Which US Major Could Order This?
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Posts: 979
Not if they're smart. Look at how Tesla flailed trying to do mass production on a passenger car. Boom cannot possibly afford those kinds of growing pains with a transport category jet.
Presumably they're baking the production and mx into the design, with appropriate outside expertise.
Presumably they're baking the production and mx into the design, with appropriate outside expertise.
doubt a small privately funded group can pull this off. If takes really deep pockets to pull off a Part 25 certification. Especially on a new design. Even more so with a design that goes beyond the traditional airframe/power plant.
like was said before. Best they can hope for is to pull off a technology demonstrator and sell it.
#42
Business plan: The big guys would have trouble selling the expense of such an R&D program to their BoD and investors. So get some VC to fund it, build something plausible and then the IP has value to traditional airframe mfgs.
What is actually different today is the development philosophy, enabled by very advanced computer tools, where production and mx are baked into the design from the beginning. In the old days you'd design the plane, fly prototypes, and then figure out how and if you could build (and mx) it in a cost-effective manner. Today they can in theory answer all of those questions on the digital drawing board. This is what the USAF is doing with the B-21, they are expecting the prototype to essentially be a production plane and very quickly ramp up from flight test to production. They took their time getting the design right, we'll see how it all works out.
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2018
Position: CRJ-200 FO
Posts: 134
This video from Real Engineering does a great job covering this topic:
Supersonic Air Travel Return?
The conclusion is not much has fundamentally changed since the Concorde, engines for supersonic flight have made little progress, this paper aircraft still has no engine to power it, the advertised fuel savings are mainly from slowing the airplane down, and it can’t even fly the Pacific routes it advertises.
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,948
I would not consider those an apples-to-apples comparison, neither RU or PRC has built a modern NB airliner. In the west a startup can just contract for needed expertise, they don't have to try to re-invent the wheel (or steal it).
I'm pretty sure their game-plan has been collaboration (or perhaps acquisition) all along.
Business plan: The big guys would have trouble selling the expense of such an R&D program to their BoD and investors. So get some VC to fund it, build something plausible and then the IP has value to traditional airframe mfgs.
If they pull it off, they can perhaps settle in as a bleeding-edge design bureau, kind of like Scaled Composites. Or sell the shop to one of the bigs.
What is actually different today is the development philosophy, enabled by very advanced computer tools, where production and mx are baked into the design from the beginning. In the old days you'd design the plane, fly prototypes, and then figure out how and if you could build (and mx) it in a cost-effective manner. Today they can in theory answer all of those questions on the digital drawing board. This is what the USAF is doing with the B-21, they are expecting the prototype to essentially be a production plane and very quickly ramp up from flight test to production. They took their time getting the design right, we'll see how it all works out.
I'm pretty sure their game-plan has been collaboration (or perhaps acquisition) all along.
Business plan: The big guys would have trouble selling the expense of such an R&D program to their BoD and investors. So get some VC to fund it, build something plausible and then the IP has value to traditional airframe mfgs.
If they pull it off, they can perhaps settle in as a bleeding-edge design bureau, kind of like Scaled Composites. Or sell the shop to one of the bigs.
What is actually different today is the development philosophy, enabled by very advanced computer tools, where production and mx are baked into the design from the beginning. In the old days you'd design the plane, fly prototypes, and then figure out how and if you could build (and mx) it in a cost-effective manner. Today they can in theory answer all of those questions on the digital drawing board. This is what the USAF is doing with the B-21, they are expecting the prototype to essentially be a production plane and very quickly ramp up from flight test to production. They took their time getting the design right, we'll see how it all works out.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post