Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership • Hacker News Board

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#61

Post by datavirtue » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 6:03 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #51

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?

Mentioned this elsewhere, but it belongs better here: If there's a market for a product that existing suppliers don't want to provide, that sounds like exactly what a startup should be doing. Boom is wasting their time building an airframe but what they really need to win is an engine. They should have built the engine first.

Spot on. If you build a more efficient engine P&W, GE, Honeywell, and a few other companies would be clawing eachothers' eyes for the chance to buy you out.

Boeing and other airframe mfgs would throw you a huge contract immediately if they thought you could actually build the engines and deliver them.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#62

Post by daniel-cussen » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #10

LadyCailin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or visits from US presidents.

Last sentence of the article: > Operation of aircraft with four engines will be allowed in exceptional cases and only with a special permit. I'd imagine that Air Force One will not have any trouble obtaining the special permit.

For now. 2022. Yeah no in the future too.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#63

Post by topspin » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

trhway wrote: post #22

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?

Can they use for test demonstrator something like Mig-29 engines - those used planes are available including in US just for few millions. Once they are flying, GE or RR will probably be more interested.

It's true that a lot of aircraft development has occurred using substitute engines while the final engines where still being developed. The problem for Boom isn't getting airborne. It's convincing one of the few outfits capable of this to put billions of dollars into a clean sheet engine design.

Klimov RD-33's (the Mig-29 engine) are not super-cruise engines and aren't capable of demonstrating the intent of the Boom design. And frankly I think even a retrofit like that is beyond Boom's means.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#64

Post by AustinDev » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 6:06 PM UTC

lacker wrote: post #47

I'm rooting for you, Boom. The world needs supersonic planes and you're so close. Good luck.

I want it to work but, the hard part is the engines and without a partnership it's going to be difficult to get off the ground.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#65

Post by pstuart » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #53

ajross wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Engine manufacturing is much more profitable, and seemingly challenging than airframe manufacturing. The engines they'll use are unlikely to be very different from those in other applications, so I'm not sure there's room for a new entrant. Keep in mind that the R&D and capital costs of becoming a turbine engine manufacturer are immense, and likely much higher than the costs to develop a new aircraft.

The real money is in the service contracts.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#66

Post by nickff » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #58

nickff wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engine manufacturing is much more profitable, and seemingly challenging than airframe manufacturing. The engines they'll use are unlikely to be very different from those in other applications, so I'm not sure there's room for a new entrant. Keep in mind that the R&D and capital costs of becoming a turbine engine manufacturer are immense, and likely much higher than the costs to develop a new aircraft.

... which is tantamount to saying that efficient supersonic transport won't happen because the engine is too expensive to design, though. And maybe that's true. But even if it is true it's still on Boom to make that happen somehow. Not all startups succeed, but those that build the wrong product fail at a 100% rate.

I think Boom will likely design and build a working aircraft, but they don't have the money or expertise to design an engine. Both GE and P&W are capable of designing and building the engine, the question is which will make the business deal with Boom. I am guessing that Boom either wants a cut of the service revenue, or wants to do most of the engine service themself.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#67

Post by nradov » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

topspin wrote: post #48

daniel-cussen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Russia got the Sukhoi Superjet 100 regional airliner certified in Europe in 2012 (before the sanctions).

https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/press-rele...

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#68

Post by galgot » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

How surprising... Developing a specific supersonic jet engine for this kind of plane would not be cost effective anyway, the fleet would be too small to worth the investment. Even starting from a military jet engine, the way they are run and maintained is very different from civilian jet engines.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#69

Post by AustinDev » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

rocket_surgeron wrote: post #60

Regarding Boom there are only two reasonable conclusions one can reach: 1. They are a Theranos-style operation 2. They are a Madoff-style operation I, a lone aerospace engineer working out of my garage in my spare time, have a better chance of achieving supersonic flight than Boom does. Even their technology demonstrator is an obvious scam. It demonstrates nothing. It does not demonstrate the ability to design, build…

As an aerospace engineer do you know what kind of thrust they'd need and why they can't just use something like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J58#Specific...? My guess would be that the military engines are not at all designed to be economical on either fuel or unit cost.

Re: Rolls Royce Ends Boom Supersonic Partnership

#70

Post by sdflhasjd » Thu, Sep 08, 2022, 6:11 PM UTC

oivey wrote: post #41

650REDHAIR wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mad…

Not sure I'd call OLED game changing in the same way the Internet or Jet Engines are.