Boom Aerospace

[ZuluLima]

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?

[john smith 19]

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. ]

[speedbirdconcorde]

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!

[Star One]

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

[EspenU]

Mentour pilot video on Boom and the engine issues. Nothing new, but a good video.

[Robotbeat]

I think it’s lame that none of the engine makers care to partner on this. Shortsighted and sad.

[Proponent]

Maybe they've looked at it and figured out that it's just not feasible?

EDIT: "an" -> "and"

[Robotbeat]

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.

[TrevorMonty]

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.

[gtae07]

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. 

[Robotbeat]

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.

[Robotbeat]

Also, it wouldn’t be in the duopoly’s (Boeing’s or Airbus’s) interest for Boom to succeed.

[butters]

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.

[su27k]

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.

[Star One]

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.

[Airlocks]

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. 

[octavo]

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?

[Airlocks]

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".

[edzieba]

Since neither Boeing nor Airbus are engine suppliers, their opinion on Boom's future success is irrelevant to the current issue of sourcing engines.

[EspenU]

Have they really found an engine supplier?
Guess we'll see tomorrow.

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