Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
YouGeeElWhy
Topic Author
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:42 pm

Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:46 pm

Just saw this on Hacker News.

http://boom.aero/

I wish them luck.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:49 pm

Someone remind them 4/1 is next Friday.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7132
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:50 pm

Seems like a really, really, really poorly chosen name if they ever hope to get past local opposition due to noise pollution. The name sounds like it was thought up by a bunch of 20-something tech bros.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:55 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 2):

Seems like a really, really, really poorly chosen name if they ever hope to get past local opposition due to noise pollution. The name sounds like it was thought up by a bunch of 20-something tech bros.

It's also the sound of spontaneous implosion of the venture capitalist's seeding funds when they realize the project isn't going anywhere.
 
starrion
Posts: 1023
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:40 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 3):
It's also the sound of spontaneous implosion of the venture capitalist's seeding funds when they realize the project isn't going anywhere.

This

If this amounts to anything more than a cool looking website, someone is going to get a rude awakening of what it will take to certify a supersonic commercial passenger plane. Does anyone think this could actually be done for less than a couple of billion dollars?
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21902
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:58 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 2):

Seems like a really, really, really poorly chosen name if they ever hope to get past local opposition due to noise pollution. The name sounds like it was thought up by a bunch of 20-something tech bros.

Probably was, but presumably the aircraft would not go supersonic until out over the water for a bit out of JFK.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
cpd
Posts: 6557
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:10 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):

Won't be supersonic until LINDD at least, far away from NY.

You won't probably know what that is, but some people here will.

I think this Boom lot are a hoax, frankly.

Technically this is all perfectly feasible, but you still need money to build and get certified a civil transport aircraft.

[Edited 2016-03-21 12:12:12]
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 7534
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:17 pm

Already booked my ticket, departing LHR April 1st 2017, on the new Simpson runway, the Captain,Lord Lucan advises a bit of chop over the pond but an ontime arrival at JFK with priority landing and taxi,also clearance by CBP at a new JFK terminal just for this aircraft. I am understand that Gordon Ramsey,in person, will do the inflight catering.  
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:29 pm

They ar e going to need some bigger engines than those pictured if they only want two of them.
139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13350
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:40 pm

As always with these type proposals... let them take a firm order, roll it out, get it certified, and pull it up to a gate.... THEN we should get excited.

Anything before then, is setting yourself up for extreme disappointment.


Quoting a380787 (Reply 3):
It's also the sound of spontaneous implosion of the venture capitalist's seeding funds when they realize the project isn't going anywhere.

^THIS.


Quoting larshjort (Reply 8):
They ar e going to need some bigger engines than those pictured if they only want two of them.

Why?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:59 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 9):
Why?

Because they look to be about the size of a CJ610 which will get your Lear 25 to about mach .8. It won't get your 30+ passenger (A guestimate based on number of windows) aircraft to mach 2.2. Not unless they are building a revolutionary engine to go with the aircraft as well.

A Concorde needed 560kN to go Mach 2, a Tu-144 had 960 kN of thrust to go to Mach 2.15.

A F135 provides 180 kN thrsut with a fan diameter of 40", the engine they are handling in the pictures are not much larger than 20".
139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
 
peanuts
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:17 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:06 pm

Regardless, it's time we think out of the box again though.
Concorde's last commercial flight was in 2003.
The wealthy get wealthier, at a more rapid pace. So, what gives?
It's time to go supersonic again, commercially.
Someone is gonna do it.
 
hinckley
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:19 pm

 
cpd
Posts: 6557
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:44 pm

Quoting larshjort (Reply 10):
A Concorde needed 560kN to go Mach 2

And it could go a bit more than that, and indeed the same speeds (or a little quicker) than what is proposed for this machine if you pushed it. I doubt it ever did it in scheduled service.

If we want something to write about, try a 240-250 passenger SST that does M2.4 with 13,200km range. That will make the real difference. The people in this team seem to have the knowledge, but it's such a big task to do a supersonic civil aircraft, even with all the knowledge accumulated now from various programs.

When someone makes the leap, everyone will follow, especially if it looks to be a potential success. Either that or it'll be blockaded...  
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13350
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:26 pm

Quoting larshjort (Reply 10):
the engine they are handling in the pictures are not much larger than 20".

How do you know? Are you assuming that based on a model that's likely not even to accurate scale nor finalized? Or did they say that somewhere?


Quoting cpd (Reply 13):
When someone makes the leap, everyone will follow

Very little evidence for that, and plenty against it, in terms of supersonic service.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
VX321
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 8:53 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:31 pm

While it is a neat idea, I doubt it'll ever see daylight. It's a pretty website with some 20 somethings playing around with small pieces of metal. Additionally, the first thing I thought when I saw the name was something more along the lines of an explosion. I doubt most people would want to fly some craft named boom,bang, kaboom, etc. Those sounds are too close to the sound of a bomb. Add in the supersonic boom issue and it's toast.
 
cpd
Posts: 6557
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:45 am

Quoting VX321 (Reply 15):
I doubt most people would want to fly some craft named boom,bang, kaboom, etc. Those sounds are too close to the sound of a bomb. Add in the supersonic boom issue and it's toast.

Calling a plane Dreamliner didn't exactly help the 787s fortunes for a long while. The dreams were more like nightmares with all the calamities that struck the plane. Of course nowadays it is operating fairly well, but it was a bumpy ride to get there.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 14):

Very little evidence for that, and plenty against it, in terms of supersonic service.

If it looks like it will work and become a success, others will react. Either they will build a rival, or they'll lobby to have this thing banned from entering major airports for various reasons. Perhaps they'll roll out some of the following reasons used against previous SSTs:

- "the cows won't produce milk"
- "the noise will give people cancer"
- "it will sonic boom over Manhattan"

That last one was adapted from a line from a NY politician, celebrating the retirement of Concorde (ie, it won't sonic boom over Manhattan anymore). I'm sure there are others I've forgotten.  

I'm cautious about the success of this lot, they may well have been in the shadows for a while - but it's a big task and it'd be easy to destroy them with lobbying.
 
Cory6188
Posts: 2711
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:29 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:10 am

Quoting VX321 (Reply 15):
Additionally, the first thing I thought when I saw the name was something more along the lines of an explosion. I doubt most people would want to fly some craft named boom,bang, kaboom, etc. Those sounds are too close to the sound of a bomb. Add in the supersonic boom issue and it's toast.

No kidding. "Boom" is not generally a sound that anyone wants to associate with any sort of flight, supersonic or otherwise.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21902
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:17 am

Quoting cpd (Reply 6):

Won't be supersonic until LINDD at least, far away from NY.

You won't probably know what that is, but some people here will.
http://www.google.com/maps/place/39%...1935328,6z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 7):
Already booked my ticket, departing LHR April 1st 2017, on the new Simpson runway, the Captain,Lord Lucan advises a bit of chop over the pond but an ontime arrival at JFK with priority landing and taxi,also clearance by CBP at a new JFK terminal just for this aircraft. I am understand that Gordon Ramsey,in person, will do the inflight catering.  

How much did you pay?   
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5502
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:06 am

If I was an IT student and had to come up with a website design as part of an assignment, this is exactly what I'd do...

I'll stick to my Air Baltia investment, thank you very much...
  
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:16 am

I don't think anybody doubts that you could mildly update 50 year old Concorde technology if you had billions of dollars to burn. There is no question that it IS possible.

But it's just nobody is dumb enough to waste money on that. [thundering voice]

Until Now...
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20608
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:23 am

I'll believe these SST designs once they're flying. Even then, keep my money (including tax money) far away. SST design is a money pit. So many more heat issues than subsonic flight...

Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 17):
No kidding. "Boom" is not generally a sound that anyone wants to associate with any sort of flight, supersonic or otherwise.

   As a combustion engineer, it is a sound we endeavor never to make.   

Quoting Flighty (Reply 20):
I don't think anybody doubts that you could mildly update 50 year old Concorde technology if you had billions of dollars to burn. There is no question that it IS possible.

   One could do far better than Concorde, for say $30 billion USD.   

No small company can fund this...

Lightsber
Winter is coming.
 
cpd
Posts: 6557
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:44 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
http://www.google.com/maps/place/39%...1935328,6z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

Top marks! Or should I give them to Google.com. 
 
LH707330
Posts: 2377
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:45 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
Quoting ScottB (Reply 2):

Seems like a really, really, really poorly chosen name if they ever hope to get past local opposition due to noise pollution. The name sounds like it was thought up by a bunch of 20-something tech bros.

Probably was, but presumably the aircraft would not go supersonic until out over the water for a bit out of JFK.

Pretty close, 35 year old tech bro:

Quote:

Scholl, 35, isn’t the obvious choice to run a fledgling, high-risk aerospace company. He’s a boyish coder and amateur pilot who spent five years at Amazon.com, working on things like automated ad systems, before starting a mobile shopping app maker called Kima Labs. Groupon bought Kima in 2012, leaving him with money in his pocket and a yearning to build something more meaningful than coupon software.

But hey, let them play with the idea. Creative destruction at its finest....
 
cpd
Posts: 6557
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:41 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):

Heat is easier, just don't go above M2.0, then you stay out of the extreme heat zone faced by SR-71 and other even quicker "fast mover" types.

Concorde proved well that an SST could fly well even in tough weather conditions and be comfortable for passengers. That's the most difficult bit. Materials have massively advanced now, as have engines. Should be much easier to do now that we don't have to build multiple small scale research planes in order to prove the aerodynamics and flying qualities of a given wing design.

Not having two management structures has got to help too. It's still not easy, but sure as hell as lot easier than back in the 60s.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:43 am

If there is a market for supersonic travel it's going to be in bizjets.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 3):
It's also the sound of spontaneous implosion of the venture capitalist's seeding funds when they realize the project isn't going anywhere.

  

Tech bro + VC funds = websites that look like this.

But no one is funding a new commercial SST with the few hundred million, tops, that you can raise that way.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
One could do far better than Concorde, for say $30 billion USD.

I bet you could even do it for $20B.   
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13350
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:25 am

Quoting peanuts (Reply 11):
The wealthy get wealthier, at a more rapid pace. So, what gives?

Easy. When given the choice between going insanely faster or with insane luxury/appointments, they've chosen the latter.

If the majority of ultra-wealthy businesses/persons put their money into an investment for supersonic travel, then the likes of Gulfstream (or even Boeing and Airbus) would've put the engineering into an SST long ago, all while Congress was being worked over via campaign donations.

It's just not that serious to the people who matter.


Quoting peanuts (Reply 11):
It's time to go supersonic again, commercially.

Why?


Quoting cpd (Reply 16):
If it looks like it will work and become a success

What was the first word in that statement? ...it's a big'un.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
beiaard
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 10:55 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:19 pm

Not to go against the grain, but their bios are fairly impressive:

http://boom.aero/about/
BONARUM ARTIUM RERUMQUE HUMANARUM AC DIVINARUM STUDIOSOS CONVOCAMUS
 
ec99
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:18 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:36 pm

Quoting beiaard (Reply 27):
Not to go against the grain, but their bios are fairly impressive:

I just spent a few minutes on LinkedIn and would agree with that statement. Maybe this is a hoax, but unless someone spent a lot of time making fake profiles and connections, the employees listed are legit.

I can see no way this ends up being commercially viable but I wonder how this CEO convinced people with real experience at companies like Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon and Gulfstream to work on this project. I cant see what the endgame is but I am very curious how they plan to become profitable.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1656
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:48 pm

Quoting hinckley (Reply 12):
Bloomberg article on the company here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ng-supersonic-civilian-travel-back
Quote:
Beyond next year’s test flight, Scholl isn’t providing a time line for regular passenger travel. He says only that a U.K.-based airline he won’t name has signed a letter of intent to purchase $2 billion worth of planes when they’re ready

Virgin supersonic?

Quote:
To date, Boom has raised $2.1 million and says that will last it through the development stage, though it’ll eventually take tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to take a plane to market.

Hundreds of millions? haven't they left off a couple of zeros?
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
YouGeeElWhy
Topic Author
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:42 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:55 pm

Boom CEO is in this comment thread answering questions.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286
 
LH7478i
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:34 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:27 pm

Give those people some credit. Remember how Lilienthal was just a bro jumping off a tower in his garden and where it got us. Not saying Boom is the next revolution in the age of flight but that is how development happens, step by step.
A319, A320, A321, A333, A346, B733, B735, B73G, B738, B744, B748, B757, B767, CRJ200, CRJ700, CRJ900, EMB135, EMB145, E1
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 7534
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:24 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
How much did you pay?

It was just one Gold ticket from a Willie Wonker chocolate bar, I've got a few.  
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
catiii
Posts: 3644
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:39 pm

Quoting beiaard (Reply 27):

Not to go against the grain, but their bios are fairly impressive:

http://boom.aero/about/

Totally agree. and the Board is made up of people who wouldn't just attach their name to anything...
 
hinckley
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:53 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:54 pm

I think that these guys are real and their company's intent is real. But I've been around venture capital start-ups all my life. There's a lot of money thrown at a bunch of pie-in-the-sky concepts. That's why they call it "venture" capital. And $2 million is next to nothing in that world. It's seed capital and is equivalent to what would be thrown at a good app designer. So just because the people are real doesn't mean that the company has a realistic chance for success.

[Edited 2016-03-22 12:00:42]

[Edited 2016-03-22 12:02:28]
 
User avatar
jambrain
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:17 pm

Quoting cpd (Reply 24):
Not having two management structures has got to help too. It's still not easy, but sure as hell as lot easier than back in the 60s.

I would fear that you aren't accounting for modern certification rules and risk aversion, all high integrity engineering projects I have worked on seem to cost twice what they would have done 10 years ago never mind 40 years ago.

IT seems to have not improved productivity as much as the modern world has made engineering more complex and regulations tougher.

I so wish we still had the: just do it for the sheer pursuit of engineering excellence. I fear current ROI numbers lead business leadership won't let this succeed.

Quote:

http://designmuseum.org/design/concorde
[quote=]
the development budget, which is believed to have reached to £1 billion by 1976,

£7.5 billion in today's money.
Jambrain
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:18 pm

Quoting larshjort (Reply 10):
Because they look to be about the size of a CJ610 which will get your Lear 25 to about mach .8. It won't get your 30+ passenger (A guestimate based on number of windows) aircraft to mach 2.2. Not unless they are building a revolutionary engine to go with the aircraft as well.

I was thinking it more looked like a JT9. It's 20 windows per side, which makes it close to a CRJ size cabin. Considering the plane itself is bigger, I was thinking it was more likely a JT9D, which, coincidentally, is the engine Aerion is rumored to be using, not to mention Boom's head of propulsion is a Pratt & Whitney guy.

Quoting beiaard (Reply 27):


Not to go against the grain, but their bios are fairly impressive:

http://boom.aero/about/

True, but a lot of people on the leadership team are from Adam Aircraft, another from scratch planebuilder startup that tried to do something revolutionary (to the point of having flying prototypes) and still went belly up. The only plane on the Chief Engineer's list of past projects that has not seen its manufacturer recently go bankrupt (and/or be cancelled due to poor sales) is the Icon A5. The Adams and the Premier are dead and the Eclipse is back after being bought out in bankruptcy.
 
dw747400
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Wed Mar 23, 2016 12:04 am

Quoting ec99 (Reply 28):
Quoting ec99 (Reply 28):
Quoting beiaard (Reply 27):
Not to go against the grain, but their bios are fairly impressive:

I just spent a few minutes on LinkedIn and would agree with that statement. Maybe this is a hoax, but unless someone spent a lot of time making fake profiles and connections, the employees listed are legit.

It seems like a mixed of senior folks from failed programs and junior folks from successful ones. No one strikes me as having a track record that demonstrates they can lead a program this complex. None seem to have executive experience in a transport category aircraft development program.

Adam aircraft connections are mentioned repeatedly. The A500 was a commercial flop, and the A700 was never even certified. Part of this was bad management, but it is well known the engineering team failed to deliver a competitive product. Frankly, as an investor, I'd see "Chief Engineer of the A700" as more of a problem than an asset.

The Eclipse 500 was a disaster. The jet itself isn't bad, but the management--including the engineering management--was a disaster. The new management behind Eclipse seems more likely to succeed, but they assets in bankruptcy after a billion dollars was spent... it cost them a lot less to "engineer" the jet.

Trying to draw a parallel between the Icon A5 and an SST is pointless. The A5 is not even a certified aircraft, let alone a transport category aircraft. And it is overweight too!

There are some folks that are associated with impressive programs. However, there are only vague references to what they worked on. A junior engineer working on a the design of a turbine stage isn't necessarily qualified for an executive level position on a project this size--maybe, but I wouldn't bet my money on it!

In short, I don't doubt the intelligence and motivation of the team, but suspect they may see the world with rose colored glasses (Adam Aircraft and Eclipse certainly did!) Leadership experience with failed companies and incomplete certification programs isn't an asset, and other members of the team may be excellent people but don't seem to have led any major programs, let alone something as challenging and ambitious as this.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
LH707330
Posts: 2377
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:32 am

Quoting ec99 (Reply 28):
I can see no way this ends up being commercially viable but I wonder how this CEO convinced people with real experience at companies like Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon and Gulfstream to work on this project. I cant see what the endgame is but I am very curious how they plan to become profitable.

Simple. Guy says "Hey, come work on this slightly crazy idea, I'll give you a 10% pay bump and if it all goes tango uniform, you'll have some fun stories and can go back to some other industry job."

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 36):
I was thinking it more looked like a JT9. It's 20 windows per side, which makes it close to a CRJ size cabin. Considering the plane itself is bigger, I was thinking it was more likely a JT9D, which, coincidentally, is the engine Aerion is rumored to be using, not to mention Boom's head of propulsion is a Pratt & Whitney guy.

I think you mean JT8D, a JT9D would have too much frontal area to go supersonic  
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:36 am

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 38):
I think you mean JT8D, a JT9D would have too much frontal area to go supersonic  

oops absolutely right. good catch.
 
cpd
Posts: 6557
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Wed Mar 23, 2016 2:03 am

Quoting jambrain (Reply 35):

I would fear that you aren't accounting for modern certification rules and risk aversion, all high integrity engineering projects I have worked on seem to cost twice what they would have done 10 years ago never mind 40 years ago.

That may be, but back in the old days, nobody was even sure what the plane should be made from, what shape the wings should be, etc.

They didn't know if it should have a delta wing, a slewed wing, pivoting wings, M-wing or whatever other wierd and wonderful planforms that were being thought of.

Another high speed aircraft of the day proposed addressing a short take off requirement by using a "lifting platform" powered by no fewer than 70 jet engines providing a vertical takeoff ability for the high speed plane that would then fly "off the deck". I'm not kidding...

Even when the delta wing became the favoured option, it took numerous research aircraft to prove the design would work properly. Everything had to be done from scratch for the first generation SST. The second generation won't have that problem.

Think of how much more difficult it would be if we hadn't built planes like XB-70, SR-71, Concorde, TU-144, TSR.2 and others. None of that knowledge would exist. The difficulties would be even greater.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Wed Mar 23, 2016 2:42 am

Cpd that is an interesting post because both sides are so true. Yes we are standing on the shoulders of giants. Newest IT should allow fairly detailed engineering of a concept plane at a fairly low cost. Tesla built cars on a very low R&D budget by leveraging industry expertise and tools and freeing them from the bureaucratic morass of large OEMs stacked with layer upon layer of dead wood. Skunk works in its heyday was young and had minimum bureaucracy and "process management." You can multiply speed 10-15x over OEMs with those advantages IF you have the talent in place. If Musk set out on this mission, isn't it a possibility that it might work? But even for him, this is too big a risk IMO. Even when these guys fail they might come up with 1 or 2 relevant innovations so it might be worth the small money put up. Their exit plan could include (does include) acquisition by OEMs for any bright ideas found. Or simply for the talent.

But is this an easy project, good lord no, even for Airbus or Boeing this project would be a world of hurt. Since they will never take it on willingly, I think it is great these spitball wizards will have a go.

[Edited 2016-03-22 19:48:04]
 
YouGeeElWhy
Topic Author
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:42 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:27 pm

Boom, the startup that wants to build supersonic planes, just signed a massive deal with Virgin

http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/23/boo...signed-a-massive-deal-with-virgin/

Like this part.

Quote:
But it also looks like Virgin is going to help make that happen: Boom founder Blake Scholl tells me that Virgin Galactic’s space division, The Spaceship Company, has committed to helping build and test the planes, including helping with the supersonic testing when the time comes.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:52 pm

Its sad how our regulatory scheme has made this kind of thing utterly implausible. There is zero chance this will turn into a certified civil transport airplane.

The bureaucratic hurdle for transport aircraft is so high, Boeing could turn out a better supersonic airliner than these guys even if they started on the day the Boom plane made its first flight. I would bet money that a 7-BOOM-7 would get certified before them, if Boeing chose to do that.

Part 25 has evolved in a way that has ensured transport airplanes are not an innovation business. We are very, very, very, very safe though.
 
b6sea
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:45 am

"We need to overcome the challenges of supersonic flight"

It's been done already.

I wish them luck, but I have spent too much time with startups to believe this will actually result in anything. I honestly don't think these guys have any idea the odds they're up against here. As much as I wish I were wrong about this, I really just cannot see this going too far or any customers emerging for their product. The customers piece assumes they get past the testing phase, which I am still highly highly doubtful of.

Again, good luck, guys. Please prove me wrong.
 
Lofty
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:23 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:04 am

Is this not the company that Virgin Galactic has signed an agreement with?
 
smokeybandit
Posts: 1415
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:24 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:15 am

Quoting Lofty (Reply 45):
Is this not the company that Virgin Galactic has signed an agreement with?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tr...ersonic-flights-mini-Concorde.html
 
Lofty
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:23 pm

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:44 am

Do love the photo in the Mail which shows it parked on stand 523!
 
flyDTW1992
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:04 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:43 am

While good points have been made above pointing out the huge obstacles and reasons to be skeptical, I think, at the least, it's intriguing to see a new approach being applied to aerospace. This type of model, i.e. similar to a tech startup, has never been tried in the industry, and while we all have our doubts it should be interesting just to see what, if anything can be accomplished even if the final product never takes shape, there's always the possibility that it could open doors to more ventures with similar approaches that could then have increasing levels of success.
Now you're flying smart
 
User avatar
jambrain
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 am

RE: Boom: NYC-LON Mach 2.2 Startup

Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:36 pm

What engine is that they show?

Looks a little small to me   

http://boom.aero/assets/boom-2-6d1ea9087bf71fa1e1f8f94816ebf002.jpg

Jambrain

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