CMV: Boom Aerospace looks like an Investment Scam
Posted by TaskForceCausality@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 567 comments
I don’t claim to have universal knowledge of all engineering, but the math isn’t mathing here. Building a jet that can cruise at Mach 1.7 long enough to make these numbers work means using some hyper-efficient Star Wars level engine technology. I don’t even think there’s a military engine that can achieve this. Unless they’re going the SR-71 route and burning a custom fuel cocktail developed at a lab.
Even if we assume the engine and fuel somehow work , the cabin climate control is resolved (making sure the passengers and equipment won’t fry when the skin’s heated to 200+ degrees from skin friction) , and government certification is awarded inside of 50 years, where’s the business case? Anyone who can afford a business class ticket on this rig with a burning need to cross continents fast is flying private- and by flying from smaller airports, the subsonic private jet won’t be much slower door to door.
The rest of us are sticking to cheaper and more comfortable subsonic aircraft. Further, they’re not filling this jet with 80 paying premium passengers on every flight , so unless they’re Ok with flying this jet 50% empty all the time they’ll need an economy class to make it consistently profitable.
I won’t even touch how Boom plans to keep fuel and maintenance costs down on this aeronautical wonder jet.
As much as I’d love to see economically viable supersonic travel happen, I equally do not want to see that goal used as a con to strip clueless people from their money. Which, based on my calculator, is what this project looks like.
Former-Chicken-9753@reddit
I have the same concerns, the line between ambitious and fraudulent seems to be very frayed.
I'll get the popcorn, they seem to have quite a following on Reddit, even if it's not in this sub.
taycoug@reddit
This is exactly why venture capital exists. Low probability bets with high upside. They’re not raising money through some BS SPAC or IPO so it’s not even something the retail investor can lose money on.
I don’t understand the constant hate. The government has invested in tons of busts and they did it with your tax dollars.
This is just me cheering from the sidelines because it would be awesome for it to work out.
CollegeStation17155@reddit
But there is a difference between LOW PROBABILITY and VIOLATION OF PHYSICS,..
It's not "hate", it's warning people with more dollars than sense that the propulsion numbers simply do not add up unless the fuel has more energy in it than hydrolox rockets by an order of magnitude. So unless cold fusion is actually real and hey have figured out how to use it, they're going to have a real problem demonstrating that performance.
gordner911@reddit
Supersonic business jets and airliners are an almost certainty in the near future, maybe not BOOM but Gulfstream and Dassault are both well down the road. There is nothing that “defies physics” about a super cruise sub 100 pax airliner, in fact the Concorde was just that with tech that’s 50 plus years old at this point. If cross continent supersonic flight were permissible there would be several examples around right now. New aerodynamic developments reducing sonic boom impact have been demonstrated already, and super cruise over ladnd will very likely soon be a legal reality. Will it be expensive? Absolutely. Will it be marketable regardless? Absolutely, or the many very serious players in the aircraft manufacturing sector would not be pouring money into development already.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
You could also get the Hindenburg to lift off with 880 passengers instead of its original 72 with no modifications, the problem is you wouldn’t have enough lift to carry enough fuel to fly thousands of miles across oceans afterwards, much less feed and house all those people for several days.
The iffy part of Boom is the intersection of its speed, range, payload capacity, and fuel load. It likely wouldn’t be able to fly as far while supersonic as much as you’d think.
gordner911@reddit
Except in my example, the Concorde did have a range of over 4000nm, again with 50 plus year old technology. So no relevance to your scenario in the slightest.
This was done successfully with half century old technology, add in the very likely capability of overland supersonic flight and even the “never made money” issue with the Concorde becomes significantly less relevant. And 100 percent nothing boom has projected “defies the laws of physics” that I’ve seen thus far
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
The Concorde was also a substantially bigger airplane than the Overture, and it also could only fly supersonic for 75% of its flight distance.
I never said the Overture defies the laws of physics, just that their performance claims are iffy. It’s not unheard of for airliners even from experienced companies to come in overweight or otherwise miss specifications, which would significantly hamper their potential range, and moreover, Boom only claims their “boomless cruise” at up to Mach 1.3, with “typical speeds between 1.1-1.2,” not the Mach 1.7 they target as their top speed, which often gets used for various calculations in the ideal case. Add that in with not being able to fly supersonic for significant distances over the total flight, and the ostensibly crucial speed advantage for Boom vs. subsonic airliners erodes almost to the point of irrelevance, particularly overland.
And even if we were to take Boom at its word that the Overture would live up to spec, and furthermore only use 2-3 times as much fuel per passenger instead of the Concorde’s 4-5, while using ~5x as expensive SAFs, is all that ruinous expense really worth shaving a few minutes off of a flight in a subsonic airliner?
gordner911@reddit
So you meant something else by “violates the laws of physics”?
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Uh, no, I literally never said that. Check who exactly you’re replying to.
gordner911@reddit
Yeah, which is why I said “the post I was initally responding to”
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Yeah, after editing the comment I replied to.
gordner911@reddit
I did that edit before your reply actually, when I realized it was not your statement. Regardless, that was the subject of my post from the get go, nothing here violates the laws of physics.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
At any rate, my point stands: overland flight is not the slam-dunk case Boom is making it out to be, because if we go by Concorde’s precedent and Boom’s numbers, they would be cruising overland at about 75% of the time at Mach 1.1-1.2, which just plain isn’t that significant of a time savings of flying, say, a 777 at Mach 0.85, compared to the enormous cost differences owing to carrying vastly fewer passengers, having far fewer units to spread and amortize fixed development and production costs, and of course having 2-3 times as much fuel burn even going by Boom’s own estimates.
The Concorde’s very narrow niche was, in large part, undermined by the fact that usually for lesser expense, you could fly business or first class transatlantic at a cost of 3-ish hours. With the advent of nicer, far roomier first class cabins, better pressurization and sound deadening, and in particular lie-flat seats and entertainment options, it just no longer became a trade-off that made much sense.
And that’s despite the fact that Concorde cruised at just over Mach 2! Boom’s Overture would have far less of an advantage in terms of speed, and that advantage was already too slender of a reed for Concorde to hang on. And undergirding all of this is the implicit assumption that Boom will hit all of their performance targets and not run into any number of production issues that could compromise operating costs, range, efficiency, speed, safety, etc.
gordner911@reddit
At no point did I say boom was a slam dunk. Just that supersonic passenger and business jet travel is a certainty in the near future.
As to Boom, your response is well reasoned and time will tell what their reality is. It would not be shocking to see Boom succeed as the first step to faster and faster air passenger travel, they are in early and don’t personally strike me as a total flight of fantasy. Aviation is a weird game, lots of areas where people pay significant amounts for what appear to be small gains, especially on the private side. Boasting fastest cruise speed times is a big deal, even if you’re talking 0.96 vs 1.1 Mach. Always a few billionaires out there willing to drop a couple hundred million to have the biggest swinging dick around.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Why do you think so? And what counts as “near future?” It’s been decades since a Concorde last flew, what has changed?
Near as I can tell, any improvements one could apply to a supersonic airliner/business jet, such as computers becoming more advanced, composite materials improving in quality and cost, etc. would just as easily apply to subsonic aircraft as supersonic aircraft, thus their competitive position relative to each other doesn’t really change, even as they would be improving incrementally compared to their past iterations.
What supersonic flight would need to become a viable proposition, in my view, is some sort of technological breakthrough that applies only to supersonic flight and not to subsonic flight. That’s why I’m underwhelmed by their sonic boom reduction—how exactly is that getting a competitive edge over subsonic airliners when subsonic airliners already don’t have a sonic boom in the first place?
I really just don’t see where the breakthrough is, here. Boom’s own claims, taken at face value, present the Overture as carrying fewer people than the Concorde, being slower than the Concorde, and remaining far more fuel-inefficient than subsonic airliners. In order to be viable, I think you’d need to see one of a few different things happen: fuel efficiency rising to at least being on par with subsonic airliners, the speed advantage improving markedly over the Concorde, or the costs reducing to be at least reasonably close to subsonic flight, despite higher fuel use.
I really don’t see how any of those things could be achieved, though.
Those small-yet-significant gains are usually in the context of higher range or better fuel efficiency, though, and the Overture is a step backwards on both counts. A Gulfstream G800 that flies at Mach 0.85-0.93 would probably be much faster at actually getting to a distant destination than an Overture over the majority of its flights, simply because it can fly twice as far as the Overture before having to stop to refuel.
True, but supersonic flight took tens of billions of dollars (adjusted for inflation) the first time around, when aviation projects were far faster and cheaper than they are today. It may take a whole consortium of billionaires to fund such a thing, since most of a billionaire’s wealth is tied up at any given time making them more money through compounding interest or controlling shares of a business, both of which they’re loath to touch, much less liquidate. Their actual personal expenditures average around $50-$80 million annually, less than 5% of their net worth.
gordner911@reddit
The absolute biggest gain for private jets is speed. I have dealt with dozens of people that own these things and speed is the one thing they all want. As to what massive change makes it feasible, that would be the allowance of over land supersonic. What Boom wants to do is just a stepping stone in the inevitable progression of passenger flight tech. The point that makes it feasible is super cruise for all but a small portion of the flight time. Climb and decent subsonic, once you hit 60000 feet it’s super cruise the whole way. That’s the idea.
As to when, I know Dassault has a supersonic business jet fully designed and ready to build and test as soon as the laws around over continent supersonic flight are changed. Gulfstream has been developing theirs for over a decade, so certainly in the same boat as Dassault. I am sure the airline manufacturers are just as ready.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Dassault does? That’s news to me. Last I heard in 2019, they said major hurdles remain, starting with environmental considerations, and they question the wisdom of “rushing in” with a supersonic business jet. They did feasibility studies like twenty years ago, but nothing ever really came of it.
Gulfstream has been quiet on supersonic aircraft too, basically giving up on the concept in 2013. “In order to make the market viable for supersonics you have to make it feasible to fly overland faster than sound – which is currently against the law. We don't think there is a viable market until you change that.”
The attitude of these companies seems to amount to ‘we could totally do it if we wanted to, because we’re just that advanced and awesome, but there are all these rules holding us back from this thing we’d totally be capable of doing if we wanted to, so… we think someone is going to do it eventually. Maybe that someone will be us, who knows!’
That attitude seems less like a company with immediately actionable plans and ready-to-go designs to enter into a new market, and more like companies hedging some of their decades-old research projects just in case someone else takes the risk to blaze that old trail again and take all the heat for updated R&D and various certification and regulatory hurdles, so that they could swoop in after all that mess is settled and take advantage of a new market. A classic first-mover dilemma.
gordner911@reddit
It’s what I was told by a member Dassault’s engineering/design team, and I personally know of one current Gulfstream owner that already has significant money into Gulfstream for their first supersonic offering. It’s well down the pipeline with many of the serious manufacturers. Of course you can fly subsonic over land, the paradigm shift that makes any of this feasible is being able to do so supersonic. With pressure wave dissipation through aerodynamics and stratospheric cruise altitudes leading to no perceptible noise disturbance or environmental impact at ground level from supersonic flight that will certainly be changing soon.
There are huge players well down the road in this game, I am going to assume they know more than any of us here on Reddit and that’s why they are investing significant amounts in various supersonic passenger jet programs. Aircraft, both airlines and private jets, have been working for higher speed travel since the beginning of flight, I see no reason laid out here or anywhere else that will stop that being the case.
Time will tell.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
To further illustrate this point: the average block velocity (actual travel duration to cruise speed and distance ratio) of a Gulfstream jet is 0.91, and the Concorde’s was 0.71, since it spent proportionally far less of its time flying at its cruise speed. So if the Boom Overture has a similar block velocity to the Concorde and cruises at Mach 1.15, and the Gulfstream cruises at Mach 0.85, and both were to fly 2,150 miles from LAX to JFK, that would entail a 4.8-hour average flight for the Gulfstream and a 4-hour average flight for the Overture.
You’d only be saving 48 minutes! That’s the problem with being faster over shorter distances, but unable to fly longer distances—over those short distances the time difference is negligible compared to the costs, but over longer distances you end up being slower, likely by hours, simply by dint of having to land, refuel, and take off again while the Gulfstream was still cruising happily along. A classic “Tortoise and the Hare” problem.
ez117@reddit
Which part of this “violates physics”?
miskdub@reddit
all those damn wormholes
Pilot-Wrangler@reddit
I too am keen to know this...
sauzbozz@reddit
Who cares if venture capitalist want to invest in something like this?
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
The government of North Carolina is putting hundreds of millions of dollars towards building Boom a factory, just FYI. These large-scale boondoggles rarely just ensnare private capital before they fizzle out.
plhought@reddit
Privatise the profits, socialize the losses. USA modern capitalism 101.
BoringBob84@reddit
That statement is doing a lot of heavy lifting, given the sweetheart loans from the EU to Airbus. How much do they still owe for the A380?
plhought@reddit
Oh please. How much goes to Boeing and it's endless pit of defunct defense products, failed civilian programmes etc etc.
BoringBob84@reddit
Oops, did you say "products?" Yep - a defense contract comes with a requirement to produce something in return. A subsidy is free money. Will Airbus ever pay Germany back what they owe on the A380?
plhought@reddit
US companies get subsidies in the forms of tax breaks, employee supports etc etc. Oh yawn.
Typical r/shitamericansay. Use your brain.
BoringBob84@reddit
Whataboutism isn't an argument, especially when the claims are vague and unsubstantiated. Why are you avoiding the question?
The problem is that I am using my brain and I am asking an uncomfortable question.
Go ahead. Do an internet search. The answer is easy to find, but apparently uncomfortable to accept.
plhought@reddit
Uncomfortable? What are you on about.
You're the one who began with the 'whataboutism'. This is a thread about Boom and it's BS funding. You then started bringing up Airbus? Use your brain.
Aerospace and defense companies get big government money all over the world. USA and Europe, Brazil etc etc.
Even in this 'Boom' boondoggle NC State Government has given them hundreds of millions.
So what is it?
Move along.
BoringBob84@reddit
More personal insults do not deceive, distract, or intimidate me. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. When you criticize "USA modern capitalism," you should expect some scrutiny in return.
plhought@reddit
Hahahaha. Look around you bud. A senseless war, a political class that consists of convicted thugs and creeps, increasing costs, and a social-construct that is collapsing on itself. You're oblivious.
I don't think the EU should be the target of the world's scrutiny bud. Give your head a shake.
BoringBob84@reddit
You just keep doubling down on your Tu Quoque and Ad Hominem attacks. Perhaps you think that you are the first person on the internet to argue in bad faith while demanding that other people argue in good faith. It must be frustrating for you to repeatedly fail at distracting, deceiving, or intimidating me.
Speaking of "Privatise the profits, socialize the losses" (i.e., the subject that you brought up), how much money has Airbus refused to pay back to the German government? It is not a difficult question to answer.
plhought@reddit
Here you are bringing up Airbus again. Speaking of Ad Hominem - you keep bringing up the same stuff. Such a hypocrite haha.
Good attempt at trying to sound smart. OoooO I use Latin oOOok. Yawn.
I don't know how much Airbus gets from Germany. I could care less. You're the one who keeps bringing it up so you must know. What do they have anything to do with USA or Boom Supersonic's shady public financing?
Once again, look around yourself bud. Maybe take a breather and look up from licking boots.
BoringBob84@reddit
And that is my point. You are so determined to criticize other people that you lack the humility to self-reflect.
plhought@reddit
Hahahaha.
You're hilarious dude.
BoringBob84@reddit
I can also cherry-pick data to support what I already believe. I have seen the WTO rulings, and I know that there is much more.
I know how this goes. Your ego compels you to get the last word, so feel free to insult me one last time, declare yourself "the winner," strut away, and leave (the important part).
plhought@reddit
Cherry pick?
It's the largest trade dispute in WTO history!
What are you on about?
Give your brain a chance.
lordderplythethird@reddit
The government in North Carolina also banned state entities from using any calculations and forecasts that showed rising sea levels in state policies... They're not exactly known as bastions of scientific theory lol
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/12/north-carolina-didnt-like-science-on-sea-levels-so-passed-a-law-against-it
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
I’m sure it will be very comforting to know they temporarily made a marginal profit by saving on disaster preparedness before their infrastructure was destroyed or rendered uninhabitable by shifting water tables.
RedMacryon@reddit
Either way it goes it's will be interesting to watch it happen
ChevTecGroup@reddit
People dont like liars
seattle747@reddit
Politicians have entered the chat
Former-Chicken-9753@reddit
Just because a retail investor can't lose anything it still would be just as wrong if in fact it was fraudulent.
I can't see a business case, especially with current fuel prices.
Would I love supersonic to make a comeback? Yes, definitely. But I'm not holding my breath.
Radiant-Painting581@reddit
A lack of a business case ≠ fraud. It’s up to the VCs to evaluate the business case.
If the company is knowingly providing falae information with intent to deceive or mislead — now that’s fraud. But that’s a much higher burden of proof.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I did go to law school back in the day.
Former-Chicken-9753@reddit
If you don't have a business case and still want VCs, then you might mislead and deceive.
A lot of startups 'fake it till you make it', ofc.
Radiant-Painting581@reddit
Well, of course you might.
If you think that alone is proof of fraud, then boy do I have a bridge deal for you.
If you’re going to allege fraud, it might be wise to have some actual evidence on hand. Speculation doesn’t count.
Former-Chicken-9753@reddit
I'm in the very comfortable position that I'm
not in the US
not required to prove anything
As a private citizen, I only have to reasonably back up my opinion to avoid slander / libel / defamation charges. I'm not alleging anything. I'm even hoping they're legit. But I can see a lot of parallels with Theranos and other recent cases.
Radiant-Painting581@reddit
Don’t worry, pal, nobody’s going to sue or prosecute you. Relax. That wouldn’t happen even if you were in the US.
As for your not being “required to prove anything” — well, sure. It just doesn’t save you from someone else coming along and observing that you are engaging in speculation and the only “factual” support you offered was the thinnest of speculative reeds.
Your rather odd defenses do not exactly operate to improve your appearance of good faith.
Former-Chicken-9753@reddit
Talk about bad faith. You're coming at me in the n-th level of an internet discussion for not "proving" fraud.
Maybe read the OP I responded to, and the responses before you jumped in. It's fine to disagree, but you're coming across fairly rude for no reason.
Life_Detail4117@reddit
Current fuel prices are an anomaly. Oil will within a year or two be back to previous prices once they finally broker a peace deal as the US has no choice but to do it.
Boom meanwhile is still years away from production if it ever gets to production, so oil prices should be back to previous levels whenever that is.
Former-Chicken-9753@reddit
My dad said that in the 70s.
Jokes aside, major suppliers are directly or indirectly affected by war, sanctions and now the blockade.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Let’s see how that claim held up adjusted for inflation:
Hmm. Ouch. That… does not bode well. It would take until nearly the ‘90s before gas prices got back to normal pre-gas crisis levels and stayed there consistently, when you adjust for the heavy inflation that period experienced. Of course, they spiked right back up during the War on Terror and never really declined to pre-‘70s or jubilee 1990s oil prices again after that, except very briefly during COVID.
Surely no further shenanigans like the War on Terror and Iran War would happen in the future to drive prices back up, though, right? We’ve learned our lesson by now, right?!
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
I’m not so sure. Demand destruction is real, and it might futz with the economics of oil production once things are all settled, as well as OPEC showing signs of weakness with the UAE’s sudden departure. Plus, oil is getting more and more uneconomical to extract over time as low-hanging fruit is exhausted.
Due-Letterhead6372@reddit
Its an inefficient use of capital
taycoug@reddit
Why do you say that?
Due-Letterhead6372@reddit
The money that is going to them is wasted if they go under, which they likely will. That money could have been better used by another more successful company.
hutch_man0@reddit
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky
Due-Letterhead6372@reddit
-Michael Scott
hutch_man0@reddit
Hah yeah MJ Fox is Canadian and got that from Wayne. Actually it was Wayne's father who said it to him back in the 70s when he was in minor hockey.
taycoug@reddit
If you’ve got a way to figure out for sure which early companies are going to be successful, you’ll make an amazing VC. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve been wrong over the years.
Due-Letterhead6372@reddit
If you had any technical experience in aviation you would understand why this company was doomed from the start
1funnyguy4fun@reddit
*Laughs in Metaverse *
me_myself_ai@reddit
Why would it be awesome, out of curiosity? Seems like it would only be for billionaires and such. Is that really a win for us?
taycoug@reddit
Look, a lot of this stuff is hand wavy for a Series B startup, but they’ve raised money with the goal to make supersonic travel cost effective. Not sure why you says it seems like it’s for billionaires. No way any company raises $300M today with that small of a market.
me_myself_ai@reddit
The billionaire market is huge! Markets are sized by dollars, not by people.
I just asked cause it only fits up to 80 passengers. I guess a 737 only packs 100 which is a lot less than I thought, so maybe there's a feasible passenger service here somewhere.
taycoug@reddit
I hope so. It’s not as fun as a private jet development.
TheGreatestOrator@reddit
You think billionaires are flying on commercial jets?
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
I think they mean that the idea the Overture would operate on scheduled-service commercial routes is a pipe dream, but some billionaires might like to use it as their personal conveyance as a more plausible path towards this actually happening.
Personally, I still think it’s wildly implausible either way, but slightly less so for the latter than the former.
FighterJock412@reddit
Cricket: chirps
Redditor: "Those damn billionaires!"
KAMEKAZE_VIKINGS@reddit
Because fast planes are awesome? You know what sub you're in right?
Denbt_Nationale@reddit
If they were serious about making it work they would have started with the engine not left it as an afterthought. Making a plane go supersonic isn't hard, what's hard is making a plane go supersonic efficiently enough to be a viable commercial option, and that problem is all in the engine.
Former-Chicken-9753@reddit
I think they were working with RR (?), who backed out. Which is where most projects would have folded, hence my distrust.
Denbt_Nationale@reddit
They were in consultation with RR to adapt one of their existing engines but that fell through so they announced Symphony which is a clean sheet design they're developing in house. The idea of a startup with zero experience manufacturing what would have to be the most advanced gas turbine engine on the planet is just not credible.
m00ph@reddit
They're working with an existing company, gas turbine experience, but not anything like this kind of engine. I'm enjoying watching, they flew real hardware remember, but that doesn't mean it's going to end well.
C4-621-Raven@reddit
That company they’re working with, Kratos, has only ever built simple tiny engines for cruise missiles and drones. There’s an enormous leap between what they know and what this project will need.
MajiktheBus@reddit
Betting against Kratos hasn’t been the winning position though.
one_time_i_dreampt@reddit
There's a major difference between small gas turbines, and the large ones needed here.
Not only the propulsion system needs to be FAA certified which is no small feat. There's a reason RR, P&W, and GE are the only big aerospace gas turbine manufacturers
BillytheBloxian@reddit
i believe kratos works with GE on the GE series engines iirc
MajiktheBus@reddit
Its doesnt have to be FFA certified for them to sell it to the military which is clearly the new plan. Yall need to listen to earnings calls, FFS.
Denbt_Nationale@reddit
Why would the military buy it? There's no shortage of supersonic capable aircraft/engines in the military sector.
MajiktheBus@reddit
Because it is attached to this airframe. They plan to buy this airframe.
one_time_i_dreampt@reddit
Just because boom/kratos wants to sell to the military doesn't mean the military will buy it.
MajiktheBus@reddit
The military called them, not the other way around. I am not caring about it personally, I am just saying thats their plan.
m00ph@reddit
Absolutely. But they're a lot more credible than me.
blipsonascope@reddit
The fact that they’re actually getting revenue from selling the turbines to data centers for power generation is actually a bit encouraging that they’re serious and making progress on the high pressure core.
rocket_randall@reddit
Is it? A data center gas turbine seems significantly less difficult to produce than one intended to power an aircraft. There's no power to weight ratio or performance curve at temp/altitude to worry about. The pessimist in me feels like this is a clever method to offload failed or unusable (for aerospace) designs while still recouping some of the losses and potentially making a profit.
Keep in mind that it took China nearly two decades to take the WS-15 from a successful static test to flight (according to their state news), and this was high on their list of national defense priorities. I say this not to mock the Chinese, but just to underscore that developing advanced powerplants is as significant an effort as developing the aircraft they're intended to power.
blipsonascope@reddit
Yeah, low altitude performance is different, but in terms of runtime and getting (paid) operating hours under there belt to see what issues there are with materials which is the hardest part. It should allow them to accrue test data much faster which could help with certification. It’s novel, and high risk, but given all that it’s actually pretty smart.
m00ph@reddit
I'm sure not investing, and I have doubts about the public investing in the factory, but building and flying hardware is more than anyone else in the business has done. And the environmentalist in me is hell no. But the airplane nerd thinks it's cool.
RandomNick42@reddit
Well it's either a very long con or they actually know what they're doing even if super ambitious.
Ever since the demonstrator flight, I'm leaving towards the second option. Still think on balance it's more likely they'll fail than not, but at least I think it's an honest attempt
m00ph@reddit
Same.
Denbt_Nationale@reddit
They flew an F-5 with a body kit
studpilot69@reddit
Which managed to make a quiet sonic boom and opened the door for supersonic regulation overhaul! (in concert with the X-59 program). Pretty impressive.
m00ph@reddit
And an extra engine.
ddadopt@reddit
I'd offer SpaceX as a counter to that idea, a startup could develop technology like that under those circumstances, and we know this because it's happened.
The problem here, though, is that there is no way there is enough of a market for these guys to break even much less make money. The old joke about "making a small fortune in aviation by starting with a large one" springs to mind, except the economics of their specific situation is even worse.
ez117@reddit
Did you also decry SpaceX?
lordderplythethird@reddit
Besides the point, as it's actually easier to get to space than to build a modern high performance aircraft engine.
15 nations (Russia, US, France, Japan, China, UK, India, Israel, Ukraine, Russia, Iran, Italy, North Korea, South Korea, New Zealand) have sent rockets to space. 5 nations (US, UK, France, Russia, China) can build modern high performance turbofan engines.
Look at literally every single other nation fielding some high performance aircraft, and what the engine actually is. It's likely an F110, F404, or F414 from the US.
Fuck, it's easier to build a nuclear bomb than it is a modern high-performance turbofan engine.
The ability for a startup with literally zero experience learning one of the most safeguarded secrets in the world, just for a handful of airliners, is effectively non-existent. I have a better chance at winning the lotto.
Boom is nothing but scam, anyone with any shred of common sense can see it.
High_AspectRatio@reddit
Eh, give them 50 years they’ll have it sorted out
pigeontheoneandonly@reddit
The RR thing was complicated. It's true that RR didn't believe the engine could be production ready on the timeline or budget Boom required. But it's also true that RR was still in financial freefall from the pandemic, and literally couldn't afford the risk either.
Killentyme55@reddit
Another major hurdle is the sonic boom. Unless they manage to minimize the effect (something NASA is finding to be quite challenging), that thing will be severely limited to where it can fly at the advertised speed. The same thing happened to the Concorde.
Sea-Target-5962@reddit
Engines aren’t really the problem though. There’s lots of options that they could use. The engine issue is actually an intake issue. You can’t sustain combustion with supersonic intake air, so the intake has to slow the inlet air down to subsonic, while gulping enough air in to make sufficient thrust to maintain supersonic flight. It’s difficult to strike that balance without afterburners, which aren’t economically viable.
Atli2@reddit
It says they even optimized it for safety. Why didn't Boeing think to do that? Are they stupid?
Former-Chicken-9753@reddit
Comforting thought 😎
internet_czar@reddit
Didn't they build a massive manufacturing facility?
Polar_Vortx@reddit
I’m rooting for them, but not with my wallet.
JimTheJerseyGuy@reddit
Same here. I missed out on Concorde and would love to fly on a supersonic transatlantic flight just once.
LupineChemist@reddit
The thing is just like ATMs didn't get rid of the bank tellers, online banking did.
For supersonic flight, it's in flight wifi that's the competition.
It's no longer worth multiple thousands of extra per hour on a ticket if you can just work while in the air.
Not to mention going east it might not be lost time at all if you can just sleep in a first class seat.
Concorde worked (in the end) because they could charge bankers 10k per ticket (closer to 20k today) between NY and London because those people were out of commission when flying. And if their time was worth 5k per hour, it made sense.
Now you're making money while traveling
RedMacryon@reddit
Yea it's weird
one_time_i_dreampt@reddit
A lot of aerospace startup looks like a scam in my eyes. The one I just don't understand is Windrunner.
AbeFromanEast@reddit
The SEC doesn't prosecute anyone for anything, anymore.
three_st1cks@reddit
I met the lead avionics guy at a random karaoke bar one time. He seemed very confident if they can get it off the ground it'll be great. Big if.
Great chap though and paid for my tab. I wish the best for them.
CaydeTheCat@reddit
Forbes 30 Under 30 has entered the chat...
bardghost_Isu@reddit
Sorry, they forgot the caveat that the meaning of that was actually "30 (years in jail) under 30"
cuntmong@reddit
Financial crimes investigators just sit round playing office table-tennis all day until forbes posts that list and then they spring to action because they know where their next sting opration will be
BlackWolf047@reddit
Elizabeth Holmes is in the chat...
Epstiendidntkillself@reddit
Jim Bede has entered the chat...
Offsets@reddit
It would be cool if it works out. And if it doesn't, we continue onward exactly as we are today. I don't see the problem.
Former-Chicken-9753@reddit
Maybe, but money, trust and goodwill are finite. So if it isn't legit, it's taking these away from more deserving projects.
10tonheadofwetsand@reddit
Do you think Boom’s investors don’t understand the risks?
Former-Chicken-9753@reddit
They do, but that's beside the point. If it's fraud, Boom are eclipsing other projects for no good reason.
ttystikk@reddit
Concorde was a truly incredible aircraft and it never came close to making money.
CaptainZloggg@reddit
Not true. Later in its life, it was a real cash cow for BA, primarily because of charter flights.
ttystikk@reddit
I was not aware of the charter flight business. Tell me more?
CaptainZloggg@reddit
There was a firm called Goodwood Travel (?) and a few others that offered regular supersonic "Bang around the Bay" (Biscay), the pyramids of Cairo for a Sunday afternoon, Santa in Lappland in the winter trips. Some also did around the world trips. Sadly a French A/C charter of German tourists was the one that crashed over Gonesse near Paris.
ttystikk@reddit
That sounds like huge fun!
MonkeyJohn90@reddit
It made BA a nice profit but only after a huge push to open up the charter market and raise ticket prices on the main LHR-JFK route.
ttystikk@reddit
When I was young, I heard that tickets were $20k apiece. I never looked again...
KAMEKAZE_VIKINGS@reddit
A supersonic passenger liner that needs specialized infrastructure and costs a fortune to fly on? You're right, the Concorde would never be successful!
Oh wait wrong century
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
In fairness, the Concorde was a commercial failure and gigantic money pit that could only operate at a profit if you ignored or wrote off the other costs associated with designing, producing, and supporting it.
sgt102@reddit
The market that it needed shut it out, and the oil crisis came at the wrong time.
It was outrun by history.
Gyn_Nag@reddit
Well part of the justification was probably "just in case we need a Mach 2 nuclear bomber..." (turned out: no)
En4cr@reddit
27 years of Concorde operations seems like pretty successful run for all the supersonic naysayers.
Gryphus1CZ@reddit
27 years of getting money pumped into it by Britain and France, it never paid itself by the revenue of it flying, it was a commercial failure, they were just prolonging its process of dying
F10flotilje@reddit
concorde did make some money for BA, while AF instead operated on a loss covered by the french goverment for the last years. Should be noted the planes and the development was practically free, subsidized by the goverment. So while BA could operate on its revenues and make a profit they never had to pay the full cost of the planes.
Flight 4590 then 9/11 paired with slower but a lot more comfortable and cheaper alternatives was the end.
suuntasade@reddit
And yet we are still talking about it. Maybe it all cannot be mesured in direct numbers on spreadsheet.
Gryphus1CZ@reddit
Yes, the airplane became quickly legendary, but that doesn't mean it's economical failure
En4cr@reddit
Wrong…it did eventually turn a profit. Lots of info on that online if you care to educate yourself.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
“Turn a profit?” Do you mean that in terms of operating for a single flight, a single year, lifetime costs for its airline, or the program itself for the manufacturer? Because those are all very different things.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Yes. In other words, it was a rare case of a boondoggle successfully reaching the operational stage of being a white elephant, or more charitably, a loss-leading prestige product for the governments and airlines associated with making and fielding it.
TheAgedProfessor@reddit
Not really. It was successful at heightening BA/AF visibility and branding in the arena, but as far as economics, no, it made little sense. It was essentially a loss leader to bolster confidence in French and British technology. Plus, 27 years is pretty average or below in commercial aviation terms. The DC-10 flew for just over 20 years, and likely would've gone on for several more if it's reputation wasn't shot to hell. The 747 flew for nearly 3 times that.
julias-winston@reddit
Concorde needed specialized infrastructure? Airport gates had to be modified to accommodate A380s, but I hadn't heard this about Concorde before.
YSU777@reddit
Concorde was a huge money pit that never turned a profit, which was acceptable when everything was nationalized and governments could funnel money for a project that became a sense of national pride. Unfortunately this will not work in today environment where public companies must show a profit.
hobbseltoff@reddit
Well for starters, Concorde didn't have an APU so it needed a special air start cart wherever it went.
FelisCantabrigiensis@reddit
It wasn't that special. The Boeing 707 did not have an APU, nor the civilian VC-10 (military ones did). Air start carts are still available at many airports in case an aircraft has an unserviceable APU.
hobbseltoff@reddit
I was under the impression that it was different than a standard huffer cart but I could be mistaken.
vaska00762@reddit
External bleed air carts were uncommon in the Concorde era. A large number of ground support carts can now provide Ground Power, Air Conditioning and Bleed Air all in one package. This is usually used in a military context these days, as it's largely fighter jets these days that don't have APUs.
FelisCantabrigiensis@reddit
When Concorde entered service, start carts were common. BA was operating plenty of 707 and VC10 aircraft without APUs. Many other airlines were also operating the 707 and some DC-8s also lacked APUs.
By the end of Concorde’s service, needing an air start cart was rare and they were usually used for occasional aircraft with faulty APUs but at the entry to service in 1976 requiring one was still fairly common.
NakedJamaican@reddit
I doubt that air carts were uncommon back then. Early DC8s and B707s did not have APUs.
FelisCantabrigiensis@reddit
No, it's your standard compressed air cart that connects to the bleed manifold and pressurises it so you can use the engine air starter.
the_Q_spice@reddit
Air carts are like the least concerning bit.
The ramp I work at only gets 1 cargo flight per day, but we have 3 possible gates.
I think we have 6 or 7 air carts.
Relatively speaking (in airport terms), huffers are pretty cheap.
HengaHox@reddit
Air start carts aren’t rare at airports. A quick google comes up with the info that the concorde used many start carts, including the MA-1A which is also used by USAF
So no, there’s nothing special about that really
Jbrahms4@reddit
Airport TARMACS had to be modified for A380s too.
sourcefourmini@reddit
Do you mean the Terrain-Augmenting Runway and Maneuvering Asphalt/Concrete Surface?
MoeSzyslakMonobrow@reddit
Wait... It's an acronym?
BubbaTheGoat@reddit
No, tarmac is a MacAdams road with tar added.
jello_sweaters@reddit
She was so great in The Notebook.
mister_magic@reddit
It’s a brand name/specific patented process product akshually!
An airport has a ramp, taxiways and runways and these days wouldn’t use the original “tarmac” to pave them. I think.
debuggingworlds@reddit
https://www.tarmac.com/news/newcastle-airport-resurfacing-is-a-runway-success/
Tarmac itself still do runway resurfacing.
shawaj@reddit
No, it's not. Think this is just a joke 😊
sourcefourmini@reddit
Yeah I'm pretty sure they were just capitalizing the word for emphasis, but I saw my shot and took it
quietflyr@reddit
No
TheSultan1@reddit
Lol no. But that's not the worst backronym I've heard.
DazzzASTER@reddit
Read Mike Bannisters book and it becomes quite clear it needed a lot of specialist gear. If Air France had pulled out post the accident, they said the BA fleet had absolutely zero chance.
For one, it didn't even have an APU....
KAMEKAZE_VIKINGS@reddit
I was thinking more for maintenance though I'll admit I don't know how much special equipment was needed to service the concorde that's not found in a decently large international airport.
MadT3acher@reddit
The Concorde was kinda supported heavily by the British and French government as a flagship for their countries’ technological advance.
The Tu-144 at least flew, but barely a few years and thanks to USSR’s help and the Boeing 2707 was never built…
It’s not that nobody tried. But the pasta don’t stick on the wall and it’s not sure they would with Boom.
NB: also, the concorde wasn’t always making money on a rotation to NY. The scheduling wasn’t aligning well with faster travels.
UglyInThMorning@reddit
The Tu-144 was also so frequently grounded due to being broken that the one NASA broke had around 80 flight hours on it when it was taken out of storage in the 90’s.
Killentyme55@reddit
It was also a terrible airliner. The climate control system was grossly undersized so the cabin was always hot, and it was so loud inside that normal conversation was nearly impossible. It never stood a chance.
spedeedeps@reddit
It was so loud because, as opposed to Concorde, the Tupolev needed to run its afterburners for the duration of the flight, not just to accelerate to cruising speed/altitude.
Caligulaonreddit@reddit
spoiler: it wasnt successful
FreeDwooD@reddit
Concorde was never successful. It was a prestige project and loss leader for two airlines with state backing.
kramit@reddit
Concorde did have the advantage of being a dual government project with the garuntee of the flagship carriers purchasing the airliner, in a time where the west and the east were racing in the capitalist vs communist race. Concorde was amazing, and beautiful at the end, yet trying to do the same, even today with private money is very different. See NASA and moon landings.
superman_king@reddit
What specialized infrastructure would it require? What would an airport need to change to accommodate it?
Horatio-Leafblower@reddit
Well the Concorde was an economic failure. And it was phenomenally subsidised- no development cost, no acquisition cost, fuel subsidies etc etc
Rebi103@reddit
I wouldn't call Concorde that successful when compared to conventional airliners
euanmorse@reddit
It was succesful in service if you look solely at BA. Air France did not run them well at all.
In terms of units sold, the Concorde was not a success at all.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
The Concorde isn’t even successful compared to the A380, and that was also a commercial failure for Airbus.
TheAgedProfessor@reddit
Concorde didn't need particularly specialized infrastructure. But with supersonic travel over US airspace being very very limited, they chose the airports it served very very carefully; in a compromise between airports that were big enough to support heavy traffic, and getting there at subsonic speeds which impacted it's efficiency.
Gryphus1CZ@reddit
Concorde never paid for itself, it was doomed since day 1
_badwithcomputer@reddit
The US banning supersonic passenger overflights helped kill the Concorde as well.
While the EU mostly banned the practice, I just they figured we would let them wreak havoc on the population with sonic booms.
That limited the number of cities it could feasibly fly in and out of in the USA which sort of killed its future.
slowpoke2018@reddit
I'll believe this company 1000x over anything Elmo and his grifting BS says
Aren't we already supposed to have FSD and be on the Mars?
nogood-usernamesleft@reddit
Their chances of getting off the ground tanked when they couldn't find an engine supplier and decided to build one themselves Airframe or Powerplant, only take a risk on one of them
Appropriate-Count-64@reddit
Idk I’ve been keeping tabs and they managed to get over the biggest hurdle everyone said they wouldn’t be able to:
They got a Symphony combustor running with good flame stability. As far as we know they are on track for making Symphony run sometime late this year or early next year. Whether they make money or not is an open question but they are probably gonna get the Overture flying.
nogood-usernamesleft@reddit
I would be very impressed if they pulled it off, it basically required the company to pivot from airframe to powerplant
Appropriate-Count-64@reddit
I mean they were starting from zero anyways so it’s not like it’s a massive pivot. Different engineers? Sure. But that’s why it took 5 years to get going.
nogood-usernamesleft@reddit
It is also a long way from a tested engine core to a production ready certified engine that will be up to the airlines requirements
Will come down to of they have enough investment and time to finish the development cycle
texas166@reddit
Bold move to name your company after the reason Concorde was not allowed to fly supersonic over land.
CosgraveSilkweaver@reddit
There's are tricks they're pulling to reduce the level of noise produced by the sonic boom. NASA was testing the idea for years and iirc there was some tech transfer or people left that project to found/work for Boom. The idea is they make the disturbance low enough countries allow them to fly super sonic over land.
MightySquirrel28@reddit
One of their main tricks is that it will never fly
studpilot69@reddit
The NASA project (X-59 QUESST) is still on going and in the middle of early flight test right now. They know and work with the Boom folks all the time (offices are 45 min from each other).
Seaguard5@reddit
So boom gets free R&D?
Sounds like a sweet deal. What’s in it for NASA?
studpilot69@reddit
You mean everyone gets free R&D from NASA? That’s been NASA’s modus ooerandi from the NACA days before the space age.
mimicthefrench@reddit
This is part of NASA's mission, they do a ton of research on cutting edge stuff like this that benefits the aerospace industry as a whole. Among other projects, they're also in early testing stages on a new wing concept that would theoretically help reduce drag (and thus lower fuel usage). The scale model for that recently flew attached to the bottom of an F15. They've been doing this sort of thing for decades too, the modern glass cockpit designs you see in current planes owe a lot to NASA research from the 70s and 80s, for example.
avar@reddit
The Concorde wasn't allowed to do that in the US due to US protectionism. Whatever other issues Boom has, assuming that the regulator will treat an American design differently if given the fig leaf of "it's a smaller sonic boom" or whatever seems reasonable.
F10flotilje@reddit
cant say I know how sonic booms sound from planes on the "edge" to space, but always remeber the story when a viggen doing a flyby over a airforce base. The pilot came in to steep with full afterburner. (multiple houses exploaded, walls got ripped apart everything not made of sturdy materials destroyed, ) witnesses described it as a bomb going off
ThePonderousBear@reddit
Us protectionism is a fucking laugh. Id imagine you haven't experienced a sonic boom absolutely rocking your house in the middle of the night. No way the government would allow anyone us or otherwise to fly supersonic. People have forgotten how fucking loud planes used to be. You used to have to stop conversations when planes at like 10k ft flew overhead.
studpilot69@reddit
…the US ban on overland supersonic flight was lifted last year and is being replaced by noise based standards.
I live in the place that experiences the most sonic booms in the world (multiple, every day). It can be managed responsibly.
sofixa11@reddit
Doesn't really matter IMO, if there was a Boeing 2707 there wouldn't have been a sonic boom ban out of national pride and in the name of progress.
Vxctn@reddit
They proved with their test jet they built and flew they can dissipate the sonic boom.
NoPastramiNoLife@reddit
They test and flew? Or the one that NASA is currently testing and has only had its first flight (not supersonic)?
studpilot69@reddit
Yes. The one Boom tested and flew supersonic. Multiple times.
And the NASA X-59 has flown 9 times already. They’ve reached 43,000’ and approached Mach 0.95.
reddeagle99@reddit
Yeah they have a testbed plane they've been flying around for a while.
Carlito_2112@reddit
There is a bill to allow supersonic over land. It has already been passed by the House; it is now awaiting approval by the Senate.
-Badger3-@reddit
Bold move to name your company after the sound a plane makes when it crashes.
ErectStoat@reddit
Always thought it was more in the thud family of noises, like a deep WHUMP.
PozPoz__@reddit
Dibs on whump airlines
UW_Ebay@reddit
Yeah and the noise it makes when it explodes.
emezeekiel@reddit
That reason is gone
Appropriate-Count-64@reddit
I mean ok, heres the thing:
Overture is going to use Medium Bypass engines, and they've already validated their fuel injector/combustor design. Let that sink in for a moment. The Overture is going from Afterburning Turbojets with 0 bypass ratio to nonafterburning medium bypass engines. For reference of the difference between AFTERBURNING Turbojets and Turbofans, the OPR (Overall Pressure Ratio, One indicator of Thermal efficiency in an engine) of the Olympus 593 was 15.5:1. The F100-PW-100 on the F-15, which is a Turbofan, has an OPR of 24:1. And thats with just a Bypass ratio of 0.36:1 on the F100, or low bypass.
Its really hard to overstate how much of a difference in efficiency going 0.5 mach slower with nonafterburning engines will make. Afterburner is just that much less efficient.
A good historical example is actually between the Concorde and TU-144. The TU-144 couldn't supercruise, and its range suffered. From 3900 nmi of range on the Concorde to...... 1900 nmi. At best. Afterburners roughly DOUBLED the fuel consumption. And Symphony is nixing the last phases of flight that Concorde had to use Afterburner for, while also making it have a greater Bypass ratio.
Ok thats enough about engines. The Interior design also matters. One of the big reasons Concorde sales slowed in the later years was because Concorde was only able to accommodate 100 economy style 2+2 seats. The fuselage was way too narrow for any kind of business class or premium economy seat to fit without making the capacity like.... 25 seats at best. This meant that Concorde's Passenger experience was not great. You paid an exorbitant amount of money for...... flying on a 737 in Economy, basically. The food was good but everything else kinda sucked, and due to its design Concorde wouldn't even be able to be retrofitted with in flight entertainment.
The big thing with Overture is that its fuselage is wider. Yes its capacity is only 80 people instead of 100, but given Concorde could never fill 100 seats even when chartered, so the argument of "its less people" is foolhardy. The entire design assumes airlines fill the space with their best, most comfortable arrangements. Lie flat seats, in flight entertainment and wifi, the works. The idea is that it isn't *just* fast but it can actually have a premium accommodation that is worthy of the premium pricetag Concorde could just never truly justify. Couple this with the efficiency improvements of going from **TURBOJETS TO TURBOFANS** and yeah, there is at least a modicum of a business case here.
I mean yes, there are problems. For one, their "Boomless" Solution is a bandaid fix. Trying to fly in the transsonic regime to create no sonic boom is stupid and elimnates 90% of the fuel efficiency gains. Their solution of flying to Tokyo to LAX via HNL is a stretch. HOWEVER, making an Extended Range variant is far easier once you actually have flight hardware. There is a reason Boeing doesn't start with the 737-900ER or the 767-300ER. Its easier to start with a design that has room to grow than max everything out from the jump and make the entire thing overly heavy.
I think overall people are just overly negative and skeptical towards Boom. Making a plane takes time. Even Boeing takes several years just to make a variant of an existing product. Boom taking 5 to make an SST from the ground up is not surprising. But what is surprising is calling them a scam after they:
Built an entire factory
Built a tech demonstrator in a world first for a private company.
Are currently building a demonstrator engine.
Have already set up several testing facilities.
Is kinda strange. Most scams would not run for 5 years on private investment. They generally take the bag and run after 1 or 2 and never build flight hardware. They also tend to MASSIVELY overpromise on performance. See: Aerion SBJ (wanted to use JT8Ds in supersonic flight with no changes) and Hypermach SonicStar (Wanted to carry 20 people at speeds faster than an SR-71 with range of a G650ER on nonafterburning engines). I think what we are really seeing is a small startup try to make an SST from the ground up with as much support as they can garner, even if that means riding the AI bubble to get millions of extra dollars for Overture.
And its worth noting: United, JAL, and American all have outstanding orders for Overture. They would've pulled out by now if they thought something smelled fishy or they thought there was no business case. They did with Concorde when the FAA First banned supersonic overflights. And I think that says a lot about Boom on its own.
NeedForM654@reddit
I would like to see it fly just because it's cool. At least a prototype
kevinpet@reddit
They already went supersonic in the prototype.
NeedForM654@reddit
Ik. The XB-1. I mean I want to see the Overture fly. By prototype I meant first aircraft, my mistake
Puravida1904@reddit
We got a response from the CEO
rubbercat@reddit
ask why, asshole
NobodyTellPoeDameron@reddit
You know who else used the term "asshole" in response to a probing question by an analyst on an earnings call? Jeff Skilling at Enron.
These guys are total scammers. They will never be able to develop the engine necessary to make this work. This is a straight up scam.
adoggman@reddit
Sam Altman too. CEOs getting mad that people are questioning your business model = they don't have a good answer.
ZeBurtReynold@reddit
Yeah, love this — someone who is mature and has a solid business model would just shrug, and be like, “Whatever”
waldo-jeffers-68@reddit
In fairness a bunch of Redditors on the aviation subreddit aren’t equivalent to an analyst on an earnings call, but I get your point
Jamman_85@reddit
They have an engine already though...
peterpanic32@reddit
Yeah, dude wishes he could manipulate a stock price based on wild comments on social media like all the other meme stocks.
Might be able to bankrupt some speculators, but won't a business model or viable product make.
Competitive_Cheek607@reddit
That confidence is a great signal to investors, nobody in history has ever falsely made bold claims about their products
I’m totally neutral about Boom, it would be cool to see if it succeeds, but I also think nowadays a hefty amount of skepticism is warranted, and it seems like it could easily turn into one of those things that’s perpetually “just a few years away”
Pootang_Wootang@reddit
The Tesla roadster 2.0 is less vaporware than this thing, and it’s never being built.
Leefa@reddit
RemindMe! 1 year
Seaguard5@reddit
He certainly talks a big game. Very triggered
RedMacryon@reddit
Lmao
eldelshell@reddit
Hey Blake, you can always pivot to AI.
DecentlySizedPotato@reddit
Saving this screenshot for the future.
john0201@reddit
Wow, their CEO is angry enough to publicly call people assholes. That ironically screams scam.
FlatwormNo615@reddit
Tweets like these are just confirming the OP's thesis. Increasingly reminds me of Nikola Motor Company .
PG67AW@reddit
I used to be bummed that they didn’t hire me. The more I learn about him and his company, the more I realize I dodged a bullet lol.
UnexpectedFisting@reddit
Wildly based CEO
theoriginalturk@reddit
More like an unhinged crybaby
Andrew10403@reddit
All over a post with like sub 600 upvotes kill me right now 😭😭😭
erdle@reddit
lol. as a public company ... they would have to report earnings ...
Rare-Instance7961@reddit
Well, that certainly doesn't inspire confidence.
Brief-Visit-8857@reddit
Just confirmed it for me lok
TaskForceCausality@reddit (OP)
😆
Erlend05@reddit
Lmao
filanwizard@reddit
I am guessing this will still be vulnerable to the same thing that hamstrung the Concorde, An inability to go supersonic over land. The NASA X-59 however might one day dredge up the aerodynamics data that is needed for a plane that has a quieter sonic boom permitting flight over land at supersonic speeds.
During the SST "arms race" the USAF flew the XB-70 over Oklahoma City at high altitude at high speed and the sonic booms still cracked windows. that along with costs helped kill the American SST efforts. Humorously the 747 which was supposed to be a short term stopgap until supersonics replaced everything ended up outlasting supersonic passenger flight.
julias-winston@reddit
United agreed to something with them a few years back, so I assumed they were at least sorta legit. However, that's been a while and I haven't heard much else since then.
pl0nk@reddit
Their engine provider backed out, so they decided to increase project scope to include an in-house engine design. Commercial jet turbine design and manufacturing is notably not an easy business to enter, so this raised some eyebrows, but they are starting with a design adapter as a gas turbine for AI data center power generation, which has huge demand now and a many year backlog. So while there are reasons to be a little skeptical, they are absolutely not going down without a fight, and it is not a scam, just a long-shot ambitious startup, which we should celebrate.
tomrannosaurus@reddit
AI data center turbines might genuinely be similar to the engines they need, but this being in their business plan isn’t helping them beat the scammer allegations
guynamedjames@reddit
What in the fuck is an "AI data center turbine"? Are we just saying turbine but calling it an "AI" turbine to scan funding?
tomrannosaurus@reddit
they’re using massive natural gas turbines to power data centers bc power plants can’t handle the load. current versions are very loud, and pollute a ton. so it’s a real issue, it’s just also real scam bait
guynamedjames@reddit
I used to work on utility power generation gas turbines. They share about as much in common with supersonic jet engines as a diesel ship engine shares with the engine in a diesel VW Golf.
There are some "aero-derivative" power generation turbines but as the name implies that change only works in one direction. Changing the engineering to make it fly is essentially designing an all new engine.
Mastershima@reddit
I'm not defending them either, but aero-derivative power generators are very popular and widely used, the difference is that they lose a lot of power in hotter environments. That's kind of expected, given they are derived from engines that are designed to perform optimally in cooler air higher in the atmosphere. They MIGHT have an edge if their engines perform as advertised, that is continuous peak performance in hotter environments (like those it would face during the supersonic flight envelope). I'm saying the pivot to try and make money from their engine design makes the most sense since it's going to generate some revenue to chase the moon shot.
tomrannosaurus@reddit
i’m not defending any of it, you just seemed confused about what “AI data center turbine” meant
guynamedjames@reddit
You can just call it a gas turbine or power generation turbine. It's used for making electricity for like 30-50% of all power demand in the US, there's nothing specific to AI data centers in their use.
tomrannosaurus@reddit
sir, as i said before, i understand. i know they are not special turbines
MagnesiumOvercast@reddit
Yeah pivoting to the current hot thing is scammer behaviour
Guilty_Spare_7078@reddit
Oh for fucks sake
OmNomSandvich@reddit
the design case means you basically want a civilian B-1 (or Tu-22) with a bunch of big fighter-style turbofans running in supercruise. So now you are basically remaking a non-ITAR'ed F135/F119/F404 and good luck doing that.
The AI idea is batshit, that wants super high efficiency and long life at a single operating point which is very different than low weight turbofans. You want to make money on AI gas turbines, get into aftermarket spares and services.
reddeagle99@reddit
I mean the team they have for the engine consists of a lot of the people who designed the f119 and f135 so they have something going for them at least
EclecticEuTECHtic@reddit
Of course they are.
flyingscotsman12@reddit
Poor, new innovative aircraft AND new innovative engine in the same project? These guys are doomed.
Ecthelion-O-Fountain@reddit
They already have made a scaled down version. The airframe should be all but details at this point. The engine consortium is a couple companies that make engine parts for the big dogs so that isn’t that big of a stretch to me. They have some USAF backing and two airline investors. I give them better than 50/50. Will they meet promised performance targets? Probably not which hardly makes them special.
Straight_Loan8271@reddit
Oh don't worry, they're outsourcing the new engine... to Kratos.
BLARTYMACMUFFIN@reddit
United gave them some money for a billion dollars worth of marketing…
eric-neg@reddit
I don’t even think they gave them any money upfront. IF they can meet regulatory/safety hurdles in a certain timeframe then they are on the hook to buy 15. But if they don’t I don’t think it costs them a thing.
peterpanic32@reddit
It's basically a minor joint marketing exercise. United gets something fun to talk about in their marketing, Boom gets to pretend it has a potential customer.
lancerevo37@reddit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WlqWjPa0hw
Its wierd yesterday this came up on my youtube stuff. But yeah really have not heard of anything recently. I'm just waiting on the airlines to start flipping shit about the fuel prices like I experienced when I started my career in 2008.
F10flotilje@reddit
Is it possible, well the concorde could do half that time, and that plane / its enginees were designed by hand using pen and ruler in the 60s so I would belive its very much possible today. Altough the image doesn't seem very aerodynamic at mach 1.7
And comparing to concorde I dont belive it would be successful or profitable at all, espically considering the fuel prices. I also don't belive its something we should invest in considering the fossile fuel / climate problems,
FetteBeuteHoch2@reddit
That slowly looks like its the same "experience" like the SAKER S1 or ATG Javelin.
Disastrous-Grape-516@reddit
Their VP of Manufacturing is leaving.
Difficult_Limit2718@reddit
Uhhh.... Was it ever not?
richbiatches@reddit
Its like somebody’s senior thesis has gained a life of its own. Wonderful theory but still just pie in the sky.
frozenhawaiian@reddit
Boom is going to be theranos of the aviation world. I’d bet my last dollar on it.
Evening_Stage_2387@reddit
“Optimized for sustainability” right right
FlatwormNo615@reddit
I don't think that the Overture will ever seem commercial service. The business case is even more limited than it was when Concorde was developed. It's no longer the 1950s-1960s. Data and information can be exchanged near instantousely in most cases.
That being said, the figures on paper do look achievable. It's supposed to have similar dimensions to Concorde (roughly same length but slightly larger wingspan), carry fewer passengers, fly at a lower cruise speed and have roughly 9% more range than Concorde.
I could see that aeronautical technology has come far enough to make this possible (at least on paper). Boom will need to achieve/surpass their targets if they want to even stand a chance of commercial services.
TaskForceCausality@reddit (OP)
The “on paper” part brings me to another unsolved obstacle- certification. The US FAA took years to certify the latest iteration of the Boeing 737, an aircraft that’s been in serial production since the Vietnam War.
Does Boom Aerospace have the capital to maintain operations and finance airframe redesign when- not if- the regulators request safety changes ? Further, once the Overture IS redesigned to the regulator’s satisfaction, assuming the changes don’t bankrupt the company , will the final aircraft still be economically viable?
Puravida1904@reddit
CEO has replied
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
CEO sounds butt-hurt :)
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
This is hilarious. One of the reasons that commercial supersonic flight went away in the first place is because first and business class became too “nice” for the Concorde to compete; it was not luxurious by comparison in any way except speed.
EclecticEuTECHtic@reddit
A CEO trolling reddit looking for posts calling out his company and then responding to them on Twitter is bananas. Don't you have more important things to do Mr. Clean sheet AI gas turbine guy?
s0ul_invictus@reddit
lmfao this is wild
TaskForceCausality@reddit (OP)
And it provides no answer to the certification question. In a world where fuel prices are going up and about 17,000 former Spirit employees are out of work , that’s a telling omission.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
The technical specifications and even the ability to mitigate sonic booms wasn’t ever the thing that made me side-eye the company, it was the amount of money needed to accomplish those things and the proposed business case.
One of the reasons the Concorde was a money pit is because it burned about 4 times the fuel per passenger than a 747. As a solution to prevent themselves from getting lynched by environmentalists, Boom stated their intent to operate on sustainable aviation fuels—but that just makes the economics even worse, as SAFs are several times more expensive than normal aviation fuel. Yet they also want the costs to be comparable to conventional business class on a subsonic airliner.
Additionally, since we’re launching into a potentially years-long gas crisis right now with jet fuel disproportionately impacted, I’m not seeing how that math gets math-ing.
NoBusiness674@reddit
100% SAF compatible is good for marketing and long-term environment regulation compliance. That doesn't mean the that a customer that buys one of these planes won't be able to fuel it with regular fossil-fuel-based aviation fuel (or a mix of fossil and sustainable) while using fossil fuels is legal and cheap.
What's the alternative to 100% SAF compatible? Making something that will basically be illegal to fly (or require significant overhauls) in the event that legislation is passed banning fossil aviation fuels or making it run on an expensive alternative fuel, like hydrogen, from the start which isn't compatible with regular aviation fuel.
Especially for something ambitious like this where we can probably expect an extra long development timeline, Net-Zero-CO2 aviation laws being passed and coming into effect between now and the end of this planes useful life is a real possibility.
GnarlyNarwhalNoms@reddit
They really did pick the worst time to do this. It's possible that as infrastructure gets built out, SAF will get cheaper in the future. But actually betting on it happening soon is a sucker's bet.
drjellyninja@reddit
They'll probably just pull the plug on being 100% SAF if they ever end up flying
Bartybum@reddit
They've been around since at least 2017 so they've been rocked around heavily, especially with the remote working boom that came out of the pandemic, and now this
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Likewise, Boeing picked a helluva time to give up on their super-efficient truss-braced wing program a little while ago. Bet they’d have liked that on the docket, ready to go in response to the gas crisis, taking advantage of other backed-up airframe orders flooding into that program instead.
sunnystand@reddit
Increases in cost and restriction on supply makes SAF more viable...
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Certainly not for a supersonic airliner, though, since if prices skyrocket that high, it would be immensely more cost-effective to devote whatever limited production of fuel that available to subsonic airliners that burn maybe 1/5 as much fuel per passenger-mile as a supersonic airliner.
Historical_Gur_3054@reddit
Yep, modern day communications have almost eliminated the need to fly some c-suite exec across the ocean to have a meeting or sign a document.
And if they truly need to fly somewhere then they're going First Class or taking a charter.
Phandflasche@reddit
Also, it's not THAT much faster. I always wondered why someone would fly supersonic at all just to get somewhere like 2 hours faster for 5x the price. I know some people view Time as money, but for even the upperclass bloke this seems idiotic
RecordEnvironmental4@reddit
The biz jet implications alone make this a viable project, can you imagine how much companies would be willing to pay in order to cut down travel time by that much
FlatwormNo615@reddit
That's the thing though. I'm not sure that companies are willing to cut down travel time.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Probably not the tens of billions of dollars it would take to develop such a thing.
PracticalConjecture@reddit
LAX to PPG (American Samoa) is 4150nm. PPG to SYD is 2,400nm
Strong_Coffee_9999@reddit
A bad headwind and you're going swimming I guess.
PracticalConjecture@reddit
Listed range usually excludes a 45min reserve at cruise speed, and with Boom's high cruise speed that would imply around 730nm of reserve range, and with that you'd need a pretty massive headwind before you'd be going swimming.
Of course, with the aircraft so early in development, Who actually knows if it will meet targets.
MonsieurLartiste@reddit
The thing that bothers me is that for an established aerospace company, it’s nearly impossible to bring a new jet to market profitably - except for Boeing/Airbus. And even then.
My big example is the Bombardier C100 and C300 aircraft. Incredible plane. Flew it dozens of times.
They couldn’t even make that airframe profitable, it was in the process of bankrupting the civilian aerospace division of Bombardier which then sold this program to Airbus, hello A220, and most of the other remaining big jets to competitors.
Bombardier Commercial Aerospace was nearly totalled by a subsonic city jet.
So don’t tell me complete newbies can pull off a brand new commercial, supersonic jet program out of thin air.
No fucking chance.
JumpEnvironmental741@reddit
The L1011 almost bankrupted Lockheed, and they had a engine manufacturer.
realsimulator1@reddit
It was even more advanced and efficient than all of it's competitors.
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
But it came too late to the market, twin-jets were already warming up to longer ETOPS.
Kdj2j2@reddit
That was killed by Boeing saying, “we’d rather lobby for tariffs than build a competitive product.”
fredandlunchbox@reddit
The problem with supersonic travel is always that the additional cost doesn't justify the time savings. In their example: 9 hours vs 14.5 hours -- either way your whole day is spent on the plane. How many people are willing to spend the extra $5k or whatever it will be?
Honestly the only market it probably makes sense for is private. If rich people who literally do not care about money could buy a supersonic jet equipped like a gulfstream, they would. If a G5 is $50M and a supersonic private jet was $100M, there are a bunch of people who would do it.
Unusual-Arachnid5375@reddit
⬆️ This should be higher.
LHR-JFK (and CDG-JFK) was basically the goldilocks route: Just long enough to make the time savings worth it. Just short enough that the time zone change didn't negate the airtime savings. Just enough big bank offices (travelers paying with Other People's Money) in both cities to fill two planes a day. And the kicker: the difference between sub- and super-sonic means not booking a hotel and sleeping in your own bed.
Look at a hypothetical Concorde LHR-SFO route. Time zones kill you.
Assume that you could somehow go Mach 2 the entire time: Leave the city by 9:30am -> depart LHR at 10:30am -> arrive SFO at 7:00am -> in the office by 8:00am. Leave SFO at 11am (so leave the office before 10am), return to LHR just before midnight. You get less than 2 hours of face time with people in the SF office and don't arrive home until 1am. You can't even do the reverse direction at all without booking a hotel in London. So why not just take a lay-flat on a subsonic widebody and have a full day for meetings?
It's really hard to find anywhere besides the north transatlantic route where supersonic makes any sense from a customer perspective. Some routes between the north and south hemispheres might work because then you're not fighting the time zone shift as much, but how many north-south city pairs have enough demand to support it? Maybe Tokyo/Beijing/HK-Sydney? Maybe NYC-Rio?
So the total global demand is, what, a couple dozen airframes? How is that supposed to work? The only market is billionaires trying to one-up each other.
fredandlunchbox@reddit
Yeah until you have rocket-type gains where SFO to LHR is like 1hr, its not worth it logistically.
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
That thing is a big too big for a private jet, except for the rich guys from the gulf and #47, maybe.
wabbitsilly@reddit
It's kind of no different than Hill Helicopters (also doing their own engine, claiming certification, etc..) - with almost zero chance of meeting specs/time/costs. They do produce lots of shiny videos, take a lot of non-refundable deposits, but in reality is vaporware.
Switchblade flying car has been milking money of people for years, with almost zero chance of success.
A bunch of the EVTOL companies will likely disappear as well.
Aviation is just littered with people who either believed in their goal but were never going to pull it off, or - just working perpetually on something using other people's money.
Jack123610@reddit
Solar Freakin' Roadways
LateralThinkerer@reddit
Four engines hanging out in the breeze and Mach 1.7? >*cough**cough*<
Carry enough fuel to span that distance? >*cough**cough*<
Carry enough passengers to make all that worthwhile? >*cough**cough*<
Some simple arithmetic:
The B-58 (four engines in the breeze) has been done and it burned \~75,000lbs/hr at Mach 2
Cut that in half for magically efficient engines, slightly slower speed, and magically better design so let's postulate 37500 lbs/h for 8.75h = 328,125lbs of fuel for the trip with no reserve.
With fuel δ=6.5 lb/gal = 48.62 lb/ft\^3, that's \~6750 cubic feet of fuel. No reserve.
Where ya gonna put all that fuel?
>*cough**cough*<
InteractiveCream@reddit
They're selling AI generators now so...
InteractiveCream@reddit
They haven't even designed or tested an engine let alone getting one certified.
PuddlesRex@reddit
Even if it's not a scam (which I think it is), it will absolutely be a massive flop, just by having even surface level knowledge of the Concorde, and aviation trends.
About 70-75% of all airline passengers are traveling for non business purposes (leisure, family, etc.) meaning that they are largely paying for it with their own money. Due to several global factors, the typical consumer is more cost conscious than ever before. Meaning that most passengers, given a selection of flights from point A to B, will pick the cheapest option.
The second biggest choice is number and location of layovers. With the fewest number of layovers being ideal. Additionally, some passengers may wish to avoid certain airports for personal reasons.
Now, with this knowledge, let's look at Boom.
Per Boom's website, they say that tickets should be "profitable for airlines at fares similar to first and business class across hundreds of transoceanic routes." So we're looking at $5k-10k+ per ticket. Additionally, it's not just the cost to operate the aircraft. You also have landing fees, airport fees, all sorts of other fees that will be nearly identical to much larger aircraft, but now you have much fewer customers to charge. Meaning that the tickets will be even higher than a comparable first or business class seat. Meaning that you have just excluded all but the most wealthy of leisure travelers. The overwhelming majority of people simply couldn't afford a ticket out of their own pocket.
Sure, okay. But it's faster that's gotta count for something, right? Well... Let's consider layovers. My closest international airport is YYZ (Toronto). If I'm going trans-pacific, almost the entirety of the great circle route is over land. Maybe they plan on opening a supersonic corridor in Northern Canada? Possibly. But unlikely. So I'll have to take a subsonic flight to a costal airport. On Boom's website, they claim a flight time of 4:35 from Vancouver to Tokyo (they don't specify HND or NRT, but I'll use HND for the sake of argument). But I still need to get to Vancouver, subsonically. A current YYZ-YVR flight is a little over 5 hours. Meaning that it's about 9 and a half hours of actual flying. Most people want a time cushion for a layover. Just in case there's a delay (which, let's be honest, YYZ, so probably). If you put in a two hour cushion, you have eleven and a half hours of traveling from takeoff in YYZ to landing in HND. Currently, Air Canada flies non stop YYZ-HND as AC1, and it takes 13:35. So you have saved a grand total of two hours. Not a massive time saving for the price. That's with just one layover, too. You're also saving a layover by flying subsonically vs supersonically.
So, if it's not for leisure customers, then who is it for? The same people the Concorde was for: Business people. People who need to go to trade shows, and meet clients, and hold meetings overseas. But there's a problem that Concorde didn't have: The internet. Companies are doing so many meetings and seminars and negotiations via video calling that business flights are dwindling at a rapid rate. I wouldn't be surprised if, in ten years time, commercial aviation is 90-95% leisure, and almost no business customers.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
aviation-ModTeam@reddit
This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
ChaLenCe@reddit
A friend of mine is a welder on this project. While I can't speak to the business logic, the amount of time he is spending between Colorado and Nevada for testing wouldn't indicate this a scam to me, at least on the engineering side.
Tslover1389@reddit
Boom (and the aerospace industry as a whole) is fully aware that Overture will likely not be profitable (at least not in its first iteration) due to the incredibly high Barrier to Entry costs associated with developing and implementing SST. But every breakthrough technology has to start somewhere, and their hope is that by being the industry leader, they can pioneer a market share in the long-term as technology and materials science continues to advance. In other words, they’re taking a short-to-medium term gamble on a long-term bet. Boom is vying for a majority slice of future market share, and the airline industry is looking to capitalize on the “wow-factor” that comes along with offering SST in the short term.
cmdr-William-Riker@reddit
Don't know for sure it's a scam, but I certainly don't trust them
GIJoeVibin@reddit
I don’t believe it’s a scam but I do think it will fail to accomplish the goals whatsoever, despite the best efforts of many very talented people and a substantial amount of legitimate passion. The same way I pretty definitely believe that Star Citizen is not a scam, but it is a horribly mismanaged project (although I rate its chances of achieving its goals to be substantially higher than Boom achieving its).
Due-Cup1115@reddit
At what point, when all those talented people that are experts in their fields tell you that this won't work, but the founder proceeds anyway with raising capital, does it become a scam?
RedMacryon@reddit
yep
Insensibilities@reddit
Star Citizen is a huge success for its makers, they have made a ton of money and continue to do so. There is no question as to whether it is a success or not. Having a released mass market game is like a stretch goal and not really required for the maker's success.
cmdr-William-Riker@reddit
The problem with Star Citizen is that the way it is a success is pretty much through the opposite of what they promised. They promised that the game would not be pay to win, that all shops would be purchasable in game, that they wouldn'take money selling ships after it's released. Then they realized they could make a ridiculous fortune by just never releasing it and selling ships. There's no way in heck they'd be able to build and release everything they promised anyway. It's a fun game and I got in cheap during a sale for what it is today knowing full well they will never make it all, but they over promised and under delivered knowingly (maybe not knowingly at first, but definitely knowingly as it took shape years ago)
ThePonderousBear@reddit
Scams are usually lucrative for the perpetrators though. The fact that you call releasing a mass market game, which is literally the entire purpose of backing thr game(initally), a strtch goal shows how star citizen has gone from overly ambitious Kickstart to being a scam for initial investors but not a scam for people who have invested in the last 5 or so years. It will be an interesting case study in the future
Techhead7890@reddit
Yeah, their faith in unknown engine technology is wild, and I don't think there's much evidence to back up their expectations of an engine breakthrough. Like, we're talking Eagle vs Foxbat, round 2 levels of leaps in technology here and it has to be super efficient. I don't think there's any reasonable way they make anything other than a tech demo.
arizonadeux@reddit
Other than claiming they can single-handedly develop their own commercial transport engine, "100% SAF" is the second biggest cue that this company will likely not achieve their stated goals anytime soon.
Joe-notabot@reddit
The business case is sports teams - these cross country flights are a time suck, and the ability to expand leagues outside the USA is reliant on supersonic flight.
The business travel case was shot by Zoom meetings.
Puzzled-Formal-7957@reddit
If you already didn't think Boom was a sham from the get-go then you aren't paying attention.
GrabtharsHumber@reddit
Boom is just another in a long line of aerospace startups predicated on the idea that Moore's Law will rescue them from the immutable physics of pV^2.
Spoiler alert: It won't.
The only business case that pencils out for Overture is providing an extra hour and a half that oligarchs and CEOs can spend with their mistresses. They might as well call it the Sugar Daddy Express and be done with it.
airport-codes@reddit
I am a bot.
^(If you are the OP and this comment is inaccurate or unwanted, reply below with "bad bot" and it will be deleted.)
GrabtharsHumber@reddit
Boom is just another in a long line of aerospace startups predicated on the idea that Moore's Law will rescue them from the immutable physics of pV^2.
Spoiler alert: It won't.
The only business case that pencils out for Overture is providing an extra hour and a half that oligarchs and CEOs can spend with their mistresses. They might as well call it the Sugar Daddy Express and be done with it.
jjshen11@reddit
Didn’t concord already demonstrate 50 years ago. Boom wants to do it cheaper and quieter, which is great improvement from concord.
VerStannen@reddit
Good bot.
ProcedureOne4150@reddit
Bad Bot
CharmingAnywhere7828@reddit
Good effort bot, but...
Oneitised@reddit
lol….
Tazziedevil04@reddit
No ones even considering making the damn engines😂
marin2aus@reddit
Theranos of the skies
Sharklar_deep@reddit
It may not be a scam but it’s still doomed. Economics will always doom supersonic commercial air travel.
prthomsen@reddit
One more item in the pile of 'this might be a scam': https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/baker-hughes-secures-1-21-gigawatt-generator-order-to-power-boom-supersonics-ai-data-center-solution
When you make a meme-press-release about how you are building 1.21 jiggawatts (sic) of power, it does make me take pause and wonder what Marty McFly and Doc Brown would think of that.
Pretty unserious.
PizzaWall@reddit
Since overland flights in the US are currently banned, the killer app for supersonic travel is trans ocean flights. The Americas to Asia / Australia, Europe, Africa would dramatically reduce flight time and there's plenty of people that are willing to trade speed and comfort over being stuffed in a larger plane in economy for hours at a time.
This is where Boom could shine and yet, this is where they fail. New York to London isn't a problem. San Francisco to Tokyo has a huge problem, it requires a fuel stop in Hawaii. This means slowing down, landing, refueling, taking off, and this removes the advantage of speed in the trip. A 747 flying non-stop might actually beat a Boom Ovation because it requires no fuel stop, but travels at a lower speed. It makes no sense to me why Boom is unwilling to engineer a plane that can easily handle the distance by carrying more fuel.
Boeing and Airbus have achieved better fuel efficiency with the use of carbon fiber and new efficient engines. As an aside, I know there are problems with some of the engines, but that was one of the primary reasons they updated models.
Boom approached GE and Rolls Royce to adopt their engine technology to work with their planned airframe and both said no because there was no market. However, GE is working with Boom on engine management. This means Boom has to develop it's own engines and has partnered with Florida Turbine Technologies.
Boom is developing it's own engines, but thats because GE, Rolls Royce did not wish to work with them because there is not a market. These companies making some of the most cutting edge designs for efficiency. It is working with Florida Turbine Technologies who works with GE to develop engines for cruise missiles.
I would really like to see Boom succeed. But the renderings change all the time, they don't have a plane that can handle it's most viable routes, they have to develop a fuel distribution system for it's Sustainable Aviation Fuel, they have no parts distribution network, and they have no engines. This is why people use words like vaporware. There is simply not enough pieces falling in line to indicate a viable plane is in development.
nokernokernokernok@reddit
people who can afford to fly BOOM flights can afford first class tickets already. They're not flying in economy.
tntexplosivesltd@reddit
*its everywhere you used it.
It's = it is
PizzaWall@reddit
Thank you.
HeelToe62@reddit
Spot on. GE is providing a limited support role in a way that doesn't incur much risk in the way that investing in a new engine centerline would. GE played that game already with Aerion, and did so only because the Affinity development was fully bankrolled by Aerion.
Apexnanoman@reddit
As soon as someone building jets says "Sustainability" it's time to be real fuckin skeptical.
knight_prince_ace@reddit
Yeah, I don't doubt their experienced people but I'm not sure if it will work
ponarts2@reddit
you didn't calculate anything. you assume some numbers, invented some numbers, imagine something. Make some "reasoning" about, and made this post. Where your calculations?
p.s. PW5000 does 1.5M in F22 configuration and this speed limitation doesn't come from power limits. And they don't use special cocktail.
DasTomasso@reddit
It has a contoured fuselage!
RedMacryon@reddit
So far they've not really said much since they flew their prototype jet (which neither has the planned engine nor size of the actual airliner) and I haven't been able to find much info on them doing...well...anything recently
yaoz889@reddit
They will probably make the final prototype and not work due to the engine not being efficient enough
Fitch9392@reddit
65-80 passengers!? Yeah, this plane won’t even break even with a full load….
Kanyiko@reddit
I think all of us have said this at one point or another - the economics of this don't work, they didn't before, and they certainly don't now with the current rate of fuel prices. Flying 80 passengers in a plane that uses probably double the amount of fuel of a fully-filled 777 per passenger mile, and requires maintenance at probably three times the prices of a 787 is an economic no-go, but there is this small public that is just blinded by that one word: "supersonic".
alamohero@reddit
It’s the same reason people in the U.S. are enamored by high speed rail. It’s technically possible yes, but is doomed to unprofitable except in very specific circumstances.
Kanyiko@reddit
Weeeeeeelll...
We Europeans showed that it is technically possible and profitable - however it works best when you adapt existing infrastructure (minimises building costs etc), already have an existing passenger infrastructure, and only add in additional connecting bits where really necessary.
The High Speed network in continental Europe showed how it works best - upgrade existing lines for higher speeds; add in connecting bits to bypass lines that can't be upgraded to the higher speeds; and use it to supplement or replace existing but slower services which proved the need for such high-speed services existed.
The way it's being done in the United States is akin to a budget airline proposing a network between a number of cities - but first having to build the airports in all the destinations, or adapting them from WWII-era air force bases that have been vacant for the past three-quarter century.
peterpanic32@reddit
It's almost like the US and Europe are very different geographically and demographically.
The US actually has significantly more track relative to population and plenty of existing, relatively modern, higher capacity lines that are very heavily and efficiently used by freight rail. It's not existing rail networks or approach to development or upgrade that makes the difference.
The difference in technical and economic viability has very little to do with this, everything to do with how European vs. US populations are clustered and population centers are structured.
Then add some of the massive geographic differences and you'd see why there's little real viable case for high speed rail in the US outside of a couple of marginal scenarios.
Kanyiko@reddit
The "being used very heavily and efficiently by freight rail" is key there. US railway lines are owned by the freight companies, who prioritise their own freight trains over passenger trains.
Very large parts of the US long distance network are also single lines, which mean that operations are only possible one train - or sets of trains - in one direction at a time. Any passenger train operating on them would either be stuck between slow freight trains, or stuck at passing loops for opposite traffic to pass for a long time.
peterpanic32@reddit
Marginally. If your European methodological superiority claims worked, it wouldn't matter. You could leverage the track and grading to build out a network piecemeal.
But of course, you'd have to continue to ignore my points for that to be relevant.
MidwestRealism@reddit
Transportation systems don't have to be profitable. The interstate highway system certainly isn't.
Maleficent-Candy476@reddit
more than double, air resistance increases quadratic with increasing speed, quick maths says 5.4 times more fuel (going 2100 km/h instead of 900 km/h)
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
At this point, the flying public will soon be clamoring for a plane that doesn’t go faster, but rather is fuel-efficient enough to be cheap enough for them to fly on in the midst of compounding fuel shortages.
ZestycloseZeta@reddit
Yeah, the average airline passenger 's consideration for taking flights these days are less about how fast they can get to their destination, it's now more to do whether it's cheap enough and also comfortable enough as a passenger
There is the chance that SAF can become a mainstream source of aviation fuel, within a decade or so from now, which some hope would keep airfares relatively stable or cheap enough for the average passenger
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
I’m happy for any progress on SAF, since they’re going to be the best carbon-reducing bridge technology that can get us transition from current combustion-powered aircraft to future ones using liquid hydrogen and batteries and whatnot, but there’s only so much that industrial scaling can do to lower costs so rapidly to try to compete with a century’s worth of amortized and ubiquitous fossil fuel infrastructure.
This gas crisis will probably be good for SAFs, but mostly insofar as their cost disadvantage will seem comparatively less severe—it’s doubtful they’ll ever be really “budget-friendly” compared to the halcyon days of cheap and abundant fossil fuels and the wildly inexpensive flights they enabled.
Kanyiko@reddit
Exactly my thoughts. The general public doesn't want to get somewhere quick if it costs them an arm and a leg; they want to get wherever they're going at affordable prices.
icehole505@reddit
Maintenance per seat on a small scale supersonic plane would be almost definitely 10x+ vs any standard subsonic passenger aircraft
Kanyiko@reddit
You're probably right, I was being a bit conservative with my price estimates.
NOTRobertPera@reddit
It’s going to be funny if their most profitable business offering is their gas turbines under development to be used for AI data centers.
rui278@reddit
Fraud, probably not. Unrealistic? Probably yes.
Jealous_Crazy9143@reddit
contoured fuselage?! How nifty. Makes me wonder who this is appealing to.
sarahlizzy@reddit
It wasn’t just the fuel tanks being prone to FOD damage, and increasing age that killed Concorde.
It was the fact that air travel still takes up much of your day even if you can make the actual flight a bit quicker, and the internet literally exists.
So very very few people are going to pay a premium to get an increasingly useless product.
Add that to the slots (Speedbird One, can you reduce your speed to 150 knots? Not without falling out of the sky we can’t) and ground infrastructure (runway is 2500 metres, well that’s us screwed then), maintenance headache for this black sheep amongst your fleet, and why the hell would anyone want this?
Jimmy_Fromthepieshop@reddit
Range: 4250 nm
Advertised route: Sydney > LA = 12,000 km
Hmmm
VoltaNova@reddit
Like every major American project. Remember the Nikola trucks? Remember the Hyperloop? What about Theranos. This looking more like a Ponzi Scheme.
green-space-guy@reddit
In my latest notes from my airline, SAF is at least 7 times more expensive than regular jet fuel. It's also an airline choice, not a manufacturer choice. If they plan on using 100% SAF, with the very high fuel consumption of going beyond Mach 1, this plane will never be able to make money IMO.
I like to be positive and focus on what they can do, but this does seem like dreaming.
theoreoman@reddit
Concord had a range of over 7000 km. I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that a more modern plane made with lighter composite materials, using better aerodynamic computer models, and using modern material for engine design could get pretty close to the 12,000 km range.
AlexisFR@reddit
What are you on about? We did it faster in 1970 with the concord at mach 2+, that the same but cheaper and slower at Mach 1.7
McBlemmen@reddit
its 100% saf so nothing can go wrong
finza_prey@reddit
I'am not a fan of those AI Data centers at all
Caligulaonreddit@reddit
concord did fly. at mach 2.
so the main claim is possible - as it was 50 years ago.
commercially successful? probably not - similar to the concorde.
btw, Sydney - LA wont be served. eg because of EOPS.
SideEmbarrassed1611@reddit
These pop up every so often to check if anyone is interested in hypsersonic again.
Customers aren't gonna pay, and airlines aren't gonna risk it. The fuel burn alone makes it unprofitable and the customers who would pay can afford premium business on a preexisting plane.
john0201@reddit
I’m not sure 14h to 9h, but in a smaller cabin and much more expensive flight at presumably a less flexible flight time (due to less flights) is a good trade. I think the market for this doesn’t exist.
JT8D-80@reddit
I also believe it is Scam.
n00bca1e99@reddit
Wasn't one of the reasons Concorde failed because there wasn't enough demand for supersonic flight? It's been a while since I've flown, but has there really been an increase in supersonic demand? I look at cost first when flying.
MrKuub@reddit
Supersonic commercial flight was handicapped because of the sonic booms it produced. That’s why it was eventually relegated to mainly LHR / CDG to JFK, and only operated by the two countries that created the plane.
If sonic booms hadn’t been a problem, there would’ve been a whole lot more Concorde’s in the skies today.
niklaswik@reddit
Yeah, it has been obvious from the start, except for anyone who actually invested in it.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
They’ve already pivoted to their main business building an equally vaporware turbine to chase the AI trend. The company has been a scam since Day 1.
There was no real business model beyond the standard Silicon Valley plan of burning through investor cash before you get acquired.
ZestycloseZeta@reddit
Every recent tech/tech adjacent enterprise facing the brink of being exposed as a scam : let's pivot to do AI infrastructure now!!
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Just like how you could time a Swiss watch to celebrity sex pests “finding religion” as some nasty scandal rears its ugly head.
titangord@reddit
The CEO has no degree in aerospace, has never worked in aerospace.. after 10 years they claimed to have reached Mach 1 with a totally different plane, and now are "pivoting" to gas turbines lol.. people never learn.
F1shermanIvan@reddit
Even just looking at the rendering it doesn’t work; those aren’t supersonic intakes on those engines, how do they plan on slowing the air down so the engines can actually accept it?
This will never fly.
KAMEKAZE_VIKINGS@reddit
I feel like they're just saying things to impress investors like isn't that more of a low speed thing?
Unhappy_Goose_8422@reddit
The wings on the Overture are a compound delta, and aren't really gull wings from what I know of gull wings (not much). I think they just used the name, to your point, to impress investors. Mercedes has the "Gullwing". The Overture has actual gull wings. Therefore the Overture is the classy luxury car of air travel. Fits with their "Overture/Symphony" marketing like theyre a virtuoso making art.
LearningDumbThings@reddit
There are no engines and no engine partnerships. Everybody lol’d out and Boom was all “fine, we’ll just develop our own engines.” Spirit just folded in no small part because Pratt and fucking Whitney couldn’t sort out their Leap, which they’ve spent twenty years and ten *billion* dollars on. I’m sure Boom will have a clean sheet engine on wing in -checks watch- one year.
EclecticEuTECHtic@reddit
~~not on the reddit app~~
Wedge_Donovan@reddit
The LEAP engine is made by CFM, not Pratt. The LEAP is on the 737MAX, which Spirit had exactly zero of, and some A320neos.
Pratt is having issues with their Geared Turbofan (GTF) engine, which affected Spirit's Airbus neo fleet. Unless they took delivery of some LEAP variants very recently, all of Spirit's Airbus neo's had the GTF engine.
LearningDumbThings@reddit
GTF, that’s the one. Point stands.
suddenbetrayal@reddit
pratt is the geared turbofan - CFM is the leap (which spirit did not choose)
agree on the rest of the sentiment. no way on a new design from a new player here.
ilovefluffyanimals@reddit
Seriously. Engine programs are so complicated, risky, and expensive that even giants like GE, P&W, and Rolls Royce do partnerships on major engine programs so they can share costs and risks.
No way that Boom is funding an engine program alone. And no way that an engine program pencils out if it can be used only on Boom aircraft. Way too expensive.
tx_queer@reddit
What would a super sonic intake look like. Are you saying that because its not square? The engines are 3 times longer than normal, so anything could be happening inside there.
Captain_Alaska@reddit
Turbojet engines can't intake supersonic airflow, you need to use a combination of fancy ductwork or internal flaps to slow down the air before it hits the fan.
The rendering has the fan disk right at the front of the nacel so it's pretty obvious there nothing in front of them to reduce the incoming airspeed.
tx_queer@reddit
Might just be me, but that doesnt look like a fan. It looks like it is fixed in place. And the engine nacelles are long enough for the 2m
s0ul_invictus@reddit
its either a fan or a stator, neither of which belong in supersonic air.
Captain_Alaska@reddit
What else would it be if not a fan? That would be way too restrictive to force air through otherwise.
Their own test plane has long ducts with the engines at the back.
F1shermanIvan@reddit
No, they need variable geometry intakes to slow air down before it hits the fan that is front and center on that image. Square, round, whatever, although almost every supersonic intake is square.
tx_queer@reddit
I dont think thats a fan front and center. Looking at it, looks like those are fixed in place.
christopher_mtrl@reddit
I mean they have one demonstrator flying supersonic, so they probably know how to do intakes ?
Whether or not it's commercially viable is an entire other subject.
Straight_Loan8271@reddit
Had. They retired it after flying supersonic twice.
F1shermanIvan@reddit
Yeah the demonstrator had proper intakes and exhausts on the engines, not these.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Largely because said demonstrator was cobbled together from parts sourced from decades-old fighter jets, which we don’t need to be told are capable of going supersonic—the whole idea was that they could demonstrate a smaller sonic boom.
And while that’s a little interesting that they managed to make sonic booms less intolerable, still, big whoop. Do something about the horrendous fuel inefficiency of flying supersonic, and then I’ll be impressed! We’re already phasing out trijets and quadjets for having 20-50% more fuel burn than twinjets, so how would something with 400-500% more fuel burn fare in the midst of an unfolding gas crisis?
titangord@reddit
Also they did nothing that NASA hasnt already figured out. After 10 years all they have to show for it is a cobbled together jet that went Mach 1..
Puravida1904@reddit
CEO has replied
reddituserperson1122@reddit
That's a silly thing to say. They've already flown a prototype. Basing your analysis on an infographic background illustration is a ridiculous thing to do.
Momo0903@reddit
They flew a little Test version, that has nothing in common with the real thing. Let alone self developed engine.
reddituserperson1122@reddit
Yeah but it still needs supersonic intakes and a low-supersonic-drag airframe. The prior commenter was claiming they were somehow too stupid to know that or were incapable of engineering these things. As I said elsewhere, I have no idea at all whether they are going to be successful and I don't particularly care. But looking at a rendering in the background of a pitch deck and using that to make sweeping judgements about an aircraft is, as I said, a silly thing to do.
F1shermanIvan@reddit
Know what’s ridiculous? Looking at that rendering and thinking it’ll look anything like that lol.
reddituserperson1122@reddit
Yeah that's exactly what I said. Did you hit your head or something?
EmperorThor@reddit
might as well call it bitcoin airways
allnamestaken1968@reddit
The business case is the problem. Even if this could be certified in any reasonable timeframe (which is not possible given what it takes to certify something that we know is just a derivative of something that works), not enough people will pay for the tickets to make any kind of mass production possible.
Cerulean_Malstrom074@reddit
Yes
doctorbmd@reddit
What I don't get here is that to me travel time doesn't really seem to be that significant of a problem in air travel? Surely GHG emissions, fuel cost variability, maintenance costs, passenger comfort/airport experience are bigger challenges to solve?
Flying21811@reddit
Bc it is
G25777K@reddit
I thought it was a long shot and I was a non believer, but I would not call it a scam, they are making good progress and maybe not as fast as people like and tbh they are turning me around that I believe something will come out of it, remember they do have a supersonic prototype, and the 4 engines they will use will not require an afterburner like the Concorde.
The concern is the $1Bil that they have raised won't be enough and if they do fail its due to technical + economic challenges, but I wish them the best and hope they succeed.
hatlad43@reddit
I don't think they're scamming per se, but I'm doubtful they reach their end goal before the investors loose their patience. With Rolls-Royce backed off from the project as the engine manufacturer, they now have to R&D their own engine in-house.
For context Concorde was a result of a concortium project involving two governments and several existing aircraft manufacturers. R&D-ing a whole plane with strong goal from the ground up is no easy feat.
the_grand_apartment@reddit
Bunch of absolute jokers and their CEO has proven himself to be a complete fuckhead. This will be a rug-pull
SamuthNBS@reddit
You're clearly overlooking the fact it has a contoured fuselage, compared to the square planes we apparently use currently that should make all the difference. I'm surprised they didn't label the landing gear as a feature too.
girl_incognito@reddit
You're not wrong, last I heard they have no engine supplier.
Mustangfast85@reddit
Isn’t LAX-SYD further than the stated range of 4,250 miles?
Hungry-Language-792@reddit
This is a tale as old as time lol. Hot new aerospace startup promises some civilian killer app, then pivots to the real money as their investors get impatient - defense.
Master_Enthusiasm754@reddit
Max capacity only 80???
BayAreaBourne@reddit
I you're an aerospace company not HQ'd in Southern California or Pugent Sound region, that's all I need to know that you're a scam. It was easy as a 5 second click, 5 years ago for me.
shawaj@reddit
So Airbus is a scam? 😂
BayAreaBourne@reddit
Defiantly not. I'm strictly speaking of these "new" American companies. Alot of them are scams.
Major_Spite7184@reddit
The main reason I’m not bought in. When met with them, I had questions. I had suggestions. I was supposedly talking to some of the engineering leads, who all have impressive resumes in their websites; lots of academic-types. And it hit me - I wasn’t talking to anyone who knew anything, or they’re playing the long play-dumb game. I was left with the same impression with them that I was reading a Popular Mechanics article from a bygone era that said we should be living on the moon by now from the 80’s.
metarinka@reddit
It's legit.
I had an aerospace startup at the same time with some of the same investors I knew the founding team and hired a few engineers from boom. If it was smoke and mirrors the engineers weren't sounding the alarm bells like they were with some other startups.
Last I checked they were using an existing engine and weren't making new claims on efficiency. Unlike a military jet they have a much higher focus on aerodynamics and efficiency hence the narrow body.
Skin friction is a known thing and no they aren't so stupid that the passengers will cook in the airplane. I believe that's mostly on the leading surfaces.
The one thing I couldn't pencil out is economics. As explained to me making LA to Shanghai 6 hours instead of 12+ does a few things. First you can complete multiple flights a day which means your main asset can turn revenue faster. They did the modeling to show theres enough business class only passengers who will pay for the speed bump. I pressed them on fuel consumption per passenger but dont recall their answer.
The biggest hurdle is really surviving for long enough to pass certification which doesn't take 50 years but a good 12 or so. There already is a basis for passenger supersonic flight compared to something like evtol. This is a company that has to either raise 2 bill or go bust
I give them a sub 50% chance. The engineers were smart and I didn't catch any red flags on the engineering side
TaskForceCausality@reddit (OP)
OK. What’s the general plan for handling that? Will heat resistant materials be used? If so, what kind? Will they use then Concordes solution? I don’t ask to be a naysayer. These are practical questions that need practical answers for this thing to work.
True. But that raises another point- what kind of turnaround will this airplane need? Will the yet-to-be finalized engines require service after each flight? That will add to the turnaround time, and thus reduce the business case. As will servicing any other component of the supersonic aircraft needed to ensure safe flight.
metarinka@reddit
Wasn't my job to ask but everything you said has been solved before. Last I checked they weren't making any new claims in supersonic performance, beyond modern fea to optimize designs. All the engineers I met or hired were bright and well credentialed. There's certainly engineering challenges but you're making it sound like this has never been achieved before.
Puzzleheaded_Soil275@reddit
I'm not a physicist but how are 4 under wing engines not going to cause WAY too much drag for \~mach 1.7 flight?
Mal-De-Terre@reddit
B-58 Hustler has entered the chat...
... that said, it was no widebody passenger platform.
No_Character_336@reddit
Boom is to aerospace what Theranos was to medicine. Over promising on technology that is questionable at best.
peterpanic32@reddit
Theranos was deliberately fraudulent. Boom might still be just a wild overpromise. They're not out there with a fake jet, making fake flights yet.
OptimusJive@reddit
Ice cold take. More interesting question is which aviation startups actually have a good chance to succeed and make a difference in the way we fly?
BeatlesF1@reddit
I wonder how much AI they have integrated so far!
dklindhorst@reddit
So it’s saying it can go from LA to Sydney that fast, yet its range isn’t even as far as LA is from Sydney? Is my math not mathing?
TraderJ1@reddit
They have pivoted to onsite turbine power generation to bring in some revenue while they continue development of the airplane. Look at their YouTube channel. If they can get some revenue going who knows, they might have something in 15yrs.
New-IncognitoWindow@reddit
100% Vaporware
DeedsF1@reddit
Good post OP. I have been very cautious about that company as I think that it would be technically feasible, but I doubt that this plane could fly at Mach 1.7 for more than a few mere minutes. If they can fill 80 seats each time it takes off, it MIGHT be worth it, but a what price and how frequent would the flights be? 1X per week? It does not make financial sense.
Someone would better be off building a scaled down Concorde with more effecient engines and you fly that thing everyday on 3-4 very profitable routes.
Do we know how many people have invested in said company?
lucathecontemplator@reddit
They did build a demonstrator, I am holding hope for now
Speedbird223@reddit
Err, not even close, mate…are you aware of the costs of flying business/first class longhaul compared to private?
I can comfortably afford longhaul business class and often pay for longhaul First too. I’m certainly not in a position to drop $100k-$200k each way to fly private or could I see myself justifying it until I have a deep nine figure net worth (USD). I have sat beside billionaires in longhaul F before, but there’s very few people sitting on those commercial aircraft who are choosing between it and private travel.
grahal1968@reddit
100 percent!!
Darth19Vader77@reddit
I don't think it's a huge leap technologically speaking.
Concorde was built in the 60s with slide rulers and much less advanced technology. It can certainly be done with enough time and money.
The part that's a little more shaky is the economics for airlines.
FlyingCats17@reddit
Their design is awful. The wingspan is too wide for that airspeed and the engine integration will create an obscene amount of drag. Four pylon mounted engines on a supersonic aircraft also just does not make any sense.
I didn't even mention the engine debacle. The country of China has struggled to develop jet engines to compete with Pratt, Rolls, and GE (who protect their IP like hawks). To say a startup is going to achieve that is pretty wild.
notabigcitylawyer@reddit
Does the 8:45 include the fuel stop? LA to Sydney is 6500 nm this add or whatever it is says the range is 4500 nm.
xdr567@reddit
100% SAF !! I don't know where they plan to fill these up.
EclecticEuTECHtic@reddit
Might as well run it on unicorn tears.
BabyNuke@reddit
Exactly, complete nonsense. Just because it could fly 100% SAF doesn't mean it ever will.
akroses161@reddit
Hell Ive been waiting on ASTM to send me 1 gallon for a year now, and they are still having trouble finding a source.
Hannibal_Spectre@reddit
They aren’t. It’s just a way to avoid the conversation of “how is it not totally irresponsible to release that amount of CO2 per mission vs a subsonic equivalent”.
“No worries - We’re totally environmentally friendly cuz SAF!!!”
mduell@reddit
I don't think it's a scam, implying fraud, just a pie in the sky dream that isn't particularly realistic.
Terminal_Phase@reddit
Has anyone ever thought any different from the start?
Basketcase410@reddit
So the second slide highlights a faster trip between Sydney and Los Angeles....the first slide says the range of the aircraft will be ~4500NM and the shortest route between these two cities is closer to ~6500NM. Are they planning on doing aerial refueling too?
SRM_Thornfoot@reddit
It could well be a scam, but it is not because the math isn't mathing.
I guess they could just use the "Star Wars level engine technology" and climate control systems from the Concorde since it cruised even faster at Mach 2+.
Erlend05@reddit
Hate to admit it but quad jets have no future
yabucek@reddit
I'm not saying I have high hopes for boom, but your reasoning here is way off base
Military engines have never been efficiency optimized.
Extremely fast transoceanic transport will never not be needed. London - NY always had a high load factor even on the Concorde, which was both bigger and presumably way more expensive than what Boom are aiming for.
cat_prophecy@reddit
Judging from the fact that they don't even have a working engine design. Yeah, I would say it's a scam.
Initial_BB@reddit
Most commercial engines are optimized for sub-sonic use. Boom has had to subcontract out to someone to develop their own proprietary engine that is optimized for supersonic operation. The engine will 'supercruise' at Mach 1.7 without requiring the use of afterburners, which took up a lot of the Concorde's fuel and hence takeoff weight. The fuselage design process itself isn't developed that much differently from Boeing, Airbus, Embrarer and Bombardier. The engines and fuel burn are the key to making this viable. They also lowered the designed operating speed from Mach 2.2 to Mach 1.7 in order to lower stresses and temperatures on the plane's wings and body, making it cheaper to build with common aerospace materials. I don't see why this couldn't work. $200 million in venture funding seems to believe in it as well.
Physical-Cut-2334@reddit
The Concorde was loud AF, wonder how loud this is and if people will allow it to fly in at Heathrow.
No_Protection4395@reddit
pretty sure theres a whole prototype aircraft with their name on it that flew mach 1+ without an audible boom
Physical-Cut-2334@reddit
Wasn't that NASAs X-59 Quesst?
Taa_000001@reddit
X-59 is still working on expanding its envelope. They hit 0.98 Mach at 42000 feet on Thursday. I think the plan is to be going supersonic by the end of the year.
The video in this link is pretty cool
https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/quesst/2026/04/30/x-59-update-043026/
No_Protection4395@reddit
no its the xb1 but the x59 technology might be involved as well
Namenloser23@reddit
The fuel they use seems to be mostly identical to "normal" jet fuel, as it is primarily marketed as a drop in replacement for conventional fuels. The only issue is that some components in current engines seem to have issues running on pure SAFs, so they need to run a 50/50 mix.
Boom claims 100% SAF capability and that the engine is "optimized" for it, but that probably doesn't mean it wouldn't run on "normal" jet a.
I don't see any other indications their aircraft would need "specialized" equipment.
I do share the same concerns about feesibility, especially for the engine. From all I've heard, high performance jet engines are incredibly difficult to design, and boom is trying to build it in house instead of partnering with anyone that actually has experience building them.
RecordEnvironmental4@reddit
I strongly suspect that boom will give up on the overture and build a smaller twin engine business jet as those people care a lot less about the economics of the plane they are flying.
alpha_epsilion@reddit
I mean Air bus is also a ‘scam’ when they release their A300 for the first time?
Let see how they cook?
RecordEnvironmental4@reddit
They already built and flew a test craft that flew at >mach 1, seems like a lot of effort for an investment scam. If they were scamming they wouldn’t have spent the money to build and fly that thing.
icehole505@reddit
I think it’s pretty likely to be bullshit.. but your point about there not being a real market for supersonic travel is a bad one. Private long distance international travel is still likely many times more expensive than a business class ticket would cost on this jet. And “time savings wouldn’t be meaningful” is just wrong
TaskForceCausality@reddit (OP)
If we look at a trip from door to door, the “airplane flying in the air” part of the trip is not where the delays happen. Weather, airport OPS , and ground congestion are where the delays happen. Boom’s Overture will solve none of those. An existing private jet launching from and recovering at a small airport will, and it leaves when the paying customers say so.
icehole505@reddit
And the flight will still take longer door to door in most cases, at 15x the price.
peterpanic32@reddit
Not to be supportive of Boom’s potential economics, but…
You familiar with a lot of supersonic private jet options out there, are you?
There are plenty of commercial airlines today who fill 80+ business class seats every flight. London to NYC alone has 30-40 daily flights - many if which seating 65-80 in business class. There’s an entire airline - La Compagnie - that does this from Paris on basic ass A321s.
Strict_Razzmatazz_57@reddit
4 engines hanging under the wings will provide too much drag for Mach 1.7.
No_Greed_No_Pain@reddit
Don't let your understanding of aerodynamics get in the way of a fable-based scam!
Awkward_Can_1516@reddit
Vibe-engineered.
quietflyr@reddit
There's nothing about their claimed performance numbers or certification that is impossible or even outlandish.
They're basically saying they're going to build a Concorde but it won't fly quite as fast. It was done in the 60s, so there's no doubt it can be done today. Physics hasn't changed. But aerodynamic design, automation, engine design, materials science, and any number of other engineering fields have changed for the better.
It's 100% reasonable to question whether it's economically possible, but to question if it's technically possible is just ignorant.
Source: 20+ year aerospace engineer
Jazzlike-Twist-4626@reddit
Does nobody here know about the test flights they did?
WideFormal3927@reddit
So the technical aspects are 'contoured fuselage' and 'gull wings?' oh man... if only planes had that now a days. Economics is not about making the best, it's about making the least with getting the highest possible return. The concord was a great example. People were unwilling to spend extra money to get a fast flight.
s0ul_invictus@reddit
its money laundering. money doesn't "disappear". cgi doesn't consume millions in "research", somebody got that bag. the rats park their money in startups and pump, selling right before the "growth" peaks, either sales or valuation, it doesn't matter. this is just another pump phase, probably to keep squeezing whatever sucker actually thought it was real.
i mean look at the engines. no spike, no ramp, nothing. this is ridiculous.
DoesntMatterEh@reddit
65-80 pax, so each ticket is going to be 10 G's I assume. That is, if they ever even build the thing.
_Life_Is_War_@reddit
Concorde, in its later years, was actually profitable for BA. It made £500 million net profit from 7 aircraft in under 30 years of service.
Yes, Boom faces an uphill battle, especially when they were dropped by Rolls Royce and forced to develop their own engines. There are a few things going in their favor, however:
Boom is targeting a lower speed and optimizing for near supersonic flight as well as "low speed" supersonic flight. They're opting out of fuel hungry, afterburning engines. Additionally, even if they're not in the sweetspot for C_D in supercruise, their aircraft will still experience less drag force than the Concorde did at Mach 2.2.
Modern CFD simulation. Concorde was developed far before CFD was usable, and it's wing, while incredible for the time, is far from what we can design today. Engineers can iterate through hundreds more designs in a quarter of the time it would take to make wind tunnel mockups and run tests. This is all to say, Boom will likely have a far more advanced wing than what we saw on the Concorde.
US lifting supersonic flight ban and Boom's "Boomless Cruise". This was the main thing that murdered the Concorde program's chance of making a return on investment. Nearly every nation in the world banned commercial supersonic flight. The current US administration, for better or worse, overturned the supersonic ban in June 2025. This opened up the entirety of the US for Boom as a market, not just coastal cities.
At the same time, Boom demonstrated with their XB-1 aircraft that it is possible to fly supersonic without creating a supersonic shock that would teach the ground. Modern computers help tremendously with that by allowing the aircraft to calculate the exact flight speed for given conditions, to allow the shock waves to reflect upwards, away from the ground.
I could frankly go on for at least a few other points why supersonic commercial flight makes economic and technical sense in the 2020s.
TL;DR: Boom is doing something incredibly difficult. There's a high likelihood of failure, just as any other startup. That being said, they have a lot going for them, even compared to Concorde
TaskForceCausality@reddit (OP)
Not so fast. They plan to mitigate the sonic boom using predictive software, taking high altitude weather data and using it to calculate how fast it can go without triggering a sonic boom that reaches the ground.
Given obvious problems with forecasting weather , an unmentioned risk is what happens when (not if) the software gets it wrong and a boom does reach the ground. That’s a giant , 747 sized legal risk ; what airline is OK with being sued for property damage (or losing their insurance coverage) because one of the booms accidentally hit the ground and broke Farmer Joe’s windows?
Insofar as Concorde comparisons go, thats a whole different thing. It was a government subsidized status symbol for European aviation, and rightly so. That doesn’t mean it was economically viable. Sure it made money at the tail of its career, when most of the setup and development costs were paid. At the front end, it wasn’t remotely cost-effective. Further, the Concorde used existing aviation technology of the time. Boom is not.
quietflyr@reddit
Not all sonic booms break windows and cause property damage, especially from high altitude.
I remember hearing sonic booms from fighters in Germany quite frequently in the 1980s when we visited family. It was a common occurrence, and sure as hell didn't damage property. Even today when fighters go supersonic on scrambles, they startle people, but don't actually cause property damage.
_Life_Is_War_@reddit
Who knows how accurate and effective the software will be. I am simply talking about a massive legal roadblock for SSTs that has existed for the last half-century, which is now lifted. Legal roadblocks like that are what generally stop startups in their tracks as they attempt to find an unfilled niche.
Absolutely agreed that the Concorde program was not economically viable. What I am saying is that once British Airways realized that SSTs would not become the future of air travel, they found a niche market that made a huge amount of money with very few aircraft. Boom seems to be orienting itself to the same market. Every seat on the aircraft in their marketing is a first-class seat. They don't sugarcoat the fact that it will be expensive:
It's going to be thousands per ticket. Business travel is 12% of air travel right now, but generates a whopping 75% of the revenue. They will absolutely find optimal business-related routes to fly and fill planes, in my opinion.
The far bigger issue is getting the plane together in one cohesive package. I work in the aviation industry. It is incredible how difficult it is to get an airworthy product, let alone a full aircraft. However, there is hopeful speculation surrounding Boom. They've secured contracts with major integrators, like Honeywell for their flight deck, that wouldn't be so quick to come on board if they didn't see this aircraft going anywhere.
hutch_man0@reddit
It's not the aerodynamics. It's the fact they have no viable engine.
_Life_Is_War_@reddit
We'll find out this year according to Boom's website. Core testing is supposed to start in "2026".
Also it seems they did actually build an engine. Their new "Superpower" gas turbine generators use the same engine core as the Symphony engine. Pretty creative way to show reliability data if you ask me
AnalogFeelGood@reddit
Look like the kind of project that would put on the map Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Everbrook.
Bedaryellow@reddit
Ive always thought Boom was a load of bollocks… they are essentially going to need to adapt the NASA X-59 into a commercial jetliner.
The NASA X-59 is still testing normal flying at the moment, so the dream of upscaling that must be decades off.
Amazing how a few renders and riding the wave of nostalgia from Concorde can get you a big valuation for your company.
InsideWay70@reddit
That’s because it is a scam.
YamComprehensive7186@reddit
But it’s “sustainable” and has a contoured fuselage?
Due-Cup1115@reddit
When essential elements of design (**Contoured fuselage**) are being touted as material selling points, you know you have a problem.
Notsosmartboi@reddit
yea, they are trying to make a medium bypass turbofan that’s twice as powerful dry as F135 is wet, they have never built a jet engine before, recently they also spun off a gas turbine product for AI data centers, this is not a realistic company with realistic goals.
thespeakercorraium@reddit
Aside from the engines, the whole concept of "fly high and refract the sonic boom" only really works at really high altitudes up to around mach 1.2 realistically. You would have to exceed altitudes of 70k ft to go faster, and optimizing both engines and a passenger cabin able to pressurize at that altitude is an enormous challenge for an overstated gain. A Mach 1.7+ silent sonic boom is just straight up impossible regardless of engine technology, as you would have to be flying close to the edge of space, and traditional aerodynamics starts to break down
quietflyr@reddit
Yeah their plan all along was to fly over land at M1.2-1.3, then accelerate to M1.7 over water.
Airplanes can alter their operational profiles to meet constraints. It's a thing.
Chateaunole-du-Pape@reddit
Ironically, there's much less of a market for this than there was in the Concorde era. Today we have high-speed in-flight wifi, and laptops, tablets and phones that take up virtually no space and weigh next to nothing. Business travelers can work on the plane in a much more effective way than ever before, and being somewhere in 5 hours instead of 8 hours is much less important than it used to be. Yes, you still have the occasional person who needs to arrive in time to sign a contract in person, but electronic signing probably does away with that need in most cases.
Plus, sleep is now much more possible on a plane, with the advent of flat beds; I actually seek out slightly longer transatlantic flights so there's more time to both eat and sleep. A six- or seven-hour BOS-LHR flight is actually something of a nightmare even up front, because there's not enough time to sleep on board and hit the ground running on landing. If it were four or five hours on a supersonic plane, well, there's no way I'd choose that option other than for the novelty of it. I would do it once, just to say I'd flown supersonic, and would never do it again.
GrahamCrackerCereal@reddit
Eh they've been working on it since like 2018 and if I was a rich guy I'd be taking that chance. They're one of the few in the game I've actually seen progress from ngl
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
aviation-ModTeam@reddit
This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.
This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.
If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.
JohnHazardWandering@reddit
Not sure if it's a scam or not but there's a risk on making the tech work within a timeframe and then risk with the business case about how many people will pay that money for a shorter flight.
Depending on range, they might have something with transpacific hops because those are brutal.
Thick_Cookie_7838@reddit
I don’t think it s a scam however I think it’s an idea that will never takeoff ( no pun intended) like they think. The amount of money to build and satisfy production, certification ect. If it was economically viable I’m pretty sure airbus, or Boeing could do it and put them out of business
ALaccountant@reddit
The worst part is they say its a range of 4,250km then, on the next slide, use an example of flying time from Sydney to LA which is a distance of 12,051km (nearly triple the range of the Overture). Scam
rowlock@reddit
Nautical miles. Not kilometers.
ALaccountant@reddit
Thanks for the correction. Either way, the distance, in nautical miles, from Sydney to LA is \~6,500nm. Still well outside the range of the Overture. Unprofessional presentations smell of scam, to me
sophisticated_alpaca@reddit
I’m convinced Boom is using commercial vaporware to raise the startup funds necessary to pivot to defense. The US military has been funding a lot of research into sonic boom suppression lately, and Boom is the company that has built a plane that can actually do it.
Aesma42@reddit
To me it's a scam. They might really try to go somewhere, but knowing all along they will never get there, the goal is just to ride the gravy train.
Every couple of years the design completely changes.
AnotherNobody1308@reddit
Is this something they released? cuz the 100% saf makes me feel unsafe
t-who@reddit
How much do you think the route you show on a direct private option costs? Big gap between that number and what the targets for Boom are.
Go search on the NASA research database, plenty of studies on this topic at various Mach numbers. The demand is there.
I personally don’t feel confident in their success, but I think the market opportunity exists. Seems likely some version of this concept will exist in the medium term future.
_ogg@reddit
I do believe it will be fast
Doubtful
Not in a million years unless their definition of sustainability means "sustaining a supersonic fuel burn"
I also don't see "optimized for delivering our product on time" so I guess !remindme 10years and we'll see what's up.
RemindMeBot@reddit
I will be messaging you in 10 years on 2036-05-03 21:42:08 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) ^(delete this message to hide from others.)
TheAgedProfessor@reddit
They stopped being viable when they abandoned the "there will be no sonic boom" claim.
That, and there really is no earthly reason why, even if your cockpit is fully virtual, you wouldn't still put windows in just in case.
Ill_Interest_2346@reddit
Consider the soviets did it with lesser engines and worse tech im sure both the boom project and whatever is left of virgin galitiic will fly and work.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
“Could work” and “will work” are two very different things.
Ill_Interest_2346@reddit
True ill give you that much but the tu-144 proved the concept now boom will bring it into the modern era.
Dangerous-Salad-bowl@reddit
TaskForceCausality@reddit (OP)
The chart left out delays at every step except the airborne part.
TomVonServo@reddit
The need for supersonic travel was on life support after Concorde and email. It died the moment video calls went mainstream.
Hillsarenice@reddit
I’ve saw in other posts that the technical issues can possibly be solved. But in order to certify the plane it could cost billions and take over five years, up to 10 years.
BriefCollar4@reddit
Any of the “startups” peddling supersonic flight are essentially scams.
adjust_your_set@reddit
The moment they went from 3 to 4 engines along with not having anyone able to build them an engine, that’s when this project lost its luster for me. I just don’t see it being successful.
Main_Violinist_3372@reddit
Fun fact that there have been more B-2 spirits than Concordes ever made
Gryphus1CZ@reddit
They've certainly made some development, especially with the prototype, but this project is gonna run out of funds and will die, it is already doomed
Designer-Salary-7773@reddit
Commercial viability means a parts support logistics capability. Concorde.. although a commercial failure from an all-in accounting - at least had the backing of the French and British governments. This …..????? Can you say “Stratolaunch part two”???
Puravida1904@reddit
I sent this post to u/blakescholl !!!
p4rty_sl0th@reddit
They have to design an engine. Good luck.
meltea@reddit
That geodesic is wrong for one...
If they don't even know what the shape of the earth is... yeah, scam
kogun@reddit
I missed the actual scam part. Engineering difficulties are one thing, but scams revolve around deception and involve people pocketing money that they shouldn't. You don't seem to be deceived by anything here and haven't identified any misappropriation of funds. Where's the scam?
Gutter_Snoop@reddit
You've heard of Concorde, right? I mean, that's basically all this is. Just likely modernized with better materials and systems.
This thing isn't meant to replace a 737, it's going to be flying a couple trans-con flights a day at most, so I doubt it'll have trouble selling tickets. One would think the company did the market research to see if it would've profitable.
That is kind of a dumb infographic though, I will say. Who tf cares about a "gull wing".
heybuggybug@reddit
But the problem is that the Concorde sold so few tickets, it was a very niche airplane for its day. I want to be optimistic but history rhymes
Gutter_Snoop@reddit
Well part of the reason Concorde didn't sell many tickets is it was completely limited to overseas routes, and the tickets cost like $10000 for a one-way back in 1990s dollars. It was also ridiculously expensive to operate, so it seldom made any money.
However, Concorde was also designed in the 60s, using relatively ancient tech compared to now. If Boom can make this thing's operational costs lower, it's not unlikely they'll find people to fill a couple flights per day. Between some city pairs like NY to Vegas or Chicago to Miami.
You'd be shocked at the amount of money some rich people throw at flying. A private jet from NY to LA usually costs over $30k, and you might see a half a dozen flights like that every day.
I'm not saying some skepticism isn't warranted, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand either.
ElectricalGene6146@reddit
If you follow their CEO on Twitter… yeah the dude is a mini Elon and praises every scammy thing Elon does so that checks out.
Buzz407@reddit
Star Citizen: The Airplane.
Lunchbox coming soon.
Tailgear@reddit
Yeah, I suspect you don’t actually KNOW the math.
kerbalmaster98@reddit
It takes a decade, billions in investmens and so many man hours for a powerful manufacturer like Boeing or Airbus to develop an airliner plane from scratch. Like this small company coming out of nowhere, thinking it will change the game... That's just pathetic.
Due-Letterhead6372@reddit
I would bet every cent to my name that this thing will never fly
Hot-Spray-2774@reddit
It looks interesting. Regardless of Boom being legit, the industry definitely needs supersonic passenger planes for long hauls, IMO, and better sustainable/bio fuels.
Unhappy-Flight6008@reddit
Silicon Valley is heavily invested in this company. YCombinator elites are deep. I believe Boom have a second product line of turbines for power applications to diversify their income, so not 100% reliant on flight.
admiraltt@reddit
As much as I love supersonic travel, this is never going to work and is a failing idea waiting to happen. 1 like you said they're never gonna be able to fully fill the 80 premium seats unless it's a inaugural flight of some sorts, 2 maintaining the speed for that long is uh nigh impossible, even Concorde needed stops for London Singapore. 3 since this is premium seating, the people this was meant for fly private anyways, slip airport lines and can fly anytime they want so you're pretty much left with those who want it for the premium experience but now they'll be less likely to do it again because they rather have a longer flight for the experience etc. Finally this would fair much worse than Concorde because atleast Concorde had the full backing of both the French and British governments and even then it was barely profitable and I mean by the skin of the teeth, not to mention the environmental and noise damage it caused. There's no way a private American company like boom is going to last long
Public_Fucking_Media@reddit
I also think their secret saucen for over land flight is mostly gonna end up being bullshit
whiskeytown79@reddit
If this somehow worked out, would it be the first supersonic quadjet? When I Google "supersonic quadjet", all the results are for the Boom Overture.
LordofNarwhals@reddit
I think B-58 Hustler was the first (1956). Concorde also had four engines btw, as did Sukhoi T-4, and Tu-160.
A DC-8 also went supersonic once in 1961.
pl0nk@reddit
B-58 Hustler was an early supersonic quad.
LefsaMadMuppet@reddit
See B-58 for nacelles.
daygloviking@reddit
B-58 Hustler had four distinct nacelles. And then there was the XB70 Valkyrie with 6 engines!
pepperyrelaxation@reddit
Concorde had four engines I believe.
whiskeytown79@reddit
Ah yes you are right. Only two nacelles, but they had two engines in each.
WhatWouldKantDo@reddit
Concorde and the Tu-144 each had four engines. 4xRR Olympus and 4xRD-36 respectively
St-JohnMosesBrowning@reddit
I share the skepticism of the business model, but you keep mentioning your math and calculations - mind sharing how you arrived at these conclusions?
Alternative_Skin_588@reddit
I haven't done the math- but it seems neither have you. I don't see any math in a post that claims "the math isn't mathing here"
The jet engine they used in their supersonic tech demo was a J85 which is both a military and commercial engine. IIRC Boom is designing their own in-house. It's a lot of work but nothing that hasn't been done before.
therealkavouras@reddit
I believe there are concerns with how Boom is marketing their aircraft, and I do have some questions about the engines, but calling them an investment scam is a reach imo. Adding some additional points on what you said. With the info graphic provided, the only two stats relating to efficiency would be the speed (Mach) and range. The only major aircraft comparison is the Concorde (Wikipedia as the source for all of this):
Concorde has a cruise Mach of 2.02 @ 60,000ft, which is slightly faster than Boom at the same altitude. Generally, drag drops as the Mach number increases when you are supersonic, in this case we can assume Concorde has a very slight advantage here. Concorde has a range of 3915 NM, which is 335 NM less than the figure shown above.
Concorde was developed in the 1950s. While it seems that there would be a lot of development since, most development has not been towards greater fuel efficiency, as all supersonic flights since have been military. Boom advertises the use of Turbofan engines, I did not look to see if this is during cruise or not. Traditionally, the bypass ducts used on turbofans to increase efficiency have not proved effective at supersonic speeds, however it seems Boom is doing development work towards this, so I would be interested to see where this goes. Additionally, Boom claims to not use afterburners on its engines, which will improve fuel efficiency.
For sake of argument, I will say Boom's new engines are exactly as efficient as Concorde. This would mean that Boom would need to make improvements to overall drag to reduce fuel consumption. One of Concorde's major drag contributors was its Double Delta wings, which allowed for enough lift during takeoff/landing, but added additional drag during cruise. Boom's concept images appear to use a more traditional delta wing, which should hopefully allow for less drag during cruise.
I'm not going to touch on the business traveler market side of your argument, as I am not educated enough on this. However, reading your language for the actual engineering side, I think you should do a bit of reading about how supersonic aircraft actually work, as it is quite interesting, and you may have a bit more excitement around this upcoming "wonder jet". I have some hope that the engineers at Boom are creating a true new generation of supersonic travel, and the goals they have set are absolutely attainable.
One additional side to your argument, is trans-pacific routes. This will be something that the Overture is (theoretically) capable of, and if they can make this work in reality, will absolutely change the total demand for supersonic travel.
FelisCantabrigiensis@reddit
4250nm range and a claim of travelling the 6500nm LAX-SYD nonstop do not go together. It doesn't even work if you tech stop in HNL for fuel.
RunninWild17@reddit
Company is run by a tech-bro douche with no relevant aerospace experience. Its vaporware, a fantasy that envisions a smaller Concorde somehow overcoming economics to be successful.
mattincalif@reddit
Aside from the design questions everyone else has pointed out - “optimized for speed, safety, and sustainability”. So, the same as every other airliner? 90% of marketing is so dumb.
mb194dc@reddit
The only way a super sonic passenger jet happens is converting a military aircraft for passenger use...
From scratch will never be commercially viable.
Cesalv@reddit
Maybe they hired the same publicists
And about the seats, unless there is a law that forces airlines to care about legroom and survival rates, they will keep ~~stacking~~ sitting as much people as possible
VladAkimov@reddit
I share the absolute same opinion.
Backspkek@reddit
I've had the same opinion on them for years now: whether or not it's a straight up scam idk, but it's definitely an endless money pit.
I'm willing to bet absolutely nothing substantial will come of this project.
Ok_Excitement725@reddit
I think Scott Kirby recently said he now is only 50/50 on if this will ever actually happen.
pl0nk@reddit
That is surprisingly high. I would expect even the investors give it a lower success rate than that, but ambitious long-shot bets is the entire point of venture capital.
AdultContemporaneous@reddit
I can't change your view because that's what it looks like to me as well.
BabyNuke@reddit
Nothing about this plane makes sense. Assuming that development all works out perfectly and their newly developed engine works flawlessly and its highly reliable, it's simply a very inefficient way to fly. It being able to run 100% SAF is a marketing tactic aimed people with zero understanding of this topic to make it appear "climate friendly" when anyone with some knowledge on the topic knows that that's all nonsense.
And that's assuming development goes smoothly. And given that none of the major engine manufacturers would touch this project it's a fair bet to say that it won't.
siouxu@reddit
Always has been
DapperDolphin2@reddit
I don’t know if it’s a great commercial design, but it’s not a pure scam. I just flew out of GSO, you can see their factory here. Plenty of trucks moving aircraft components around, and obviously an active site. They have succesful demonstrators, so they have some level of execution ability.
RGN_Preacher@reddit
Anyone else notice the 4,250 nm range depicted with the next graph being about doing LAX-YSY when that is at 6,500 nm straight line distance lol.
Basic_Butterscotch@reddit
Even if the engineering is sound I don't see why this wouldn't be a commercial failure like Concorde was. How many people are willing to pay $5k per ticket or whatever it's going to cost to get somewhere slightly faster?
michimoby@reddit
It’s appealing to the venture capitalists who funded them - who aren’t quite wealthy enough to fly private.
It’ll be a big Silicon Valley circle jerk on those flights.
Navynuke00@reddit
Ooof, and our governor was JUST bragging about them at the State Energy Conference last week.
I mean, I always knew they were a scam, but...
SnooFoxes3615@reddit
This would only cater to “fat corporate cats” that are big enough for the occasional ticket. But not big enough for private charters or jets.
Nice market. And with hybrid meetings these days being the standard. Less and less required. So I tend to agree the business case for this aircraft is very thin. But militairy? Or for governments or EU officials. I see this working. Again. Small market.
velosnow@reddit
Firsttime?.gif 🤣