 1950s USSR in addition to its supersonic fighters such as the MIG-19 had SAMs (Surface to Air Missile). The missiles were a threat to a Mach 0.9 aircraft. The rules of engagement changed to a Mach 3 heavy strategic bomber and a cruising altitude of 70,000 feet.

The initial designs from both companies had take-off weights in excess of 750,000 pounds and both the proposals were dismissed ‘ being too large ‘. Gen Curtis LeMay, the commander in chief of the SAC is said to have commented on seeing one of the proposals “ this is not a bomber, it is a three ship formation!”

Both companies were told to refine designs.

The NAA & Boeing initial designs for the WS110A.

NACA Supersonic Studies

In 1951 Richard Whitcomb put forward the ‘ Area Rule’. His discovery stated that ‘ Total cross sectional area ‘ of the aircraft was responsible for drag in the transonic ( Mach 0.8 – 1.2) regime and not just the wing cross section. This finding resulted in the ‘coke bottle fuselage’ , a narrowing of the fuselage where the wing cross section came into play.

In 1956 A J Eggers & Clarence A Syverton published ‘ Aircraft configurations developing high lift-drag ratios at high supersonic speeds’. The principle investigated the design concepts of aircraft at high supersonic speeds. The long title would come to be known as compression lift or wave riding.

The 1951 ‘Area Rule’ was first tested on the redesigned F-102A Delta Dagger. The rule which required the original F-102 to be lengthened by 11 feet , with narrowed coke bottle design in the middle, a new canopy along with redesigned wings and a pushed back tail, resulted in a much faster , more stable aircraft that comfortably sustained Supersonic speeds.

A design schematic of the F-104A design changes over the F-104 implementing ‘Area Rule’

The 1956 internal memorandum was studied in detail by NAA and they figured compression lift had to be central to the WS-110A design philosophy along with area rule.

By early 1958 the WS-110A would be officially designated the XB-70. The Air Force had transitioned the project from a concept ( Weapons System or WS) to an experimental program (XB). The name Valkyrie was the winning name submitted by Sgt. Francis Seller in a naming contest held by the USAF. Valkyrie the Norse Goddess is the ‘chooser of the slain’, guides souls lost in battle to Valhalla(the hall of heroes). Valkyrie was chosen from over 20,000 suggestions.

The Canards & Forebody

The XB-70 experienced significant ‘ Mach Tuck’ at high Mach speeds. This was caused by the centre of pressure moving aft as the aircraft accelerated through the speed regime.

The automatic canards managed by the FACS (Flight Control Augmentation System) adjusted continuously to manage the tuck. With a span of 28 feet they were significant in trimming out pitch shifts and helped smooth shock transitions.

The canards & forebody of the XB-70. Sr-71 in the foreground.

The canards worked in conjunction with the elevons on the wing’s trailing edges. 

The forebody of the XB-70 like most supersonic aircraft today was sharply tapered through to the canards. The underside as were the sides were not only flat and shallow, but also contoured to create the primary shockwave.

The XB-70 dimensions.

Behind the nose the contour widens and transitions towards the engine nascelles. It is here the coke bottle design is clearly visible.

Please be sure to read an about the evolution of the Flying & Blended Wings in the two part series here. http://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/13/the-evolution-of-the-flying-wing-part-one/

The windshield of the XB-70 in flight with the side windows. The second picture shows the XB-70 from 1964, the waisting clearly visible.

The XB-70 used a retractable windshield ( the first of its kind). The windshield serviced multiple purposes. The first was to create a clear aerodynamic line. The second was heat insulation for the cockpit at 600 degrees F (it did heavily restrict forward visibility). To augment visibility, the canopy had flat, heat shielded windows on the sides. Aircraft such as the Concorde and TU-144 followed a similar concept with their droop noses.

The Wings 

The large & thin wing area with a high aspect ratio ( the wingspan divided by the mean distance between the leading & trailing edges of the wing a.k.a average chord) managed sub / transonic lift (aerodynamic lift). 

The sculpted leading edges of the wing helped control vortices the delta wings generated. Vortex lift is important during high angles of attack (specific to delta wings) during take off and landing. Concorde is a famous example of using vortex lift.

A front view of the XB-70 clearly showing the sculpted leading edges and some elevations raised.

The flat undersurface of not just the wings but also engines ‘6 pack’ was critical to the XB-70’s most important design feature, ‘ Compression Lift’. The wings outer panels ( last twenty of the trailing edge on each side ) drooped by up to 65 degrees. The droop was important to trap the shock waves created off the sculpted engine intake splitter & the intakes themselves.

The sculpted inlet , the vertical splitter being the prominent feature. The second picture shows the six pack and the flat underbody of the aircraft enabling shockwaves to be trapped under the aircraft with the drooping wings.

While most of us think of shockwaves coming off a supersonic aircraft horizontally, the splitter was responsible for generating shockwaves vertically, these waves being trapped by the folded wingtips creating a wave cushion. The XB-70 generated up to 30% of required supersonic lift through compression lift. Shock waves would bounce into the engine inlets too. The folded wingtips improved yaw handling a great deal and the XB-70 needed much smaller vertical stabilizers as a result.

The XB-70 is the first aircraft to use three different kinds of lift across the speed regime. The swept back wings at 65 degrees reduced transonic drag and improved handling. 

The wings flexed and bent considerably through the speed regime. To help keep the wing flexible the engineers at NAA intuitively integrated six elevons (combination flaps & airelons) on each wing and avoided binding the wing. Furthermore by doing so they managed extreme hinge and actuator loads inflight (hinge moments).

Detailed schematics of the XB-70 showing the crew capsule (top picture top left corner ) and elevons (both pictures).

The six elevon setup gave the FACS more flexibility as it managed pitch / trim (inboard elevons) and roll (outboard elevon). As the wingtips drooped (25 – 65 degrees) the two outboard elevons were faired to zero and became part of the folding wingtip. Lastly, having six elevons helped with redundancy. All hydraulics on the aircraft were at 4,000 psi.

AV1 had a flat wing with zero degree dihedral, while AV2 had a five degree dihedral as a design refinement. This gave AV2 better directional and roll stability over AV1 and also gave AV2 better compression lift efficiency. 

AV2 was unfortunately lost on June 8 , 1966 during a formation photo flight. General Electric had a photo session using the XB-70, F-104 Starfighter, F-4 Phantom II & a T-38 Talon. All of them used GE engines.

Test pilot Joe Walker (the most experienced supersonic pilot then) in his F-104 was sucked into the starboard wingtip turbulence of the XB-70, flipped over the vertical stabilizers of the XB-70 and crashed in a fireball. The doomed XB-70 flew level for a few seconds before going into a steep spiral and crashing, taking with it co-pilot Carl Cross. Pilot Al white ejected using the crew escape capsule engineed for high altitude ejection or depressurisation while retaining control of the aircraft (in event of depressurization).

The Engine Nascelles & Intakes

The engine nacelles not only fed the engines with air but also were an integral part of the compression lift generated by the XB-70.

The entry was split by a vertical splitter fins. The engines were split three on each side. They also projected the airflow towards the drooped wing tips to trap shockwaves. The nacelles created oblique shock waves at the inlet lips as they began slowing air to about 400 mph from supersonic speeds as stable air was directed to the engines. This kept engine compressor pressure within a constant bandwidth. The trailing edges of the three moveable ramps behind the engine inlets hinged inwards or outwards (between 10 – 30 degrees or upto one foot) as per the Mach number and compressor requirement. The entire system including the ramp angles & bleed doors (for excess air) was continuously adjusted by the inlet control system. 

The inlet detailed schematic .

The engine nacelle had a 2D rectangular configuration and had a maximum height of 4 feet. The length of the intake from the nacelle to the engines was approx 30 feet.

A front view showing the engine inlet and splitter in detail
Rare pictures of the inside of the intakes at different depths inside the 30 foot intake .

The underside of the entire intake ramp was flat as it aided in compression lift.

The Engines a.k.a ‘The Six Pack’

The XB-70 had six General Electric ( GE) YJ93-GE-3 turbojet engines.

Each axial flow engine generated 19,900 pounds of dry thrust and 28,800 pounds with afterburners. The engines had no thrust reversers and used drogue chutes as a stopping device. With eleven compressor stages and of which six were low pressure and five high pressure.

The engines were made of Nickel based alloys and stainless steel. Advanced blade cooling allowed the engine to survive high exhaust gas temperatures (EGT). The engines used high flash point JP-6 fuel.

The engine control system synchronised with automatic inlet control management to prevent compressor stalls and upstarts (happens when airflow to engines is unstable due rapid speed changes).

With so many different systems working in tandem on such a precision piece of engineering the YJ93 was a high maintenance product.

The Landing Gear

The XB-70 had the conventional hydraulic tricycle gear. 

The rearward folding nosewheel had two wheels.

The nose landing gear.

The main gear had two bogies with four wheels each. The main gear had a complex mechanism of folding the bogie in, then a twist and then folding into the wheel wells. The wells had a flap that closed and aerodynamically sealed the wheels inside.

The main gear each had one small wheel between the outer pair of wheels. This small wheel acted as a braking sensor was an early ABS mechanism. During rejected takeoffs the brakes could heat up to 1,000 degree F.

The main landing gear.

The landing gear struts were made of forged chromium-molybdenum steel for its exceptional strength and fatigue resistance. The struts were more than capable of handling the 500,000 pound gross weight during heavy landings at over 200 knots.

The tyres were made by Goodyear and had aluminium woven into them to withstand the high landing temperatures of over 300 degrees F. Each tire was Nitrogen inflated to over 250 psi.

The XB-70s brakes had a multiple disc setup. Each disc is made of forged steel. They were heat treated to resist warping and cracking under extreme thermal loads.

The Fuel System

The aircraft carried approximately 43 – 46,000 gallons of JP-6 Fuel. Everything about the system was about managing heat, aircraft stability & structural integrity in addition to feeding the engines optimally across the speed range.

Fuel was stored across eleven fuel tanks distributed across the fuselage and wings of the aircraft. The tanks themselves were constructed using the same honeycomb sandwich panels used for the fuselage skin. The honeycombing did throw up sealing issues which was resolved using advanced epoxy compounds. Although some tanks never properly sealed and hence were never used (ex: the tail tank).

Using the JP-6 fuel as a coolant was a first ! The fuel was circulated through ten heat exchangers throughout the aircraft to absorb and dissipate heat. The heat exchangers were part of the engines fuel pumping system enroute to ignition.

The tanks themselves had heatsinks within each of them to draw excess heat. Furthermore to prevent vapor ignition the tanks were inerted using 700 pounds of liquid nitrogen held in dedicated tanks. As fuel was consumed nitrogen filled the empty tanks to maintain pressure, displace oxygen and reduce fire risk at elevated temperatures.

The fuel management system was integral to the Centre of Gravity Management system. The system actively transferred fuel between tanks as Mach numbers increased. As speed increases the aerodynamic centre of the aircraft moves rearward. The centre of gravity needs to coincide with this to avoid a Mach Tuck. By drooping the outer wingtips in conjunction with its canards, the aircraft effectively moved the centre of pressure forward. The fuel management system worked in conjunction with the compression lift mechanism by moving fuel forward to balance the rearward move of the aerodynamic centre. The wing tanks were typically burned off first. 

We observe here that all systems were dependent on each other to maintain stability.

Lastly the JP-6 fuel was specifically developed for the XB-70 program and its extreme speed regime. It addressed the issues of aerodynamic heating, high speed engine performance and safety & high altitude operation. The fuel performance exceeded all the XB-70 operating parameters and was developed as an alternative to zip fuels (high calorific value boron based fuels). Zip fuels had caustic byproducts that caused engine wear and posed toxicity risks.

Kerosene based JP-6 was the safe alternative that provided for all requirements without the byproducts. 

The Materials of the XB-70

Over ninety percent of the external structure of the XB-70 ( fuselage skin, nacelles ) was made of type 321 stainless steel built as a honeycomb structure. The material and construction had high thermal resistance of up to 600 degrees F with minimal distortion at Mach 3. The structure itself was rigid, lightweight and thermally stable.

The Honeycomb panels used on the XB-70.

The hot areas such as engine bays & aft of bays & internal structure was made of a titanium alloy called Ti-6Al-4V also known as Grade 5 titanium. The alloy was 90% titanium, 6% aluminium, 4% vanadium and had excellent thermal resistance of over 1000 degrees F with an excellent strength to weight ratio.

High temperature adhesives used to bond the honeycomb structure were made of redux and epoxy adhesives. The honeycomb structure could not be riveted as it would weaken the structure.

Non heat zones such as avionics bays, hydraulic lines & non load bearing fuselage sections were made of aluminium alloys as they were light weight, easy to machine and cooler.

The engine and exhaust area materials were made of Inconel & Rene 41. These alloys can resist very high EGTs in the range of 1,800 degrees F.

All coatings and sealants had heat resistant coatings to prevent oxidation and surface degradation due high temperatures. The sealants protected the honeycomb edges from moisture intrusion & thermal cycling damage.

Strategic Bomber to Experimental Research Platform 

By the late 1950s the US & Soviet SAMs were getting bigger, faster and more powerful. President Eisenhower was a proponent of the ICBMs (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles). His take on the XB-70 program was that “ building the XB-70 was like fighting with bows & arrows in the era of gunpowder and guns” The XB-70 just could not cope with the banks of Soviet SAM systems coming online across the entire USSR. 

Gary Powers was shot down in a U2 over the USSR at 70,400 feet and this would prove President Eisenhower’s prophecy.

The program was cancelled in 1959, however to salvage the considerable expenditure already incurred (over $300 mn) the Pentagon authorized the production of a single vehicle. AV1 was almost completely handbuilt.

Pic 1 shows the XB-70 with flaked off paint after a supersonic run. The second picture shows the XB-70 with the A-12 Oxcart.

The XB-70 program is a great example of how politics directs expenditure. As the political tug of war continued NAA was caught in the middle of a fierce battle. The Air Force continued to support the program and even attempted to reinstate it as a combat test vehicle.

The 1960 election of President Kennedy brought fresh impetus to a failing program, the President switched the program from a manned bomber to an experimental aircraft. A total of three were to be constructed, however only two were ever completed, the third was incomplete (the avionics and other systems were actually ready).

NAA should be commended for sticking through the program at each step. Finally there was consensus across all stakeholders including the Air Force, Politicians, NASA & of course NAA.

The XB-70 in the Air

Total flights – 129

AV1 – total flights83
Total flight time – 160hrs 16min

Mach 3 flights – 1. 

AV1 had several design issues that restricted speed to Mach 2.5

AV2 – total flights 46

Total flight time – 92hrs 22min

Mach 3 flights – 9

On May 19, 1966 AV2 flew at Mach 3 for 32 consecutive minutes.

Combined, the XB-70 Valkyrie accumulated a total of 1hr 48min at Mach 3+.

Each flight of the XB-70 was an adventure and there were several incidents.

The Legacy of the XB-70 Valkyrie

The XB-70 was an aircraft of many firsts, later adopted for use by the Aviation / Aerospace Industry. Below are listed a few of them!

  • Variable geometry wings later adopted by aircraft such as the B-1A/B Lancer. Compression lift later used by the SR-71. The overall aerodynamic stability of XB-70 influenced several other projects.
  • Material and thermal management solutions advanced the development of heat-resistant structures and cooling systems, impacting aerospace exploration technologies.
  • Fuel and propulsion innovations directly contributed to the SR-71 and indirectly to modern jet engines and fuel systems, particularly for high-speed and high-altitude operations. 
  • Avionics and automation laid groundwork for modern flight control and safety systems, enhancing reliability and reducing pilot workload in complex aircraft .
  • The XB-70’s strategic obsolescence redirected military aviation toward low-altitude and stealth technologies, while its test data shaped research and development for decades

Epilogue 

Over 50 years after her last flight in 1969 the XB-70 at the National Museum of the United States Airforce, looks ready to take off and fly away to the clouds where she belongs. Makes you wonder what she would have been like in the air? A combination of size, speed, sound ,smoke & incredible power all coming together creating a show like none other.

Perhaps the Valkyrie’s greatest message to future generations is ‘ Always be innovating, it’s the only path forward’.

The XB-70 says good bye as she accelerates to Mach speed with her wingtips down to 65 degrees….

Credit for all pictures to the respective owners.

Please be sure to read about the Flying & Blended Wings, a two part series here. http://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/13/the-evolution-of-the-flying-wing-part-one/

For more deep dive easy to read articles please go to 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

Social Media continues to be flooded with images, stories and statistics about the Concorde, a troubled engineering marvel that retired in 2003. The ‘Concorde’ feed highlights the love and awe the aircraft inspired. The retirement had a sense of finality about it, like a curtain being drawn, not on just the Concorde but on Supersonic Travel itself, the reason being the issues were not about the aircraft but about the accompanying noise pollution at take off ,landing and the shadow called the sonic boom.

Boom Supersonic a startup founded in 2014, but birthed in the mind at least 2-3 years prior decided to do something about. Their CEO Blake Scholl decided he was going to make a supersonic aircraft that not only went supersonic , but was quiet and without an accompanying sonic boom over land. This is the story of The Overture and is part three of the QueSST series which you can read here. https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/10/09/the-boom-xb-1-the-little-plane-that-could/ & https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/11/04/the-lockheed-x-59-quesst-pinocchio-swordfish/

The Overture First Iteration

The first iteration of the Overture was unveiled in Nov 2016 along with the first iteration of the XB-1 the one third scale technological demonstrator of the Overture, and both of them looked extremely similar to what the Concorde looked like! The difference being the technologies available in 2016 vs 1969 when the Concorde first flew.

Overcoming the laws of physics means any supersonic aircraft needs to be shaped a certain way, and this is where the Concorde design was lightyears ahead of its time. Concorde was the only successful supersonic jet and it made sense to look at the Concorde baseline, the original Overture was to be a trijet as was the original XB-1.

By 2018 the XB-1 subscale model was ready for wind tunnel tests and the first set of tests confirmed the predicted aerodynamic calibrations that were arrived at through CFD was off by 30%. Such a difference keeps magnifying as it goes up in scale to the full sized Overture. The Team at Boom had to go back to the drawing boards after almost 4 years of work and rework the design of the XB-1 which in turn would impact the Overture.

The very first iteration of the the Overture & XB-1 : Pic Source : The Independent

Repeated finetuning of the design resulted in the XB-1 that broke the sound barrier in early 2025 with no apparent sonic boom (uses a concept called Mach Cutoff), the jet itself was still in a trijet configuration but looked considerably different from the original when it rolled out on Oct 7,2020.

The tests (both CFD & wind tunnel) highlighted the design on the final XB-1 was not scalable to the Overture and there would have to be a complete rework on the fuselage, wings and engines of the Overture. Some of the highlighted issues were high take off and landing speeds due to the very low aspect ratio on the reworked XB-1’s wing, the very high angle of attack that Boom addressed with an augmented reality system, a trijet would not produce enough thrust practically to push the bigger Overture to supersonic.

In July 2022 Boom unveiled its significantly reworked Overture. The unveiling was done after considerable CFD testing followed by wind tunnel testing across five locations in the USA & Europe covering various flight regimes.The fuselage and wings looked extremely sculpted and the aircraft featured four underwing podded engines instead of the original three.

The Design

At transonic speeds (Mach 0.8-1.2) local air flows accelerate over and around the aircraft fuselage and wings can reach the speed of sound. The minimum speed at which this occurs varies from aircraft to aircraft and is known as critical Mach number. The shockwaves formed at these localized zones cause a sudden increase in drag is called wave drag. To mitigate the strength and number of shockwaves an aircraft’s cross sectional area needs to transition smoothly from front to rear. This is known as Whitcomb Area Rule of 1952 .The phenomenon was observed in various forms by multiple aerodynamicists before Whitcomb.

In the case of the Concorde the area rule was applied at Mach 2 and the rear fuselage was extended by 12.2’ on the production aircraft over the prototype and reduced wave drag by 1.8%. A similar concept was applied to the first iteration of the Overture and XB-1, the results we have already spoken of. The final iteration of the Overture extensively uses the area rule to maximum effect.

The external specs of the Boom Overture are a length of 201 feet ,a wing span of 106 feet and a height of 36 feet. The interior cabin is expected to be 79 feet in length with an aisle height of 6.5 feet, good enough for a tall person to walk through at full height. It will be capable of Maxh 1.7 at 60,000 feet cruising altitude and a max range of 4.250 NM approx 350NM more than the Concorde. https://apnews.com/press-release/pr-newswire/technology-airlines-climate-and-environment-7e88c34a01a4194c6f1e6b4760d2bb86

A front view of the nose is the first observation of the rule. Where subsonic aircraft bodies in general are circular to oblong in appearance the Overture’s nose and body behind has a distinct oval shape (left ↔️right) like an egg starting from a singular point the tip of the nose. Much like the final XB-1 the nose slopes upwards at a much higher angle from the nose tip than the bottom, like a cone that has been pushed down flattening the bottom. The oval shape of the nose permits the cabin to have the maximum permissible height allowing for passenger comfort as they walk through the aisle while at the same time minimizing aircraft front on cross section. The reason for the differing angles top and bottom of the nose tip is to control shockwaves. One of the main lessons learnt from the XB-1 was shockwaves tend to be unpredictable when the nose is a perfect cone and sometimes tend to blanket the vertical stabilizer, doing so prevents the occurrence and ensures a smooth flow over the nose and aft across the fuselage.

A front view of the Boom Overture: Pic Source: Boom Media Assets

The nose slopes up to the cockpit windshield, the cockpit is the widest and tallest part of the fuselage. Much like the XB-70 Valkyrie where the wasting is clearly visible as the fuselage narrows down towards the tail from the cockpit the Overture does the same. In Fact the black stripes that extend from the cockpit and run rearwards forming an incomplete loop around the widest part of the fuselage looks almost Jumbo Jetish from a top view. The fuselage belly is comparatively flat and a similar design is seen on the XB-1. 

Where the Concorde had a drooping nose which was had heavy hinges and actuators, the Overture does away with the entire mechanism and instead has an augmented reality system tested on the XB-1. If the Overture’s system is like the XB-1’s it will have two 4K cameras that are mounted on the nose gear (so they can be retracted completely in flight), the cameras will be at least one large bird’s wingspan apart to build redundancy against bird strikes. The screen inside the cockpit will display a composite image along with airport markings etc if at ground level. The system is a huge weight saving over the Concorde of approx 1650 pounds.

The gull wings of the Overture have a complex geometry.

Boom – FlyBy – It’s About Time For a Bold New Era of Supersonic Flight . The modified delta planform has several special design tweaks to it. The wing appears to have a dihedral angle at the wing root and inboard section which transitions to an almost flat to anhedral angle at the outboard sections. A positive dihedral (approx 3-5° upward angle) helps with lateral stability and keeps the passenger cabin level at cruise. The flat to slight anhedral angle of approx 1° helps optimize supersonic wave drag while maintaining aileron command. The underside of the wings appear to be blended into the fuselage to soften shockwaves.

A side view of the Overture. Note the wing architecture & staggered engines. Pic Source : Boom Media Assets

A look at the leading edge from the top shows off a clear kink much like a cranked delta on the inboard form. The kink slows down the air over the wing even as the aircraft is supersonic. Imagine if you were running towards a fence that is perpendicular to you, when you hit the fence all of you hits it at once, now imagine the fence is at an angle and kinks slightly towards you, when you first run towards it the first bit goes much faster than the rest of the wing after the kink, even though you are running at the same speed and only a little bits of you hits the fence as you keep running, the same is good for the gull wing. The inboard kink generates a powerful vortex at high AoA over the inboard wing which generates lift at takeoff & landing. The vortex prevents air separation and stalling at high angles of attack.

A top view of the Overture. Note the kinks on the leading and trailing edges of the wings and the cropped wingtips. Pic Source : Boom Media Assets

The steep inboard sweep which is in the region of 70-75° transitions to a shallower sweep in the region of 50°, the sweep change happening at the kink or crank, the leading continues its transitionary sweep through to the wing tips The steep inboard geometry delays shock formation and reduces wave drag at Mach 1.7 while the shallower outboard sweep increases wing area which in turn boosts lift while at the same time delaying stall formation. The crank or kink creates a natural break between the inward vortex lift and the outboard attached flow, such geometry results in superior roll authority across the speed regime.

The leading edge further shows a thicker front view profile than the Concorde did, this helps generate more lift across the speed range while at the same time exhibiting heavy contouring. Where the Concorde had an S curved leading edge that was sharp and thin, the Overture has a more ‘traditional airfoil’ although there is nothing traditional about it. At the wing roots the wings tend to blend upwards (dihedral angle) into the tapering fuselage while they drop downwards (neutral to slight anhedral angle) and lower towards the cropped wingtips. Such a design naturally helps with managing roll and gives the wings the distinctive gullwing shape.

The Overture’s cropped wingtips represent an evolution over the Concorde’s pointed ogival delta tips. On the Concorde the tips maximized the wings aspect ratio (span to average chord ratio) while helping minimize wave drag, however they were vulnerable to flutter (vibrations at high speed) on the overture the cropped wingtips ensure the aircraft maximizes area ruling through the whole profile cross section, while details of the crop are not available, we can expect the wing to be about 10-15% more efficient in fuel burn per passenger. Since a large portion of the flight time will be in the subsonic/transonic regime, the cropped wings lessen induced drag aiding quieter takeoffs (the Overture aims to be below 75dB). At supersonic speeds the sharp tips of the Concorde amplified the sonic boom , while the Overture’s cropped wingtips combined with the gullwing design soften the boom signature.

The trailing edge of the wing has a very obtuse lambda (Λ) on it. The first function of the Λ is vortex control, if you look at it relative to the leading edge kink (the vortex generator) it is slightly outboard from it. The shape helps break up and weaken these vortices as they exit the wing surfaces by inducing geometric discontinuity. The trailing edge shape also acts a sonic boom diffuser by preventing the coalescence of shocks and softening the boom overland. The trailing edge Λ and the kink on the leading edge means the wing is also called a cranked arrow.

The Λ on trailing edge helps low speed handling and stall characteristics by promoting an earlier flow separation at the root encouraging an inboard to outboard stall pattern. The overall wing design should have a washout. The trailing edge Λ further reinforces the area rule ethos of the aircraft. The edge has an inboard flap  inboard of the kink and an outboard flap that appears to begin exactly on the kink. On the outermost part of the edge is the aileron. https://boom-press-assets.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Newsroom-Media-Assets/Overture/Videos/Overture-Systems-Configuration.mp4

The four symphony engines of the Overture appear staggered  and spaced out with the inboard engines about 5 feet in front of the outboard engines (no specifics available). The staggering enables the coke bottle design (area rule) and synergizes with the wing’s highly sculpted gull wing design to minimize shockwaves at Mach 1.7, increasing range. The offset also helps with yaw control in the case of asymmetric thrust and improves low speed handling as against the Concorde’s close engines placed further back on the aircraft fuselage.The engine setup looks like a B-58 Hustler from the 1950-60s. The Hustler itself was yet another troubled but genius engineering marvel, from a time when supersonic aerodynamics understanding was still in its infancy.

The wings transition towards the empennage of aircraft. Unlike the Concorde that had an ogival delta that used elevons (combination elevators and ailerons) the Overture has a traditional aircraft’s tail with vertical and horizontal stabilizers. The vertical stabilizer’s slanting leading edge appears to land on the top of the wasting fuselage at the same spot the wingtip’s trailing edge outboard corner finishes, respecting the area rule principle. With a height of approx 18-20 feet and an area of 450-500 sq ft the stabilizer has more area than the Concorde’s at 380 sq ft and height of 27 feet. The rudder on the vertical stabilizer enhances directional stability at high AoA and provides authority in an engine out situation.

The span of the horizontal stabilizers is approx 55-60’ and an area of approx 350-400 sq ft. The stabilizers are set at a slight anhedral angle of 3-4° (cannot confirm) work closely with the vertical stabilizer and provide the aircraft with pitch authority. The control surfaces on the horizontal stabilizers are actually at the very tail of the plane and are again placed in such a manner once again to respect area ruling. The stabilizer is trimmable to manage the angle of incidence for various speed regimes and centre of gravity shifts.

An image showing the structure of the Overture. Pic Source : Boom Media Assets

The landing gear of the Overture is a tricycle setup with the nose gear having two wheels which retracts into itself and forward into the fuselage to lessen its volume profile. The main landing gear features six wheels on each bogie , which is highly unusual for an aircraft weighing in at approx 415,000 pounds. So why take on the additional weight and space? Delta winged aircraft have a normal landing speed of approx 140-160 kts which is considerably faster than a normal subsonic airliner which 135 kts such a speed will require additional braking power plus the added redundancy in case of a blow out.

AoA at take off and landing has always been the central focus to the Concorde’s design. At take off the Concorde’s AoA was between 15-18° and landing approx 15-17°, such an angle was steep enough to entail the droop nose to manage visibility. The Overture with it’s wing and tail design is expected to have a take off AoA of approx 12-14° and a landing AoA of approx 11-13°. Visibility is managed by the augmented reality cameras spoken of earlier. For reference the 777 has a take off AoA of between 12-18° and touchdown of between 6-8°. The Overture aims to have an almost subsonic aircraft type of landing angle.

Design reference points: Boom – Overture & https://boom-press-assets.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Newsroom-Media-Assets/Overture/Videos/Overture-Systems-Configuration.mp4

The Engines

Engines are the key to any aircraft’s success and in the case of SST’s they assume an added importance. They need to be capable of speed, be quiet & efficient in addition to being 100% SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) compatible. Such engines can be expensive to develop and need fresh though and innovation at each step of the design and construction process. To understand SAF read here. https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/25/alternative-aviation-fuels/

By 2017 Boom was on the lookout for an engine partner and Rolls Royce looked the part with their previous experience developing Concorde’s Olympus Snecma 593 turbojets. The partnership with Boom looked like the natural step forward ushering in the sustainable supersonic era (the engines were to be 100% SAF compatible) and the partnership was announced with much fanfare in July 2020. After two years embedded with the Boom Team in Colorado as they narrowed down engine specs and characteristics and then the partnership fell through in September 2022 and by December 2022 Boom decided it was going to develop the Boom Symphony engines inhouse. The parting was cordial but stiff with RR saying that developing a supersonic engine was low on their priorities list and Boom stating they were appreciative of RR’s work.

The reality was RR was wary of another Concorde like disaster where they lost the equivalent of $1.32 Bn per aircraft and did not have the wherewithal to go through the development pains in the tough economic scenario the World was currently in (COVID). Boom for their side felt the engines offered, a low bypass Pearl 700 used in Bombardier Jets aiming for 30-35,000 pounds of thrust per engine with modifications such as the inlets and exhaust with chevrons would seriously compromise efficiency by approx 23-30% below Boom’s targets. Several options were studied but nothing came off. There was added pressure on RR with the worldview on emissions (supersonic aircraft burn 3X fuel compared to subsonic aircraft) and RR’s failed partnership with Airion developing the infinity engine which ended in 2021 with Airion folding up.

Further partnerships were explored by Boom with GE, Pratt & Whitney and even Safran but all of them declined to partner, this is when Boom decided they are going it alone.

The Boom Symphony. Pic Source: Boom Media Assets

The exterior dimensions of the Symphony engine are a length of 42 feet & height of 7 feet. The supersonic inlet is 12 feet in length with the variable geometry exhaust at 19 feet, the turbofan and sprint sore section at 11 feet.The Symphony is a medium bypass twin spool engine with 3 low pressure & 6 high pressure compressors with no afterburner developing 40,000 pounds of thrust per engine.The design of the engine is optimized to the Overture and is 100% SAF compatible.

All engines have three phases suck, bang & blow. The suck is done by the main frontal fan and compressors. The bang is in the sprint core and the blow is through the high & low pressure turbines just before the exhaust.

The inlet of any SST engine is where the magic happens. While the aircraft is supersonic the engines can only gulp in air at between 400-500 mph. The inlet is where the air is slowed down by use of shockwave creation. In the case of Concorde a series of ramps and bleed valves for excess air was used to slow the air down to approx 500 mph from Mach 2. The architecture of the Overture and Symphony is different where the engines are podded below the wings instead of being integrated into them in a cluster as on the Concorde. The Inlet of the Symphony is axis symmetric with a spike at the central axis (much like the Lockheed SR-71). The spike moves back and forth as per the speed of the aircraft and manages the inlet shockwave. In the case of the SR-71 the central spike moved back up to 26” at high supersonic flight. The Symphony will probably be up 18” (speculation).

Boom is currently in the advanced prototyping phase and last month they announced that 95% of all parts were done and have been moved to manufacture. Boom is making use of extensive 3D printing of parts at their printer farm (additive manufacturing) for a number of parts being used in the Symphony prototyping phase. The Sprint Core currently being tested has 193 3D printed parts. The alloy used is Haynes 282 a nickel based alloy that can withstand extreme heat and stress.Such an approach enables rapid prototyping & iteration. An example of the speed they work at is they prefer vertical integration (in-house manufacture) vs waiting upto six months for parts to be delivered and choose to spend a couple of million dollars on the required machine instead.

Currently the Sprint core is being tested at Georgia Tech’s Combustion laboratory where the hot section is currently being put through its paces. Similarly each component of the engine will be tested independently, such an approach saves time and helps with iterations. Once testing is complete across all the engine components, they are integrated into the prototype engines, fired up and parameters checked.

Blake says the Symphony expects to generate thrust early 2026. Such a tight timeline places great pressure on the propulsion team.

Generating 40,000 pounds of thrust on-time is critical to Boom’s future funding (will speak about this).

Symphony Reference: Fact Sheet

The Superfactory, Construction, Assembly & Partners

The 180,000 sq ft Boom Superfactory has been constructed by BE&K building group and cost approx $100 Mn to construct. Boom Supersonic Overture Superfactory | BE&K Building Group . The superfactory is at Piedmont Triad International Airport in North Carolina on 65 acres of leased land, which incidentally will also host the factory producing JetZero’s Z4 Blended Wing Body Aircraft. As per a press release, Boom plans to invest $500 Mn in NC of which the building is $100 Mn, that leaves approx $400 Mn in terms of tooling yet to come in. Governor Cooper Announces Boom Will Manufacture Supersonic Aircraft in North Carolina Creating More Than 1,750 Jobs by 2030 . The Superfactory is where the final assembly of the Overture will take place and there is an entire ecosystem of partners involved in constructing the individual parts. Some of them are Aernova for the wings (they list Boom as a top innovation). https://www.aernnova.com/products/wings . Safran Landing Systems will be manufacturing the Overtures beautiful landing gear. https://boomsupersonic.com/press-release/boom-supersonic-and-safran-landing-systems-sign-supplier-agreement-for-overture . The Overture’s empannage is manufactured by Aciturri.There are several other key component suppliers who are part of the ecosystem to help make the Overture flight ready.Fact Sheet. All of them are currently design ready .

Most of the Overture will be carbon composite including the fuselage, wings & empennage. Titanium will probably be used in high stress areas such as the landing gear, engine bays and wing & stabilizer leading edges. The engine internals will have alloys such as Inconel in addition to Haynes 282 mentioned earlier. The Superfactory will have autoclaves (large ovens that cure the layered prepeg under pressure). To put a cost perspective autoclaves can cost up to $4 Mn a pop.

The Overture inflight. Pic Source: Boom Media Assets

Cash Runway

Developing the Overture is estimated to cost approx $8 Bn up from a previous estimation of $6 Bn. Boom has so far raised approx $700 Mn through 12 rounds of funding and the investors have shown patience through the iterations process. However Boom is still well short of the required number by a long way. An IPO might be a way forward, but it will not bridge the gap.

The last funding round in late 2024 was termed as a series A showing a reset within the company, the valuation down to $584 from peak valuations of $1Bn and even $6Bn after the Aug’24 funding. Looking at the volatility of the valuation, it is extremely important for Boom’s Symphony engines to generate 40,000 pounds of thrust in early 2026, this can very well pitch the valuation up skywards and open a round of extremely high funding, Boom should target at least $1 Bn or more (thrust is the single most important milestone from here on) raised after the thrust milestone. 

In Nov ’23 Neom Investment Fund invested in Boom as a strategic investment. NIF is a subsidiary of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) and is a key vehicle to Prince Mohd Bin Salman’s Vision 2030, an ambitious plan to diversify Saudi Arabia from its oil dependence. If PIF’s investment in Lucid Motors is any indicator where they have become a majority shareholder with over $8 Bn invested in a relatively short period. Boom has much to look forward to as they generate thrust and tool up their superfactory.

An IPO will probably be at either the Overture’s first supersonic flight or just as FAA certification progresses past 50%. Boom has been working very closely with the FAA at each step and only moves with each part after the FAA certifies it, this vastly cuts lead time. Some of the other aerospace startups like Joby & Archer Aviation have valuations that are at ± $10 Bn and Boom should target at least that much if not more.

Innovation at Work.

Before you Leave.

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