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.

Comments

boom supersonic

[bugs2squash]

from the marketing geniuses that brought you "side effect pharmaceuticals", "cirrhosis malt liquor" and "divorce playing cards".

Nope

[Richard_at_work]

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...

Re:Nope

[maroberts]

Whilst accepting its not going to be pocket change, if it was $5 billion, the manufacturers of private jets would be unable to do any new aircraft.

Assuming its not a scam, they are claiming that $30mill will get their Proof Of Concept (XB-1) through, when I presume they'll seek a further round of funding to scale up. The problem is that scaling up is a big problem in commercial aircraft terms. Triple the size makes everything more than 3 times harder, because if it weren't we would be seeing 747 size Concorde lookalikes flying around right now.

Looking at their website however, it looks like the XB-1 is only a two seater, so I suspect their claims to get v1.0 out the door for $30 million plus whatever they already have may just about be possible.

Re:Nope

[ColdWetDog]

They're going to 3D print it, what else?

That'll save big bucks.

Re:Nope

[TopSpin]

if it was $5 billion, the manufacturers of private jets would be unable to do any new aircraft.

Boeing accounts the development cost of the 787, a sub-sonic widebody of the sort they've been building for 47 years, as $29 billion as of 2011. The Irkut MC-21, a conventional narrow body sub-sonic 737 competitor being developed in Russia (one built so far) has a program cost of $4.6 billion to date.

For $33 million you might get as far as testing a credible wind tunnel model. $33 million to test fly a "Boom Supersonic" built aircraft next year (!) is pure fantasy. Marketing bunk. Full stop.

There is a lot of VC sloshing around right now and some of it will unavoidably slop over the side and disappear down the drain.

Re:Nope

[maroberts]

But they're not building the airliner for $30 million. It appears they're building a 2 seat, 3 engine plane to test out some of the technologies for $30million+ a bit more.
The nearest comparison is perhaps building the winner of the X-Prize Spaceship One which probably cost less than $30million, although it's hard to tell how much Paul Allen sponsored it for,

Re: Nope

[fubarrr]

You can buy a scraped tu22 and change bomb bay to a passenger suite with blackjack and hookers

Re: Nope

[Rei]

Is it really that expensive? I know some people who had run a small startup automaker that raised 30-something million. They were about 3 months out from first commercial deliveries (having made a couple dozen prototypes to various degrees, ranging from empty shells to full builds), with about $10m still left in the bank - when the board decided to bring on a guy from Detroit (Paul Wilbur, the guy responsible for the Chevy SSR, and a bunch of other train-wrecks-in-car-form), who then proceeded to run the company into the ground.

Are aircraft that much more expensive than cars, that you can't even build a demonstrator for that kind of money? To be fair, the automaker's vehicle was technically classified as a motorcycle, so their regulations weren't as onerous as for most cars (but they still did full crash and crush tests anyway, voluntarily). But, I mean, they just churned out prototypes one after the next.

Re:Nope

[k6mfw]

I was talking to an aero guy the other day, he said "remember all news about various startups wanting to build the next small business jet?" (actually don't remember) "all these companies went bankrupt." He then explained, like Boom, presents nice aerodynamic shapes and interior designs but what all these companies lack are experience in pressurized cabins. This involves structures which are not attractive like beautiful aero shapes. The pressurized cabin will underdo several cyclic loads as aircraft ascends and descends. He then went on to explain the B29 gave Boeing a good start in pressurized cabin enabling them to dominate the transport market since. He also mentioned existing biz jet companies have not done supersonic because they don't have experience with that [going more than Mach 1 involves a lot of other stuff) and not sure if investing development money will pay off.

My first question can supersonic passenger transport scale up? Obviously it never did with Concorde or Tu144. And there is still issues of fuel consumption, much higher temperatures, smaller cabin, huge development issue. And just how much time overall will it really save?

Pricing...

[TFlan91]

The 3 or 4 hours of travel time I'm saving doesn't really justify the proposed ticket pricing...

"The company hopes the Boom jet will take three hours and 15 minutes to fly from New York to London for a price of $2,500 per passenger in either direction, based on its initial prototype. Transatlantic flights currently take more than twice that time."

I fly from Boston to Munich, Frankfurt, Paris or London about twice every 3 months. Ticket prices for a round trip, in the winter, range from 600 - 800$, and in the summer the prices range from 800 - 1200$ (I fly lufthansa over the ocean, then wizz air to final destination, cheap af and lufthansa offers very good service for the price).

If you are going to charge 2500$ for a one way ticket, and the only benefit is I save 3 or 4 hours in travel time, I won't even think twice about it, fuck that.

3 hours of my time is not worth proposed ticket price (~3x for one way, ~6x for round trip).

Unless they reduce the pricing structure, the only people flying this will be bigwigs with too much money to spend. The pricing structure itself sets the company up for a death spiral. Poor investors, didn't do their homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Pricing...

[maroberts]

I remind you that Concorde was substantially more expensive than $2500 and it was kept busy. There are a lot of bigwigs who are willing to pay that sort of money especially if their company is paying for it.

Re:Pricing...

[Frosty Piss]

If you are going to charge 2500$ for a one way ticket, and the only benefit is I save 3 or 4 hours in travel time, I won't even think twice about it, fuck that.

This jet is not for the hoi polloi like you. It's for the folks who where flying the Concord on a regular basis. Their time is more valuable than yours.

Re:Pricing...

[beelsebob]

That's a big assumption. Today's business class seats on a 747 cost about $5000 minimum, first class even more. Assuming they're going to be supersonic *and* half the price is pretty strange.

Re:Pricing...

[pz]

I have an uncle who flew the Concorde from NYC to London frequently. It was entirely worth the extra money to his company to have him there and back in one day. When he would make trips like this, it was to talk to investment banks and the like, and the stock price would take a non-trivial tick upward as a result. The six-hour-plus savings in his time was entirely worth the cost. Moreover, not having to sleep on a plane and have a shitty night's sleep rendering him less effective the next day was even better.

Now, there aren't many people who are like that, but the number is also not zero. Given the large collection of companies in the northeast with insane valuations (e.g., Big Pharma), I'd wager that there is still a market for supersonic travel to London at what amounts to business-class prices.

Re: Pricing...

[imgod2u]

But how much time do you save nowadays though. 20 years ago when the Concord ran, you got to the airport 45 min ahead of time with plenty of time to spare.

Today, international travel takes about 3 hours at the airport alone. Let alone the flight. So if we're taking 9 vs 6 hours spent, is it really that big of a difference?

Also, the economics of flying means that fuel efficiency is the primary factor in profitability. So if this thing eats up twice of 3x the fuel as a 787 but earns twice as much per flight, airlines won't be running it.

Re:Pricing...

[maroberts]

Concorde was I believe what is called operationally profitable. However since it was able to fill seats at nearly twice the proposed $2500 cost, it would mean that this new aircraft would attract a market at that price.

Re:Pricing...

[HuguesT]

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.

Re:Pricing...

[WheezyJoe]

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.

Re: Pricing...

[YuppieScum]

When Concorde flew, it had dedicated check-ins, security, immigration and lounges at either end of the journey, as befitting a premium and exclusive service.

With this in place, even today you'd spend much less time in the airport than the rest of us flying cattle-class...

Re:Pricing...

[WheezyJoe]

You're right and wrong. To be clear, the Concorde was profitable on a day-to-day basis, enough to sustain it for for 27 years.

However, the expense for R&D was not recovered, true, and there just weren't enough of them, nor enough profits, to sustain an industry through Airbus or whoever to manufacture spare parts and replacement Concordes. So, they aged out. Had the problems of ozone depletion and sonic booms been addressed without being sensationalized (e.g., the Anti-Concorde Project), resulting in bans in most major airports, there may have been enough business to justify Airbus or Boeing tooling up to make replacement parts and even new SST's. Instead, the Concorde was orphaned, and doomed to die out when the supply of cannibalized parts from the few spare planes ran dry.

With modern materials, manufacturing, and avionics, there's no reason not to try again, and arrive at a much, much better result. Besides, there's more places to go. Right now, it takes more than 12 hours to fly from NY to Dubai, more than 14 to New Delhi or Seoul. Reducing that down to 6 would be well worth it to some folks with very deep pockets, deep enough perhaps to lobby away some antiquated restrictions, and justify a sustainable fleet of aircraft.

I don't care how much it will cost at first. The road to Ford's cheap, mass manufactured Model T was paved by a lot of unaffordable vehicles. If it gets built and it works, SST will become more affordable, and maybe stop the current race-to-the-bottom for current air travel.

Re: Pricing...

[pz]

The people who would be flying supersonic would undoubtedly have Global Entry, and with dedicated security lines, would not spend 3 hours at the airport prior to departure.

Heck, I travel often enough that I rarely get there 1 hour before departure time on domestic or international itineraries, and usually have enough time to have a quick beverage at the lounge before boarding. For most travellers, 2-3 hours is required because they fundamentally don't know what to do, so are figuring out the system and often have unreasonable expectations or incorrect assumptions that require extra time to handle.

In contrast, a seasoned frequent traveller will have carry-on only, be GE (and thus Pre-Check), be an elite FF, will know exactly where each gate is, and, depending on the airport, could easily get from curbside to gate in 15 minutes. Those are the people who would be flying on this service.

Also, inflation-adjusted fuel cost has dropped considerably since when the Concorde was flying.

Re:"WILL fly more than twice the speed of sound"

[Frosty Piss]

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.

Change the name to "Crash Supersonic"?

[Futurepower(R)]

"... 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.

Re:Change the name to "Crash Supersonic"?

[Anonymice]

Boom Supersonic!!! "Boom" is what you hear when there is a crash.

Or, y'know, when something goes supersonic...

Re:Change the name to "Crash Supersonic"?

[aktw]

Boom is also what you hear when it goes supersonic. Malwarebytes is a play on the phrase "Malware Bites." The fact that I had to spell that shit out for you is funny, though.

Re:PERSECUTION

[GerryGilmore]

Hail Satan!

Re:Boom - I do not think that this name will fly..

[Bert64]

1) The high cost of fuel for the trip. Concorde used Re-heat all the time it was supersonic. This may have changed.

Concorde used reheat for takeoff and when passing mach 1, at all other times it wasn't used including cruising at mach 2...
It wasn't needed, but punching through the sound barrier at mach 1 was quicker with reheat and actually used less fuel that way.

Won't beat Concorde performance in main config

[ndverdo]

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

Re:Not Over My House

[WheezyJoe]

The point is to dramatically reduce the sonic-boom effect with better, modern designs.

Good luck. You'll need it

[RubberDogBone]

There is a long history of similar projects and they all face the same challenges: airframe, engines, engines, engines, engines, cash flow, actual demand from buyers, and safety. And time to get certified (likely to be 5-10 years) and lawsuits.

For a couple good examples of conventional aircraft enduring this, look no further than the HondaJet or Leonardo's AW609. Though I am not aware either has been sued, they HAVE taken a very long time to get from design to prototype to test vehicles to certification and sales. Honda worked on their jet for at least SIXTEEN YEARS to get certification, and it's not as radical as a supersonic jet.

Any new design is going to take years to get certified. Major updates on existing vehicles also take forever. It's just the way it is, and helps keeps these things from falling of of the sky. Which you want even more if the vehicle is supersonic and might kill a lot of people if it failed in flight.

Mostly, supersonic projects are stuck at the mercy of their engine supplier. There is always only one such supplier and any delays or problems there delay everything else. It's really only recently that some common airliners have even had an option for engine suppliers and you still have to choose in advance who will make them.

Re:SCAM...

[Archangel Michael]

Concorde was not commercially viable, because it could only fly a few routes worldwide. NY / London, LA/Tokyo SF/Hong Kong etc. Basically you can't fly supersonic over land, without pissing the natives off.