3 ms·

If building a supersonic passenger plane with an existing engine was viable, it seems like somebody would already be doing it. Which means it's probably not via

If building a supersonic passenger plane with an existing engine was viable, it seems like somebody would already be doing it. Which means it's probably not viable, in which case Boom is an aircraft engine company first and foremost; once they have the engine, wrapping a plane around it should be the easy part, relatively speaking. Developing a new engine costs on the order of $1B, so the development cost for the whole plane would probably be between $1.5-2B. So they'd pay for that with their first 10 planes to Virgin, with maybe some money left over to change their name.

andy_ppp 11y ago
Can you not just make the plane smaller and lighter and more aerodynamic and use a larger engine? You may also be able to show that current engines can operate at higher energy levels for longer?
- ethank 11y ago
  Doesn't work like that. They want to use a J28D engine modified for super sonic flight. That engine was designed to power MD80's.
  - neurotech1 11y ago
    Its the intake design that makes the difference for supersonic performance. JT8D [0] is based on the J52 engine that powered the A-4 Skyhawk, and a related design is the RM8 [1] that powered the M2.0+ SAAB Viggen.[2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_JT8D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_JT8D [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_RM8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_RM8 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen
- diskcat 11y ago
  Engine is generally optimised for max efficiency at a cruising speed. A airliner engine is optimised for transonic cruising, you can't just half the plane and double the speed.
D_Alex 11y ago
>If ... something ... was viable, it seems like somebody would already be doing it This kind of thinking is useful as a first pass check, but one should not carry it too far. I would hope that by now the company has considered why no one has done it, and concluded that the obstacles are not insurmountable, and the prize in the end is worth it. Like so many other innovative companies, e.g. Tesla. Also... "Somebody who would be already doing it" would have had to pass exactly the same hurdle.

andy_ppp 11y ago

Can you not just make the plane smaller and lighter and more aerodynamic and use a larger engine? You may also be able to show that current engines can operate at higher energy levels for longer?

ethank 11y ago
Doesn't work like that. They want to use a J28D engine modified for super sonic flight. That engine was designed to power MD80's.
- neurotech1 11y ago
  Its the intake design that makes the difference for supersonic performance. JT8D [0] is based on the J52 engine that powered the A-4 Skyhawk, and a related design is the RM8 [1] that powered the M2.0+ SAAB Viggen.[2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_JT8D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_JT8D [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_RM8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_RM8 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen
diskcat 11y ago
Engine is generally optimised for max efficiency at a cruising speed. A airliner engine is optimised for transonic cruising, you can't just half the plane and double the speed.

D_Alex 11y ago

>If ... something ... was viable, it seems like somebody would already be doing it This kind of thinking is useful as a first pass check, but one should not carry it too far. I would hope that by now the company has considered why no one has done it, and concluded that the obstacles are not insurmountable, and the prize in the end is worth it. Like so many other innovative companies, e.g. Tesla. Also... "Somebody who would be already doing it" would have had to pass exactly the same hurdle.