Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AvObserver
Topic Author
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:53 am

I didn't see this listed anywhere, I guess due to all of the hoopla over Airbus and Boeing's big orders but this also came out at the Dubai Air Show: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 18-443216/.

I'm astounded few seem to be talking about this lately. Granted Boom likely doesn't have much credibility until they demonstrate a real ability to execute their audacious plan and I'm as skeptical as anyone as to whether they've a real business case but still, an SST of any sort should be a topic of conversation. I'd also like to know which of the world's airlines have orders for 76 aircraft as Boom claims. They're not specific about who those carriers are on their website. https://boomsupersonic.com/airlines/. I'm also astounded by their claims of a market of 1000 to 2000 airplanes over 10 years and their plans to produce up to 100 annually. It sounds like fantasyland stuff to me and yet they appear serious about getting a 55 passenger SST into service by late 2023. I've not read of any carriers chomping at the bit for SSTs and after the Concorde exercise economics fallout, I wonder who really want supersonics. I guess SOMEBODY must want them but who? "Boom has orders for 76 aircraft thus far, across five airline customers." https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/20/boom- ... nger-jets/
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:05 am

AvObserver wrote:
I'd also like to know which of the world's airlines have orders for 76 aircraft as Boom claims.


Unless and until the airlines are willing to tip their hands, Boom can't disclose it. For all we know, it could be effectively non-existent startups who having investors willing to commit if Boom can really achieve their cost and performance targets.

AvObserver wrote:
I'm also astounded by their claims of a market of 1000 to 2000 airplanes over 10 years and their plans to produce up to 100 annually.


It's certainly ambitious. But finding a market for 55,000-110,000 business class seats based mainly on speed rather than luxury appointments and space is not necessarily out of the question if they can make the pricing work. Emirates alone currently has roughly 15,000 business and first class seats in service.

I'm very interested to watch this project progress, but it's not something I'd be interested in signing on for as an investor. It looks credible, but very risky.

I'm definitely not holding out for EIS in 6 years when the engine hasn't even been defined yet.
 
2175301
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:41 am

Thanks for posting that.

I've been a Boom supporter and have posted items on them several times here. I personally believe their market estimates are high. But, I could realistically see say 400 - 500 aircraft with a 20 - 30 per year long term average production rate.

Have a great day,
 
speedbird52
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:22 am

I would be surprised if they build one! Realistically, maybe 100-200. What we need to know is who.
 
JoergAtADN
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:03 am

They need a completly new type of engine - and no engine manufacturer commited to develop such an engine.
 
2175301
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:15 am

JoergAtADN wrote:
They need a completly new type of engine - and no engine manufacturer commited to develop such an engine.


You are incorrect. They will do a simple adaption of a currently in production military engine (remove afterburners, etc). Just like what was done in the 1960's and 1970' for the early commercial aircraft fleet.

It will be based off of the F135, or perhaps the F119 engine (the F135 engine being an adaption of the F119 engine to start from). It's the right size for the application.. and already designed for super-cruise.

If you think this is a dream... Goto the Boom website and look at the credentials of the Chief Propulsion Manager Andy Berryann

https://boomsupersonic.com/about/

The only real question is what variation of the engine and what adaptions beyond removal of some military only features.

Have a great day,
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2739
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:28 am

The question is not whether the technical challenges, including engine and supersonic boom, can be overcome. The question is whether enough people are willing to pay 2 or 3 times the current J-class rate in order to save 2-3 hours. And this is before we even touch on the subject of rising oil prices.

I'm afraid this concept has little to no creditability until a) they fly a prototype and b) announce the names of the airlines who supposedly have ordered this aircraft.
Signature. You just read one.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11986
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:52 am

First: I hope they succeed, I like ambitious projects which challenge the current way of doing things :thumbsup:

Second: I see two inherent problems for airlines:
1. traveling faster will always up the energy needed, thus cost, the relatively small airframe will always require more staff, thus cost
2. inflexibility of the airframe itself will be restricted to over ocean flying for exceeding the speed of sound, makes no sense to fly them over land, way too expensive.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
bennett123
Posts: 10102
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:51 am

How do you slot planes going that fast into conventional air traffic.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13350
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:06 am

*yawn*

QSST. HiSAC. Aerion's alleged "orders." And now Boom seems to want some spotlight.

Wake me up when there's an aircraft certified and ready to call boarding.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:09 am

I believe Richard Branson and VS are involved somewhere with this, correct?
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
User avatar
Siren
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:50 am

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:41 pm

Let's get real. A 2023 EIS for an SST by an upstart company that has no manufacturing facility, and doesn't even have a frozen design yet is simply not going to happen. We'll be lucky to see the roll-out of the prototype for flight testing by then. 2027 maybe, if all goes well. And it probably won't.

Who would want a 55 passenger SST? I suspect that some of the fractional jet ownership companies are probably invested - NetJets, for example. I'm willing to bet most of these aircraft, if ordered, are mostly for business and private buyers, and will not be going to scheduled operators. I could see a Maxjet or Silverjet or La Compangie type operation taking planes like this - and operating them profitably, but I can't see any of the majors getting into this aircraft unless it's either acquired by one of the majors (such as the CS100/300 by Airbus recently) or the majors launch their own competitor.

There's too much risk at this point in time to go with a newly established company that has no support network in place. Unless they can leverage the supplier support network of an existing airframer (e.g. work a deal to distribute their spares through Bombardier, Airbus, or Embraer), these aircraft will not be able to be operated in any sort of scheduled daily operation with a major carrier - as when a plane goes down for a maintenance item, who knows how long it could be to get the replacement equipment from the manufacturer? And it would need to be shipped in most cases... resulting in long ground times for any planes that go tech.

The only way around this, again, would be a partnership with an established airframer, to leverage their existing support network. Without that, I don't see how Boom, even if they somehow build a world class product, won't be successful without a support network that can service its aircraft as well as any Gulfstream 650, or Challenger 603, or Falcon 9X.. failing strong efforts to leverage an existing maintenance and support network to keep the planes going after they are sold, I would expect that these would sell exceptionally poorly - a bizjet/SST equivalent to the SSJ in the regional jet space.
 
tapairbus370
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:30 pm

Dutchy wrote:
First: I hope they succeed, I like ambitious projects which challenge the current way of doing things :thumbsup:

Second: I see two inherent problems for airlines:
1. traveling faster will always up the energy needed, thus cost, the relatively small airframe will always require more staff, thus cost
2. inflexibility of the airframe itself will be restricted to over ocean flying for exceeding the speed of sound, makes no sense to fly them over land, way too expensive.




Hello,


maybe flying higher?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11986
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:34 pm

tapairbus370 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
First: I hope they succeed, I like ambitious projects which challenge the current way of doing things :thumbsup:

Second: I see two inherent problems for airlines:
1. traveling faster will always up the energy needed, thus cost, the relatively small airframe will always require more staff, thus cost
2. inflexibility of the airframe itself will be restricted to over ocean flying for exceeding the speed of sound, makes no sense to fly them over land, way too expensive.




Hello,


maybe flying higher?



Which solves which problem?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
LTCM
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:35 am

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:42 pm

No sonic booms over land - period.

Find a way around the physics or they are limited to supersonic speeds over water only.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:59 pm

2175301 wrote:
JoergAtADN wrote:
They need a completly new type of engine - and no engine manufacturer commited to develop such an engine.


You are incorrect. They will do a simple adaption of a currently in production military engine (remove afterburners, etc). Just like what was done in the 1960's and 1970' for the early commercial aircraft fleet.


Even cooler than an F119 or F135 would be ADVENT, but it won't happen.

The publicly stated plan on their website is an adaption of a currently in-production commercial engine - that would mean minimal changes to core, but brand new fan with a lower bypass ratio, a supersonic intake, and I assume also a variable nozzle. I wouldn't expect them to try do much novel with any of those, because that adds cost and risk

Aviation Week reported Pratt & Whitney is spending $10 billion on the GTF development. A 1000+ airframe project with a $200 million actual selling price target should have room to absorb that kind of cost, but I don't know that it actually needs to be that high if all of the modifications are based on existing designs. They won't have the gearbox that was the big risk factor for the GTF, they shouldn't need to come up with new fan blade materials or profiles, and moveable inlet ramps and nozzles have been well understood for half a century.

It also doesn't have to be optimized to the highest degree possible to be competitive against other engines in its class, because there are no other engines in its class.

I think the big engine problem is not going to be development cost in absolute terms, but in sharing terms. P&W funded the GTF themselves because they knew there would be a market for it. The same is not true of a commercial SST engine. I expect the engine partner will only be willing to take on a small fraction of the development cost. Boom will have to raise most of the money for engine development themselves, in addition to raising the money for the airframe development.

Getting that money is going to mean convincing a lot of investors they can sell 1000+ of these, or whatever minimum number the business case is based on.

B777LRF wrote:
The question is whether enough people are willing to pay 2 or 3 times the current J-class rate in order to save 2-3 hours. And this is before we even touch on the subject of rising oil prices.


Their business case is based on roughly 1 times. If they can't get close to that, their current business plan fails.

Fuel prices would be a concern, but not nearly as acutely so in terms of business class ticket prices as for economy prices. They claim their per seat fuel burn will be similar as for widebody J seats. I'm skeptical of how they quantify that, especially after trying to calculate such an equivalency just now and failing. Keep in mind, however, that justified by the shorter flight times, they're planning a significantly smaller seat than a widebody business class seat - that means higher seating density and therefore a proportionately smaller fuselage.

LAX772LR wrote:
*yawn*

QSST. HiSAC. Aerion's alleged "orders." And now Boom seems to want some spotlight.

Wake me up when there's an aircraft certified and ready to call boarding.


Nonsense! I know you're a regular enough here you'll want to know what's going on well before then. I'm sure you wouldn't want to ignore their subscale tech demonstrator flying, even if they go bankrupt the very next day.
Last edited by iamlucky13 on Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:11 pm

LTCM wrote:
No sonic booms over land - period.

Find a way around the physics or they are limited to supersonic speeds over water only.


First of all, this isn't so much a physics issue as a noise issue, and you need to take into account the research NASA has been doing recently on reducing sonic booms. That's mainly relevant to Aerion, not Boom, but I gather Boom is still trying to incorporate lesser elements of that research into their design, too.

Secondly, no sonic booms over land is a policy issue, also not a physics issue, and was arbitrary.

Hence, the policy changed this year with the Lee-Gardner amendment to the FAA authorization bill to make the regulations based on actual noise levels, not mach number.
https://www.gardner.senate.gov/newsroom ... -committee

If I remember right, with that change Boom expects to fly at reduced, but still supersonic speeds over land, but even before it passed, they were talking about basing their business case on identifying predominantly overwater routes with significant premium class demand.
 
tapairbus370
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:49 am

Dutchy wrote:
tapairbus370 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
First: I hope they succeed, I like ambitious projects which challenge the current way of doing things :thumbsup:

Second: I see two inherent problems for airlines:
1. traveling faster will always up the energy needed, thus cost, the relatively small airframe will always require more staff, thus cost
2. inflexibility of the airframe itself will be restricted to over ocean flying for exceeding the speed of sound, makes no sense to fly them over land, way too expensive.




Hello,


maybe flying higher?




Which solves which problem?




Hello,

yep, none!!

I don´t know why did I put this answer here. Sorry.

I was answering other question about having "regular" planes and the supersonic ones flying in the same "road"!!!

Sorry.
 
tapairbus370
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:50 am

bennett123 wrote:
How do you slot planes going that fast into conventional air traffic.



Hello,


maybe flying higher?
 
Noshow
Posts: 1810
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:10 am

So where is the engine? They said they had one and now they haven't even decided. If they cannot use military engines like they had planned they start all over again. And they still claim EIS 2023? How serious is this.
I support new companies and ideas but at some point they need to prove what they do with some hard facts: Name your engine please. Now.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11986
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:52 pm

tapairbus370 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
tapairbus370 wrote:



Hello,


maybe flying higher?




Which solves which problem?




Hello,

yep, none!!

I don´t know why did I put this answer here. Sorry.

I was answering other question about having "regular" planes and the supersonic ones flying in the same "road"!!!

Sorry.


No worries.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 825
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:04 pm

Noshow wrote:
So where is the engine? They said they had one and now they haven't even decided. If they cannot use military engines like they had planned they start all over again. And they still claim EIS 2023? How serious is this.
I support new companies and ideas but at some point they need to prove what they do with some hard facts: Name your engine please. Now.

You may be confusing Boom with Aerion. Aerion have an agreement with GE to work towards an engine (and have Airbus on board for engineering support). Boom are a little further back, personally a suspect they are looking to develop some ip and sell up to someone like Boeing or Gulfstream. Worth some popcorn though.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:12 pm

Noshow wrote:
So where is the engine? They said they had one and now they haven't even decided. If they cannot use military engines like they had planned they start all over again. And they still claim EIS 2023? How serious is this.
I support new companies and ideas but at some point they need to prove what they do with some hard facts: Name your engine please. Now.


They have to prove it to their investors and customers.

Unfortunately, we're just on the sidelines watching. They don't have to prove anything to us.

If they're in the middle of building the XB-1 tech demonstrator, they clearly have a decent amount of investment so far. In such case, I have to assume they have talked to all of the major engine manufacturers, and probably paid for some initial engine specification and performance analysis and price estimates. Thus, they should, if they have any idea what their doing, which the work history of their listed leadership team indicates they do know what they're doing, have a pretty good idea of engine performance and cost.

Looking back up the thread, I don't think any of us take the 2023 date seriously. If the engines are the ultimate scheduled driver, and their partner is able to adapt an existing core to a new fan, etc. and get through ground testing in 5 years, followed by an 18 month flight test program, then they might be able to hit 2024 if they sign an engine development contract today.

Realistically, investors won't commit significant sums of money until the the XB-1 has enough flight hours to demonstrate their predictions for speed, fuel consumption, noise, airframe temperatures, etc. are all accurate. XB-1 first flight is planned for next year, and since they haven't shown off any large structures yet, I'm guessing 2019 is more likely. If we suppose 6 months of flight testing before they've got significant high speed data, which means they start reeling in the major investments in late 2019, that means 2026 EIS.

Dutchy wrote:
tapairbus370 wrote:
maybe flying higher?


Which solves which problem?


It doesn't solve the problem, but it reduces drag at a given speed. Atmospheric density at 60,000 feet is 1/3 that at 35,000 feet.

Using the drag equation, for a specific frontal area and drag coefficient, you get about 2.3 times the drag at Mach 2.2 and 60,000 feet as at Mach 0.8 and 35,000 feet.

The big caveat there is the drag coefficient can vary a lot with the Mach number, but techniques like highly swept wings and area ruling help minimize the penalty. Regardless, minimizing the frontal area is hugely important for a supersonic aircraft, hence why Boom is showing features like 1+1 seating configuration and a delta wing.

We're talking about an aircraft probably proportioned similar in length but a bit skinnier than a CRJ-1000, but probably burning a bit more fuel than an A321.
 
psa188
Posts: 661
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:02 pm

Re: Boom Technology To Pick Assembly Site And Engines In 2018

Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:27 am

AvObserver wrote:
Granted Boom likely doesn't have much credibility until they demonstrate a real ability to execute their audacious plan and I'm as skeptical as anyone as to whether they've a real business case but still, an SST of any sort should be a topic of conversation.


About 20 years ago, R. E. G. Davies wrote a book called "Supersonic (Airliner) Non-Sense : A Case Study in Applied Market Research https://www.amazon.com/Supersonic-Airli ... 1888962097. Before he died, Davies had forgotten more about commercial aviation then most of us will ever know. I'd like to hear Boom's rebuttal to this book.

In general, I'm skeptical about the Boom project. Maybe they'll prove me wrong and actually build and sell some SSTs? who knows.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos