Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Aviation Technology
Boom XB-1 makes 1st flight >

Boom XB-1 makes 1st flight

Notices
Aviation Technology New, advanced, and future aviation technology discussion

Boom XB-1 makes 1st flight

Old 03-27-2024, 02:55 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
SonicFlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,613
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
I suspect with 21st century technology you can make an SST which is economically viable, for some market niche somewhere, even if it's only for billionaires.
Exactly this. People who would like to be on another continent within 3 or 4 hours, as opposed to 8 or 12, and can afford to be, will make this potentially viable. Then the technology will become less expensive over time, ideally (unless of course government gets in the way like it often does).



Originally Posted by PNWFlyer View Post
ďSomebodyĒ didnít make reusable rockets from scratch. The richest person in the world, who happens to be autistic did. Boom is not financed by even one of the top 10 richest people in the world. Even Elon has said the FAA is regulating us out of innovation! So how is a startup going to create an airframe and engine out of thin air and get it certified by the FAA? EVER?

Airbus canít even get the 321 XLR certified.
You do realize that NASA is actively doing research on this, and I believe that Boom is working closely with them on it, right?
SonicFlyer is offline  
Old 03-27-2024, 09:08 AM
  #12  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,443
Default

Originally Posted by PNWFlyer View Post
sometimes I canít tell if you are serious. ďSomebodyĒ didnít make reusable rockets from scratch. The richest person in the world, who happens to be autistic did. Boom is not financed by even one of the top 10 richest people in the world. Even Elon has said the FAA is regulating us out of innovation! So how is a startup going to create an airframe and engine out of thin air and get it certified by the FAA? EVER?

Airbus canít even get the 321 XLR certified.
My thesis here is that technology has advanced a lot over the last three decades but many large, established, hide-bound, bureaucratic organizations are not able or willing to take full advantage of the opportunity to innovate.

People coming in with different mindsets and approaches seem to be able to to move the ball further and faster.

Full disclosure I (and my peers in industry) didn't think spacex had a snowball's chance 15 years ago, we thought it was just tech bros about to find out the hard way that heavy aeropsace is a lot harder than coding phone apps.

Yes you need money. But that's not enough apparently, plenty of vast corporations and governments have money.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 03-27-2024, 10:49 AM
  #13  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,443
Default

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine View Post
The airframe isn't the issue right now. Making a subsonic commercial jet engine is already a long and expensive process. Those engines get sold in the hundreds and thousands. I just don't see how a new commercial supersonic engine can be developed for such a small market.
That's a very good point.

I can almost assure you that the engine core will be based on something which is already in routine production, and licensed with some custom mods.

I couldn't imagine a clean slate engine for the likes of Boom.

Part of their challenge is selecting and adapting such an engine.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 03-27-2024, 11:43 AM
  #14  
In a land of unicorns
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,500
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
That's a very good point.

I can almost assure you that the engine core will be based on something which is already in routine production, and licensed with some custom mods.

I couldn't imagine a clean slate engine for the likes of Boom.

Part of their challenge is selecting and adapting such an engine.
It could even be just backpedaling from a current engine.

CFM56 was developed from a supersonic engine.
dera is offline  
Old 03-27-2024, 02:21 PM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
2StgTurbine's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,287
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
I can almost assure you that the engine core will be based on something which is already in routine production, and licensed with some custom mods.
Originally Posted by dera View Post
It could even be just backpedaling from a current engine.
If that's the case, then this project is doomed to fail. Most "current" supersonic engines are based on engines from the 1960s. The DOD made it work because they didn't care about fuel cost and developed aerial refueling to address the range issues. They are already pushing the envelope trying to make an airframe that doesn't create a sonic boom, I couldn't imagine they would then add the challenge of making a J79-based engine fuel-efficient. Maybe they could get access to a PW F119 engine, but I highly doubt that engine would work well in a commercial aircraft. Commercial engines have very different design requirements than military engines.

That's why Hermeus is pretty much making a brand-new engine for their supersonic aircraft. And even they realize only the DOD can justify the cost of their engines. It's a catch-22. To make a commercially successful supersonic passenger aircraft, you need the latest engine technology to make it work. To design a new commercial engine with the latest technology requires a large order list to justify the development costs.
2StgTurbine is offline  
Old 03-29-2024, 04:22 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,341
Default

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine View Post
If that's the case, then this project is doomed to fail. Most "current" supersonic engines are based on engines from the 1960s. The DOD made it work because they didn't care about fuel cost and developed aerial refueling to address the range issues. They are already pushing the envelope trying to make an airframe that doesn't create a sonic boom, I couldn't imagine they would then add the challenge of making a J79-based engine fuel-efficient. Maybe they could get access to a PW F119 engine, but I highly doubt that engine would work well in a commercial aircraft. Commercial engines have very different design requirements than military engines.

That's why Hermeus is pretty much making a brand-new engine for their supersonic aircraft. And even they realize only the DOD can justify the cost of their engines. It's a catch-22. To make a commercially successful supersonic passenger aircraft, you need the latest engine technology to make it work. To design a new commercial engine with the latest technology requires a large order list to justify the development costs.
The major engine manufacturers have all dropped out of the competition to produce a motor for Boom. Non saw a path to profitability.
sailingfun is online now  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
chancechumley
Part 91 and Low Time
8
07-18-2018 03:45 AM
takingmessages
Flight Schools and Training
8
07-07-2018 11:11 PM
AirBear
Hiring News
1
07-06-2018 09:32 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices