Slashdot Mirror
Aerospace Startup Will Build A Supersonic Mach 2.2 Aircraft (fortune.com)
A new commercial aircraft will fly more than twice the speed of sound, traveling from New York to London in 3.4 hours. An anonymous reader quotes Fortune:
Colorado-based startup Boom Supersonic is one step closer to making such travel a reality after securing $33 million in investments to construct and fly its first supersonic jet, the XB-1 demonstration and testing craft, according to TechCrunch... With the new funding, Boom will be able to put that concept -- and the technology needed to power it -- to the test. "This funds our first airplane, all the way through flight tests," Boom founder and CEO Blake Scholl told TechCrunch. "Now we have all the pieces we need â" technology, suppliers and capital â" to go out and make some history and set some speed records."
They'll be testing a prototype that's one-third smaller than the commercial version within the next year.
They'll be testing a prototype that's one-third smaller than the commercial version within the next year.
Modern commercial aircraft development, testing and certification programs take upward of $5Billion these days, just what do these people think they are going to achieve with $30million? That won't cover the cost of the engines...
Editor, thy name is click-bait credulity.
Exactly. They would LIKE to design and POSSIBLY build such a plane. MAYBE. What is more likly is that they will enjoy a trendy office in Denver or Colorado Springs with a foosball table, catered lunches, microbrews, and a cat, and when the money runs out, move on to some other - dare I say - investor scam.
The idea that $33 million will get them anywhere near a flyable prototype is mind-blowing.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
"... marketing geniuses..."
Apparently a lot of technically-knowledgeable people don't have social ability. Boom Supersonic!!! "Boom" is what you hear when there is a crash.
There are many more like that. For example, Malwarebytes is software named after the problem it is supposed to cure. Doesn't anyone at BOOM have a mother?
Son: Mom, what do you think of the name BOOM for our company?
Mom: No, son, that's not a good name.
Son: Why not?
Mom: You're only 3 years old. You'll understand when you are 4.
50 year plus old turbojet engines, small and less sophisticated wing (missing vortex lift), only a fraction of the resources of Concorde design/development - won't cut it.
carbon/composites instead of RR58 aluminium alloy, CFD modeling and current FWB controls will surprisingly or not fail to produce meaningfully better performance
kudos to the Concorde designers who still have to be topped almost 50 years after its first flight
Concorde did not recoup its development costs due to the small number of operational aircrafts (only 20 were ever produced, 14 of which saw commercial use). However they were operationally profitable, meaning their usage generated profit over and above all the operational costs.
This always gets said, and again, it's false. BA did make money, which is why they flew it for as long as they did. It just didn't enough money to pay for spare parts as the planes aged (they cannibalized grounded Concordes until that became unsustainable) and, ultimately, replacement aircraft. Limited to only a few routes, Airbus wouldn't tool up to support a dozen or so planes when there's much more money to be made in fleets of subsonic aircraft. In short, the Concorde died of old age and lack of supporting infrastructure. But make no mistake, for 60's and 70's technology, the Concorde was really really great. Well loved by both passengers and pilots.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...