3 ms·
Note that the 787 development costs included building multiple full-sized prototypes of a wide-body (read: price on the order of $225M per aircraft) and a movin
by cstross 10y ago
Note that the 787 development costs included building multiple full-sized prototypes of a wide-body (read: price on the order of $225M per aircraft) and a moving vehicle production line — you can tour the Boeing plant at Everett and see fourteen Dreamliners lined up nose-to-tail at various stages of production, like 200 ton automobiles in a car plant. They also built a global supply chain, with over 50% of the components manufactured outside the USA (for WTO trade rules compliance — a side-effect of Boeing's ongoing trade war with Airbus; Airbus have had to do the same). With over 1200 orders to date (over 500 delivered) the 787 has only been available for 13 years: typical product life of a Boeing/Airbus airliner is 30 years, so they're looking at amortizing that $30Bn over roughly 2500-3000 airframes, and you should consider it as covering most of the manufacturing costs.
So the $30Bn sticker for the Dreamliner gets you not only a new wide-body airliner, but a whole new global airliner manufacturing supply chain (you bet they'll use it — or a development thereof — for the next airliner they design, too), and the capacity to punch them out like pick-up trucks.
This $33M funding round is to build a one-third scale flight demonstrator. Not an actual Boom airliner, or a Concorde equivalent, but something like like the HP.115 — a research aircraft with similar flight properties in some parts of the flight regime of the planned final aircraft, for test purposes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_HP.115 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_HP.115
(Significant difference: the HP.115 was used to investigate low speed stability and handling of delta wings. The Boom XB-1 is to investigate supersonic low noise flight.)
It also lets them build up their engineering team to the point where they're actually able to get a full grasp of the magnitude of the problems they're facing.
But a real Boom supersonic transport? That's going to cost at a minimum multiple single-digit billions (even if they don't go all-out and budget for a production line and supply chain for 2000 units) to develop.
- yread 10y agoThen again Boeing had the benefit of already having most of the expertise in house from building planes for decades. I'm sure if I started a company I would need a lot more than $30B to develop 787.
- cstross 10y agoYou might think that, but Airbus developed the A350XWB — a direct competitor for the 787 — on a budget of €11Bn. Even taking into account exchange rate issues, that's less than half the cost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB (On the other hand, Airbus already had a lot of experience with composites in airliners, so the A350 was an evolutionary development, not a revolution: and they'd been working with international airliner component supply chains for decades already — it's what they do — so they didn't have to start from scratch.) My point is, the $30Bn sticker on the 787 is misleading because it covers not only a new wide-body airliner type but also a whole new supply chain management approach and a (for Boeing) revolutionary change in materials technology (from mostly-Al to mostly-carbon fiber composites).
- dragonwriter 10y ago> You might think that, but Airbus developed the A350XWB — a direct competitor for the 787 — on a budget of €11Bn. Even taking into account exchange rate issues, that's less than half the cost. Airbus also had the same kind of experience and expertise in house already built up. So, that doesn't challenge the GPs contention that for someone without that, the cost would be substantially more.