Author Topic: Boom Aerospace  (Read 59933 times)

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1687
  • United States
  • Liked: 2096
  • Likes Given: 3222
Boom Aerospace
« on: 08/16/2022 02:39 pm »
Not space-related, but definitely aerospace news!

Boom Supersonic announced today the purchase deposit for 20 of its Overture supersonic passenger aircraft by American Airlines with a purchase option for 40 more. We may finally have supersonic flights again in the US!

This follows the 2021 deal with United for 15 aircraft and a purchase option for 35 more.

https://boomsupersonic.com/news/post/american-airlines-announces-agreement-to-purchase-boom-supersonic-overture-aircraft-places-deposit-on-20-overtures

and the aircarft:
https://boomsupersonic.com/overture

The Overture is about the same size and has nearly the same range as Concorde, but without the ear splitting engine noise on take-off.

Quote
AUG 16, 2022
American Airlines Announces Agreement to Purchase Boom Supersonic Overture Aircraft, Places Deposit on 20 Overtures
American, the world’s largest airline, poised to have the world’s largest supersonic fleet with new Boom Supersonic aircraft FORT WORTH, Texas, and DENVER, Aug. 16, 2022 — American Airlines and Boom Supersonic today announced the airline’s agreement to purchase up to 20 Overture aircraft, with an option for an additional 40. American has paid a non-refundable deposit on the initial 20 aircraft. Overture is expected to carry passengers at twice the speed of today’s fastest commercial aircraft.
« Last Edit: 08/16/2022 07:38 pm by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Liked: 1731
  • Likes Given: 615
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #1 on: 08/16/2022 02:58 pm »
The Overture is about the same size and has nearly the same range as Concorde, but without the sonic boom and ear splitting engine noise on take-off.
Overture is essentially a 75% scale model of Concorde with three medium-bypass Rolls-Royce engines that don't exist yet. The engines will not have afterburners and should be significantly quieter on takeoff than Concorde. However, it's the only supersonic transport project of this new generation that is NOT pursuing low-boom solutions. The first flight of the XB-1 demonstrator in Mojave is apparently any month now.

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1178
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 942
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #2 on: 08/16/2022 02:59 pm »
NOT without Sonic Boom.

Still cannot do Supersonic over land.
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline soyuzu

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 281
  • Liked: 412
  • Likes Given: 229
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #3 on: 08/16/2022 03:16 pm »
The Overture is about the same size and has nearly the same range as Concorde, but without the sonic boom and ear splitting engine noise on take-off.
Overture is essentially a 75% scale model of Concorde with three medium-bypass Rolls-Royce engines that don't exist yet. The engines will not have afterburners and should be significantly quieter on takeoff than Concorde. However, it's the only supersonic transport project of this new generation that is NOT pursuing low-boom solutions. The first flight of the XB-1 demonstrator in Mojave is apparently any month now.

It has become a 2/3 scale model of Boeing 2707 after recent update

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #4 on: 08/16/2022 03:18 pm »
A smaller concord might’ve survived longer than the original concord due to higher flightrate.

That change alone could’ve made a big difference.

But also, global real GDP is more than 4 times what it was in 1969 when Concord debuted. Worldwide airline passenger volume is up like 20 times since 1969.

The original Concord was unchanged in any significant degree from 1969 debut until 2003, an extremely long run. No transatlantic passenger aircraft built in 1969 would be commercially viable today.

So with upgrading the efficiency to in line with modern standards (obvious differences due to supersonic regime!!!), upgrading avionics and safety and passenger comforts… I can definitely see it doing far better than the original Concord did. The same exact concord but with 20 times the demand for flights debuting in 1969 would’ve made the original Concord a success, with probably lots of follow-on aircraft and upgrades.

The near term wrinkle of COVID made a pretty big impact on international travel, but that’s a relatively near term thing and already in 2022 airline revenues are back to double what they were in 2003 when Concord retired.

I think Boom has a chance of success. The wrinkle I think is the fact that making ANY largeish cleansheet passenger jet is incredibly hard nowadays, costing billions in development money, even ignoring subsonic vs supersonic. Propulsion is still a huge questionmark for Overture.

If they can avoid being gobbled up by Boeing or Airbus (or some Chinese firm) while keeping above water financially, it’ll be a huge boon to the stagnant passenger aviation industry (and it’d be interesting to see them branch out to efficient subsonic as well). But let’s not burn that bridge before it hatches or whatever.
« Last Edit: 08/16/2022 03:20 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Liked: 1731
  • Likes Given: 615
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #5 on: 08/16/2022 05:04 pm »
A private supersonic jet makes more sense because the market that cares the most about trip time also wants to depart whenever they're ready to go. Some will want the prestige of owning their own supersonic jet, but most will probably want a fractional ownership arrangement like NetJets where they can fly pretty much whenever they want, and the Twitter bots can't climate-shame them because the tail number is not registered to the rich/famous people onboard.

During the heyday of Concorde, there was a stampede to the bank of payphones in the terminal after deboarding. A lot of the reason why they were paying a premium was to minimize the amount of time they were out of contact with their organizations. Today it's a different world, and with Starlink coming to commercial aviation, the loss of productivity associated with time spent on the airliner is becoming even smaller.

There is a minimum practical size involved, because a delta-winged twinjet isn't going to cut it for transoceanic flights. I was astonished when Boom announced their original plan because it was a twinjet, and with a low aspect supersonic wing, it's not very nice to lose half your thrust over the middle of the Atlantic. They pretty quickly pivoted to a trijet for this reason.

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2800
  • Liked: 1265
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #6 on: 08/16/2022 06:25 pm »
Can it carry a small airborne launcher and drop it at supersonic speed ?  ;D

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1104
    • My hobby
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 1067
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #7 on: 08/16/2022 07:52 pm »
United and American are both in contract talks with their pilots. United put their Contract vote on hold after American released a better proposal to their pilots during the voting period, and after outrage from the pilot group over the contract proposal. Boom is a combination of 3 things: incentivizing the pilots over a new toy (see also: Shiny Jet Syndrome), PR to the general public, and hiding money to not pay employees a better wage.


I doubt any pilots currently employed by either United or American will ever fly these planes.
« Last Edit: 08/16/2022 08:00 pm by JAFO »
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1008
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #8 on: 08/16/2022 08:29 pm »
It would seem that Boom is going to have to put hard currency on the table to get the engine development going if this report is correct:

https://theaircurrent.com/engine-development/boom-supersonic-rolls-royce-engine-business-model/

The article suggests that Rolls Royce wont develop the engine without Boom putting in the cash.

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Liked: 1731
  • Likes Given: 615
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #9 on: 08/16/2022 08:56 pm »
United and American are both in contract talks with their pilots. United put their Contract vote on hold after American released a better proposal to their pilots during the voting period, and after outrage from the pilot group over the contract proposal. Boom is a combination of 3 things: incentivizing the pilots over a new toy (see also: Shiny Jet Syndrome), PR to the general public, and hiding money to not pay employees a better wage.


I doubt any pilots currently employed by either United or American will ever fly these planes.
Pan Am used this strategy for quite a while. They were the first (and I think only?) US airline to place a non-binding order for Concorde, and they told their pilots that they would be the first airline pilots in America to break the sound barrier. This was the order that frakked off JFK and prompted the phone call to Juan Trippe that led to the ill-fated US SST effort.

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Liked: 1731
  • Likes Given: 615
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #10 on: 09/09/2022 01:17 pm »
Rolls-Royce has officially terminated their relationship with Boom, declining to develop engines for the aircraft:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2022-09-06/boom-seeks-engine-airlines-mull-supersonic-use-case

We here at NSF understand that it's hard for an aerospace transportation provider to innovate and to control their own destiny when they rely on other companies enmeshed in existing business models to supply appropriate engines.

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2356
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #11 on: 09/09/2022 01:58 pm »
United and American are both in contract talks with their pilots. United put their Contract vote on hold after American released a better proposal to their pilots during the voting period, and after outrage from the pilot group over the contract proposal. Boom is a combination of 3 things: incentivizing the pilots over a new toy (see also: Shiny Jet Syndrome), PR to the general public, and hiding money to not pay employees a better wage.


I doubt any pilots currently employed by either United or American will ever fly these planes.
Pan Am used this strategy for quite a while. They were the first (and I think only?) US airline to place a non-binding order for Concorde, and they told their pilots that they would be the first airline pilots in America to break the sound barrier. This was the order that frakked off JFK and prompted the phone call to Juan Trippe that led to the ill-fated US SST effort.

Bingo
. Happened in June 1963. I have an old science magazine (thanks mom) from March 1964 going into the details of the whole thing.
The same Pan Am was the first to cancel their Concorde six airframes order in January 1973 - even before the first oil shock. I can only understand why they did that. 747 was a far better bargain for them.

That engine issue is a big one. Military turbofans come the closest, but have their own limits. Civilian turbofans are quiet and fuel efficient, but way too slow. Clean-sheet-of-paper engine of course has no such such issues, but will be a huge investment for a company like Boom.

Back at EBACE 1997 Dassault (4000 combat jets and 3000 bizjets under their belt, so they know both stuff) disclosed the SSBJ projet.
Four years later they had an honest to god design but had ran into a brickwall: no way of getting an engine. They couldn't pay for a "clean sheet" one (too expensive for less than 500 airframe market) civilian turbofans were too big and slow, M88 (from their own Rafale baby) was too maintenance expensive, noisy and thirsty.

I like to be proven wrong, because Boom design is sexy and the company tries at least to tackle the "supersonic airliner" differently - no SSBJ, no Concorde either - something " in between".
But the engine problem seems to bit them back, and it is really a huge b**tch... female dog.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2022 02:02 pm by libra »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #12 on: 09/09/2022 02:02 pm »
There are so many different pumped rocket engine startups and many companies were able to make their own engines for their own launch vehicles. That enabled the proliferation of launch vehicles were have today (half of which have launched and half are set to launch in the next 24 months).

I wonder if… there just needs to be an in-house developed jet engine for this to happen.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1104
    • My hobby
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 1067
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #13 on: 09/09/2022 05:24 pm »
There are so many different pumped rocket engine startups and many companies were able to make their own engines for their own launch vehicles. That enabled the proliferation of launch vehicles were have today (half of which have launched and half are set to launch in the next 24 months).

I wonder if… there just needs to be an in-house developed jet engine for this to happen.

How do you make a Billion dollars in the airline industry?
Start with Two.

« Last Edit: 09/09/2022 05:24 pm by JAFO »
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7396
  • Liked: 2915
  • Likes Given: 1505
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #14 on: 09/10/2022 07:36 pm »
A great deal of scepticism about the prospects for supersonic airliners is expressed in the 17 August episode of Aviation Week's Check 6 podcast. Supersonic business jets are expected sooner.

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2510
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 2212
  • Likes Given: 1316
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #15 on: 09/11/2022 06:39 am »
There are so many different pumped rocket engine startups and many companies were able to make their own engines for their own launch vehicles. That enabled the proliferation of launch vehicles were have today (half of which have launched and half are set to launch in the next 24 months).

I wonder if… there just needs to be an in-house developed jet engine for this to happen.
Pratt&Whitney got a $4.4 billion dollar contract in July to develop a variant of an existing engine for the F-35.  I suspect starting from scratch and building an engine development team would not be cheap.

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2356
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #16 on: 09/11/2022 07:14 am »
I would say that rocket engines are not restricted by FAA severe noise and safety issues (although we are coming closer from this: SpaceX Starbase, cough, cough). And yes, those requirements can make an aircraft engine much, much harder to design than a rocket engine.
Can't remember the exact name of the FAA takeoff noise regulation of the early 1970's (FAR-36 ?) but it was a huge PITA for SST engine designers. Rockets have no such worries.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #17 on: 09/11/2022 08:14 am »
It would seem that Boom is going to have to put hard currency on the table to get the engine development going if this report is correct:

https://theaircurrent.com/engine-development/boom-supersonic-rolls-royce-engine-business-model/

The article suggests that Rolls Royce wont develop the engine without Boom putting in the cash.
Should anyone be surprised at this?
What's in it for RR? Kudos of developing engine for first supersonic airliner? Got that with Olympus for Concorde.  Huge new market for this engine? What huge market?

At the least Boom are looking at some serious modifications to an existing engine.  At most they are looking at a clean-sheet development.  That's for an engine to civilian standards of life, repair and maintainability and civilian safety standards.

These days for an engine that size that's a multi $Bn committment.

In the late 60's RR bet the company on carbon fiber fan blades with the RB211. They went bankrupt as a result. They have excellent component tech but are very weary of new engine development without either a major rock solid customer (100s, not 10s) or a very clear market.

Boom doesn't offer either.  :(
« Last Edit: 09/11/2022 08:40 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #18 on: 09/11/2022 08:23 am »
Can't remember the exact name of the FAA takeoff noise regulation of the early 1970's (FAR-36 ?) but it was a huge PITA for SST engine designers. Rockets have no such worries.
Actually it wasn't. When the operator finally got a hearing they were able to show that takeoff noise (at the same measurement location) was lower than that of contemporary airliners that were taking off from that runway.

What made life difficult for Concorde was the time from the complaints being made to it being heard and the fact they were banned from flying during that period.  :(

What is known to be a problem is Concorde was designed with the noise standards in effect during it's time, not  with expected future standards, and of course not with oil prices rising 300% (to $12/barrell  :o  )
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #19 on: 09/11/2022 08:38 am »
Rolls-Royce has officially terminated their relationship with Boom, declining to develop engines for the aircraft:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2022-09-06/boom-seeks-engine-airlines-mull-supersonic-use-case

We here at NSF understand that it's hard for an aerospace transportation provider to innovate and to control their own destiny when they rely on other companies enmeshed in existing business models to supply appropriate engines.
Just as we understand it's difficult for an engine manufacturer to innovate when they reuly on other companies enmeshed in existing businness models to suppy appropriate airframes  ;)
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #20 on: 09/11/2022 09:05 am »
A smaller concord might’ve survived longer than the original concord due to higher flightrate.

That change alone could’ve made a big difference.
Scheduled services don't really work like that. AFAIK all economic analyses reckon Concorde was the smallest economcially viable size for an SST (the French wanted it about 70 as the Caravelle was about that size). Modern thinking is it needs to be in the 200+ and more likely 300 pax size.

Quote from: Robotbeat
But also, global real GDP is more than 4 times what it was in 1969 when Concord debuted. Worldwide airline passenger volume is up like 20 times since 1969.

The original Concord was unchanged in any significant degree from 1969 debut until 2003, an extremely long run. No transatlantic passenger aircraft built in 1969 would be commercially viable today.
Actually there were a number of operational improvements over the years which (gradually) increased range and had other benefits. Some of them were incorporated in the "noise abatement" takeoff process

 Had they got to selling a 17th Concorde they would have done block upgrades and eliminated the after burner entirely, partly with some weight reduction, partly with aerodynamic improvements. There were possible engine upgrades as well, but they would have depended on RR doing them. IOW AB could have been eliminated in the 80s with the technology of the time.

Quote from: Robotbeat
So with upgrading the efficiency to in line with modern standards (obvious differences due to supersonic regime!!!), upgrading avionics and safety and passenger comforts… I can definitely see it doing far better than the original Concord did. The same exact concord but with 20 times the demand for flights debuting in 1969 would’ve made the original Concord a success, with probably lots of follow-on aircraft and upgrades.
Actually Concorde also had range issues. While good enough to get to Paris from NYC it would probably have been more successful if it was sized to get to Frankfurt, which is a very big European trasport hub, as is Schipol.
Quote from: Robotbeat

I think Boom has a chance of success. The wrinkle I think is the fact that making ANY largeish cleansheet passenger jet is incredibly hard nowadays, costing billions in development money, even ignoring subsonic vs supersonic. Propulsion is still a huge questionmark for Overture.

If they can avoid being gobbled up by Boeing or Airbus (or some Chinese firm) while keeping above water financially, it’ll be a huge boon to the stagnant passenger aviation industry (and it’d be interesting to see them branch out to efficient subsonic as well). But let’s not burn that bridge before it hatches or whatever.
Perhaps they should team up with Hermeus, who appear to have an engine but no aircraft  :)
« Last Edit: 09/11/2022 09:26 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #21 on: 09/11/2022 09:24 am »

During the heyday of Concorde, there was a stampede to the bank of payphones in the terminal after deboarding. A lot of the reason why they were paying a premium was to minimize the amount of time they were out of contact with their organizations. Today it's a different world, and with Starlink coming to commercial aviation, the loss of productivity associated with time spent on the airliner is becoming even smaller.
Sat phone calls in flight were availalbe for years and with nano cells on some flights are now available through your mobile. Likewise video conferencing was basically SF when Concorde first flew. With the pandemic people are a lot more used to dealing with people through a monitor.

The real market for this is for people who have to be there in person (or some document they are carrying has to be). Why doens'nt really matter but they cannot be replaced.

[EDIT and yes, that will be charged at a premium.  10x the price compared to standard fare may get you a very nice ride but it won't get you there faster

So what's getting there 2x faster worth? Anyone who thinks they will only charge what a high end fare is will likely be quite surprised. Remember the only way most of us could get this service today would be in the back seat of a military (or former military) combat plane. ]
Quote from: butters
There is a minimum practical size involved, because a delta-winged twinjet isn't going to cut it for transoceanic flights. I was astonished when Boom announced their original plan because it was a twinjet, and with a low aspect supersonic wing, it's not very nice to lose half your thrust over the middle of the Atlantic. They pretty quickly pivoted to a trijet for this reason.
Another issue will be certification. It took a long time for reliability data to build up for regulators to be OK with twin jet aircraft being so far away from a runway. IIRC its one of the reasons Dassult still offer three engine biz jets.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2022 09:49 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2356
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #22 on: 09/11/2022 10:16 am »
Concorde Olympus engine was created and funded two major ways
- British side: Vulcan and TSR-2 military legacies
- French side (also  British, make no mistake): government big vanity project, just like Apollo.
- In June 1963 PanAm ordered 6 Concordes, triggering another JFK Apollo moment: the SST mostly forgotten history...

So the engine existed (thanks the British military wallet for that) and then two governments paid for the "polishing" to civilian standards.

Boom can do the same for the first part (borrow an engine from the military, who paid for the development cost) but for the next step... they are not obviously a deep pocket government. Or TWO deep pocket governments. To pay for the engine "polishing" to civilian, FAA / EASA draconian noise and pollution certification process.
That's the big problem I think.

The case and story of Dassault SSBJ (1997-2001) is quite interesting. I often mentions it, not because I'm French but rather because Dassault is a big and experimented player in both fronts - supersonic (for the military) and civilian (Falcon bizjets).
Bottom line: despite 4000 combat jets, 70 years of experience; and 3000 bizjets, 60 years of experience; they ran into a brickwall when looking for an engine. And it sunk the project.
- military turbofans: a good basis, they have the performance and power - but they suck at pollution, noise, fuel SFC, and more annoyingly: the maintenance.
- civilian turbofans are the exact opposite. They have the correct, low maintenance, noise, pollution and SFC levels - but on the speed side, they suck.
- clean sheet design, hybrid of the above two: can be done technically, there is no question about it. "Variable cycle" is the key.
Heck, Concorde B ultimate Olympus (Mk. 625 / 626 last studies, rather than the familiar 610) in 1976 was getting close. Same for the General Electric GE.4 1971-1977 last studies: look at this link. Fascinating.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=752231
So yes, technically: could have been done right off 1977, 45 years ago.
But financially, big problem for startups like boom: WHO gonna pay ? and this is exactly what is happening to Boom, right now. Rolls Royce reaction is all too typical.

Now make no mistake: I'm not narrow minded, and I would really like to be proven wrong.  But Boom last developments with RR are all too familiar.

Boom design is sexy as hell, and they are bravely trying to tackle the "civilian supersonic aircraft" conundrum from a different direction from the usual (and doomed)
1- "Boeing or Airbus new Concorde"
or
2- "Aerion / Dassault / Sukhoi / Raytheon SSBJ: Super Sonic Business Jet."

Trying that 80-100 passengers slot is pretty daring. Bigger than the SSBJ but a touch smaller than Concorde. Bold and daring. Can't remember from the top of my head any similar concept in recent history.

The closest I can think of is Sud Aviation pre-Concorde "Super Caravelle" and that was 60 years ago - before 1962 !

4500 km range, 80 passengers: Algiers - Paris - Algiers (that was before 1962: the Year of Concorde and also the Evian agreement ceasefire that granted Algeria its independance after 8 years and 100 000 death in  a dirty bush war - but that's another story).


« Last Edit: 09/11/2022 10:20 am by libra »

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2356
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #23 on: 09/11/2022 10:28 am »
Aerion atempts at finding an engine are quite interesting.

At some point they tried tweaking the JT8D. Why ? because of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_JT8D

Quote
It was a modification of the Pratt & Whitney J52 turbojet engine which powered the US Navy A-6 Intruder attack aircraft.The Volvo RM8 is an afterburning version that was license-built in Sweden for the Saab 37 Viggen fighter.

I think Aerion hoped the two legacies (part civilian, part supersonic) could be brought together into a decent supersonic & civilian engine. Now that was some smart thinking. And they made a second, similarly clever atempt with the Affinity: this time, from the CFM56.
 Why that one ? same story ! CFM56 core is derived from the F101 of B-1 fame...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_Affinity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56

JT8D is getting too old and noisy and polluting for present day FAA rules, but CFM56 is not. So maybe Arion was right shifting from the former to the latter, both having similar evolutions and legacies.

Bottom line: Aerion tried twice to use "hybrid" engines, with one foot in the supersonic (military) world, and the other planted on the civilian side.

Well it didn't do Aerion any good, and they went under. But there were many others reasons.

So, at the end of the day most important question might be: can a startup with not-very-deep-pockets pulls out that JT8D or CFM56 "dual legacy" trick ? Getting that Affinity from powerpoint to bench testing and flying ?
« Last Edit: 09/11/2022 10:40 am by libra »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #24 on: 09/11/2022 06:00 pm »
Concorde Olympus engine was created and funded two major ways
- British side: Vulcan and TSR-2 military legacies
- French side (also  British, make no mistake): government big vanity project, just like Apollo.
- In June 1963 PanAm ordered 6 Concordes, triggering another JFK Apollo moment: the SST mostly forgotten history...

So the engine existed (thanks the British military wallet for that) and then two governments paid for the "polishing" to civilian standards.

Boom can do the same for the first part (borrow an engine from the military, who paid for the development cost) but for the next step... they are not obviously a deep pocket government. Or TWO deep pocket governments. To pay for the engine "polishing" to civilian, FAA / EASA draconian noise and pollution certification process.
That's the big problem I think.

The case and story of Dassault SSBJ (1997-2001) is quite interesting. I often mentions it, not because I'm French but rather because Dassault is a big and experimented player in both fronts - supersonic (for the military) and civilian (Falcon bizjets).

True.

Keep in mind  a lot of Concorde (like the SR71, which it actually resembles more than many people realize) was in the nacelles holding the engines. While not quite having the number of engine modes the '71 went through getting up to M3 each engine had 13 computers to control each engine/nacelle package (Most would not be what most people would call a computer, being hard wired analog or digital processors to control a specific feature, although at least one was IE a digital processor running a stored program).

The trouble is AFAIK no one builds big pure turbojets anymore (except the russians?). Those that are exist to drive target drones or UAV's

The other issue is that those turbofans use air cooling, where as the J58 didn't, relying just on the high temperature strength of the alloys used.

For this application any engine will be a compromise unless it's a clean-sheet.

The application is at a particullarly difficult point on the difficulty/volume space. Very high performance needed, but not many going to be sold.

In hindsight what Boom need to do is choose an engine and then find someone to mod it to their specific needs. The aircraft equivalent of an automotive engine tuneup place (do such companies exist?)

TBH I thought aerion had a better chance since they could target the high-value corporate travel market. Certification is always going to be tough.

MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14450
  • UK
  • Liked: 4149
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #25 on: 09/19/2022 08:14 am »
Seems no one is interested in developing an engine for Boom.

Quote
In the wake of Rolls-Royce’s departure from Boom Supersonic’s Overture programme, three additional propulsion specialists have indicated they have no interest in developing powerplants for supersonic civilian aircraft, leaving fresh questions about who will supply the jet’s engines.

Boom is developing Overture, a four-engined airliner it says will carry 65-80 passengers, fly at Mach 1.7 and have range of 4,250nm (7,871km). First delivery is scheduled for 2029.

However, as yet, there is no engine supplier. That issue was brought into focus last week when Rolls-Royce announced it was exiting the project having completed contracted engineering studies.

Now GE Aviation, Honeywell and Safran Aircraft Engines tell FlightGlobal they also have no interest in developing engines for civil supersonic aircraft.

GE Aviation had been tipped to step in to the Overture programme using a version of the Affinity engine it had been working on to power a supersonic business jet being developed by now-defunct Aerion, a US company that failed in May 2021 amid financial difficulties.

But the engine manufacturer rules itself out: “Civil supersonic is not a segment that we are currently pursuing,” GE Aviation says.

Another of the relatively few companies capable of developing such a powerplant – Pratt & Whitney – declines to comment on the Overture programme. But a top P&W executive stresses that the company remains focused on subsonic engines.

“We haven’t added [civil supersonic] into our overall business strategy,” P&W chief sustainability officer Graham Webb says. He calls supersonic civil aircraft “tangential” to P&W’s core market, and cites efficiency concerns. Indeed, a 2022 report from The International Council on Clean Transportation found that supersonic passenger aircraft would use 7-9 times more fuel per passenger, per kilometre, than subsonic jets burning fossil fuel. ICAO cited the study in its 2022 Environmental Report.

For those reasons, P&W is dumping resources into boosting the efficiency of its geared turbofan. It aims to have an improved powerplant available for the narrowbody jets Airbus and Boeing are expected to field in the mid-2030s, Webb says. “There’s a bit of risk – in terms of distracting your resources, your engineering team – on something that is kind of in a different sector.”

Boom insists Overture will be environmentally sustainable, offsetting its carbon output by burning sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

“This is the first airplane that is… capable of meeting net-zero carbon,” Boom chief executive Blake Scholl says. “We care deeply about making this not just good for passengers, not just good for airlines, but also good for the planet.”

ICAO’s report calls supersonic jets a “poor use of scarce SAF supplies”, saying their fuel burn largely negates SAF benefits in relation to subsonic jets burning fossil fuel.

Aerospace analysts say few other engine manufacturers could take on the Overture project. “Nobody else can do an engine in this class, realistically, although Honeywell and Safran aren’t inconceivable,” says Richard Aboulafia with AeroDynamic Advisory.

But those companies are also apparently out. “Honeywell has no plans right now to develop a supersonic engine for civilian aircraft,” it says. Honeywell makes turbofans for business jets and Leonardo’s M-346 light-attack/trainer aircraft.

“Supersonic is not part of Safran Aircraft Engines commercial propulsion strategy,” adds the French engine maker.

Safran holds a massive chunk of the civil turbofan market via its CFM International joint venture with GE, which produces Leap engines for Airbus and Boeing narrowbodies.

Safran remains “strongly focused on the RISE initiative to develop the technologies for the next generation of narrowbody aircraft engines,” Safran says.

RISE – Revolutionary Innovation for Sustainable Engines – is a joint Safran-GE effort to develop an open-rotor powerplant, delivering a 20% fuel-burn saving at service entry, likely in the mid-2030s. RISE aligns with a broad push by the aerospace industry to reduce emissions.

Michael Merluzeau, aerospace consultant with AIR, says International Aero Engines (IAE) could “theoretically” have an engine for Boom. A consortium including P&W, MTU Aero Engines and Japanese Aero Engines, IAE makes V2500s, which power aircraft including first-generation A320s and the Embraer C-390.

“That does not, however, mean the engine can be adapted for the Overture [and] can deliver maintenance, fuel burn and performance required, Merluzeau says.

Overture needs “more firm [order] commitments and a firmer industrial roadmap” to attract an engine supplier, he adds. “Without an effective propulsion system, this is a programme that is not going anywhere any time soon.”

R-R on 8 September said it was departing the Boom programme. “After careful consideration, Rolls-Royce has determined that the commercial aviation supersonic market is not currently a priority for us and, therefore, will not pursue further work on the programme at this time,” it said.

In response, Boom said: “It became clear that Rolls’ proposed engine design and legacy business model is not the best option for Overture’s future airline operators or passengers”.

Despite many questions, Scholl insists Overture development is on track, reiterating the company will soon announce an engine partner. He points to order commitments from customers including American Airlines and United Airlines.

“We would not have the customer relationships we have if the airplane that we’re building was not one that the airlines wanted, and so, I think… that speaks for itself,” Scholl says.

In June 2021, United said it had signed a “commercial agreement” – that included a deposit for an undisclosed amount – to buy 15 Overtures contingent on “demanding safety, operating and sustainability requirements”.

Then in August, American said it too had paid a “non-refundable deposit” – it also did not say how much – as part of an agreement to buy up to 20 of the jets.

Boom’s other partners include Safran Landing Systems, Collins Aerospace, fuel-system company Eaton and Northrop Grumman, which is helping with a military variant.

”I feel really good about this – very, very confident we are going to have a great answer. We are looking at multiple offers,” Scholl says.

Story updated on 16 September to note that GE’s engine is called Affinity and that The International Council on Clean Transportation completed the research cited in ICAO’s study.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/engine-makers-sound-downbeat-on-supersonic-leaving-boom-in-a-bind/150215.article

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #26 on: 09/19/2022 09:15 am »
Seems no one is interested in developing an engine for Boom.

P&W were about the closest they got to maybe consider it will work.

But it's a niche market. It really comes down to 2 options.

1)Go with a military engine with minimal changes and swallow the issues such designs have
2)Go with a civilian engine and wrap it in a nacelle (which you're going to do anyway). Now if they used a precooler on the front of it......

Whatever people say in presentations this task is complex.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Liked: 1189
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #27 on: 09/20/2022 01:57 am »
Well, that doesn't really leave many options does it. If they want a US military variant of Overture, then russian engines aren't happening, and no chinese engines either. Who else does that leave?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14450
  • UK
  • Liked: 4149
  • Likes Given: 220

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #29 on: 09/20/2022 12:24 pm »
Well, that doesn't really leave many options does it. If they want a US military variant of Overture, then russian engines aren't happening, and no chinese engines either. Who else does that leave?
It does make things kind of tough.  :(

The French (but Saffran has said "non" already)?   :(

India? They have a vigerous aircraft industry, are in the West. But on the Wiki list of supersonic aircraft their "Tejas" is engined by a GE 404.

Japan and Israel also build supersonic aircraft, but again their engines seem to be versions of GE engines, nothing home grown. It's not that surprising. LBR turbofans are a niche market. Fuel efficiency is not exactly their strong suite.  :(

And then of course there's the fact that they have raised about $600m (a lot of money by rocket startup standards) but are needing $6-8Bn.

Of course if you have nothing to lose and are a world-class fund raiser there's a little outfit in Abingdon, Oxford that might be worth a call.  ;)
[EDIT Also South Korea and Sweden and Pakistan, but again you have to ask where do the engines come from? Looks like the GE 404 except for South Korea (Honeywell F125) or Pakistan (Klimov RD33). Probably not a viable option]
« Last Edit: 09/20/2022 02:18 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #30 on: 09/20/2022 01:14 pm »
Ukraine…
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #31 on: 09/20/2022 02:56 pm »
Ukraine…
What's left of Antonov is based in the Ukraine, but is merged into a Ukrainian state owned aircraft company.

And IIRC most of its products were transport aircraft, nothing supersonic.

Unless you have someone else in mind?

There appear to be several hang- and para-gliding mfgs based there.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #32 on: 09/20/2022 04:50 pm »
They did a bunch of rocket engine work, too. Point is they could make engines for probably an unbeatably cheap price if they weren’t currently being invaded. Aerospace labor costs there are less than a tenth those of the US, IIRC.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #33 on: 09/20/2022 07:21 pm »
They did a bunch of rocket engine work, too. Point is they could make engines for probably an unbeatably cheap price if they weren’t currently being invaded. Aerospace labor costs there are less than a tenth those of the US, IIRC.
I did'nt know they'd done any engine work.

Unfortunately Boom need a jet engine. Ideally a straight turbojet, rather than a Low Bypass Ratio turbofan, which no one seems to make any more in large sizes (like the ones on the XB70 for example).

But I'm betting the best  you can get these days will be a LBR turbofan.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6897
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10530
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #34 on: 09/20/2022 08:47 pm »
Option 1: Military surplus.
Cons - supply is sporadic and constrained (if you can purchase at all), engines are at or beyond reasonable service life, service is expensive, parts are likely limited or unavailable, limited total number of engines available (but likely beyond actual need), high maintenance load, poor fuel efficiency, noise concerns.
Pros - Engines know to work (or at least, have worked in that application), likely cheap per unit if you can buy them at all, lower R&D cost (adapting airframe design to accommodate engines rather than developing engines from scratch), existing base of trained technicians, likely fastest way to get something flying even if suboptimal in terms of maintenance and efficiency.

Option 2: Modify high bypass engine themselves.
Cons - Large R&D workload and cost, time delay before first flight, no technical experience in that field, shoulder engine maintenance costs internally.
Pros - No contractor telling you 'no'.

Option 3: Develop engine internally.
Cons - Greatest R&D workload and cost, huge delay before first flight, no technical experience in that field, shoulder engine maintenance costs internally.
Pros - Engine tailored to their application. Possibility of lower overall cost than paying contractor to develop a new engine for you (but far higher risk of cost overruns).

2 and 3 offer the possibility of going for an Ammonia-cycle engine, but with even grater R&D cost and risks. However, it has the tantalising possibility of an actually carbon-emission-free engine (completely quashing most complaints over carbon emissions per passenger mile) and usage of inlet air cooling for both Ammonia cracking and performance boost (a'la RF-4X).

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Liked: 1189
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #35 on: 09/21/2022 01:04 am »
Ukraine…

Motor Sich/Ivchenko-Progress would be who you probably go to, but they seem to be primarily turboshaft/turbofan makers/designers. There is the Ivchenko-Progress AI-222, but that's kinda small. There is the small matter of damage to the Zaporizhzhia airport area, where the facilities are located.

Still, a large foreign investment for engine development in Ukraine would get more mileage per dollar spent compared to many other places, and the Ukrainian government is incentivized to bring projects for domestic design/manufacture jobs to avoid an engineer brain drain.

Offline ZuluLima

  • Member
  • Posts: 30
  • Dallas, Texas
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #36 on: 09/21/2022 07:12 am »
Option 3: Develop engine internally.

Okay, we can stop even mentioning that option right now.  It is impossible, period.  There are only 4 companies on earth that could make this kind of engine, and it would take billions of dollars and many years for them, the experienced, established players with existing designs, infrastructure, workforce, etc to pull it off.  If Rolls freaking Royce can't handle the project, no one who isn't named GE, Pratt & Whitney, or Safran can.  Even the Russians and Chinese are several decades behind, despite vast resources being thrown at engine development in the past half century.  Simply put, jet engines are THE bleeding edge of technology right now.  A program like this makes a methalox rocket engine look like a bicycle.  The metallurgy alone would bankrupt most nations.  Not exaggerating; notice how there are only 3 world-power nations represented on the list above.

I won't even get started on "Possibility of lower overall cost than paying contractor to develop a new engine for you" or "possibility of an actually carbon-emission-free engine" as this is several magnitudes of order beyond fantasy.
« Last Edit: 09/21/2022 07:20 am by ZuluLima »

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6897
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10530
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #37 on: 09/21/2022 09:03 am »
Similar claims of impossible complexity were made for rocket engines, but reality has proven otherwise.

Boom also do not need the most bleeding-edgiest high-bypass turbofans on the planet, nor do they need an elaborate hypersonic engine. What they need is the state of the art as of the mid 1950s, and their problem is the market has moved away from servicing that need.

RR did not claim they could not make the engine (they've even manufactured engines of the required specifications in the past), they just don't want to shoulder the economic risk of doing so.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Liked: 1189
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #38 on: 09/21/2022 09:56 am »
Similar claims of impossible complexity were made for rocket engines, but reality has proven otherwise.

Boom also do not need the most bleeding-edgiest high-bypass turbofans on the planet, nor do they need an elaborate hypersonic engine. What they need is the state of the art as of the mid 1950s, and their problem is the market has moved away from servicing that need.

RR did not claim they could not make the engine (they've even manufactured engines of the required specifications in the past), they just don't want to shoulder the economic risk of doing so.

Would RR be amenable to licensing the design to a Ukrainian maker perhaps? Same for GE?

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #39 on: 09/21/2022 11:24 am »
Boom also do not need the most bleeding-edgiest high-bypass turbofans on the planet,
High bypass ratio is exactly what the don't need, but is exactly what the market wants to provide, outside military applications.
Quote from: edzieba
What they need is the state of the art as of the mid 1950s, and their problem is the market has moved away from servicing that need.
Unfortunately that won't cut it either. That was good enough for Concorde, back when oil was $3/barrel.

In 2022 that's not going to cut it.  :(

Quote from: edzieba
RR did not claim they could not make the engine (they've even manufactured engines of the required specifications in the past), they just don't want to shoulder the economic risk of doing so.
Whatever Boom's CEO says the existing market for what they are looking for is either miniscule, or non-existent.

I think in-house mfg (directly or through sub-contractors) is not entirely impossible.

What boom need is a turbojet or LBR turbofan. One option reduces the size of features needed (significantly widening the number of possible companies that could help). The other eliminates it as a problem entirely.

Then we get the power turbine blades. SoA blades are inlet air cooled (with elaborate internal channels), ideally cast as single crystals. Very high tech.

OTOH one of the key features of the J58 core was that it had no air cooling. It just relied on keeping the blades cold enough.
In fact a key feature of the J58 used on the SR71 was that most of the "cold" parts were also made out of high temperature alloys, necessitating P&W learning out to make stuff that was traditionally forged in lumps (IE Blades) into sheet or thin sections.
In the 70+ years since Kelly Johnson's team started trying to mfg it metallurgy has moved on a bit.
This suggests the outline of a possible plan.
Choose a more modern alloy with an upper usage temperature may 100-200c higher, preferably not powder metellurgy.
No air cooled blades. No single crystal blades
Used forged disks and machine the blades integrally to the disk (obviously this is a compromise material and puts a forge in your critical path. The alternative is cast, and that puts a foundry in your critical path).
Gas turbine speeds favor small high speed alternators and power electronics. Use electric actuation through long rods for engine and flight controls.

Engine casings have to be strong to contain blade failure. That suggests a forged casing of relatively large diameter (although squeeze casting might be an option). Obviously if it were possible to design to a diameter of an existing casing they could approach the forge house and ask to use some of them as "raw" forgings, bespoked to their internal design. Risky, but potentially quite a money saver. OTOH centrifugal casting can deliver high quality castings at <= 8m in diameter, as the impurities and dross are forced to the center, allowing them to be machined away.

For simplicity "Can" type combustors allow that part of the engine to be developed as small units that are replicated once the design is stable.

It's not got to compete with the other SoA engine mfgs products. It's just got to be good enough to fly the mission. :(

I suspect the real challenge would be getting commercial grade reliability. Airliners have logged engines with 40 000 hrs on the wing, without removal for a major overhaul. I'm not sure what the current standard expectation is, but I'd guess 10 K hrs minimum?

I don't think an in-house engine is completely impossible, but it's very demanding and you can expect the FAA will be all over them for this (in addition to being all over them for the aircraft itself).

What has changed from the 50's is the level of technological leverage available, allowing a sufficiently skilled small team to deliver results that historically needed a much larger team to deliver in the same timeframe.

Time will tell if a new player steps forward (Honeywell?), they bite the bullet and build in-house or if this is the final nail in the coffin.  :(
« Last Edit: 09/21/2022 11:42 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2356
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #40 on: 09/21/2022 12:33 pm »
Quote
. That was good enough for Concorde, back when oil was $3/barrel.

Not even close. PanAm cancelled their orders in January 1973, not 1974 - that is months BEFORE the first oil shock
. It has been calculated since that even with 74 orders and even without the first oil shock, Concorde business case would not have closed, and by a long shot.
The reason is, 130 passengers at Mach 2.0 over the Atlantic ain't enough. Not enough passengers, and not enough daily rotations between New York and Europe and back: two ain't enough, but Mach 2.05 can't do any better.

What was needed was 250 passengers at Mach 2.7 and three daily rotations between N.Y and Europe (Paris / London and back).
Wait, does that sound familiar ? Boeing 2707-300 had the economic case right, but technology couldn't fulfill it - it resulted in a bloated titanium monster (300 feet long !) with noisy and voracious GE4 turbojets, themselves scaled up XB-70 J93s.

There are many ironies in that first (and only one so far) "great SST race".

That PanAm in June 1963 was the one that started it all by buying six Concordes, forcing JFK to get another Apollo moment with the SST.
That PanAm exactly 10 years later (or close) was essentially the one that stopped it, when they canned the exact same order, six Concordes, in January 1973.
That the SST got the economic case nearly right (three daily rotations over the Atlantic takes Mach 2.7, with 250, not 140, passengers) but could not build it in the end.

A very interesting story.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #41 on: 09/21/2022 02:04 pm »
Quote
. That was good enough for Concorde, back when oil was $3/barrel.

Not even close. PanAm cancelled their orders in January 1973, not 1974 - that is months BEFORE the first oil shock

"Good enough" in the sense a)It got built b)It flew for the following 27 years without any major crashes.

I think I've noted on several occaisions that the general view was it was too small, and the French wanted originally to make it smaller still.

OT how would M5 with a 20 000Km range affect viability?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #42 on: 09/21/2022 02:15 pm »
Option 3: Develop engine internally.

Okay, we can stop even mentioning that option right now.  It is impossible, period. 
I don’t think Boom will do that, and they’d almost certainly go bust if they tried, but that’s poppycock.

Jet engines are very complicated, but they are not magical.

This reminds me of when making pumpfed rocket engines was only considered possible for a handful of aerospace primes, now you have everyone and their mom building them. Even amateurs are building turbopumps and some of these small space companies like Ursa Major (and Launcher) are building oxygen-rich staged combustion engines, which literally no US company had done 20 years ago (and was thought practically impossible before the fall of the Iron Curtain).

An axial flow jet engine is more mechanically complicated than the typical centrifugal turbopump, but the same “impossible for the little guys” mindset that was common 20-30 years ago for pumpfed engines that people have for jet engines today is just as magical-thinking as anything else.

It’s not magic, it’s just physics and engineering.

People who talk like this demonstrate their own ignorance (on the one hand) or hubris (on the other).
« Last Edit: 09/21/2022 02:23 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2356
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #43 on: 09/21/2022 04:10 pm »
Nobody said it was TECHNICALLY impossible to design that engine. It is feasible, for at least the best part of the last 50 years. Near the end of SST and Concorde (mid-1970's, aproximately)  both GE4 and Olympus were still evolving (Olympus 625 and the GE4 variants described there https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=752231 ) - to a point were they would no longer need afterburner at all. Not even at takeoff or to push through the sound barrier: supercruise (Concorde already did it partially).
And the next step beyond that was "variable cycle" but it never got off the drawing boards.

Back to Boom: they could do an "ideal" engine from scratch, or one of the big players could do it. Technically - no problem.

The big impossibility is: economically. Would cost Boom or G.E or Pratt or RR or CFM an arm and a leg, and what's really annoying: the market ain't there. 500 airframes absolute best case is not enough to repay both RR and Boom billion dollars sunk into the development cost of that "ideal" engine (ideal = adapted to Boom & FAA draconian noise and fuel and pollution constraints).


Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #44 on: 09/21/2022 04:52 pm »
This reminds me of when making pumpfed rocket engines was only considered possible for a handful of aerospace primes, now you have everyone and their mom building them. Even amateurs are building turbopumps and some of these small space companies like Ursa Major (and Launcher) are building oxygen-rich staged combustion engines, which literally no US company had done 20 years ago (and was thought practically impossible before the fall of the Iron Curtain).
Your comments reminded me of something.

Big truck turbochargers.

The sort of thing you see on 18 wheelers.

Turns out the mfgs have a similar problem. Ideally they'd like to cast them, as is done with car turbos. But the volume won't justify the non recurring engineering given the complexity of the mold needed.  :(

The solution? Machine from a solid billet. IIRC they start with a  something like a 20lb block and 19hours later it's done, with a large pile of chips to be recycled.

This would be totally impossible without 5-axis CNC fed direct from the CAD drawings and real time monitoring of key dimensions that modern machines allow. But now that hardware exists it is possible. Making what was uneconomic (given the potential market and the price they would accept) affordable. 

It might (and I'm not sure that it doesn't) not have the last 1% of efficiency because (perhaps) the blades cannot incorporate the subtlety of shape a casting could, but it's good enough to get the job done.

Just a data point to consider.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Liked: 1731
  • Likes Given: 615
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #45 on: 09/21/2022 04:58 pm »
Option 3: Develop engine internally.

Okay, we can stop even mentioning that option right now.  It is impossible, period. 
I don’t think Boom will do that, and they’d almost certainly go bust if they tried, but that’s poppycock.

Jet engines are very complicated, but they are not magical.

This reminds me of when making pumpfed rocket engines was only considered possible for a handful of aerospace primes, now you have everyone and their mom building them. Even amateurs are building turbopumps and some of these small space companies like Ursa Major (and Launcher) are building oxygen-rich staged combustion engines, which literally no US company had done 20 years ago (and was thought practically impossible before the fall of the Iron Curtain).

An axial flow jet engine is more mechanically complicated than the typical centrifugal turbopump, but the same “impossible for the little guys” mindset that was common 20-30 years ago for pumpfed engines that people have for jet engines today is just as magical-thinking as anything else.

It’s not magic, it’s just physics and engineering.

People who talk like this demonstrate their own ignorance (on the one hand) or hubris (on the other).
The biggest difference between the jet and rocket engine industry is that if your jet engine is 10% less efficient than the market leader, nobody will take your calls. It's a much more mature market with much higher barriers to entry because the state of the art is much more refined. Advanced economies like Japan can't market indigenous high-bypass turbofan engines. They can only aspire to build components of jet engines as part of international alliances.

Meanwhile, the most successful rocket engine in the world at the moment is an open-cycle design than dumps lots of propellant overboard. If you've got a rocket engine in serial production that works reliably and the price is right, prospective customers will call you. The standards are much lower. Japan can make rocket engines that are good enough. At least for their own purposes if not also for customers.

In aviation even seemingly straightforward engine solutions are hard. Maybe look up how many times companies have tried and failed to market general aviation piston engines based on highly reliable Mercedes-Benz automotive diesel engines. It seems like a great idea to make light piston aircraft that don't rely on expensive and unhealthy leaded aviation gasoline, but ultimately it was easier to prove that a fancy new unleaded gasoline formulation works in everything from a Piper Cub to a B-29 Superfortress than to introduce time-tested automotive engines to the general aviation market. And that's just general aviation. Large transport category jets are subject to much more rigorous requirements.

Also, since aircraft engines are expected to be reusable, nobody just buys an aircraft engine. They also buy a service contract, and they expect a certain level of service, usually distributed around the world. This is a huge barrier to entry. Service contractors are very conservative. They know the engines they know, and they don't like engines they don't know. It's hard to predict costs. So the engine manufacturer usually has to bootstrap their own network of service providers at great expense while still offering very underwhelming service compared to the established players.

Who would buy reusable rocket engines from SpaceX without a contract for SpaceX-trained maintenance teams to process the engines between flights? The same thing will gradually happen with rocket engines. Barriers to entry right now are still pretty reasonable. It won't stay that way forever. Especially because of reusability, it will become harder to market new rocket engine designs, more like it is with new aircraft engines. The standard of excellence is becoming more difficult to attain.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1813
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #46 on: 09/21/2022 05:27 pm »
Think Boom Aerospace should have settled on an engine that could be brought into service before even considering the rest of the aircraft.

Maybe a non-afterburning civilian version of of the Pratt & Whitney F119 low bypass turbofan.

Then design a supersonic airliner with maybe four PW5000 (aka F119) engines.

Note - Rolls-Royce still have nightmares with the RB211 Trent engine development.

Offline ZuluLima

  • Member
  • Posts: 30
  • Dallas, Texas
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #47 on: 09/22/2022 12:07 am »
Jet engines are very complicated, but they are not magical.

An axial flow jet engine is more mechanically complicated than the typical centrifugal turbopump, but the same “impossible for the little guys” mindset that was common 20-30 years ago for pumpfed engines that people have for jet engines today is just as magical-thinking as anything else.

It’s not magic, it’s just physics and engineering.

People who talk like this demonstrate their own ignorance (on the one hand) or hubris (on the other).

People who hand-wave away knowledgeable criticisms demonstrate their own ignorance, too.  Try to grasp what is being proposed; name ONE current engine that is capable of what Boom needs.  Must be:
1. Certified as safe for commercial use and for emissions in post-2030 western world.
2. Efficient enough to support range requirements (ocean-crossing) and economics of airline industry.
3. Capable of supercruise (supersonic without afterburner) at M1.7.
4. Capable of all-day flight-cadence at over 99.8% dispatch reliability, roughly the current standard, and high Mean Time Between Overhauls.
5. Sized to fit in a smallish nacelle with all fittings.
6. MANY more technical and practical issues that suffuse the aviation industry.

I'm sure a startup with modest funding and 0 track record can easily design, manufacture, test, certify, deliver, and support such an engine with never-before-seen performance while simultaneously doing the same for the vehicle, which no one else is also even attempting.  Because, "it's not magic".
« Last Edit: 09/22/2022 12:10 am by ZuluLima »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #48 on: 09/22/2022 12:31 am »
Option 3: Develop engine internally.

Okay, we can stop even mentioning that option right now.  It is impossible, period. 
I don’t think Boom will do that, and they’d almost certainly go bust if they tried, but that’s poppycock.

Jet engines are very complicated, but they are not magical.

This reminds me of when making pumpfed rocket engines was only considered possible for a handful of aerospace primes, now you have everyone and their mom building them. Even amateurs are building turbopumps and some of these small space companies like Ursa Major (and Launcher) are building oxygen-rich staged combustion engines, which literally no US company had done 20 years ago (and was thought practically impossible before the fall of the Iron Curtain).

An axial flow jet engine is more mechanically complicated than the typical centrifugal turbopump, but the same “impossible for the little guys” mindset that was common 20-30 years ago for pumpfed engines that people have for jet engines today is just as magical-thinking as anything else.

It’s not magic, it’s just physics and engineering.

People who talk like this demonstrate their own ignorance (on the one hand) or hubris (on the other).
The biggest difference between the jet and rocket engine industry is that if your jet engine is 10% less efficient than the market leader, nobody will take your calls....
Balooney. That's true for rocket engines, too. If you have a hydrolox upper stage engine with just 410s vacuum Isp (vs 450-460s), good luck getting anyone to pick up the phone.

And if just accepting 90% of their desired efficiency initially was all they'd have to do to get an engine, Boom would be happy to do it.

Really don't care for people who over-fit on the status quo of the existing, stifled ("mature") industry as the only way things can be done trying to speak authoritatively on what a new effort can and cannot "possibly" do for a new kind of aircraft (supersonic passenger jet) not represented at all in the current status quo fleet.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2022 01:00 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #49 on: 09/22/2022 12:32 am »
Jet engines are very complicated, but they are not magical.

An axial flow jet engine is more mechanically complicated than the typical centrifugal turbopump, but the same “impossible for the little guys” mindset that was common 20-30 years ago for pumpfed engines that people have for jet engines today is just as magical-thinking as anything else.

It’s not magic, it’s just physics and engineering.

People who talk like this demonstrate their own ignorance (on the one hand) or hubris (on the other).

People who hand-wave away knowledgeable criticisms demonstrate their own ignorance, too. ...
You start throwing around words like "impossible" and you've gone beyond "knowledgeable criticisms" and have engaged in hyperbole.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2022 01:01 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2356
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #50 on: 09/22/2022 03:42 am »
Jet engines are very complicated, but they are not magical.

An axial flow jet engine is more mechanically complicated than the typical centrifugal turbopump, but the same “impossible for the little guys” mindset that was common 20-30 years ago for pumpfed engines that people have for jet engines today is just as magical-thinking as anything else.

It’s not magic, it’s just physics and engineering.

People who talk like this demonstrate their own ignorance (on the one hand) or hubris (on the other).

People who hand-wave away knowledgeable criticisms demonstrate their own ignorance, too.  Try to grasp what is being proposed; name ONE current engine that is capable of what Boom needs.  Must be:
1. Certified as safe for commercial use and for emissions in post-2030 western world.
2. Efficient enough to support range requirements (ocean-crossing) and economics of airline industry.
3. Capable of supercruise (supersonic without afterburner) at M1.7.
4. Capable of all-day flight-cadence at over 99.8% dispatch reliability, roughly the current standard, and high Mean Time Between Overhauls.
5. Sized to fit in a smallish nacelle with all fittings.
6. MANY more technical and practical issues that suffuse the aviation industry.

I'm sure a startup with modest funding and 0 track record can easily design, manufacture, test, certify, deliver, and support such an engine with never-before-seen performance while simultaneously doing the same for the vehicle, which no one else is also even attempting.  Because, "it's not magic".

You have my support. Technically: certainly doable. But from a business case point of view ? it is a killer. Boom will do no better than Aerion nor any of the previous SSBJ projects (Dassault included) because of that engine issue. Could be done on technical grounds; but it would cost an arm and a leg, and the business case would not close, as the market is too small (some hundred airframes is NOT enough to repay some billion dollars of engine development cost).


Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #51 on: 09/22/2022 06:51 am »

People who hand-wave away knowledgeable criticisms demonstrate their own ignorance, too.  Try to grasp what is being proposed; name ONE current engine that is capable of what Boom needs.  Must be:
1. Certified as safe for commercial use and for emissions in post-2030 western world.
2. Efficient enough to support range requirements (ocean-crossing) and economics of airline industry.
3. Capable of supercruise (supersonic without afterburner) at M1.7.
4. Capable of all-day flight-cadence at over 99.8% dispatch reliability, roughly the current standard, and high Mean Time Between Overhauls.
5. Sized to fit in a smallish nacelle with all fittings.
6. MANY more technical and practical issues that suffuse the aviation industry.
All of which applies for a commercial product that's designed to be sold to other customers, which is probably why RR turned them down from going any further.

But if they are doing it on their own then the engine becomes a part of the package
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2356
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #52 on: 09/22/2022 06:55 am »
Bottom line: whoever develop that peculiar engine has to find some billion dollars in development costs. Then - who pays for that ? That's the HUUUUGE issue with supersonic civilian, be it SSBJ or SST.

Plus the sonic boom. Flying overwater is a bit restrictive  although acceptable.

There seems to be a new, larger issue. Flying supersonic - basic physics - can only be fuel intensive. With the accelerating global warming and the growing anger at commercial aviation, it is perhaps not a good time to fly supersonic, civilian.
Aviation already has hard times trying to find a viable kerosene substitute: ammonia, hydrogen, mix of the two (my favorite solution)  SAF, batteries... none is a panacea. And this is for subsonic civilian travel.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #53 on: 09/22/2022 06:57 am »
Balooney. That's true for rocket engines, too. If you have a hydrolox upper stage engine with just 410s vacuum Isp (vs 450-460s), good luck getting anyone to pick up the phone.

And if just accepting 90% of their desired efficiency initially was all they'd have to do to get an engine, Boom would be happy to do it.
True.
Quote from: Robotbeat
Really don't care for people who over-fit on the status quo of the existing, stifled ("mature") industry as the only way things can be done trying to speak authoritatively on what a new effort can and cannot "possibly" do for a new kind of aircraft (supersonic passenger jet) not represented at all in the current status quo fleet.
But if Boom want to go this way they will have to offer support for their product, and in the aircraft world that means on a global basis (SX will have to do this if they go ahead with their ballistic transport ideas as well).
That sort of logistics support simply does not exist in the rocket launch market.

MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #54 on: 09/22/2022 07:10 am »
Bottom line: whoever develop that peculiar engine has to find some billion dollars in development costs. Then - who pays for that ? That's the HUUUUGE issue with supersonic civilian, be it SSBJ or SST.
That's the circle you have to square. The market is tiny and the engine is key. Concorde designers had an adequate engine on hand with the Olympus before they started.

Quote from: libra
Plus the sonic boom. Flying overwater is a bit restrictive  although acceptable.
Depends on how much range you have. With 20 000Km going M5 is not impossible even with subsonic segments.

Quote from: libra
There seems to be a new, larger issue. Flying supersonic - basic physics - can only be fuel intensive. With the accelerating global warming and the growing anger at commercial aviation, it is perhaps not a good time to fly supersonic, civilian.
Aviation already has hard times trying to find a viable kerosene substitute: ammonia, hydrogen, mix of the two (my favorite solution)  SAF, batteries... none is a panacea. And this is for subsonic civilian travel.
With CO2 having an atmospheric lifetime of 300-1000 years even if all CO2 production stopped tomorrow it would take a minimum of 3 centuries to drop back to pre-industrial levels (except they wouldn't be pre-industrial levels as there are seveal billion more people on the planet). Given some GHG's have lifetimes in milenia and global warming potentials in the 1000s it will take active GHG reduction measures to save the human race.

Supersonic flight is a red herring that will change nothing about global warming, although O3 depletion is more of an issue. Mitigation methods exist for H2 combustion and NH3 is an option with work Reaction Engines have done.

One idea I don't think anyone has considered is to power the compressor with batteries.

Someone has acutally built such a jet engine (for a bench test) using an electric motor to drive the compressor. I've literally no idea if the mass numbers work out, but it would ditch all the heavy high temperature turbine section and greatly simplify the hardware.

Otherwise water spray injection as they proposed for Peace Jack. Knocking 1.5M off the top speed will certainly lower the temperatures (of some parts) quite considerably.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2356
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #55 on: 09/22/2022 08:24 am »
Quote
With 20 000Km going M5

I would rather go suborbital with a rocket in the tail, rather than hypersonic inside the atmosphere with any scramjet. Use kerosene as fuel, and whatever few begning oxidizer on hand (that's the real PITA: bar N2O and H2O2, there are preciously little alternatives to classic LOX, a deep cryogen a bit annoying for airports ground crews, or a military base mechanics).

A specific impulse of 345 and a prop mass fraction of 0.80 could get 6500 m/s of delta-v, and with that ballistic range could be  7000 km to 12 000 km - depends whether or not the trajectory is flattened to not hit the lower van Allen belts. Ballistics are certainly a b**tch, as are the rocket equation and the heat barrier, the latter for hypersonics. Also sonic booms. Together they are kind of four horsemen of non-subsonic aerial passenger transportation.

But we are disgressing away from Boom... (or bust, which I don't wish them: I love their design).

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Liked: 1189
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #56 on: 09/22/2022 08:27 am »

One idea I don't think anyone has considered is to power the compressor with batteries.

Someone has acutally built such a jet engine (for a bench test) using an electric motor to drive the compressor. I've literally no idea if the mass numbers work out, but it would ditch all the heavy high temperature turbine section and greatly simplify the hardware.

Battery boost was sorta proposed with some SUGARVOLT concepts I think, but that was turbofan takeoff power mostly. If you're burning fuel though, and not running a turbine, then you're basically running an electrically pumped rocket right? That's gonna be LOUD, meaning getting tier 3/4 noise pollution clearance will be an issue.


I think the last time there was talk of electrically driven compressors was the S-MAGJET/H-MAGJET Hypermach guys with their Sonicstar bizjet, who essentially proposed a shaftless engine using electric rim drive motor compressor counterrotating blisks and rim drive generators driven by counterrotating  turbine blisks, turbine power also powering a MHD accelerator aft of the turbine as the exhaust was seeded. The aim was to allow dissimilar rotation rates for the turbines and compressors beyond what geared turbofan style planetary gear systems could provide, so the compressors and turbines could be better tailored to their individual environments (and allow compressor boost from batteries).

S-MAGJET as a design alone doesn't really solve the hot turbine blade problem though if they are using mostly conventional axial turbine blades. They were also fooling around with plasma combustion so they could somehow achieve laminar flow over the turbine blades.


Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #57 on: 09/22/2022 09:55 am »
I would rather go suborbital with a rocket in the tail, rather than hypersonic inside the atmosphere with any scramjet.
I wasn't thinking of a SCramjet. That's what Reaction Engines were looking at for the baseline design for LAPCAT II. The Germans wanted to go with kero for their SCramjet design but couldn't get the range to go Brussels/Sydney  :( There was a follow up EU programme that looked at structures for such a design.
Quote from: libra
A specific impulse of 345 and a prop mass fraction of 0.80 could get 6500 m/s of delta-v,transportation.

But we are disgressing away from Boom... (or bust, which I don't wish them: I love their design).
As I mentioned on the Radian thread the Virgin Atlantic Global Flyer built by Scaled was the best fuel fraction plane I could find and that was 84% fuel, so everything else (including the pilot) was what was left.

A vehicle that's 20% structure is not far off and with TPS as well. OTOH air breathing gets you Isp of several 1000s, allowing wings, landing gear that can handl full GTOW etc.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7396
  • Liked: 2915
  • Likes Given: 1505
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #58 on: 09/22/2022 03:03 pm »
A specific impulse of 345 and a prop mass fraction of 0.80 could get 6500 m/s of delta-v, and with that ballistic range could be  7000 km to 12 000 km - depends whether or not the trajectory is flattened to not hit the lower van Allen belts.

Even if the exposure to the van Allen Belts is regarded as acceptable, I think the trajectory would have to be flattened to avoid punishing G-loads.  People tend to be rather more finicky about that than are ICBM warheads.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2022 03:04 pm by Proponent »

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 2356
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #59 on: 09/22/2022 03:23 pm »
Yes. And that's the moment when ballistics become such a PITA... such an annoyance. Ballistic trajectories are pointy: altitude grows faster than range. And if you try flattening, range takes a big hit.
A good resource with some numbers here.
https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/ABM/BM_Classes.htm
https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/ABM/DeltaV_BMs.htm

Ballistics are unforgiving, really. But Boom isn't going ballistic, and I don't want to hijack the thread...

Quote
OTOH air breathing gets you Isp of several 1000s, allowing wings, landing gear that can handl full GTOW etc.

Hydrogen turbofans are close from 8000 seconds (blew my mind when I realized this recently), alas only at subsonic speed... go supersonic then hypersonic and that awesome number (in your face, Gas Core Nuclear Rocket) instantly collapses. Still around 2000 seconds at Mach 2 or Mach 3, a very respectable number. Well, then there is SABRE.

Offline ZuluLima

  • Member
  • Posts: 30
  • Dallas, Texas
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #60 on: 09/23/2022 04:26 am »
All of which applies for a commercial product that's designed to be sold to other customers, which is probably why RR turned them down from going any further.

But if they are doing it on their own then the engine becomes a part of the package

That made no sense.  It's ALL commercial.  The engine, the plane, the operators, the regulatory jurisdiction.  Doesn't matter who designs it and whether they're vertically integrated.  How does being part of a "package" change any of the requirements and physics involved?

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #61 on: 09/23/2022 07:44 am »

That made no sense.  It's ALL commercial.  The engine, the plane, the operators, the regulatory jurisdiction.  Doesn't matter who designs it and whether they're vertically integrated.  How does being part of a "package" change any of the requirements and physics involved?
Because it changes the economics of the deal from RR's PoV.

RR would have 2 choices 1)Quote a price to do the work exclusively for Boom, as they might for a government 2)Quite a price figuring how many more of them they could sell to 3rd parties to make a profit. RR seem to predict zero third party sales and didn't put a price for the whole development on the table so not an optioin.  :(

But Boom does not have to make a profit on the engine itself, just the aircraft (and likely support contracts). Their (internal) development budget, if they went that way, would be counted against the profit margin of a certain number of aircraft, raising the breakeven sales level they'd need to make before becoming profitable.

Obviously that puts tight restrictions on such a budget, but in principle gives an engine solely for their use.

While I believe an inhouse developed jet engine is possible I think it would be very difficult. More so as this is a passenger carrying aircraft and AIUI would be judged on airline, not business jet, safety standards.

I think Boom is pretty much done :(

[EDIT My instict says Venus (which need a rotating detonation rocket engine) and Hermeus (M5 Air Force One) are pretty much done as well. Hermeus got a couple of turbojets from the Czechs in the 100lb+ class and fitted a precooler. AIUI they've got about $230m in funding and built a 1/4 scale test aircraft that won't fly till 2023. No idea what speed it's meant to go at however. ]
« Last Edit: 09/24/2022 07:29 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline speedbirdconcorde

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #62 on: 09/26/2022 08:12 pm »
Will never happen.  Unfortunately.  For so many reasons.  Knowing what was involved with Concorde and reading silly remarks by Booms CEO such as 'Engine placement was made to ensure passenger safety' (Hmmm!) and the fact they don't even have a single engine in development!.....  A number of friends from the Concorde program visited Boom in the very early....years.....running CAD is easy (compared to how Concorde was developed!) but the real test is in the details....the amount of work that has to be done even when you DO have an engine doesn't seem to register with the company when you look at the situation and supposed timeline.  Let alone certification !

Good luck!


Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14450
  • UK
  • Liked: 4149
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #63 on: 10/17/2022 07:37 pm »
I think that’s all the major western engine manufacturers confirming they have no interest in developing engines for this aircraft.

https://www.flightglobal.com/engines/cfm-will-not-develop-engine-for-supersonic-niche-market-ceo/150564.article

Offline EspenU

  • Newbie Spacegeek
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Norway
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #64 on: 10/26/2022 07:21 am »
Mentour pilot video on Boom and the engine issues. Nothing new, but a good video.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #65 on: 10/26/2022 01:22 pm »
I think it’s lame that none of the engine makers care to partner on this. Shortsighted and sad.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7396
  • Liked: 2915
  • Likes Given: 1505
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #66 on: 10/26/2022 01:33 pm »
Maybe they've looked at it and figured out that it's just not feasible?

EDIT: "an" -> "and"
« Last Edit: 12/31/2022 09:27 pm by Proponent »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #67 on: 10/26/2022 01:37 pm »
Maybe they've looked at it an figured out that it's just not feasible?
Maybe there’s nothing at all unusual about large, publicly traded companies making hyper-conservative, short-sighted decisions without needing to invoke claims of fundamental infeasibility? And I would think that long-time members of this forum would have ample evidence for this already.

I’d like to think capital-intensive projects that aren’t mere evolutionary improvements on the status quo don’t require billionaire backers (or war) to happen, but the evidence points the other way.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2022 01:45 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #68 on: 10/26/2022 05:22 pm »
I think it’s lame that none of the engine makers care to partner on this. Shortsighted and sad.
Why risk spending $100Ms if not $Bs developing engine which may never find a market. If Boom and their investors are so sure of market they can pay for development and own engine rights.


Offline gtae07

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 176
  • Georgia, USA
  • Liked: 361
  • Likes Given: 600
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #69 on: 10/26/2022 10:40 pm »
I think it’s lame that none of the engine makers care to partner on this. Shortsighted and sad.
Why risk spending $100Ms if not $Bs developing engine which may never find a market. If Boom and their investors are so sure of market they can pay for development and own engine rights.

Precisely.  Developing (and just as importantly, certifying) an engine is very expensive.  Wy commit to that with only a relative handful of orders on the books and for a single airframe that might well founder and be canceled anyway?  I'd call that a high risk investment.  They have better places to spend their time, money, and manpower, even in a long term view.

Sure, a new public SST is cool, but I'm still not convinced there's a market.  Five years ago maybe, but now many of the potential end customers (those who could afford an SST ticket) have gotten a taste of chartered private jets and would rather put up with slower flights in order to get more convenient airports, no TSA hassle, privacy, etc. 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #70 on: 10/26/2022 10:52 pm »
I think it’s lame that none of the engine makers care to partner on this. Shortsighted and sad.
Why risk spending $100Ms if not $Bs developing engine which may never find a market. If Boom and their investors are so sure of market they can pay for development and own engine rights.
…which again is why maybe only war or billionaires can enable this because large publicly traded companies with enough capital to do that kind of investment don’t have the appetite for it. You’re just further illustrating my point.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2022 10:55 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #71 on: 10/26/2022 10:59 pm »
Also, it wouldn’t be in the duopoly’s (Boeing’s or Airbus’s) interest for Boom to succeed.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Liked: 1731
  • Likes Given: 615
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #72 on: 10/27/2022 12:15 am »
A military supersonic transport program would help motivate the engine manufacturers. The US military hasn't invested in long-range sustained supersonic aircraft since the Blackbird family. Nothing flies supersonic for hours on end. Not the B-1B, not the F-22, and certainly not any military transports. It's not entirely unreasonable to argue that there exists a viable civilian market for supersonic transport aircraft even though major military powers are content to do without. But it makes it more difficult for engine manufacturers to develop supersonic turbofans without any military prospects.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9108
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #73 on: 10/27/2022 06:29 am »
I’d like to think capital-intensive projects that aren’t mere evolutionary improvements on the status quo don’t require billionaire backers (or war) to happen, but the evidence points the other way.

I mean technically you don't need to be a billionaire to do capital-intensive projects that are revolutionary, a mere hundred million is enough, if you're willing to bootstrap which will take a decade or two. A long time for sure, but has the side benefit that you become a billionaire on the way.


Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14450
  • UK
  • Liked: 4149
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #74 on: 10/27/2022 08:04 am »
I think it’s lame that none of the engine makers care to partner on this. Shortsighted and sad.
Maybe they’ve realised that Boom is going in completely the opposite direction as everyone else which is greater fuel efficiency and reducing fuel costs.

Offline Airlocks

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #75 on: 10/28/2022 07:01 am »
Also, it wouldn’t be in the duopoly’s (Boeing’s or Airbus’s) interest for Boom to succeed.

This is nonsense. No conspiracy please. There is a very looooong way before Boom present any threat to Boeing and Airbus - or supersonic flight, to classic subsonic flight. 

« Last Edit: 10/28/2022 07:04 am by Airlocks »

Offline octavo

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Liked: 186
  • Likes Given: 744
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #76 on: 10/28/2022 08:38 am »
Also, it wouldn’t be in the duopoly’s (Boeing’s or Airbus’s) interest for Boom to succeed.

This is nonsense. No conspiracy please. There is a very looooong way before Boom present any threat to Boeing and Airbus - or supersonic flight, to classic subsonic flight.

For it to be conspiracy Robotbeat would had to have added "and therefore they will collude to stop Boom". Notice how he didn't say anything like that?
« Last Edit: 10/28/2022 08:39 am by octavo »

Offline Airlocks

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #77 on: 10/28/2022 08:55 am »
Doesn't change my point. And I would say "interest" means that Boeing & Airbus have no interest in Boom being successfull  _ as of they wanted to "sabotage" Boom.
Whether you like it or not, this  has a slight smell of "conspiracy" (note: I used the word "slight" which means " a little".
« Last Edit: 10/28/2022 08:56 am by Airlocks »

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6897
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10530
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #78 on: 10/28/2022 10:35 am »
Since neither Boeing nor Airbus are engine suppliers, their opinion on Boom's future success is irrelevant to the current issue of sourcing engines.

Offline EspenU

  • Newbie Spacegeek
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Norway
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #79 on: 12/12/2022 07:26 am »
Have they really found an engine supplier? ???
Guess we'll see tomorrow.

https://onemileatatime.com/news/boom-supersonic-engine/

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14450
  • UK
  • Liked: 4149
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #80 on: 12/12/2022 09:24 am »
Have they really found an engine supplier? ???
Guess we'll see tomorrow.

https://onemileatatime.com/news/boom-supersonic-engine/
Maybe Santa’s elves!!!

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Liked: 1731
  • Likes Given: 615
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #81 on: 12/13/2022 06:48 pm »
Boom has partnered with Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, which acquired a small turbojet supplier called in Technical Directions Inc. in 2020. They make engines for low-cost cruise missiles and drones, with up to 200 pounds of thrust. It's quite a jump in scale from that to an 80-passenger airliner, but they say that have engineers that have worked on supersonic military engines, so maybe they have what it takes.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #82 on: 12/13/2022 07:16 pm »
Good to hear. And while it definitely is higher risk for the project to partner with such a tiny engine maker… it’s better than nothing and is potentially an opportunity to introduce more competition to the big engine manufacturers.

The risk is higher for the project, but so is the potential gain for the companies if successful.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14450
  • UK
  • Liked: 4149
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #83 on: 12/13/2022 07:20 pm »
Boom has partnered with Kratos Defense &amp; Security Solutions, which acquired a small turbojet supplier called in Technical Directions Inc. in 2020. They make engines for low-cost cruise missiles and drones, with up to 200 pounds of thrust. It's quite a jump in scale from that to an 80-passenger airliner, but they say that have engineers that have worked on supersonic military engines, so maybe they have what it takes.
This seems to be stretching credibility to expect a small scale engine maker to suddenly scale up to a large clean sheet supersonic engine just like that.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Liked: 1189
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #84 on: 12/14/2022 01:05 am »
Kratos is involved with USAF unmanned fighter loyal wingman drone work, the XQ-58, but that's a high subsonic drone using a low-lifetime turbine as an attritable drone.

They seem to be confident in low cost design and production of turbines for attritable drones (reusable, but cheap enough to be expendable), based on their various military turbine contracts. I wonder if the math works out for a low lifetime turbine being replaced more often on a commercial vehicle?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #85 on: 12/14/2022 02:45 am »
Or they could, you know, build it with sufficient margin for a longer lifetime.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #86 on: 12/14/2022 05:47 am »
Or they could, you know, build it with sufficient margin for a longer lifetime.
Actually there is a long history of smal expendable jets being upgraded to being reusable. A classic example was the upgrade from the Adder to the Viper turbojet driving the Jindyvik target drone. These flew for decades with the UK and Austrailian armed forces.

The joker with margin is that usually implies an increase in engine weight.

IIRC what actually happened with the viper is they upgraded the materials to materials with better long term properties.  So same size part, slightly heavier perhaps, but much longer operating life, but more expensive partly due to higher raw material cost, partly harder to machine. Of course that was with 1950's cutting tools.

But that is a pretty small engine. either they are going to need a lot of them at that size, or the move to a substantially bigger clean-sheet design. I'm putting the "same size" option out there because it might be they are maxed out on machine capacity, in the same way that the F9 is at (or close to) the limit that SX's FSW machines can build a stage.

 It's unlikely (but not impossible) that Kratos have already maxed out the size of engine they can make, but there will be some limit, beyond which they a)Subcontract that part of the work b)Raise a loan for upgrades on the strength of their Boom contract c)Ask Boom for direct help.

The other question then becomes how well they move (or establish a division to move)  from small size/high(ish) volume/low price engines  to large(ish)/low(ish) volume/much higher price engines. Successful companies have a mindset that focuses them in certain directions. Re-focussing that mindset is a bit more than just saying "OK, we used to build this stuff, now we're going to build this different stuff"

That in turn depends on how happy operators would be to move from their current maintenance regime to something more  frequent.  The question is will the unique speed advantage justify that?

 The CIA and USAF did with the SR71. For commercial operators IDK. I think it'll depend on if they sell Boom as "Just like a normal biz jet, but with a higher top speed," or "Boom is the future of biz jet travel. It's a whole new way of flying and it needs a whole new approach by your support staff, but the results will be awsome."

Time will tell
« Last Edit: 12/14/2022 05:49 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Liked: 1189
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #87 on: 12/14/2022 06:03 am »
Or they could, you know, build it with sufficient margin for a longer lifetime.

I don't begrudge this rational response, but if the Overture is going to be a hangar queen anyways and likely using an engine lease pool, does reducing the upfront engine development cost by going with a low lifetime design and accepting more engine swaps a counterintuitive solution to making the project startable/viable? It's similar to the classic solid vs liquid rocket dev costs vs ops costs comparison.

Though commercial certification requirements may automatically push the engine design to higher margins/lifetime by default, as an attritable turbine design base may not be deemed safe enough. Where is the original cost savings coming from though? Sandbagged derated components with lots of hidden margin but a mass penalty? Low spec materials (with implied safety issues)? Simplified manufacturing by reducing machining through increased parts counts (less monolithic parts with lots of CNC machining)? Simpler parts at the cost of less performance (centrifugal compressor for instance)?

Offline Barley

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1123
  • Liked: 786
  • Likes Given: 441
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #88 on: 12/14/2022 12:01 pm »
Is the life of an engine mostly a function of it's design or how you choose to operate it?  I.e. if you derate a drone engine, will it last much longer?  While this doesn't help with the suitability of a particular engine it may inform us of the capabilities of the manufacturer.

I'm thinking of things like War Emergency Power which if used shorted the time between overhauls and the life of engines by orders of magnitude.  A 2000hp engine for a fighter and a 1000hp engine for a transport could be exactly the same engine.  There are a lot of systems that have steep performance v. life span curves where different users make different tradeoffs.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14450
  • UK
  • Liked: 4149
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #89 on: 12/14/2022 04:34 pm »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #90 on: 12/14/2022 05:05 pm »
I mean, the odds of the company succeeding to first flight are maybe 25% (and odds of keeping schedule are 1%, optimistically). But better to try and fail than to do nothing.

Or, as Teddy Roosevelt put it:
 
Quote
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

So I applaud Boom, and their engine partner.
« Last Edit: 12/14/2022 05:11 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
  • Liked: 1731
  • Likes Given: 615
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #91 on: 12/15/2022 01:51 am »
Kratos is involved with USAF unmanned fighter loyal wingman drone work, the XQ-58, but that's a high subsonic drone using a low-lifetime turbine as an attritable drone.

They seem to be confident in low cost design and production of turbines for attritable drones (reusable, but cheap enough to be expendable), based on their various military turbine contracts. I wonder if the math works out for a low lifetime turbine being replaced more often on a commercial vehicle?
One unique aspect of supercruise engines is that the compressors operate in high-temperature working fluid for hours on end, not just the turbines. Concorde's Olympus engines, for example, had a 10,000-hour life for both the compressor and turbine blades, whereas the rest of the engine was certified for 25,000 hours. Kratos will certainly need to use nickel-based superalloys and/or ceramic matrix composites in the turbomachinery. Titanium won't cut it for the later stages of the compressor. It's a whole different ballgame than subsonic.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Liked: 1189
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #92 on: 12/15/2022 03:42 am »
The joker in all this is is the involvement of GE Additive, bringing 3D printing to the table. For example, 3D printing a near-net blisk for the engine could reduce machining costs and lost material costs from machining. 3D printed monolithic aerospace parts are a thing now.

There's also some wacky engine design choices that could help with materials choices as well, such as the proposed D-16 turbocompound, which utilizes a reciprocating engine core in a diamond 16 piston arrangement to drive the high pressure compressor coupled with a conventional single spool low pressure turbine/compressor. Seeing a deltic take on the ICE core of such an engine would be fun.

https://www.flightglobal.com/systems-and-interiors/hybrid-geared-fan-and-piston-concept-could-slash-fuel-burn/127860.article

https://web.archive.org/web/20180826030208/http://www.ultimate.aero/page/media_items/composite-cycle-engine-28cce2928.php

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327601208_A_Composite_Cycle_Engine_Concept_for_Year_2050

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #93 on: 12/15/2022 03:58 am »
The joker in all this is is the involvement of GE Additive, bringing 3D printing to the table. For example, 3D printing a near-net blisk for the engine could reduce machining costs and lost material costs from machining. 3D printed monolithic aerospace parts are a thing now.

There's also some wacky engine design choices that could help with materials choices as well, such as the proposed D-16 turbocompound, which utilizes a reciprocating engine core in a diamond 16 piston arrangement to drive the high pressure compressor coupled with a conventional single spool low pressure turbine/compressor. Seeing a deltic take on the ICE core of such an engine would be fun.

https://www.flightglobal.com/systems-and-interiors/hybrid-geared-fan-and-piston-concept-could-slash-fuel-burn/127860.article

https://web.archive.org/web/20180826030208/http://www.ultimate.aero/page/media_items/composite-cycle-engine-28cce2928.php

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327601208_A_Composite_Cycle_Engine_Concept_for_Year_2050
3D printing is partially what enabled the proliferation of all the new pumpfed rocket engines (and therefore smallsat launchers) of late.

Rocketlab, Relativity, Astra, SpaceX, ABL, etc all use either 3D printed engines or major components of their engines are 3D printed.

So I agree that this could end up being part of what enables a novel jet engine to be developed quickly.

(Still don't expect them to meet their schedule, of course.)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Liked: 1189
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #94 on: 12/15/2022 04:56 am »
The joker in all this is is the involvement of GE Additive, bringing 3D printing to the table. For example, 3D printing a near-net blisk for the engine could reduce machining costs and lost material costs from machining. 3D printed monolithic aerospace parts are a thing now.

There's also some wacky engine design choices that could help with materials choices as well, such as the proposed D-16 turbocompound, which utilizes a reciprocating engine core in a diamond 16 piston arrangement to drive the high pressure compressor coupled with a conventional single spool low pressure turbine/compressor. Seeing a deltic take on the ICE core of such an engine would be fun.

https://www.flightglobal.com/systems-and-interiors/hybrid-geared-fan-and-piston-concept-could-slash-fuel-burn/127860.article

https://web.archive.org/web/20180826030208/http://www.ultimate.aero/page/media_items/composite-cycle-engine-28cce2928.php

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327601208_A_Composite_Cycle_Engine_Concept_for_Year_2050
3D printing is partially what enabled the proliferation of all the new pumpfed rocket engines (and therefore smallsat launchers) of late.

Rocketlab, Relativity, Astra, SpaceX, ABL, etc all use either 3D printed engines or major components of their engines are 3D printed.

So I agree that this could end up being part of what enables a novel jet engine to be developed quickly.

(Still don't expect them to meet their schedule, of course.)

That actually brings up an interesting point, that for rockets at least, the previous rule of thumb was turbopump rocket engines made sense at 5000+ lbs thrust, but below that the machining difficulty for the drive turbine drove up costs, thus pushing small rockets to pressure fed or alternative pump architectures (Whitehead and his work on small reciprocating pumps as covered in Kare's Mockingbird (bricklifter) SSTO work). The recent update to that rule of thumb was electric (centrifugal? axial?) compressor motor driven rocket engines are best for less than 10,000 lbs  thrust engines.

Are there similar rules of thumb for jet engine scaling, driving the use of centrifugal versus axial setups? I get the impression a lot of small engines use a centrifugal compressor for the final stage of their compressor, or as the high pressure compressor if twin spooled.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #95 on: 12/15/2022 05:32 am »
One unique aspect of supercruise engines is that the compressors operate in high-temperature working fluid for hours on end, not just the turbines. Concorde's Olympus engines, for example, had a 10,000-hour life for both the compressor and turbine blades, whereas the rest of the engine was certified for 25,000 hours. Kratos will certainly need to use nickel-based superalloys and/or ceramic matrix composites in the turbomachinery. Titanium won't cut it for the later stages of the compressor. It's a whole different ballgame than subsonic.
Good point. Without a pre-cooler a lot more of the engine runs a lot hotter. The othe issue is that AIUI earlier generation turbojets relied a lot less on air cooling through the blades. Modern ones use it a lot but where does the cold air come from when all the air is pretty hot to start with?

OTOH coolerer might be good enough. The engine on Concorde for example was first fired up in 1950 and the Concorde version dates from 1964.The engine on the SR71 has a similar timeframe.

 IOW a modern engine could use an alloy developed in the late 80s/early 90s based on at least 25 years more alloy development work and still have a 30 year track record behind it to avoid certain mishaps from deploying materials with unknown responses to certain environmetal conditions.

Then we have the ability do directional solidification of the alloy and it's ultimate version of single-crystal blades, so better is definitely possible. No (material) development programme needed. Couple that with higher maximum operating temperature and silicon nitride bearings (now available up to 1 3/4") and air cooling might still be viable.

That said avoiding air cooling is quite attractive. Those holes are tricky to machine or build into the blades.
« Last Edit: 12/15/2022 06:13 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #96 on: 12/15/2022 06:01 am »
The joker in all this is is the involvement of GE Additive, bringing 3D printing to the table. For example, 3D printing a near-net blisk for the engine could reduce machining costs and lost material costs from machining. 3D printed monolithic aerospace parts are a thing now.

There's also some wacky engine design choices that could help with materials choices as well, such as the proposed D-16 turbocompound, which utilizes a reciprocating engine core in a diamond 16 piston arrangement to drive the high pressure compressor coupled with a conventional single spool low pressure turbine/compressor. Seeing a deltic take on the ICE core of such an engine would be fun.

https://www.flightglobal.com/systems-and-interiors/hybrid-geared-fan-and-piston-concept-could-slash-fuel-burn/127860.article

https://web.archive.org/web/20180826030208/http://www.ultimate.aero/page/media_items/composite-cycle-engine-28cce2928.php

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327601208_A_Composite_Cycle_Engine_Concept_for_Year_2050
AIUI one of the reasons for early adoption of the jet engine was the massive reduction in parts conpared with piston engines to drive compressors.  But for a subsonic engine this might work better.

I see they are targeting a 35 000lb thrust engine as a "medium bypass" turbofan. That would be a big pure turbojet (in the XB70 class) but well within the limit of turbofan sizes (currently around 90 000lb) and they don't want to use an after burner, which the 17th Concorde was also planning to phase out.

OTOH that's 80x 175x bigger than the stuff Kratos seems to have experience of.

A key issue with both the plane and the engine are the "uncertainty bars" around drag and performance.  If they have improved enough then you can design a vehicle with no more than a certain level of drag confident that it will be below that and that level will not be a huge excess over nominal levels. Likewise you can design an engine with at least X 000lb of thrust confident you will get that on the test bed.

Time will tell how far this goes.  But the fact they lowered performance speaks to them being a flexible and pragmatic management team.  That maybe what you need to get something like this over the finish line.
« Last Edit: 12/15/2022 04:39 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Liked: 1189
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #97 on: 12/22/2022 03:50 am »
So being a two spool with fan engine design, the Symphony at first glance appears to slap on a fan in front of a regular tubojet core. Doesn't seem to be one of the fancier variable bypass 3 stream type engines that are increasingly popular.

Compare this with Hermeus, which just announced they are going to use a Pratt and Whitney F100 turbine as the core of their engine (which if I remember correctly is a precooled turboramjet TBCC). CotS, and possibly available used.

https://www.hermeus.com/press-release-f100-engine

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10455
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2500
  • Likes Given: 13796
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #98 on: 12/22/2022 05:51 am »
So being a two spool with fan engine design, the Symphony at first glance appears to slap on a fan in front of a regular tubojet core. Doesn't seem to be one of the fancier variable bypass 3 stream type engines that are increasingly popular.
I think you'll find most turbofans of any size are two spool. You're able to harvest more energy from the combustion process.
Compare this with Hermeus, which just announced they are going to use a Pratt and Whitney F100 turbine as the core of their engine (which if I remember correctly is a precooled turboramjet TBCC). CotS, and possibly available used.

https://www.hermeus.com/press-release-f100-engine
Which is also a 2 spool design.

In theory Hermeus could use any engine because of their claimed use of a pre-cooler in front of the engine. At least that was the pitch for Chimera I, but now they will be using  this as the basis of "Chimera II" so it's not clear if that still applies or if they hit problems scaling up.
 Let's keep in mind Hermeus has USAF funding to be the next Air Force One

Ironically the freedom to use any engine a pre-cooler gives you is exactly the freedom Boom needs to broaden it engine choices.

Inlet and outlet nozzles were a key part of the Concorde engine system and each engine had 13 controllers/computer/regulators to run its associated inlet. They were designed by the French half of the consortium. AFAIK only 1 was what people today would recognize as a proper computer (processing with a using a stored program that can be changed)  Given the Z80 was powerful enough to run the FADECs of civilian turbofans decades ago (military engines were running the equivalent of an original Macintosh in term of procesor and clock speed) I think that problem can be managed considerably better.

One interesting question would be how constant are the inlet conditions really during cruise? They are assumed contant if you stay at the same height and speed. If the engine is flying through patches of changing air then it's fuel efficiency may be compromised. The question of course would be (if it's happening at all) can you sense this happening and adjust the engine during the passage of air through the engine? Could be a totally non-problem. Could be significant.

Given the extreme difficulty of sourcing an engine for this market segment ( market size for a bespoke design) It's kind of amazing that Boom have found anyone willing to take on the job at the price they are willing to pay.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14450
  • UK
  • Liked: 4149
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #99 on: 12/22/2022 08:38 am »
So being a two spool with fan engine design, the Symphony at first glance appears to slap on a fan in front of a regular tubojet core. Doesn't seem to be one of the fancier variable bypass 3 stream type engines that are increasingly popular.

Compare this with Hermeus, which just announced they are going to use a Pratt and Whitney F100 turbine as the core of their engine (which if I remember correctly is a precooled turboramjet TBCC). CotS, and possibly available used.

https://www.hermeus.com/press-release-f100-engine
That’s because there has been in the past I believe work on using the F100 by DARPA in such a way.

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1687
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #100 on: 01/05/2023 02:44 am »
Boom Aerospace proposing an engine for the Overture SST reminds me of the Junkers company creating the Jumo division to develop its own aircraft engines, including the Jumo 004 jet engine and the Jumo 205, 210, 211, 213 and 222 piston engines. The Florida Turbine Technologies company that got bought out by Kratos in 2019 and it now the Kratos Turbine Technologies division probably won't have any problem fabricating components for the Boom Symphony because it built an aeroengine before, having designed the jet engine for the Gray Wolf cruise missile.

Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #101 on: 01/05/2023 07:30 pm »
If I could go back in time 5 years, I'd poach propulsion engineers coming out Blue and SpaceX, along with some industry vets from GE or the like, and create a jet engine start-up. You'd have to do a study to figure out what the best direction to take that company in would be, but between little engines for drones, the many different sizes of commercial jet engine, and a super cruise engine for Boom and Air Force One, there'd be a lot of routes to success.
Wait, ∆V? This site will accept the ∆ symbol? How many times have I written out the word "delta" for no reason?

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1687
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #102 on: 07/14/2023 03:46 am »
According to the Telegraph newspaper, Virgin Galactic let its option for ten Boom Overture aircraft lapse in 2020 given its growing emphasis on commercial suborbital space travel. The first successful commercial flight of SpaceShipTwo last month as well as an eagerness by Virgin Galactic to begin test flights of SpaceShipThree make clear that Virgin Galactic had a made a wisely calculated decision not to order the Overture, especially as Boom Aerospace has decided to develop its own supersonic engine, the Symphony, due to Pratt and Whitney, General Electric, and Rolls-Royce declining to undertake development of a supersonic jet engine for the Overture.

Links:
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/129605-virgin-galactic-lets-overture-options-lapse
https://simpleflying.com/virgin-galactic-lets-boom-supersonic-options-lapse/
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/virgin-cans-overture-supersonic-jet
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/07/09/sir-richard-branson-new-concorde-jets/

Offline joseph.a.navin

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Freelance photojournalist/Reporter
  • Elon, North Carolina, USA
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #103 on: 07/19/2023 03:38 pm »
Overture Superfactory is going up here in Greensboro! Taken July 12
Elon University class of 2024 | Past launches/events seen: Superbird-A2 on Atlas IIAS (Apr 2004), Discovery OV-103 ferry flight to Dulles (2012), NG-12, OFT-1, NG-13, Crew-2, NG-18

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1687
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #104 on: 07/19/2023 11:56 pm »
Overture Superfactory is going up here in Greensboro! Taken July 12
It's pretty good to see Boom Aerospace make progress in building the manufacturing plant for the Overture supersonic airliner because it wants to fly the Overture SST by the middle of this decade.

Offline Redclaws

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 1079
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #105 on: 07/20/2023 12:11 am »
If I could go back in time 5 years, I'd poach propulsion engineers coming out Blue and SpaceX, along with some industry vets from GE or the like, and create a jet engine start-up. You'd have to do a study to figure out what the best direction to take that company in would be, but between little engines for drones, the many different sizes of commercial jet engine, and a super cruise engine for Boom and Air Force One, there'd be a lot of routes to success.

I think high end jet engines are one of the more difficult things humans make, in the sense that they’ve been pushed *really hard* to get them as good as we can make them.  So better ones are incredibly difficult.  Arguably harder to advance than the state of art in rocket engines was pre Raptor, just because so much more money and effort has been invested in to jet engines.

Witness how most of the startups have tried to get an established player to do their engine.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #106 on: 07/20/2023 12:37 am »
If I could go back in time 5 years, I'd poach propulsion engineers coming out Blue and SpaceX, along with some industry vets from GE or the like, and create a jet engine start-up. You'd have to do a study to figure out what the best direction to take that company in would be, but between little engines for drones, the many different sizes of commercial jet engine, and a super cruise engine for Boom and Air Force One, there'd be a lot of routes to success.

I think high end jet engines are one of the more difficult things humans make, in the sense that they’ve been pushed *really hard* to get them as good as we can make them.  So better ones are incredibly difficult.  Arguably harder to advance than the state of art in rocket engines was pre Raptor, just because so much more money and effort has been invested in to jet engines.

Witness how most of the startups have tried to get an established player to do their engine.
IMHO there’s actually a lot of room for disrupting the jet engine manufacturers like GE, actually. They’re companies that operate like Boeing does.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1687
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #107 on: 07/20/2023 02:05 am »
If I could go back in time 5 years, I'd poach propulsion engineers coming out Blue and SpaceX, along with some industry vets from GE or the like, and create a jet engine start-up. You'd have to do a study to figure out what the best direction to take that company in would be, but between little engines for drones, the many different sizes of commercial jet engine, and a super cruise engine for Boom and Air Force One, there'd be a lot of routes to success.

I think high end jet engines are one of the more difficult things humans make, in the sense that they’ve been pushed *really hard* to get them as good as we can make them.  So better ones are incredibly difficult.  Arguably harder to advance than the state of art in rocket engines was pre Raptor, just because so much more money and effort has been invested in to jet engines.

Witness how most of the startups have tried to get an established player to do their engine.
IMHO there’s actually a lot of room for disrupting the jet engine manufacturers like GE, actually. They’re companies that operate like Boeing does.
The lack of appetite today on part of General Electric and Pratt & Whitney to develop supersonic jet engines for an airliner (as opposed to supersonic turbofans for military jets) is a far cry from the 1960s, when General Electric and Pratt & Whitney designed the GE4 and JTF-17A respectively. It should be noted, however, that the Wright Aeronautical Division of Curtiss-Wright proposed two supersonic jet engines for an SST, the TJ60 and TJ70, which were rejected for consideration in the NST competition by the FAA, although Curtiss-Wright had a rich history of making both aircraft and aeroengines. Since Boom Aerospace decided last year to develop its own jet engine, it is the first American aerospace company since Curtiss-Wright to develop both an aircraft and aeroengine (Lockheed developed the L-1000/J37 turbojet in the 1940s even while building aircraft like the P-38 Lightning and P-80/F-80 Shooting Star).

Link:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-pratt-whitney-curtiss-wright-sst-engines.20510/

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Liked: 1189
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #108 on: 07/20/2023 02:07 am »
Is it just me, or does that building look a little small for an SST factory? Maybe the size of Boeing/Airbus facilities has permanently distorted my perception of the "correct" size for such a factory.

Offline redneck

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • swamp in Florida
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #109 on: 07/20/2023 08:50 am »
If I could go back in time 5 years, I'd poach propulsion engineers coming out Blue and SpaceX, along with some industry vets from GE or the like, and create a jet engine start-up. You'd have to do a study to figure out what the best direction to take that company in would be, but between little engines for drones, the many different sizes of commercial jet engine, and a super cruise engine for Boom and Air Force One, there'd be a lot of routes to success.

I think high end jet engines are one of the more difficult things humans make, in the sense that they’ve been pushed *really hard* to get them as good as we can make them.  So better ones are incredibly difficult.  Arguably harder to advance than the state of art in rocket engines was pre Raptor, just because so much more money and effort has been invested in to jet engines.

Witness how most of the startups have tried to get an established player to do their engine.
IMHO there’s actually a lot of room for disrupting the jet engine manufacturers like GE, actually. They’re companies that operate like Boeing does.

There are a few options that don't seem to have been explored recently. LANL had a patent on a turbine engine with the entire airflow going through the turbine blades into the combustion chamber so that the blades were regeneratively cooled. That was IIRC a couple of decades back.

I ran a turbine at Space Access in a similar timeframe that was a squirrel cage fan. Compressor and turbine with the same blades for regenerative blade cooling except I was going for the air-turborocket cycle.

One guy I knew was enthusiastic about an engine being tested with contra-rotating compressor blades. Stators rotating opposite direction from compressor blades. Can't remember the advantages and have heard nothing since.

Offline redneck

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • swamp in Florida
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 170
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #110 on: 07/20/2023 03:54 pm »
Seem to recall some kind of aerodynamic efficiency and less rotor Velocity  stress for the same pressure rise.   But it’s been so long ago that I don’t remember exactly.   

Offline joseph.a.navin

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Freelance photojournalist/Reporter
  • Elon, North Carolina, USA
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #111 on: 07/20/2023 06:49 pm »
Is it just me, or does that building look a little small for an SST factory? Maybe the size of Boeing/Airbus facilities has permanently distorted my perception of the "correct" size for such a factory.
I think it is supposed to be longer.
Elon University class of 2024 | Past launches/events seen: Superbird-A2 on Atlas IIAS (Apr 2004), Discovery OV-103 ferry flight to Dulles (2012), NG-12, OFT-1, NG-13, Crew-2, NG-18

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14450
  • UK
  • Liked: 4149
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #112 on: 08/25/2023 11:56 am »

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1687
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #113 on: 09/28/2023 08:00 pm »
Quote
Construction of the Greensboro, North Carolina, production site where Boom Supersonic plans to assemble the Mach 1.7 Overture airliner remains on schedule for completion in 2024 following the raising of the final beam into place to finish the frame of the main building.

The "topping out" ceremony at the 62-acre Boom site at Greensboro's Piedmont Triad International Airport comes nine months after the start of construction on what is intended to be the final assembly line building.

Boom has sized the facility to produce up to 33 Overture aircraft per year. There is space to add a second line which would boost capacity up to 66 Overtures per year. The Overture facility, which Boom announced in 2022, is roughly 150,000 ft2 with an additional 24,000 ft2 of office space.

The Denver-based company expects to begin installing tooling in 2024. Assembly of the first aircraft would start later that year and roll out is targeted for 2026. Certification and entry-into-service is planned for the end of the decade.

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/manufacturing-supply-chain/boom-supersonic-tops-out-overture-final-assembly-building

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 941
  • Likes Given: 590
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #114 on: 10/06/2023 04:09 am »
https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/up-to-speed-september-superfactory-milestone-defense-advisory-group-nathan-forbes



Doesn't show much.. but I guess they're gaining some confidence that it might, possibly, actually, fly and hopefully not just over-run the end of the runway.  And confirms that at least they haven't crashed it - yet.
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25599
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #115 on: 10/09/2023 03:07 pm »
Taxi tests before flight tests is completely normal and expected.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 941
  • Likes Given: 590
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #116 on: 12/14/2023 01:53 am »
Not new news but interesting nonetheless:
Quote
XB-1 is currently at the Mojave Air & Space Port in Mojave, California, continuing preparations for first flight. The aircraft has undergone extensive ground testing since arriving, including medium-speed taxi test events reaching 90 knots (104 mph). 

In preparation for flight, Boom’s test pilots, including Tristan ‘Geppetto’ Brandenburg and Chief Test Pilot Bill “Doc” Shoemaker, have completed hundreds of hours in the simulator for aircraft evaluation, operations development, training, and human factors assessments. The test pilots also maintain flight proficiency in a T-38 trainer aircraft, the same aircraft that will be used as a chase plane for all flight tests of XB-1. In August, XB-1 received its experimental airworthiness certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), following a detailed aircraft inspection. Boom has also secured letters of authorization to allow Chief Test Pilot Bill “Doc” Shoemaker and test pilot Tristan “Geppetto” Brandenburg to fly XB-1.

From: https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/up-to-speed-november

With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14450
  • UK
  • Liked: 4149
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #117 on: 03/22/2024 09:11 pm »
Quote
Aviation startup Boom Supersonic took a major step today toward its goal of returning commercial supersonic aviation to the skies, after the company’s prototype aircraft, the XB-1, left the ground for the first time this week. The short, subsonic flight over the Mojave Desert came years later than expected, but it shows that Boom is at least still making progress.

The XB-1 took off Thursday at 7:28AM PT, reached a maximum altitude of 7,120 feet, and a top speed of 246 knots (283 mph). It landed 12 minutes later at 7:40AM.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/22/24108850/boom-supersonic-first-test-flight-xb1-demonstrator

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1104
    • My hobby
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 1067
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #118 on: 03/23/2024 02:53 am »
Taxi tests before flight tests is completely normal and expected.
And sometimes taxi tests become first flights.





THAT should bring back some memories for people here.
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Offline JAFO

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1104
    • My hobby
  • Liked: 940
  • Likes Given: 1067
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #119 on: 03/23/2024 06:34 pm »
And it’s up.


“Today, XB-1 took flight in the same hallowed airspace where the Bell X-1 first broke the sound barrier in 1947. I’ve been looking forward to this flight since founding Boom in 2014, and it marks the most significant milestone yet on our path to bring supersonic travel to passengers worldwide.”[/font]

Blake SchollFounder and CEO
https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1


-hit an altitude of 7120ft and airspeed of 273mph.


« Last Edit: 03/26/2024 01:06 am by JAFO »
Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we play for keeps.
— Ernest K. Gann

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15365
  • Enthusiast since the Redstone and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 13298
  • Likes Given: 10155
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #120 on: 04/01/2024 12:20 am »
History of Supersonic Flight (testing through Commercial) leading up to current programs including Boom Aerospace.  A documentary from Cold Fusion.

The Deadly Race to Supersonic Flight (Documentary)



Quote
Mar 31, 2024

The race to supersonic flight was one of the most enthralling stories of the 20th century. In this episode, we take a look at how it all started, how the American's betrayed the British and the current state of supersonic flight.
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14450
  • UK
  • Liked: 4149
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #121 on: 07/24/2024 09:37 am »
Quote
FARNBOROUGH—Boom Supersonic is accelerating development of the Symphony engine for its Mach 1.7 Overture airliner and has expanded its partnership with Standard Aero to include production of the powerplant at the maintenance provider's site in San Antonio.

Announcing details of the 35,000-lb.-thrust engine development plan, Boom founder and CEO Blake Scholl says the intent is to begin full-scale core tests in 18 months.

“Our plan is to get to hardware quickly, and let’s learn and iterate," Scholl says. "Eighteen months ago, the Symphony was a sketch on a napkin. Now the conceptual design is complete, and we’ve said, ‘Great, let’s go.’”

Aware of the central importance of the engine design to the success of Boom’s supersonic airliner concept and broader industry confidence in the overall project, Scholl says the plan is to put the propulsion system through a rapid test and development cycle. “The core is the hardest part, so let's go build the first one as quickly as we can, and let's go put it on a test stand. We are 18 months out from that.”


“As we go into next year, the full-scale core of the Symphony should be running on a test stand in prototype form. We'll iterate from there, and that should put us in a place where the rest of the program is more attainable,” Scholl says.

Boom Supersonic has begun rig tests of the combustor section in collaboration with its design partner Florida Turbine Technologies (FTT), a business unit of Kratos. Tests are being conducted at FTT’s design and test facility in Jupiter, Florida, using an additively manufactured one-eighth section of the combustor module. Colibrium Additive, a supplier owned by GE Aerospace, has meanwhile produced the first 3D-printed parts for Symphony, including fuel nozzles and turbine center frames.

The two-spool, medium-bypass turbofan engine will be equipped with a single-stage 72-in.-dia. fan and be optimized for prolonged supersonic operation with an air-cooled, single-stage high-pressure turbine and three-stage low-pressure turbine. The Symphony’s compressor will be made up of a six-stage high-pressure unit and a three-stage low-pressure section, while the engine’s mixed compression supersonic inlet, diffuser and exhaust design is devised to meet Chapter 14 noise levels.

The agreement with StandardAero also marks a key move to industrialize production of the engine for both Overture and, according to Scholl, other potential unidentified high-speed platforms. “There's over 100,000 ft.2 in that facility there that will be dedicated to Symphony and to test cells. That's sufficient to get us to 330 engines a year, which is about where we need to be for full rate on Overture with two final assembly lines—plus we need spares,” Scholl says.

Russ Ford, chairman and CEO of Standard Aero, says: “We began working with the Boom team several years ago, initially to introduce the ideas of maintainability and a sustainable supersonic aircraft engine. Over the last couple of years, we're now pleased to announce that we've expanded that partnership, and we have dedicated a portion of one of our facilities to not only the assembly and test of engines but also full-scale production to really try to be a part of this program.”

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/farnborough-airshow/boom-advances-supersonic-engine-development-plan?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14450
  • UK
  • Liked: 4149
  • Likes Given: 220
Boom Aerospace
« Reply #122 on: 08/26/2024 09:06 pm »
Quote
BREAKING: XB-1 has completed its second flight at the Mojave Air &amp; Space Port in CA. XB-1 retracted and extended its landing gear for the first time and successfully demonstrated a new digital stability augmentation system. We continue to target year-end for supersonic flight. https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/xb-1-completes-second-flight

https://x.com/boomaero/status/1828093046195663129?

Quote
XB-1 executed its 2nd flight today–flight objectives achieved:

Landing gear retracted and extended in flight
New digital stability augmentation system activated
Tufting applied to the right wing to verify aerodynamic characteristics

https://x.com/boomaero/status/1828113321758978210?

Quote
Shoutout to all of the plane spotters in Mojave for XB-1’s second flight–here’s an amazing shot of XB-1 taking off, accompanied by its chase plane.

https://x.com/boomaero/status/1828137328499663195?

Quote
Can you spot XB-1? Our supersonic demonstrator aircraft might look small, but it’s doing big things.

Learn more about XB-1’s second flight: https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/xb-1-completes-second-flight

https://x.com/boomaero/status/1828149567172309478?

https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/xb-1-completes-second-flight
« Last Edit: 08/26/2024 09:12 pm by Star One »

Offline StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1734
  • UK
  • Liked: 2863
  • Likes Given: 393
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #123 on: 09/21/2024 07:34 pm »


Quote
The first ever look into Boom Supersonic, captured during last Friday's XB-1 flight 3 on S3. Get an up close look at XB-1, the moments before takeoff, and test pilot "Geppetto" re-opening the cockpit and sharing his unfiltered thoughts with Blake right after flight.

https://twitter.com/boomaero/status/1837509093767979210

https://twitter.com/boomaero/status/1837522982031253978

https://twitter.com/boomaero/status/1837536188678193348

https://twitter.com/boomaero/status/1837604726906536253

https://twitter.com/boomaero/status/1838289527674134570
« Last Edit: 09/25/2024 09:12 pm by StraumliBlight »

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 941
  • Likes Given: 590
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #124 on: 09/26/2024 12:58 am »
Even if these guys never succeed, one has to admit they've made a pretty impressive aircraft..
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1734
  • UK
  • Liked: 2863
  • Likes Given: 393
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #125 on: 11/03/2024 05:13 pm »
https://twitter.com/boomaero/status/1849985452004307421

Quote
BREAKING: XB-1 successfully completed its sixth test flight and continues to gain altitude, approaching supersonic flight later this year.
✅New max altitude: 20,000 ft
✅Flutter excitation system (FES) test at Mach 0.65
✅Demonstrated successful FES operation in flight

XB-1 Flight Test Program Live Blog

Quote
On October 25, 2024, XB-1 successfully completed its sixth test flight and continues to make progress in expanding the envelope for supersonic flight.

Flight six primarily targeted flutter and handling qualities testing at a higher altitude than previous flights. The FES, or Flutter Excitement System, is crucial in testing new aircraft to ensure there are no undesirable interactions between the airflow around the vehicle and the structure of the aircraft. Flutter is a phenomenon where the energy from the airflow can interact with the airframe vibration modes and cause structural failure. Modern aircraft design uses tools and predictions to develop aircraft that should not be susceptible to flutter, which we verify with testing. In this flight, XB-1 made significant progress towards validating a fully functional FES system.

Unfortunately, we did experience a degradation in GPS signal strength which impacted our ability to accomplish more in this flight. The team is currently troubleshooting this issue and as soon as the source of interference is identified and corrected, we will be on to Flight 7.

Offline StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1734
  • UK
  • Liked: 2863
  • Likes Given: 393
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #126 on: 01/13/2025 04:52 pm »


Quote
We recently had the opportunity to visit Boom Supersonic, where we spoke with their founder and CEO, Blake Scholl, and got an up-close look at their XB-1 supersonic jet.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15365
  • Enthusiast since the Redstone and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 13298
  • Likes Given: 10155
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #127 on: 01/26/2025 03:24 pm »
Flight Test 10:




Previous Flight Test 7:




Flight Test 4:

« Last Edit: 01/26/2025 03:28 pm by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15365
  • Enthusiast since the Redstone and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 13298
  • Likes Given: 10155
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #128 on: 01/28/2025 11:21 am »
« Last Edit: 01/28/2025 11:23 am by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15365
  • Enthusiast since the Redstone and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 13298
  • Likes Given: 10155
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #129 on: 01/28/2025 11:57 am »
https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1884210705223802925

Quote
Unless there's some technical glitch or weather problem, the first privately developed supersonic aircraft will go supersonic in about 4 hours.
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline cohberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 1023
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #130 on: 01/28/2025 05:22 pm »
Quote from: Boom Supersonic @boomaero
Boom is supersonic. On Jan. 28, 2025 at 8:31am PST / 16:31 GMT, XB-1 broke the sound barrier.

✅New top speed: Mach 1.122 (652 KTAS)
✅New max altitude: 35,290 ft.
✅Flight time: 34 minutes

Quote from: Brett Tingley - Space.com
Boom Supersonic XB-1 jet breaks sound barrier on historic test flight - 1/28/2025

Boom Supersonic made history today (Jan. 28) when its XB-1 jet broke the sound barrier for the first time.

Boom Supersonic's chief test pilot Tristan "Geppetto" Brandenburg took off in the company's XB-1 jet from the storied Mojave Air & Space Port in California this morning under mostly clear skies. Some 11.5 minutes into the flight — the 12th overall for the XB-1 — at an altitude of around 35,000 feet (10,668 meters), the test plane exceeded Mach 1, the speed of sound, marking the first time a civil aircraft has gone supersonic over the continental United States.

« Last Edit: 01/29/2025 03:01 pm by cohberg »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7396
  • Liked: 2915
  • Likes Given: 1505
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #131 on: 01/30/2025 11:54 am »
[Boom Supersonic's chief test pilot Tristan "Geppetto" Brandenburg took off in the company's XB-1 jet from the storied Mojave Air & Space Port in California this morning under mostly clear skies. Some 11.5 minutes into the flight — the 12th overall for the XB-1 — at an altitude of around 35,000 feet (10,668 meters), the test plane exceeded Mach 1, the speed of sound, marking the first time a civil aircraft has gone supersonic over the continental United States.

That has me wondering: over what other countries have civilian aircraft exceeded Mach 1? Surely the Soviets' Tu-144 did so over the Soviet Union. Did Concorde ever fly supersonically over France or the UK?

Offline cwr

Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #132 on: 01/30/2025 08:44 pm »
[Boom Supersonic's chief test pilot Tristan "Geppetto" Brandenburg took off in the company's XB-1 jet from the storied Mojave Air & Space Port in California this morning under mostly clear skies. Some 11.5 minutes into the flight — the 12th overall for the XB-1 — at an altitude of around 35,000 feet (10,668 meters), the test plane exceeded Mach 1, the speed of sound, marking the first time a civil aircraft has gone supersonic over the continental United States.

That has me wondering: over what other countries have civilian aircraft exceeded Mach 1? Surely the Soviets' Tu-144 did so over the Soviet Union. Did Concorde ever fly supersonically over France or the UK?

The Aurora Rocketplane built by Dawn Aerospace, flew supersonically over New Zealand in November 2024.
Look on their web site for the video of the flight.

Carl

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 321
  • Likes Given: 470
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #133 on: 01/30/2025 08:53 pm »
That has me wondering: over what other countries have civilian aircraft exceeded Mach 1?

An argument can be made that in the US, what became the Northrop F-5/T-38 did in 1959.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15365
  • Enthusiast since the Redstone and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 13298
  • Likes Given: 10155
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #134 on: 02/03/2025 09:11 pm »
https://twitter.com/bscholl/status/1886429521571942640

Quote
Decision to do our own engines was probably the single most important one in Boom history. Company most likely would have died waiting for the big guys to get stuff done.

Also being in control of powertrain means we can make it do what we want. Including something pretty cool…
7:00 AM · Feb 3, 2025
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8952
  • Liked: 4893
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #135 on: 02/03/2025 10:54 pm »
https://twitter.com/bscholl/status/1886429521571942640

Quote
Decision to do our own engines was probably the single most important one in Boom history. Company most likely would have died waiting for the big guys to get stuff done.

Also being in control of powertrain means we can make it do what we want. Including something pretty cool…
7:00 AM · Feb 3, 2025
GE, which manufactured the J85 engine family and currently produces spare parts, used in the XB-1, and other legacy engine product families says use will wind down around 2040 for existing US operators as they retire or transition aircraft to newer cleaner and more efficient engine product families built using new generation advanced technologies and modern advanced manufacturing.

https://www.geaerospace.com/news/articles/100-year-anniversary-product-technology/long-live-j85-ges-little-tough-guy
« Last Edit: 02/03/2025 10:58 pm by russianhalo117 »

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15365
  • Enthusiast since the Redstone and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 13298
  • Likes Given: 10155
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #136 on: 02/09/2025 05:10 am »
Another video (Summary) from Story & Science (the people who gave us ""NEW SPACE" Frontier Film")

This Flight Defines the Next 100 Years of Aviation



Quote
Feb 8, 2025
This is the starting gun in the race to high speed passenger travel.
Humanity is ready to go fast again.

Read the field notes here: https://jasoncarman.com/Supersonic+Fl...


0:00 An early Mojave morning
02:17 A few months ago...
04:12 The big day
06:54 Supersonic
11:01 What's next
« Last Edit: 02/09/2025 05:13 am by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15365
  • Enthusiast since the Redstone and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 13298
  • Likes Given: 10155
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #137 on: 02/10/2025 05:31 am »
Corporate Highlight Video.

Boom Makes Aviation History in XB-1



Quote
Feb 9, 2025
Boom made aviation history on the morning of January 28, 2025, with the first supersonic flight of our demonstrator aircraft, XB-1. After taking off from the Mojave Air & Space Port in California, XB-1 safely and successfully reached an altitude of 35,290 ft. before accelerating to Mach 1.122 (652 KTAS or 750 mph)—and breaking the sound barrier.

With over 1,000 years of combined aerospace experience, the XB-1 team has devoted nearly two years to ground and flight testing. Each team member is driven by a deep passion for aviation and a singular mission: to make commercial supersonic flight a reality.

During XB-1’s first supersonic flight, Chief Test Pilot Tristan “Geppetto” Brandenburg broke the sound barrier not just once, but three times.

Here’s a closer look at each of XB-1’s test flights, documenting its progression up to the sound barrier and beyond: https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/xb-1-live-blog-flight-test-program
« Last Edit: 02/10/2025 05:31 am by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline cohberg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 1023
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #138 on: 02/10/2025 07:51 pm »
Quote from: Guy Norris @AvWeekGuy
11:35 AM · Feb 10, 2025 @boomaero XB-1 demonstrator completes 13th and last landing - wrapping up test campaign for first privately developed civil supersonic aircraft - exceeded Mach 1 - 6 times in total - Stratolaunch Roc in background

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/live/boom-xb-1s-second-supersonic-flight/

3 supersonic passes, but telemetry issues plagued today's test flight.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15365
  • Enthusiast since the Redstone and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 13298
  • Likes Given: 10155
Re: Boom Aerospace
« Reply #139 on: 02/17/2025 09:15 pm »
Sonic Boomless - How To Bring Supersonic Flight Back To The Future



 
Feb 17, 2025
The US banned supersonic flight in 1973, partly because of the noise, partly because US plane builders had decided they didn't want to compete with Concorde. However, NASA kept working on the boom problem, developing new understanding of how sonic booms form and propagate, and in turn technologies which might mitigate these.

Last week Boom Supersonic announced they wanted to get the FAA rules modified to be based on sound levels, rather than sound speeds, and now NASA is gearing up to fly their X-59 Quiet supersonic test aircraft.
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0