Boom SST, faster than Concorde
Discussion
eccles said:
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.
You're talking about quality control certification, though, not design/flight test approval.The component level certification you're talking about is dealt with by suppliers...and is certainly a damned good reason to use external suppliers rather than try to manufacture (and certify) each and every component yourself, in-house.
Equus said:
eccles said:
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.
You're talking about quality control certification, though, not design/flight test approval.Mave said:
...on every civil, military, or experimental aircraft I've worked on, every nut, bolt, clip, buckle, piece of metal etc. has to go through design approval.
It has to comply with relevant design and quality standards at component level, the specifications of which are then used by the designers of the aircraft to ensure that the component is fit for purpose. But that's no different to the British Standards/NAS/DIN standards etc, that other engineering components go through.Look on the mirrors, clips and bolt-heads on your car: you'll find that they all carry markings telling you the standards they conform to (and yes, these standards form part of the homologation approval in most countries), and these standards have all similarly been used by the designers to ensure that the component is fit for purpose. No real difference.
The major difference with aircraft standards is that the materials and components manufactured under them have a much higher level of quality control.
As an informative example, go off and read the standard for aircraft quality plywood. You'll see that it isn't intrinsically any stronger, better quality or even more durable than other high quality plywood, and from an engineering point of view you'd use it with exactly the same design figures for strength, etc., and undertake calculations in exactly the same way. Where it differs is in the level of quality control testing and certification that goes on through the manufacturing process, so that hopefully it's a lot more consistent and any rogue flaws have been weeded out.
If you want to have a bit of fun, go buy some 'aircraft quality' plywood from Travis Perkins, the builder's merchant (they advertise it in their catalogue). Then go back a week later and tell them that since you've just built it into your vintage aerobatic biplane, the CAA wants to see the certification, so could they please provide the GL documentation to prove that it is what they have advertised and sold it as.
Equus said:
Mave said:
...on every civil, military, or experimental aircraft I've worked on, every nut, bolt, clip, buckle, piece of metal etc. has to go through design approval.
It has to comply with relevant design and quality standards at component level, the specifications of which are then used by the designers of the aircraft to ensure that the component is fit for purpose. But that's no different to the British Standards/NAS/DIN standards etc, that other engineering components go through.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).
I would love someone to develop a new supersonic aircraft, but the fact remains that there are a multitude of technical and legislative challenges that make it an extremely difficult proposition. Technical challenges that are several orders of magnitude more complex than for your average light aircraft manufacturer and legislative ones that make homologation of a car headlamp unit for multiple markets look as challenging as a seven year old's maths test. These are issues that aren't magically resolved by approaching the design process with a start-up mentality, however much you want them to be.
Mave said:
But those specifications are configured onto the aircraft through design approval and accepted through certification. Every change of nut, clip, bracket etc has to go through design approval.
You're now talking about changes to design approval, though.Though not quite as strict, relevant changes to type approval cars also have to be documented and agreed to ensure that they remain compliant, in many legislations. In some places (notably Germany and Australia) there are even strict rules in place about what you can do to an individual, privately owned vehicle in terms of post-registration modifications.. In Germany you even need TUV approval to change to an aftermarket set of alloys.
The UK is relatively lax, but even here it's the reason why the original run of Lotus (since Frik mentions them!) Elise Sports 160's were built and registered under Low Volume Type Approval (effectively IVA) exemption and it was only the second series - when they realised that the demand was such that it warranted the hassle with documentation - that they went for WVTA (Whole Vehicle Type Approval) of the relatively modest specification changes compared to the original car.
Where it gets nasty - as I've tried to explain above - is that there's no international standardisation with cars. WVTA approval of the changes to the Elise Sport 160, for example, gained permission to sell them in Europe. Try selling them in the US, or Australia, or Japan, or wherever, and the European type approval is largely worthless and you have to start the paper chase all over again in each instance.
With aircraft - which are intrinsically designed to cross borders - there's massively better regularity in the international approval and certification, so whilst, yes, the approvals documentation is more detailed for a single approval, it then covers you to sell and operate the aircraft almost anywhere.
With cars, not only do you have to go through dozens of type approvals processes for different markets, if you want to sell globally, but those markets will have different rules which often dictate developing and fitting different components.
As I've said previously, the total legislative/type approvals burden is much higher for a global, or even multi-market, car than it is for an aircraft... which is why only a handful of manufacturers can afford to produce 'global' models, or 'global' engines, and only then when they can be sure of production numbers in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to amortise the cost.
Edited by Equus on Tuesday 29th March 21:39
Eric Mc said:
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.
Embraer? Does that count, if we forget the HUGE subsidy, and ghastly aircraft 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.
I chatted with a Gulfstream rep at EBACE a few years back, 2008 maybe, and was left with the distinct impression that they had a design for supersonic biz jet. Reason it never got further was due to lack of a market able to stand the operational restrictions and costs.
Frik said:
These are issues that aren't magically resolved by approaching the design process with a start-up mentality, however much you want them to be.
No, for sure, but the costs associated with resolving such issues are almost magically reduced by such 'lean' mentality.It's a sad fact of life that if you give a problem to General Motors, or NASA, or Lockheed Martin, they'll spend decades and literally $billions developing an over-complex and conservative solution, whereas if you give the same problem to Lotus, or Elon Musk, or Burt Rutan, it'll likely be resolved much more innovatively, much quicker, and at much lower cost.
That's just the nature of corporate inefficiency.
Equus said:
Your now talking about changes to design approval, though.
That's because most changes end up requiring design approvalEquus said:
Though not quite as strict, relevant changes to type approval cars also have to be documented and agreed, to ensure that they remain compliant in many legislations. In some places (notably Germany and Australia) there are even strict rules in place about what you can do to an individual, privately owned vehicle in terms of post-registration modifications.. In Germany you even need TUV approval to change to an aftermarket set of alloys.
Not quite as strict? If for example a car manufacturer found that their plastic cooling system hoses were cracking, would they need to go through type approval to change the hose to metal? Not just use a type approved material, but actually type approve the design change? How about if they changed from a forged wishbone to a cast one for cost reasons? Or from a forged one to a different forged one from a different supplier? How about if they changed the plastic covered steering wheel for a leather one? Or changed the interior lght so it stayed on for an extra few seconds after the door was closed?Equus said:
Where it gets nasty - as I've tried to explain above - is that there's no international standardisation with cars. WVTA approval of the changes to the Elise Sport 160, for example, gained permission to sell them in Europe. Try selling them in the US, or Australia, or Japan, or wherever, and the European type approval is largely worthless and you have to start the paper chase all over again in each instance.
With aircraft - which are intrinsically designed to cross borders - there's massively better regularity in the international approval and certification, so whilst, yes, the approvals documentation is more detailed for a single approval, it then covers you to sell and operate the aircraft almost anywhere.
There's no single standard for aircraft either, especially if it has multiple uses. For example the certification rules for a helicopter used in logging are different to the same helicopter used in medivac, or navy, or army, or air force, or civilian transport. Each one will have its own rules. One of the first questions in costing up an aerospace programme is "what's the certification basis".With aircraft - which are intrinsically designed to cross borders - there's massively better regularity in the international approval and certification, so whilst, yes, the approvals documentation is more detailed for a single approval, it then covers you to sell and operate the aircraft almost anywhere.
Equus said:
With cars, not only do you have to go through dozens of type approvals processes for different markets, if you want to sell globally, but those markets will have different rules which often dictate developing and fitting different components.
Yep, and different international rules for aircraft sometimes dictate fitting different parts, designing parts differently, qualifying the parts differently.Equus said:
As I've said previously, the total legislative/type approvals burden is much higher for a global, or even multi-market, car than it is for an aircraft... which is why only a handful of manufacturers can afford to produce 'global' models, or 'global' engines, and only then when they can be sure of production numbers in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to amortise the cost.
You've said it but I don't agree - I think number of aerospace companies who can afford to produce 'global' models is fewer than the number of car manufacturers. Out of interest, how much do you think it costs to develop and type approve a car; nothing radical, just a model evolution like focus 1 to focus 2 with some shared parts and no safety related new technology? I honestly don't know the number myself.Equus said:
Frik said:
These are issues that aren't magically resolved by approaching the design process with a start-up mentality, however much you want them to be.
No, for sure, but the costs associated with resolving such issues are almost magically reduced by such 'lean' mentality.It's a sad fact of life that if you give a problem to General Motors, or NASA, or Lockheed Martin, they'll spend decades and literally $billions developing an over-complex and conservative solution, whereas if you give the same problem to Lotus, or Elon Musk, or Burt Rutan, it'll likely be resolved much more innovatively, much quicker, and at much lower cost.
That's just the nature of corporate inefficiency.
There are 3 key things that come to mind in this instance - level of risk aversion, level of optimisation required to get to a viable solution, and number of coupled problems you are trying to solve. As soon as you go from concept through to more detailed design, analysis, testing, operation and support, your ability to 'think lean' diminishes quickly because you end up trying to efficiently manage a lot of multi-dimensional information, studies and trades.
For what its worth, my main issue with this particular team isn;t that they're a start up company, its that the information about their concpet doesn't seem to make sense for what they are trying to achieve.
I'll stick to responding to the interesting bit...
A full new design from a major manufacturer, for a new global car (which is what we're talking about here, to try to keep the thread vaguely on-topic), albeit a non-radical one, would certainly be upwards of $6 billion. For comparison, the A380 Airbus cost around $13 billion to get into production, according to Google, so only about twice as much, despite it being a vastly larger and more complex machine.
As I understand it, companies like Nissan would budget something like $1/2 billion for a new model on the more modest basis you describe, using a lot of carry-over on components and technology from previous models (consider the number and regularity of new models launched by major car manufacturers... the price of staying on top of the airliner market, compared to staying on top of the car market, suddenly starts to look pretty trivial, doesn't it?).
Tesla, by comparison, has spent about $3 billion on R&D so far, which is considered a remarkable bargain for the level of new design & technology they've managed to deliver.
And at the opposite end of the spectrum, Lotus spent about $7 million getting the Elise into production (20 years ago, of course), but that was a local car for local people, so to speak, on what was regarded as a laughably miniscule budget.
Mave said:
Out of interest, how much do you think it costs to develop and type approve a car; nothing radical, just a model evolution like focus 1 to focus 2 with some shared parts and no safety related new technology? I honestly don't know the number myself.
How long is a piece of string? Doubtless the following figures will be endlessly quibbled over, but for the sake of some numbers...A full new design from a major manufacturer, for a new global car (which is what we're talking about here, to try to keep the thread vaguely on-topic), albeit a non-radical one, would certainly be upwards of $6 billion. For comparison, the A380 Airbus cost around $13 billion to get into production, according to Google, so only about twice as much, despite it being a vastly larger and more complex machine.
As I understand it, companies like Nissan would budget something like $1/2 billion for a new model on the more modest basis you describe, using a lot of carry-over on components and technology from previous models (consider the number and regularity of new models launched by major car manufacturers... the price of staying on top of the airliner market, compared to staying on top of the car market, suddenly starts to look pretty trivial, doesn't it?).
Tesla, by comparison, has spent about $3 billion on R&D so far, which is considered a remarkable bargain for the level of new design & technology they've managed to deliver.
And at the opposite end of the spectrum, Lotus spent about $7 million getting the Elise into production (20 years ago, of course), but that was a local car for local people, so to speak, on what was regarded as a laughably miniscule budget.
Equus said:
A full new design from a major manufacturer, for a new global car (which is what we're talking about here, to try to keep the thread vaguely on-topic), albeit a non-radical one, would certainly be upwards of $6 billion
About how much of this $6 billion is type approval of the car? Not the components, but the car itself?Mave said:
But where do you think that corporate inefficiency comes from? Why are start ups so much leaner?
There are 3 key things that come to mind in this instance - level of risk aversion, level of optimisation required to get to a viable solution, and number of coupled problems you are trying to solve.
Level of risk aversion is certainly a biggy. As is optimisation. There are 3 key things that come to mind in this instance - level of risk aversion, level of optimisation required to get to a viable solution, and number of coupled problems you are trying to solve.
I'd argue that number of coupled problems is only an issue because larger organisations tend to breed problems because of the number of differing views - if you're aiming at delivering a product that meets a specific need, the criteria for it (and hence the number of problems to be solved) shouldn't really vary just because of the nature of the organisation that is building it.
But then there are the more colloquial issues. Larger organizations are simply less efficient. They don't necessarily need to be start-ups; Lotus and Rutan (Scaled Composites) have both been going for decades, yet have managed to retain the same lean and innovative ethos.
To quote Terry Pratchett, the IQ of a crowd is inversely proportional to the size of that crowd; it's often lowest common denominator stuff. The people who shout loudest in large organisations are seldom the ones who are cleverest, and shear force of numbers means that the clever ones become less likely to be heard, and less motivated as a result.
Mave said:
As soon as you go from concept through to more detailed design, analysis, testing, operation and support, your ability to 'think lean' diminishes quickly because you end up trying to efficiently manage a lot of multi-dimensional information, studies and trades.
This is demonstrably disproven by projects like Tesla - who have managed to develop and productionise a product that is every bit as sophisticated, complex and high-quality as the cars from any mainstream manufacturer, yet cost a fraction as much to develop.Edited by Equus on Tuesday 29th March 23:18
Equus said:
Mave said:
About how much of this $6 billion is type approval of the car? Not the components, but the car itself?
That's an absurd question. The two are inseparably inter-woven.Equus said:
This is demonstrably disproven by projects like Tesla - who have managed to develop and productionise a product that is every bit as sophisticated, complex and high-quality as the cars from any mainstream manufacturer, yet cost a fraction as much to develop.
No it isn't. They have different constraints to the other mainstream manufacturers. Like many high tech start ups they've moved into a different bit of design space where there's less competition. The Boom SST seems to be trying to introduce the high tech start up angle without mitigating the design space constraints.Edited by Equus on Tuesday 29th March 23:18
Mave said:
That's an unnecessarily rude statement.
It was an unnecessarily puerile and meaningless question. Mave said:
No it isn't. They have different constraints to the other mainstream manufacturers. Like many high tech start ups they've moved into a different bit of design space where there's less competition.
Level of competition is utterly irrelevant to development costs.They have delivered a product of comparable complexity and quality to the high-end manufacturers for a fraction of the cost those more traditional manufacturers could achieve.The fact that there are no other battery-only EV's in Tesla' s market sector, yet, is of no relevance to the cost of developing such a vehicle - except perhaps that it might be expected to increase their costs still further due to lack of suitable tier 1 and tier 2 OEM components.
If you want an EV-to-EV comparison against a major manufacturer (the closest you will get given that they don't have any direct competitors in their 'different bit of design space', as you put it), consider that against Tesla's expenditure of $3 billion, the very much simpler, very much cheaper (less than half the cost) and very much lower-performance Zoe, sharing numerous components with other models and lacking much of the Tesla's innovative technology, allegedly stands Renault to the tune of $4.5 billion in development costs.
Equus said:
If you want an EV-to-EV comparison against a major manufacturer (the closest you will get given that they don't have any direct competitors in their 'different bit of design space', as you put it), consider that against Tesla's expenditure of $3 billion, the very much simpler, very much cheaper (less than half the cost) and very much lower-performance Zoe, sharing numerous components with other models and lacking much of the Tesla's innovative technology, allegedly stands Renault to the tune of $4.5 billion in development costs.
It's puerile to post costs as evidence of your assertion when you won't discuss what's I'm those costs.Equus said:
Level of competition is utterly irrelevant to development costs.
Really? So developing something to be class leading is the same as developing it to be just good enough?equus said:
They have delivered a product of comparable quality
I don't think they have. They've developed a product of surprisingly good but not comparable quality, and also some outstanding technology. But if you took out the drivetrain of a tesla and replaced it with the drivetrain of a 5 series, you'd be left with something more expensive and lower qualityGassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff