Boom SST, faster than Concorde
Discussion
Virgin and an "un-named" UK carrier have options on the new 40 Seater Boom Supersonic Airliner. Range is enough to get to Tokyo From San Francisco and the Airliner will be Mach 2.2 capable. The engineers fronting it look good but they haven't spent much yet so Who knows when they'll fly.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/23/bo...
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/23/bo...
Eric Mc said:
Are any actual plane manufacturers involved in this?
I'm impressed with their team - it's worth looking at their site www.boom.aero/about/ - the team and the advisors have some pretty high level backgrounds spread across Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, Gulfstream, Boeing and NASA - I think that's why they're being taken more seriously than others.It would be really difficult for a brand new start up airframe manufacturing company to build a plane like this without ever having built anything before. I'm sure they'll have to get into bed with one of the more established manufacturers to get it made.
Scaled Composites would have been a natural choice but Virgin and Scaled have now gone their separate ways.
Scaled Composites would have been a natural choice but Virgin and Scaled have now gone their separate ways.
Maybe I'm being overly hopeful.
One thing that concerns me is that they're targeting $2,500 e/w tickets. With 40 pax that's just $100k per flight revenue. At the moment the absolute lowest empty leg GV flight I know of for LHR-JFK (or visa versa) is $65k - and that hasn't got the issue of passengers, airport handling and most importantly a supersonic aircraft maintenance. Time will tell.
One thing that concerns me is that they're targeting $2,500 e/w tickets. With 40 pax that's just $100k per flight revenue. At the moment the absolute lowest empty leg GV flight I know of for LHR-JFK (or visa versa) is $65k - and that hasn't got the issue of passengers, airport handling and most importantly a supersonic aircraft maintenance. Time will tell.
Eric Mc said:
I'll be surprised if it ever gets manufactured - for the reasons I mentioned above.
You could say the same for volume car manufacture, but companies like Tesla show that it can be done.If you've got the money (which Banson and Scholl do) and the design skills (they seem to have some impressive CV's working for them), everything else can be subcontracted.
I'm pretty sure they won't be building a prototype SST just in a hanger in Denver, Colorado.
This is pretty much the opposite of the 'traditional' approach that killed both the British aerospace and car industries: the traditional industries had vast in-house resources, but as a result were bloated, inefficient and slow to react.
The modern 'dot com' approach is to outsource as much as possible, to stay lean and nimble.
NASA are working on reducing the sound of the supersonic boom, I think until that has been done we won't be seeing a new supersonic airliner in service because of the limitation on it's use at supersonic speed. If the reduction is achieved supersonic flight over land across Europe, Asia and the Americas would be very profitable.
http://www.nasa.gov/aero/centers_tackle_sonic_boom...
http://www.nasa.gov/aero/centers_tackle_sonic_boom...
I think one interesting part of this project is that they're using existing technology, thereby reducing certification costs/time.
There's no doubt it's strange that it currently takes twice as long to cross the Atlantic at the moment compared to the 70's!! I don't know another area this has happened or we'd all be driving Model T Fords and using Archimedes computers.
There's no doubt it's strange that it currently takes twice as long to cross the Atlantic at the moment compared to the 70's!! I don't know another area this has happened or we'd all be driving Model T Fords and using Archimedes computers.
I thought that's what someone might say. Of course large established companies use sub-contractors. Sub-contractors do what they are told to do by the main contractor who set the design and the specifications and oversee the whole project.
The point I was making was that a brand new, no previous aircraft ever produced company, has ever built something as ground breaking as this design would be. Getting it certificated to carry fare paying passengers would be a huge mountain to climb.
I am sure this will only be built if someone like Lockheed-Martin or Boeing or possibly one of the major biz-jet manufacturers get involved.
The point I was making was that a brand new, no previous aircraft ever produced company, has ever built something as ground breaking as this design would be. Getting it certificated to carry fare paying passengers would be a huge mountain to climb.
I am sure this will only be built if someone like Lockheed-Martin or Boeing or possibly one of the major biz-jet manufacturers get involved.
Eric Mc said:
Of course large established companies use sub-contractors. Sub-contractors do what they are told to do by the main contractor who set the design and the specifications and oversee the whole project.
That's a very dated view of things. And indeed 'sub-contractor' is a very dated term in these sorts of businesses, for that reason.Google the phrase 'Tier 1 OEM supplier'.
The flow of design information and specifications usually goes in both (all) directions, these days, to the extent that modern CAD systems are written to facilitate integrated and simultaneous development of a design by multiple parties, each of whom is a 'partner' in the project overall, but specialising in their own field.
'Major manufacturers' are increasingly just 'assemblers' of components from multiple sources.
It is by no means impossible for new companies to tap into these partnering arrangements, provided they have the right contacts.
Equus said:
Not necessarily.
Who do you think manufactures the OEM components that go into most major manufacturers planes (and cars) these days?
Clue: it's not the manufacturers themselves, for the most part.
I thought the modern approach was to use vertical integration (tesla) in order to reduce each tier of profits that a subcontractor would add?Who do you think manufactures the OEM components that go into most major manufacturers planes (and cars) these days?
Clue: it's not the manufacturers themselves, for the most part.
Equus said:
That's a very dated view of things. And indeed 'sub-contractor' is a very dated term in these sorts of businesses, for that reason.
Google the phrase 'Tier 1 OEM supplier'.
The flow of design information and specifications usually goes in both (all) directions, these days, to the extent that modern CAD systems are written to facilitate integrated and simultaneous development of a design by multiple parties, each of whom is a 'partner' in the project overall, but specialising in their own field.
'Major manufacturers' are increasingly just 'assemblers' of components from multiple sources.
It is by no means impossible for new companies to tap into these partnering arrangements, provided they have the right contacts.
We shall see.Google the phrase 'Tier 1 OEM supplier'.
The flow of design information and specifications usually goes in both (all) directions, these days, to the extent that modern CAD systems are written to facilitate integrated and simultaneous development of a design by multiple parties, each of whom is a 'partner' in the project overall, but specialising in their own field.
'Major manufacturers' are increasingly just 'assemblers' of components from multiple sources.
It is by no means impossible for new companies to tap into these partnering arrangements, provided they have the right contacts.
I've been hearing about small supersonic commercial aircraft for at least the past 4 decades. I'm not saying it won't happen but the "failure to reach first flight" rate so far is precisely 100%.
rjben said:
I thought the modern approach was to use vertical integration (tesla) in order to reduce each tier of profits that a subcontractor would add?
Not quite; Tesla has vertically integrated battery supply and production, because batteries were such a dominant cost in its product. And it only did that once its product and technologies were established (and is now paddling like mad to become a Tier 1 supplier of batteries to others, to help amortise its costs).Conversely, it established itself by outsourcing practically everything - even the actual cars were built on Lotus' production line - and continues to do so for lots of other components.
The parallel in this instance would be if, say, the engines were an overwhelmingly dominant cost and depended on a specific technology. The equivalent would then be for Boom to establish production of the aircraft by buying-in engines from someone like Rolls Royce, but then to set up their own engine manufacturing plant in partnership with RR once their production volumes increased to a level to justify it (or a market emerged in which they were the dominant player, but there were other potential purchasers of the engine technology)
The problem is that, unlike cars, the production volumes of aircraft - even for manufacturers like Boeing - seldom reach levels where a manufacturer-specific engine plant would make sense, and no other single component is dominant in overall cost terms, so they tend to stick with the tiered strategy for just about everything.
Equus said:
Not quite; Tesla has vertically integrated battery supply and production, because batteries were such a dominant cost in its product. And it only did that once its product and technologies were established (and is now paddling like mad to become a Tier 1 supplier of batteries to others, to help amortise its costs).
Conversely, it established itself by outsourcing practically everything - even the actual cars were built on Lotus' production line - and continues to do so for lots of other components.
The parallel in this instance would be if, say, the engines were an overwhelmingly dominant cost and depended on a specific technology. The equivalent would then be for Boom to establish production of the aircraft by buying-in engines from someone like Rolls Royce, but then to set up their own engine manufacturing plant in partnership with RR once their production volumes increased to a level to justify it (or a market emerged in which they were the dominant player, but there were other potential purchasers of the engine technology)
The problem is that, unlike cars, the production volumes of aircraft - even for manufacturers like Boeing - seldom reach levels where a manufacturer-specific engine plant would make sense, and no other single component is dominant in overall cost terms, so they tend to stick with the tiered strategy for just about everything.
Sorry, Blond moment! In the interview I watched Musk was talking about vertical integration within SpaceX. Not sure how much this has been applied though.Conversely, it established itself by outsourcing practically everything - even the actual cars were built on Lotus' production line - and continues to do so for lots of other components.
The parallel in this instance would be if, say, the engines were an overwhelmingly dominant cost and depended on a specific technology. The equivalent would then be for Boom to establish production of the aircraft by buying-in engines from someone like Rolls Royce, but then to set up their own engine manufacturing plant in partnership with RR once their production volumes increased to a level to justify it (or a market emerged in which they were the dominant player, but there were other potential purchasers of the engine technology)
The problem is that, unlike cars, the production volumes of aircraft - even for manufacturers like Boeing - seldom reach levels where a manufacturer-specific engine plant would make sense, and no other single component is dominant in overall cost terms, so they tend to stick with the tiered strategy for just about everything.
Interesting points Re batteries, thanks.
Eric Mc said:
I've been hearing about small supersonic commercial aircraft for at least the past 4 decades. I'm not saying it won't happen but the "failure to reach first flight" rate so far is precisely 100%.
But that goes for large supersonic aircraft and major manufacturers, too.But the specific reason you gave for this project not standing any chance was that "It would be really difficult for a brand new start up airframe manufacturing company to build a plane like this without ever having built anything before".
Given the recent technical achievements of effectively (albeit very well funded) start-up companies like SpaceX, Tesla and Virgin Galactic, that view simply doesn't hold water. Just the reverse, in fact: it's the big corporations and organisations like General Motors, Boeing and even NASA who have seemingly lost their way in terms of practical, commercially viable innovation in recent years.
The world moves on... maybe, as with automotive and space exploitation, its the 'bigger is better' mentality that's been holding things back?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff