Boom SST, faster than Concorde

[Equus]

Eric Mc said:

I'm not saying it's impossible - but it will be difficult and expensive.

More difficult and expensive than putting a reuseable vehicle into space, would you say?

[Eric Mc]

Since the latter hasn't actually been achieved yet - I would say no.

[V8 Fettler]

Eric Mc said:

V8 Fettler said:

A good bean counter can show that BA made money from Concorde.

An even better "bean counter" will show you that BA only made money from Concorde because they were more or less given their Concorde fleet for nothing. And because there was no capital outlay on their behalf, no depreciation of the asset needed to be shown in their annual accounts.

And whatever about how BA accounted for their Concorde operations, we also know for sure that the total burden of the cost of developing, testing and building Concorde, fell squarely on the shoulders of the UK and French taxpayer. Note, I am not criticising the fact that taxpayers funded the whole project, but that people should not be deluded into thinking that the aircraft made a genuine penny for anybody - apart from BA for the reasons mentioned above.

We agree that BA made money from Concorde. Branson and his cronies will (almost) certainly structure the project to ensure that the organisation responsible for flying the thing is at arm's length from the organisation responsible for design and manufacture.

[Petrus1983]

At some capacity it has to be achieved - unless we're saying that supersonic flight is fully relegated to the past, and for the first time we'll start going backwards since the Wright brothers. I want them to succeed.

[tangerine_sedge]

Petrus1983 said:

At some capacity it has to be achieved - unless we're saying that supersonic flight is fully relegated to the past, and for the first time we'll start going backwards since the Wright brothers. I want them to succeed.

I agree, I'd like this to succeed, but I think all we'll get are some nice digital renders of what-ifs. This looks like a few chancers trying to get funding out of gullible investors before awarding themselves fat pensions and going bust.

[Eric Mc]

I'd like it to succeed as well - but I'll be surprised if it goes very far UNLESS they get into bed with an established airframe manufacturer.

And they certainly won't be getting any of the massive government (i.e. taxpayer) assistance that created Concorde or made it possible for BA make a profit flying it.

[Talksteer]

Equus said:

Eric Mc said:

I'm not saying it's impossible - but it will be difficult and expensive.

More difficult and expensive than putting a reuseable vehicle into space, would you say?

Your point is....

They are totally different things.

The important things in initiating an engineering programme is risk, capability, customer and finance.

In all those areas building a supersonic business jet is very different to building a rocket.

As explained several times the SpaceX magic wasn't about a particular solution it was about spotting a gap in the market, a customer willing to pay and realising that the risk profile was investable.

[Frik]

The major cost in developing aircraft is certification. Cars and spaceships don't require nearly as much paperwork.

[Equus]

Talksteer said:

Your point is....

My point is that the world is changing, and well-funded hi-tech start-ups are now doing things that would have seemed inconceivable 20 years ago, whereas the big multi-national and governmental organizations like BAE, Lockheed Martin, General Motors, NASA and the rest are looking increasingly clumsy, cumbersome, inept and inefficient in their recent failures

Eric tried to make the point that the project was bound to fail because it wasn't in the hands of one of these major organisations.

My point is that it just might stand a chance of success because it isn't.

Talksteer said:

As explained several times the SpaceX magic wasn't about a particular solution it was about spotting a gap in the market, a customer willing to pay and realising that the risk profile was investable.

Gap in the market... check
Customer(s) willing to pay.... check
Investors realising that the risk profile is investable.... check

These points are the very things that the original article is reporting upon.

What was it you are trying to explain?

Edited by Equus on Tuesday 29th March 11:25

[Equus]

Frik said:

The major cost in developing aircraft is certification. Cars and spaceships don't require nearly as much paperwork.

Cars arguably require a lot more, if you are intending to compete in global markets - there is nothing like the consistency of legislation, with each country often having its own, quite different standards and testing. Even within the EU there remains some inconsistency, never mind when you start looking further afield.

Aircraft are, by their very nature, a 'global' product, so the legislation has developed in a way that reflects this.

In terms of legislation and certification, spaceships are just aircraft that go further.

[Eric Mc]

Is there a genuine gap in the market?

How many potential customers are there for such an aircraft?

BAC and Sud Aviation confidently predicted they would sell 300 Concordes. In reality, they sold precisely none.

List all the major successful commercial aircraft that have been built since 1970 by a brand new entity that have never built anything previously.

And refrain from name calling when replying. I'll discuss with you as long as you don't get personal as you have done already.

[Equus]

Eric Mc said:

Is there a genuine gap in the market?

Read the article (which I agree has to be taken at face value, but do you really think that Boom would risk having such things mis-reported?).

Virgin has decided to partner on the project, and has signed an option for 10 aircraft.

Another UK airline has signed a letter of intent for $2billion.

Contrary to previous assertions, these are not no-risk actions for the airlines involved. An option agreement costs real, actual money even if you later choose not to take it up, and even a letter of intent will expose you to litigation if Boom subsequently delivers the product to the market, but the airline then backs out and leaves it high and dry.



Lockheed Martin, Boeing, GE Aviation and NASA are all also investing money in SST development at present. Do you really think that any of these companies would have made the level of commitment they already have if they hadn't done the groundwork to prove that there is a market?

It's difficult to say this without it coming across as insulting, but do you really think that you know the airline business better than the names quoted above, 'cos unless you do, it's faintly comical to see such prognostication on an internet forum.

We have to assume that since these companies have the resources to undertake the necessary viability studies, they will have done so before making any form of commitment to a project, and actually might have some slight understanding of the business they're engaged in, don't you think?

[Eric Mc]

The Concorde proponents all boasted about the numbers of options that were placed for the aircraft. Not one of those options turned into a genuine sale.

There have been dozens of STUDIES into supersonic transport aircraft. Some day, maybe one of these will result in a genuine aeroplane. I'm just not convinced at this stage that this particular proposal has any more likelihood of reaching production than all the others that have gone before.

But, as I have said many times on PH, I do think that a supersonic biz jet may very well emerge within the next decade. Whether it stems from this project or some other study, who knows.

[Equus]

Eric Mc said:

The Concorde proponents all boasted about the numbers of options that were placed for the aircraft. Not one of those options turned into a genuine sale.

...For geopolitical reasons that I am absolutely certain you, with your historical bent, will be more than familiar with.

Lessons learnt?

[Frik]

Equus said:

Frik said:

The major cost in developing aircraft is certification. Cars and spaceships don't require nearly as much paperwork.

Cars arguably require a lot more, if you are intending to compete in global markets - there is nothing like the consistency of legislation, with each country often having its own, quite different standards and testing. Even within the EU there remains some inconsistency, never mind when you start looking further afield.

Aircraft are, by their very nature, a 'global' product, so the legislation has developed in a way that reflects this.

In terms of legislation and certification, spaceships are just aircraft that go further.

You can argue it, but it simply isn't the case. This is why aircraft development programmes are substantially longer than for cars.

[Eric Mc]

Only part of the story. At the end of the day, no airline could see how they could run a Concorde fleet at a profit. The only airline that did (BA) did so because they were gifted the aircraft by the taxpayers.

An airline that had to actually pay for them at their proper commercial selling price could never have made money out of them.

As for geopolitical reasons - they did of course exist and, to some extent they still do. The ban on supersonic flight over land still mainly exists.Anybody wanting to build a modern supersonic civil aircraft will need to address this issue. It is being worked on using wind tunnel and computer modelling but it hasn't been demonstrated practically yet.

[hairyben]

Eric Mc said:

Only part of the story. At the end of the day, no airline could see how they could run a Concorde fleet at a profit. The only airline that did (BA) did so because they were gifted the aircraft by the taxpayers.

An airline that had to actually pay for them at their proper commercial selling price could never have made money out of them.

As for geopolitical reasons - they did of course exist and, to some extent they still do. The ban on supersonic flight over land still mainly exists.Anybody wanting to build a modern supersonic civil aircraft will need to address this issue. It is being worked on using wind tunnel and computer modelling but it hasn't been demonstrated practically yet.

You can get a long way over water though can't you? western europe to america, america to asia seems to consist of mostly blue stuff. There was probably more to the politics than we'll ever know. Out of interest what would you say was the "proper commercial selling price?"

Given the high number of mega-rich today I could see a market in private jet sales, maybe evan a bigger one than airline trade to begin with

[Equus]

Eric Mc said:

An airline that had to actually pay for them at their proper commercial selling price could never have made money out of them.

Round and round we go, in ever decreasing circles...

One of the reasons that Concorde cost as much as it did was because of the absurdly inefficient nature of the 'big beasts' of the aerospace industry at the time.

That the British car industry was similarly institutionalized and inefficient is the reason that - like our aerospace industry - it barely exists in a recognizable form today.

[Equus]

Frik said:

This is why aircraft development programmes are substantially longer than for cars.

You think?

I think you need to review the length of time (and cost) it takes to develop a light aircraft for production, versus the length of time (and cost) it takes to develop a car for global markets (I'm not talking about something like a Lotus or a TVR, which is only certified for use in its domestic market and perhaps a handful of others, and then only under less stringent low-volume production rules).

[eccles]

Equus said:

Frik said:

This is why aircraft development programmes are substantially longer than for cars.

You think?

I think you need to review the length of time (and cost) it takes to develop a light aircraft for production, versus the length of time (and cost) it takes to develop a car for global markets (I'm not talking about something like a Lotus or a TVR, which is only certified for use in its domestic market and perhaps a handful of others, and then only under less stringent low-volume production rules).

Every nut, bolt rivet, tyre, clip, strap, buckle, piece of metal, etc, etc has to be certified even in a light aircraft.Not so in cars.