Boom Supersonic raises $33M to build the fastest airplane for passenger flight(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Boom Supersonic raises $33M to build the fastest airplane for passenger flight
https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/22/boom-supersonic-raises-33m-to-build-the-fastest-airplane-for-passenger-flight/
74 comments
Such a well written summary I think it should pretty much be a footnote to any of the super sonic / hyper sonic / quad-copter-automated-flying-thingy forward looking statements. I think projects like Boom are perfectly fine for rich billionaires to throw money at in their spare time, because they still run into physics and logistics.
In doing research for a project, I came across some Annual Reports for the company Sabre. Some might recognize the name, as they were an in-house tech / logistics / travel operations company for American Airlines that got spun off into its own entity years back. Point being, they have a vested interest in air travel, and over and over, the CEO was concerned and frustrated by the lack of modernization in flight systems and overall system improvements. A very consistent theme, and I can't disagree with him.
Looking at it another way, the scale of persons affected by system upgrades and improvements drastically overshadows those who would, uh, gain from supersonic travel. Just makes sense.
In doing research for a project, I came across some Annual Reports for the company Sabre. Some might recognize the name, as they were an in-house tech / logistics / travel operations company for American Airlines that got spun off into its own entity years back. Point being, they have a vested interest in air travel, and over and over, the CEO was concerned and frustrated by the lack of modernization in flight systems and overall system improvements. A very consistent theme, and I can't disagree with him.
Looking at it another way, the scale of persons affected by system upgrades and improvements drastically overshadows those who would, uh, gain from supersonic travel. Just makes sense.
manned quad-copter is fine. i am sure it can be man-rated with tolerable expenses and will quite soon become a useful way of within-city transportation. supersonic passenger plane is in completely different league...
Crew-rated is radically different from passenger-rated in basic safety requirements. The problem with quad copters is that they're unstable in flight after the loss of only one engine, and lack sufficient mass in the propellors to effectively autorotate. That makes nearly any propulsion or control system failure in a crewed quad copter a probable hull-loss and crew-loss event. Even test pilots have problems with flying under those conditions. The problem isn't lifting a human to a useful height and velocity---the Romans solved that with catapults. The problem is being able to reasonably assure them that you can return them to earth safely, reliably, and sufficiently inexpensively.
My logic was more from an insurance perspective related to a point you brought up - re: transportation improvements will likely be related to population dense environments.
Looking at the quad copters I have some doubts regarding navigation and/or performance during a catastrophic failure where others might be put at risk. That's not an unreasonable concern for life and property.
As you noted, again, there are high thresholds regarding crew and passenger parameters. I think those also extend to functional operations. For commercial aviation, there is a good 50+ years of accident records and ways that companies have paid out for tragedies and whatnot. Adding in a new component - the quad copter model - is most definitely outside of the norm and I think will be viewed as high risk at first, even if there are great financial rewards to be reaped down the line pending success.
Looking at the quad copters I have some doubts regarding navigation and/or performance during a catastrophic failure where others might be put at risk. That's not an unreasonable concern for life and property.
As you noted, again, there are high thresholds regarding crew and passenger parameters. I think those also extend to functional operations. For commercial aviation, there is a good 50+ years of accident records and ways that companies have paid out for tragedies and whatnot. Adding in a new component - the quad copter model - is most definitely outside of the norm and I think will be viewed as high risk at first, even if there are great financial rewards to be reaped down the line pending success.
at the moment the electrical quad copter bigest problem is the lack of autonomy 15 minutes max time.
Isn't the main benefit of supersonic flight going to be seen over the oceans where noise concerns are less important? It's 12 hours from LAX to AKL (New Zealand). If they could get that down to six for a reasonable price there is a market.
I suspect there would be even more demand for flights to Asian business hubs.
I suspect there would be even more demand for flights to Asian business hubs.
True, but the fuel to get up to that altitude is a significant cost that can't be ignored, and the mass must be carried at takeoff (unless you want to solve the problem the way the USAF does, but I don't even want to think about passenger-rating in-flight refueling). The design flaw that finally killed the Concorde was precisely related to that --- the need for large fuel tanks and light structures left the vehicle very vulnerable to hull damage. At the other end, you have to make sure you're taking sufficient fuel for diversion to alternate airports (and there might not be a lot of airports willing/capable of taking the vehicle---that also affected the Concorde) as well as time to orbit waiting for a landing slot (if LAX is your destination, that's non-trivial). This already affects standard passenger routes --- short hops are more expensive because the aircraft doesn't spend much (or any) time at cruise altitude, where they're much more fuel-efficient. Yes, obviously these vehicles would be more economical for long over-water flights, but the problem is only partially mitigated by a longer time in an efficient regime. Those takeoff/landing costs don't go away.
I forgot to add a quote from an engineer I used to work with: "Safe enough for a test pilot is very different from safe enough for the test pilot's kids."
This suggests engines are 50% more efficient today than in 1960, with 80% reductions in fuel per passenger seat. [1]
If advanced physical simulations could produce a wing 20% more efficient than the concorde, with engines 20% more efficient, and the weight of control, actuation systems, and cabin interiors were all reduced by 20% the gains in operating cost and range would be substantially more than 20%. Gains in aircraft are typically non-linear because they all affect each other.
It's exciting to think about what might be possible with 50 years of materials science, _computers_, simulation, electronics, and propulsion technology.
[1] http://www.atag.org/component/downloads/downloads/59.html [pdf]
If advanced physical simulations could produce a wing 20% more efficient than the concorde, with engines 20% more efficient, and the weight of control, actuation systems, and cabin interiors were all reduced by 20% the gains in operating cost and range would be substantially more than 20%. Gains in aircraft are typically non-linear because they all affect each other.
It's exciting to think about what might be possible with 50 years of materials science, _computers_, simulation, electronics, and propulsion technology.
[1] http://www.atag.org/component/downloads/downloads/59.html [pdf]
The budget and timeline strike me as wildly unrealistic, and the management quotes sound absurdly sanguine.
With that said, if they can pull off a 1/3 scale prototype with current funding as they claim they can, one nice ancillary benefit would be the kick to the ass of the Lockheed Martins of the world, for whom $33mm is a rounding error when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars on next-generation aviation platforms.
With that said, if they can pull off a 1/3 scale prototype with current funding as they claim they can, one nice ancillary benefit would be the kick to the ass of the Lockheed Martins of the world, for whom $33mm is a rounding error when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars on next-generation aviation platforms.
"How could anyone be stupid enough to fund Facebook. They'll never make money" - HN.
"VC's never fund anything but social media apps and advertising companies" -- HN.
"Yes of course SpaceX is going to make Musk money" -- HN.
"Funding a supersonic plane is a stupid idea" -- HN.
(And yes, also "$41M funding for color.com is stupid" --HN.)
"VC's never fund anything but social media apps and advertising companies" -- HN.
"Yes of course SpaceX is going to make Musk money" -- HN.
"Funding a supersonic plane is a stupid idea" -- HN.
(And yes, also "$41M funding for color.com is stupid" --HN.)
I would fund a supersonic plane if the company behind it wasn't living in another dimension. There is nothing wrong withe something taking 10 years to build. Under promise over deliver.
> "VC's never fund anything but social media apps and advertising companies" -- HN.
Well, they also occasionally fund stupid shit like uBeam.
> "Yes of course SpaceX is going to make Musk money" -- HN.
Isn't it? Except that money is wisely reinvested into the Mars transportation project.
> "Funding a supersonic plane is a stupid idea" -- HN.
Supersonic passenger plane is not a smart idea for various technical and economical reasons. I don't think that's just "HN opinion".
Well, they also occasionally fund stupid shit like uBeam.
> "Yes of course SpaceX is going to make Musk money" -- HN.
Isn't it? Except that money is wisely reinvested into the Mars transportation project.
> "Funding a supersonic plane is a stupid idea" -- HN.
Supersonic passenger plane is not a smart idea for various technical and economical reasons. I don't think that's just "HN opinion".
Supersonic passenger plane is not a smart idea for various technical and economical reasons. I don't think that's just "HN opinion".
AFAIK, the technical and economic reasons boil down to: "Too expensive to build, too expensive to fly, people object to the sonic booms".
I don't know if there is a way around the sonic boom problem, but for the first two there's an "easy" fix: make it cheaper. I don't have a clue how to do that, but and I have no particular opinion on Boom, but if someone came up with a way around that "small" problem then everything else falls into place.
AFAIK, the technical and economic reasons boil down to: "Too expensive to build, too expensive to fly, people object to the sonic booms".
I don't know if there is a way around the sonic boom problem, but for the first two there's an "easy" fix: make it cheaper. I don't have a clue how to do that, but and I have no particular opinion on Boom, but if someone came up with a way around that "small" problem then everything else falls into place.
As far as I can tell, the argument boils down to all that you wrote, relative to what you gain. AFAIK a supersonic passenger plane doesn't shorten your total trip enough, compared to regular passenger planes, to create a new quality class of travel.
E.g. taking 5 hours to go to a place (2h flight + airport overhead on both sides) by a plane vs. 12+ hours by bus makes many destinations suddenly accessible to people to visit for a weekend. Except maybe on intercontinental, I don't see a supersonic passenger plane enabling another quality class of travel.
E.g. taking 5 hours to go to a place (2h flight + airport overhead on both sides) by a plane vs. 12+ hours by bus makes many destinations suddenly accessible to people to visit for a weekend. Except maybe on intercontinental, I don't see a supersonic passenger plane enabling another quality class of travel.
A 16 hour flight dropping to 6 hours is a very noticeable difference, the question is if the economics work out. From an energy perspective ultra high altitude flight at Mach 2+ is surprisingly efferent. Though getting up there and up to speed is pointless for D.C. to NYC or other commuter flights.
Trouble is when it's 16 hours in a relatively comfortable seat that turns into a bed overnight with a choice of departure times (even including business jets in the price brackets we're currently talking about) versus 6 hours of relative discomfort with only one flight a day, it's less clear-cut a decision. Sure, there'll be some demand for it, but you need full aircraft on a very large number of routes for it to be a viable commercial aircraft programme.
Your assuming seats cost significantly more. That's not nessisarily true as the fuel costs are offset by need 1/2 the aircraft and far less crew time etc. So, if someone is looking at say a twenty percent premium and thinking about trying to sleep in coach that's an easy choice.
I think it's absurd to assume that supersonic flight will only be a 20% premium over coach class in a conventional aircraft with 3-4x the carrying capacity doing less work against physics and subjecting its more components to less physical stress.
If the price point comparison is (more plausibly) between business class in one of several A380/777 flights, chartering a flight and leaving exactly when and where you want if there's a group or coach class in a Boom, I think the choice is rather less straightforward. I'm not saying there's no demand - obviously Concorde filled seats - but I am saying it might not be sufficient to make a viable commercial aircraft programme even without restrictions on where they can fly.
If the price point comparison is (more plausibly) between business class in one of several A380/777 flights, chartering a flight and leaving exactly when and where you want if there's a group or coach class in a Boom, I think the choice is rather less straightforward. I'm not saying there's no demand - obviously Concorde filled seats - but I am saying it might not be sufficient to make a viable commercial aircraft programme even without restrictions on where they can fly.
From a physics standpoint ultra high altitude supersonic flight is not that much more expensive. The problems are mostly around economies of scale, but as soon as you get something that's competitive you will expect the price to fall quite a bit. A 400 passenger super sonic jet might use 2x the fuel per flight, but when it can make twice as many flights per day that's huge from capital standpoint.
That said, the concord was much closer to a prototype than what economical supersonic aircraft will look like. But, nobody is trying to build thousands of 400 passenger supersonic aircraft which makes your comparison more realistic.
That said, the concord was much closer to a prototype than what economical supersonic aircraft will look like. But, nobody is trying to build thousands of 400 passenger supersonic aircraft which makes your comparison more realistic.
Sure, a 400 passenger supersonic jet that only used twice as much fuel per flight but operated twice as many flights per day with comparable annual capital and maintenance costs could sell tickets at similar prices to coach class in a subsonic jet (assuming no barriers to operation on the same range of routes)
But I'd imagine there's a reason that jet doesn't exist even in the realms of the most hyperbole-filled press releases of supersonic jet ventures...
But I'd imagine there's a reason that jet doesn't exist even in the realms of the most hyperbole-filled press releases of supersonic jet ventures...
[deleted]
A 16 hour flight where there is a bed to sleep on in the plane would be better than a 6 hour flight crammed into a tiny seat like on a Concorde. Other than some 0.1%er stuff on really big jumbos you just don't see that. Where are the planes with the Fifth Element style sleeping bunks? I would be all over that if airlines could offer it at a reasonable price.
And the security overhead just keeps getting higher. Many of the people with the money for supersonic flight would like to go to or via the Middle East, but won't be allowed to bring laptops now?
As far as I can tell, the argument boils down to all that you wrote, relative to what you gain
So.. the case for it is arguable? Which no longer makes it a "not a smart idea" - it might be a very smart idea, depending on numbers which we don't know but presumably investors have seen.
I dunno - maybe it'll end up a stupid idea. But I just don't see it being so obviously crazy as all the initial comments were making out.
So.. the case for it is arguable? Which no longer makes it a "not a smart idea" - it might be a very smart idea, depending on numbers which we don't know but presumably investors have seen.
I dunno - maybe it'll end up a stupid idea. But I just don't see it being so obviously crazy as all the initial comments were making out.
NY -> SFO is 6 hours+ commercial. Cutting that in half makes it possible to do a return flight in a day.
There are lots of people who do that already, they just take a red eye in one direction.
So their quality of life may go up if they could take a super sonic, but I'm not sure it would expand the market much: either way it's a crappy day and you only do it if you absolutely need to.
So their quality of life may go up if they could take a super sonic, but I'm not sure it would expand the market much: either way it's a crappy day and you only do it if you absolutely need to.
I think you underestimate the price elasticity of business travel.
Investing in general is hard. Investing in unproven business models or futuristic ideas is harder. Putting money where your mouth is hardest :)
I think it's amazing that adding some kind of valet system at the airport would speed up my travel more than this kind of marvel of engineering.
Exactly. Travel speed once you're in the air is basically the last problem with air travel. Travel time to the airport, looking around for a parking space, an outdated checkin process, endless security theater. These all seem like easier fixes than making planes move faster.
Even with no other improvements, I would probably take reliable in-flight wifi over a 25% improvement in flight times.
Even with no other improvements, I would probably take reliable in-flight wifi over a 25% improvement in flight times.
It's funny, this sentiment reminds me of this quote from Patton during WW2: 'Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics '. These engineers are so focused on the 'cool' stuff and the 'hard' stuff, the super-sonic stuff, basically the tactics of moving infantry and doing flanking maneuvers and tank charges. But the real stuff that will really get the times down is 'boring' and intellectually 'easy'. Its the flow of parking, the security line, the scheduling reroutes when a blizzard strikes, the logistics side of feeding troops and making sure extra parts get to the lines and counting the number of shells used per hour. War and business are generally very simple, have more guns/money than your enemy.
Maybe for you, but for the people this product is targeting they already bypass security on the way to their private jet.
This comment makes me so sad. Because it's so true.
Haven't they seen "why the Concorde failed" on YouTube? Who's putting up $33M for this? Sam say it ain't so.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a_wuykzfFzE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a_wuykzfFzE
Could be a couple of rich people looking at Musk and experiencing "rocket envy".
There are enough rich people in the world whom have inherited wealth but don't understand the mechanics of its acquisition, amplification and retainment.
The comments are remarkably negative for a can-do crowd of entrepreneurial people. Success is built on a string of multiple failures. I'm rooting for this team to succeed.
Much negativity results from 50 years of supersonic biz-jet daydreaming without anything progressing past airshow models. It's basically the original vapourware.
Even experts like Dassault and Sukhoi, with more supersonic experience than any current company, have shied away. And Dassault is reknowned for its biz-jets; if anyone could do it I'd bet on them.
Gulfstream looked at it from the other direction, potentially moving-up from big subsonic biz-jets to an even more exclusive and expensive aircraft. They too decided against it, even with Sukhoi's input into supersonic design.
Beyond the big companies there have been a string of smaller dreamers. Jane's "All the World's Aircraft" from through the 1980s is testament to that.
Can Boom do it? Possibly so, but given that they're building on the same technology as the rest of the aerospace industry then I don't see why they're any different. This isn't a problem that software can solve ( unlike Space-X ).
Even experts like Dassault and Sukhoi, with more supersonic experience than any current company, have shied away. And Dassault is reknowned for its biz-jets; if anyone could do it I'd bet on them.
Gulfstream looked at it from the other direction, potentially moving-up from big subsonic biz-jets to an even more exclusive and expensive aircraft. They too decided against it, even with Sukhoi's input into supersonic design.
Beyond the big companies there have been a string of smaller dreamers. Jane's "All the World's Aircraft" from through the 1980s is testament to that.
Can Boom do it? Possibly so, but given that they're building on the same technology as the rest of the aerospace industry then I don't see why they're any different. This isn't a problem that software can solve ( unlike Space-X ).
This is a reasoned critique of Boom's plans. Much of what I was criticising was references to Concorde and the Tupalev failure.
It's useful to remember that it's a bunch of people that don't know the industry. They're just googling and reading Wikipedia. That doesn't mean the project will be successful. It's just that there's zero information content to most comments that are on non-software topics.
There are some things I know a little about that I haven't commented on here about, and I've seen where people are quite clearly googling and getting not the right answer but the answer that is most likely to show up on Google.
Just something useful to keep in mind.
There are some things I know a little about that I haven't commented on here about, and I've seen where people are quite clearly googling and getting not the right answer but the answer that is most likely to show up on Google.
Just something useful to keep in mind.
Glad to see this viewpoint.
I work in energy and the hivemind on HN on this topic is quite subject to these fallacies. ("Solar energy can't be profitable" and "thorium is the answer" spring to mind.)
I work in energy and the hivemind on HN on this topic is quite subject to these fallacies. ("Solar energy can't be profitable" and "thorium is the answer" spring to mind.)
I don't think people that know the industry are systematically less sceptical of this project than those who don't (if anything it's the other way round; industry insiders are less likely to be sympathetic to the idea that a former Groupon exec with a PPL and a bunch of software investors might understand the demand for commercial aircraft and how to build a supersonic model aircraft for $13m plus salaries without existing infrastructure better than companies with enormous piles of cash for skunkworks projects and decades of experience in making and selling aircraft)
Other industries have a much higher resistance to hype and estimates that sound like they're based on what people want to hear than software.
Other industries have a much higher resistance to hype and estimates that sound like they're based on what people want to hear than software.
I wish companies like this would come out and say what they are: an acqui-hire project. A single brand new passenger jet costs more than $33 million, and that's with decades of development costs being amortized. Development costs for Boeing's new 787, a conventional aircraft, came to over $30 billion. I will be amazed if they actually even get a working prototype aircraft flying with this amount of money.
I will be amazed if they actually even get a working prototype aircraft flying with this amount of money.
That's not the point of this funding round. When you work on insanely ambitious projects you have to do things incrementally.
This is their 3rd round - the first was $120k, the second was $2.1m. Each round enables them to do enough of the tasks that demonstrate to investors that they're capable of doing the next set of tasks. I have no clue how you design a plane but I would guess the first round was entirely spent on modelling the financials and market research to see if there's even a business opportunity. The next round would be something like the really broad brush ideas for how you'd make a plane like this. This round will be spent digging in to the technology itself, figuring out what capabilities you need to have in an electric plane, and finding which parts you can buy off the shelf. If Boom are successful at that then there'll be future rounds that are spent on actual design and manufacturing.
By the time anything real takes off from a runway they'll probably need to have raised billions.
No one thinks you can design and build a plane for $120k+$2.1m+$33m.
That's not the point of this funding round. When you work on insanely ambitious projects you have to do things incrementally.
This is their 3rd round - the first was $120k, the second was $2.1m. Each round enables them to do enough of the tasks that demonstrate to investors that they're capable of doing the next set of tasks. I have no clue how you design a plane but I would guess the first round was entirely spent on modelling the financials and market research to see if there's even a business opportunity. The next round would be something like the really broad brush ideas for how you'd make a plane like this. This round will be spent digging in to the technology itself, figuring out what capabilities you need to have in an electric plane, and finding which parts you can buy off the shelf. If Boom are successful at that then there'll be future rounds that are spent on actual design and manufacturing.
By the time anything real takes off from a runway they'll probably need to have raised billions.
No one thinks you can design and build a plane for $120k+$2.1m+$33m.
>By the time anything real takes off from a runway they'll probably need to have raised billions.
No one thinks you can design and build a plane for $120k+$2.1m+$33m.
From the article:
>“This funds our first airplane, all the way through flight tests,” explained Boom founder and CEO Blake Scholl in an interview.
From the article:
>“This funds our first airplane, all the way through flight tests,” explained Boom founder and CEO Blake Scholl in an interview.
I don't see them addressing the first and main challenge to supersonic flight: regulation
This is pure speculation on my part, but isn't most supersonic flight regulation essentially anti-competitive behaviour by the US government because Concorde wasn't an American-made aircraft? Even if that isn't true I think the main problem was the ludicrous sound levels from the engines, which an electric plane wouldn't suffer from (as much). If Boom demonstrate that they can make a working plane I imagine a lot of the red tape would just disappear.
The engines don't create the ludicrous sound; the force of an object moving through the air faster than the speed of sound creates the sonic boom. While some designs can mitigate this it doesn't seem that Boom has an answer here except for keeping the aircraft small.
New York Port Authority banned Concorde because it was too noisy on take off.
Note that the 787 development costs included building multiple full-sized prototypes of a wide-body (read: price on the order of $225M per aircraft) and a moving vehicle production line — you can tour the Boeing plant at Everett and see fourteen Dreamliners lined up nose-to-tail at various stages of production, like 200 ton automobiles in a car plant. They also built a global supply chain, with over 50% of the components manufactured outside the USA (for WTO trade rules compliance — a side-effect of Boeing's ongoing trade war with Airbus; Airbus have had to do the same). With over 1200 orders to date (over 500 delivered) the 787 has only been available for 13 years: typical product life of a Boeing/Airbus airliner is 30 years, so they're looking at amortizing that $30Bn over roughly 2500-3000 airframes, and you should consider it as covering most of the manufacturing costs.
So the $30Bn sticker for the Dreamliner gets you not only a new wide-body airliner, but a whole new global airliner manufacturing supply chain (you bet they'll use it — or a development thereof — for the next airliner they design, too), and the capacity to punch them out like pick-up trucks.
This $33M funding round is to build a one-third scale flight demonstrator. Not an actual Boom airliner, or a Concorde equivalent, but something like like the HP.115 — a research aircraft with similar flight properties in some parts of the flight regime of the planned final aircraft, for test purposes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_HP.115
(Significant difference: the HP.115 was used to investigate low speed stability and handling of delta wings. The Boom XB-1 is to investigate supersonic low noise flight.)
It also lets them build up their engineering team to the point where they're actually able to get a full grasp of the magnitude of the problems they're facing.
But a real Boom supersonic transport? That's going to cost at a minimum multiple single-digit billions (even if they don't go all-out and budget for a production line and supply chain for 2000 units) to develop.
So the $30Bn sticker for the Dreamliner gets you not only a new wide-body airliner, but a whole new global airliner manufacturing supply chain (you bet they'll use it — or a development thereof — for the next airliner they design, too), and the capacity to punch them out like pick-up trucks.
This $33M funding round is to build a one-third scale flight demonstrator. Not an actual Boom airliner, or a Concorde equivalent, but something like like the HP.115 — a research aircraft with similar flight properties in some parts of the flight regime of the planned final aircraft, for test purposes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_HP.115
(Significant difference: the HP.115 was used to investigate low speed stability and handling of delta wings. The Boom XB-1 is to investigate supersonic low noise flight.)
It also lets them build up their engineering team to the point where they're actually able to get a full grasp of the magnitude of the problems they're facing.
But a real Boom supersonic transport? That's going to cost at a minimum multiple single-digit billions (even if they don't go all-out and budget for a production line and supply chain for 2000 units) to develop.
Then again Boeing had the benefit of already having most of the expertise in house from building planes for decades. I'm sure if I started a company I would need a lot more than $30B to develop 787.
You might think that, but Airbus developed the A350XWB — a direct competitor for the 787 — on a budget of €11Bn. Even taking into account exchange rate issues, that's less than half the cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB
(On the other hand, Airbus already had a lot of experience with composites in airliners, so the A350 was an evolutionary development, not a revolution: and they'd been working with international airliner component supply chains for decades already — it's what they do — so they didn't have to start from scratch.)
My point is, the $30Bn sticker on the 787 is misleading because it covers not only a new wide-body airliner type but also a whole new supply chain management approach and a (for Boeing) revolutionary change in materials technology (from mostly-Al to mostly-carbon fiber composites).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB
(On the other hand, Airbus already had a lot of experience with composites in airliners, so the A350 was an evolutionary development, not a revolution: and they'd been working with international airliner component supply chains for decades already — it's what they do — so they didn't have to start from scratch.)
My point is, the $30Bn sticker on the 787 is misleading because it covers not only a new wide-body airliner type but also a whole new supply chain management approach and a (for Boeing) revolutionary change in materials technology (from mostly-Al to mostly-carbon fiber composites).
> You might think that, but Airbus developed the A350XWB — a direct competitor for the 787 — on a budget of €11Bn. Even taking into account exchange rate issues, that's less than half the cost.
Airbus also had the same kind of experience and expertise in house already built up. So, that doesn't challenge the GPs contention that for someone without that, the cost would be substantially more.
Airbus also had the same kind of experience and expertise in house already built up. So, that doesn't challenge the GPs contention that for someone without that, the cost would be substantially more.
> I wish companies like this would come out and say what they are: an acqui-hire project.
That would be, well, most of the regular startups too. The problem is, you can't tell everyone you're aiming for an exit, because exit == fucking over your existing customers, and you need those customers to be able to exit. So, startups lie about how they care about the users and their product.
That's why nowadays I assume by default that a startup is just done for exit, unless proven otherwise.
That would be, well, most of the regular startups too. The problem is, you can't tell everyone you're aiming for an exit, because exit == fucking over your existing customers, and you need those customers to be able to exit. So, startups lie about how they care about the users and their product.
That's why nowadays I assume by default that a startup is just done for exit, unless proven otherwise.
Also of interest, the unit price of Concorde adjusted for inflation was about $160m around the end of the production run.
Going by first principles it doesn't seem like it should cost that much. Can't computers do a lot of design work and simulations?
The ex-aerospace engineer in me is super excited. But the realist in me fears this a decadent polluting toy for elites in a post-combustion world. Versus VR and other remote technologies which will solve many of the issues it also attempts to address it just seems like a moonshot from a bygone era.
> NYC to London […] at a cost of $2,500
> cabin comforts
If they can actually deliver on those two, then they can succeed where Concorde failed (couldn't compete against first/business class given the tickets cost far too much and offered economy-esque seating).
That's a big “if”, though.
> cabin comforts
If they can actually deliver on those two, then they can succeed where Concorde failed (couldn't compete against first/business class given the tickets cost far too much and offered economy-esque seating).
That's a big “if”, though.
There's not market for this.
Passenger don't care about saving time transatlantic because the people who can afford it can now sleep in a bed in business or first.
Airlines don't want it because super sonic capable engines take way more fuel than current day engines and therefore the costs would be high.
If there was a demand for supersonic planes Boeing or Airbus would be building them already.
Passenger don't care about saving time transatlantic because the people who can afford it can now sleep in a bed in business or first.
Airlines don't want it because super sonic capable engines take way more fuel than current day engines and therefore the costs would be high.
If there was a demand for supersonic planes Boeing or Airbus would be building them already.
You're nuts. First and business class comforts are about making the best of a bad situation. At equivalent seat prices, nearly everyone would pick the more than twice as fast option.
Boom's business model relies on this, obviously, but so do their passenger-seat-mile economics. Boom claims that the per seat fuel consumption (and ultimately the ticket prices) would be same as for business class seats currently. This is possible because making a currently-seven-hour flight in three hours enables them to replace a full flat bed with a recliner seat, saving 2/3 of the floor area per passenger.
Boom's business model relies on this, obviously, but so do their passenger-seat-mile economics. Boom claims that the per seat fuel consumption (and ultimately the ticket prices) would be same as for business class seats currently. This is possible because making a currently-seven-hour flight in three hours enables them to replace a full flat bed with a recliner seat, saving 2/3 of the floor area per passenger.
And that is not counting the OH cost of the dead time flying.
Black in the 80's I worked at a place where they looked at chartering a plane for one project - doing some R&D in a deep coal mine.
As the cost of the senior engineers at our > 600% oh rate for them to drive to the site was more expensive than a plane charter - we where based at an airfield
Black in the 80's I worked at a place where they looked at chartering a plane for one project - doing some R&D in a deep coal mine.
As the cost of the senior engineers at our > 600% oh rate for them to drive to the site was more expensive than a plane charter - we where based at an airfield
That's not what happened.
People stopped using Concorde and started using the new comforts of business class on larger albeit slower planes.
The per seat fuel consumption is perhaps optimistic on their part.
People stopped using Concorde and started using the new comforts of business class on larger albeit slower planes.
The per seat fuel consumption is perhaps optimistic on their part.
The last Concorde airframe rolled off the factory floor in 1979. It never competed with lie-flat business class seats, and it's not possible to paint the failure as passengers having voted for slower but more comfortable options. The ban on overland supersonic flights simply made Concorde a non-starter.
The comfort onboard Concorde was fine. I miss it each and every time I fly transatlantic. But with British Airways and Air France allotted just seven aircraft each, obviously it could never be a mainstream product, no matter how compelling it was from a passenger perspective.
The comfort onboard Concorde was fine. I miss it each and every time I fly transatlantic. But with British Airways and Air France allotted just seven aircraft each, obviously it could never be a mainstream product, no matter how compelling it was from a passenger perspective.
You are wrong on all points.
http://interestingengineering.com/real-reason-why-supersonic...
http://interestingengineering.com/real-reason-why-supersonic...
I wonder why are the investors pouring money into this. It is so obvious it can't work. Are they simply fooled, like those guys who invested into scientifically impossible power-over-ultrasound startup?
I know venture investment is risky, but is there any limit on how stupid VC partners can be? Can banks who lended them money, sue them?
I know venture investment is risky, but is there any limit on how stupid VC partners can be? Can banks who lended them money, sue them?
How have they or do they plan to overcome the limitations and inefficiencies that happen near and past the speed of sound?
Cool. Looking forward to the prototype.
Good frickin' luck. If Concorde couldn't survive even without accidents... it might not be a viable business. Aerion has immense resources, talent and connections and is still slowly chugging along on allegedly building the AS2, an expensive, supersonic business jet.
Might want to consider the feasibility of the real economics of jet fuel per passenger/cargo before raising a bunch of money to ignite. And also disappointing investors and losing their confidence when they ask for $5 billion more to continue development and are turned down.
Might want to consider the feasibility of the real economics of jet fuel per passenger/cargo before raising a bunch of money to ignite. And also disappointing investors and losing their confidence when they ask for $5 billion more to continue development and are turned down.
Concorde ran into (a) the oil price shock of the 1970s (the price of fuel quadrupled overnight around the time manufacturing commenced), and (b) the airport security theatre of the immediate post-9/11 era (a 3 hour LHR-JFK flight is a whole lot less attractive if you add 2 hours of queuing at security checkpoints and another hour at immigration, when you can rent a seat on a bizjet for the same money and bypass both). But what killed Concorde was (c) the airframe hitting the 30 year point; it has been alleged that Airbus demanded outrageous amounts of money to keep updating its type certification for flight after that time. (Caveat: trying to find a citation for this online is ... vexing.)
The cost of an uncrewed scale model isn't even noise in the cost of a full-size passenger-rated project, and its success isn't particular predictive of the actual project.
The sonic boom problem isn't trivial. You need to be able to land the vehicle near cities, because that's where the customers are. That means you have to spend a good chunk of time (maybe a long chunk of time if you have to orbit waiting to land) flying low and slow---a vehicle designed to use fuel efficiently when high and supersonic is almost by definition going to be less efficient than traditional vehicles when forced to fly in that regime. Which means it has to carry a lot of fuel, which means weight, which means ... etc.
As other commenters have noted: shaving an hour or two off of time spent at the terminal will generally be much more effective in speeding up travel. There is another city a three-hour drive from where I live, and it is faster for me to drive there than fly. And replacing the aircraft with a missile wouldn't change that.