4 ms·

Does this mean if any repairs are needed they'll have to rebuild the wing from scratch? I'd love to hear from someone at Boom what the main goals are for this

Does this mean if any repairs are needed they'll have to rebuild the wing from scratch? I'd love to hear from someone at Boom what the main goals are for this aircraft. And how it will differ from the larger transport craft they're planning. Beyond size and capacity.

AWildC182 7y ago
Carbon repairs are relatively easy as long as they don't damage any internal structure. IIRC they usually just patch and sand.
- loeg 7y ago
  Only way to verify no internal damage is an X-ray. I'm sure they've thought of that, though; this is carbon manufacture 101.
  - AWildC182 7y ago
    Depends on the event. I've never heard of anyone doing an xray on hangar rash type damage, at least not within a part 91 environment. Taxiing into a pole would be a different issue however.
    - loeg 7y ago
      Oh, sure.
loeg 7y ago
The company's goal is overland supersonic flight. Profitably, ideally. To make that even a legal possibility means demonstrating they can be somewhat quieter than prior supersonic aircraft. This aircraft is a proof-of-concept.
- jamestimmins 7y ago
  Is it specifically to demonstrate that they can make a quiet aircraft then? I think I'm curious specifically whether this is more about internal R&D and building systems, or if it's meant to demonstrate they have the capability to to create a performant supersonic aircraft, which they can take to potential investors.
  - phire 7y ago
    This demonstrator is a 1/3 scale model of their final design. It allows them to prove their exact final design will be quiet, along with verifing the rest of the aerodynamics.
    - jamestimmins 7y ago
      Any idea how often the final design and the prototype don't match in terms of volume and aerodynamics? I would have assumed that those parts are the easiest to model with high confidence.
      - elil17 7y ago
        You don't need to build it to test volume and aerodynamics (math and wind-tunnels can figure that out for you). This is probably more about finding unknown flaws in the design/running down risk. Spending however much on a prototype (10s or 100s of millions of dollars) just to marginally reduce the risk that there's a fundamental flaw in your approach makes a lot of sense when you plan to spend 6 billion total to develop the plane.
      - loeg 7y ago
        Aerodynamics modeling is incredibly difficult. You could probably test a smaller scale model, though (probably they have).

AWildC182 7y ago

Carbon repairs are relatively easy as long as they don't damage any internal structure. IIRC they usually just patch and sand.

loeg 7y ago
Only way to verify no internal damage is an X-ray. I'm sure they've thought of that, though; this is carbon manufacture 101.
- AWildC182 7y ago
  Depends on the event. I've never heard of anyone doing an xray on hangar rash type damage, at least not within a part 91 environment. Taxiing into a pole would be a different issue however.
  - loeg 7y ago
    Oh, sure.

loeg 7y ago

The company's goal is overland supersonic flight. Profitably, ideally. To make that even a legal possibility means demonstrating they can be somewhat quieter than prior supersonic aircraft. This aircraft is a proof-of-concept.

jamestimmins 7y ago
Is it specifically to demonstrate that they can make a quiet aircraft then? I think I'm curious specifically whether this is more about internal R&D and building systems, or if it's meant to demonstrate they have the capability to to create a performant supersonic aircraft, which they can take to potential investors.
- phire 7y ago
  This demonstrator is a 1/3 scale model of their final design. It allows them to prove their exact final design will be quiet, along with verifing the rest of the aerodynamics.
  - jamestimmins 7y ago
    Any idea how often the final design and the prototype don't match in terms of volume and aerodynamics? I would have assumed that those parts are the easiest to model with high confidence.
    - elil17 7y ago
      You don't need to build it to test volume and aerodynamics (math and wind-tunnels can figure that out for you). This is probably more about finding unknown flaws in the design/running down risk. Spending however much on a prototype (10s or 100s of millions of dollars) just to marginally reduce the risk that there's a fundamental flaw in your approach makes a lot of sense when you plan to spend 6 billion total to develop the plane.
    - loeg 7y ago
      Aerodynamics modeling is incredibly difficult. You could probably test a smaller scale model, though (probably they have).