Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

airwaysmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 254 posts

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#41

Post by oivey »

650REDHAIR wrote: post #27
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only for a few industries, mostly the ones that took off around WWII.

Uh… DARPA, In-Q-Tel, etc…

Even things like semiconductors benefitted massively from government research and funding. They’ve certainly taken off from there, though.

I’m trying to think of what industries this might not be the case for. Research thin industries like entertainment and media? Has the development of things like OLED mostly been by private companies? I guess finance? Seemingly if it involves engineering the government at least made the seed investment.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#42

Post by jaywalk »

mshockwave wrote: post #30
topspin wrote: post #5

There are perhaps 3 companies on Earth that could conceivably provide engines for this application. RR was one of them. Where to now?

It's not like GE and P&W are bad choices given the fact that they made some of the best military jet engines in this world. While comparing fighter jet with large aircraft might not be fair, I think B-1B Lancer will be a good analogy in this case (similar size, 4-engine layout, and twice the takeoff weight). And B-1B Lancer use engines from GE.

They're not bad choices at all, and I'm sure Boom would love to work with either of them. But the question is whether or not GE or P&W are interested in working with this vaporware company.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#44

Post by topspin »

smachiz wrote: post #40
topspin wrote: post #5

There are perhaps 3 companies on Earth that could conceivably provide engines for this application. RR was one of them. Where to now?

There is no engine that will make economic sense for either the engine manufacturer or the airline operator based on the technology we have. This was always a fools errand.

I know. No one that understands turbofans would imagine otherwise. This sort of thing need sovereign government budgets.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#45

Post by the_duke »

randtrain34 wrote: post #36
trollied wrote: post #11

Just last month they were saying they'd be manufacturing the first aircraft in 2024. This company just looks like another huge investor scam at the moment.

they've raised 250m, assuming they lose money at the current rate of 111m in H1, wouldn't they run out of money before then?

That loss if for Rolls Royce ...

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#46

Post by ajross »

bell-cot wrote: post #7

My understanding is that the only profitable part of being a modern commercial jet engine manufacturer is service contracts - on actually-in-service jet engines. Vs. Boom Supersonic has never built a plane which actually managed to take off. And even their 1/3-scale "technology demonstrator" plane is 5+ years behind its original schedule. (And has yet to taxi along a runway, if I read Wikipedia right.) My guess - Boo…

Which is to say: Boom is aimed at the wrong product. The High Tech part of efficient supersonic transport is the engines, not the airframe. If there was an off the shelf engine solution, they could just buy it on investor money. The dirty truth is that there isn't.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#48

Post by topspin »

daniel-cussen wrote: post #39
topspin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's the other two. Supersonic jet engines are a rarified field. There are Russian "companies"... good luck getting that certified for Western commercial aviation.

Dude when the sanctions end the sanctions will really really end.

Russia couldn't get any of their civil aviation jets certified before the sanctions.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#50

Post by daniel-cussen »

solarkraft wrote: post #28
650REDHAIR wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Legacy business model” = ???

Making money

Yeah everyone these days is saying

"OK, first we have very nice policies generous no-questions refunds, get a good word going. Then traction, then investment. Then, revenues, it's revenues all the way, growth man. And then you get a good multiplier on revenues because we can say we're tech for some fucked up reason. Like coupla degrees here n there some PhD's (this is why there's big-name university focus, there's better PhD's in Georgia Tech, but it's marketing) maybe then we can say it. Then...liquidity event. Then just juggle forever."

Post reply on HN