6 ms·

This is one of my favorite YC companies and I'm really rooting for them. The aviation industry really needs a shakeup and more competition. Boeing has really lo

This is one of my favorite YC companies and I'm really rooting for them. The aviation industry really needs a shakeup and more competition. Boeing has really lost their way.

mobilefriendly 6y ago
I agree but why supersonic passenger jet (a product category with a high profile failure) versus starting with a next-gen regional jet? Or a luxury private jet?
- cwhiz 6y ago
  Publicity. We're here talking about it because it's supersonic. Same reason Tesla started with the Roadster. Regional jets are boring.
- lumost 6y ago
  Supersonic passenger jets are currently an untapped market with zero competition. The traditional players have decided it's not a useful market to chase. The technology of a supersonic is also sufficiently different from a sub-sonic jet that it will be tough to chase them once they bring a product to market. Regional jets have been optimized over the better part of a century, are heavily regulated and have heavy competition from incumbent players. Based on the historic gains in commuter flight performance we're likely within 10-20% of the optimum plane configuration for any given market. A new entrant would take ~10 years to bring an aircraft to market, during which time an incumbent could introduce a competing aircraft or simply leverage their existing product lines and sales channels to compete with suboptimal aircraft.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Who is the market for supersonic travel not already served by military aircraft that can go supersonic and space vehicles that go suborbital? I’m not saying such a market doesn’t exist, but show me these folks with their wallet open for this civil speed.
    - Misdicorl 6y ago
      Crossing the Pacific ocean in five hours instead of twelve with be a pretty huge improvement for a lot of people with deep pockets
      - thombat 6y ago
        The projected range for the Overture craft is 8300km. That would just barely get you from San Francisco to Tokyo (shades of Concorde, which on days with contrary winds had to stop to refuel on the New York - London/Paris runs), but not from Los Angeles. Australia and NZ are far too far. With a refueling stop in Hawaii then Auckland is ok, though Sydney is still marginal. So less wonderful than you'd hope: the Pacific is darned big.
        Misdicorl 6y ago
        Didn't realize. Pacific crossings seem like the ideal place to capitalize on high speed, and it seems silly not to make that the primary and expand from there. Perhaps the supersonic range issue is just a really tough nut to crack?
        ghaff 6y ago
        >Perhaps the supersonic range issue is just a really tough nut to crack? Almost certainly. You're right that trans-Pacific would be more compelling. Even with decent food, nice drink, and lie-flat seating, a trans-Pacific flight is still a long time to stay mostly sitting. (Though airlines could have lounges like the old first class lounge in the hump of 747s; people just don't want to pay for the space.) Honestly, transatlantic is really not a big deal. Very few people are interested in flying back and forth in a day. And if you're going to stay overnight, NY to London, say, is really not a bad trip in business and you don't even need to do it as a red-eye. I'd add that, if it weren't already the case relative to when the Concorde flew, I suspect that this period will permanently damp flying across the ocean just to sign a deal or do a quick meet and greet. (Which was certainly part of the market for Concordes).
    - 6y ago
  - PaulHoule 6y ago
    Regional jet technology has been ahead of the planes you've likely been flying on for 20 years. The E195 is smaller than the B737 but feels like riding in a B767, it is like Buck Roger's spaceship but Airbus and Boeing kept it at bay; Canada developed a B787-level technology competitor for it, and Airbus bought it after Boeing and Airbus colluded to keep it off the market. The E195-2 is almost as nice as the A220. If they can just shut down the 737 line and change the labor laws in the US that discourage E195-sized planes, life could be much better for fliers. The Concorde demonstrated the failure of the Mach 2 class airliner, not just because of "high fuel consumption" but because it could not do multiple trips across the Atlantic in a day thanks to takeoff and landing restrictions. Originally people thought the SST would crush all other airliners economically because they could fly twice as many flights in the same time ("half the capital cost") but that was not realized. (People in London and NYC have to sleep once in a while) The Mach 3 class typified by military projects such as the SR-71 and XB-70 might be successful at both problems. Believe it or not supersonic cruise at Mach 3 is about the optimum fuel economy for supersonic flight and it might be fast enough to do more flights and lower the capital cost. One gap between the Mach 2 and the Mach 3 classes is that at Mach 3 you have to give up on aluminum as a structural material and switch to Iron, Titanium, or something else. The SR-71 squared some of the design circles by taking off with a minimum fuel load and refueling mid-air -- airliners would have worse problems in terms of wing design. There is no commercial airliner in the Mach 1 class, the economics are certainly worse than Concorde. The Mach 1 business jet might just work if somebody values the time over the economics.
    - tomatocracy 6y ago
      The big problem with Concorde was that it wasn't allowed to fly supersonically over most land due to noise restrictions. Thus eg transcontinental US, where the time gain might have been quite attractive, was ruled out. The same issue combined with limited range also ruled out nonstop London-far east (Singapore, Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo) or London-West Coast US. Are these issues likely to be any different now? Also - not sure what you call Mach 1 class but the business jet market has a lot of planes which will cruise at eg Mach 0.93 or so - ie faster than airliners - and speed is valued in that market. If noise issues over land can be navigated successfully then I would expect there is a good market for supersonic business jets.
- usrusr 6y ago
  Well, they are starting with a single seater prototype, that's a bit closer to a luxury private than to a liner. But I'd also be far more thrilled by a truly next gen regional. Unfortunately the physical barriers for making regional aircraft significantly more economical are actually harder than for throwing more fuel at the problem of going faster. Between supersonic and next gen regional, they are not only taking on the more glamorous problem, it's also the easier one.
- numpad0 6y ago
  Also why start a new company rather than buying out or partnering some existing manufacturer? After looking at Mitsubishi spectacularly failing to deliver MRJ, I wonder if it’s a wise choice.
  - nick_kline 6y ago
    Wow, I hadn't heard about that. If they were 1 or 2 years quicker they might have been out in the market before the pandemic presumably killed them?
    - numpad0 6y ago
      They put together an agile flying plane, but they didn’t do any of paperworks beforehand, so couldn’t get it certified or make it maintainable due to complete lack of understanding for commercial aviation market
- Gravityloss 6y ago
  A modern regional turboprop could really kill it ten years from now. If emissions really start making a difference to the ticket costs. Sweden and Finland are already introducing such measures. There's a lot of room for more efficiency. With carbon wing spars you can have whatever aspect ratio is practical for operations with not much weight penalty. In the last decades, the wind power industry has pushed forward methods for large composite structures mass produced cheaply. Boom can always pivot. From Concorde came Airbus as well.
miketery 6y ago
Boeing has not only lost their way (i.e. 737 MAX), but was actively malicious in its use of the federal government to impose tariffs against Bombardier in a huge deal to Delta airlines. End result is that Bombardier suffered a huge loss, had to sell IP to airbus (joint venture deal), prices to end consumer are higher, and aviation manufacturing competition is stiffed.
- nickff 6y ago
  Boeing did not abuse the tariff system; they used it exactly as designed. The tariff system encourages reports by competitors, and awards a portion of the collections to the competitors. I am a free-trader, and think all tariffs are bad, but Boeing acted in the spirit of that law. Bombardier's aspirations were stymied by an incredibly expensive certification process, which they underestimated.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Airbus got a very nifty little plane out of it too, one that Boeing can not currently effectively compete with.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Bombardier IIRC fucks over NYC and other cities with crappy over-budget behind-schedule subways cars, so eh, a pox on both their houses.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  I'm still puzzled by the Canadian government's decision not to help Bombardier when that happened. I mean the tariffs were eventually waived. The A220 has something like 600+ firm orders from what I recall. It's going to be hugely profitable and Airbus is basically making all the profits. Was it politically motivated? Why wouldn't Canada want an aerospace sector?
  - themihai 6y ago
    Bombardier was not really a sure bet and maybe Canada didn't want to risk tax payer's money? Just because Airbus succeeded with A220 doesn't mean Bombardier would have done the same.

This is one of my favorite YC companies and I'm really rooting for them. The aviation industry really needs a shakeup and more competition. Boeing has really lost their way.

mobilefriendly 6y ago

I agree but why supersonic passenger jet (a product category with a high profile failure) versus starting with a next-gen regional jet? Or a luxury private jet?

cwhiz 6y ago
Publicity. We're here talking about it because it's supersonic. Same reason Tesla started with the Roadster. Regional jets are boring.
lumost 6y ago
Supersonic passenger jets are currently an untapped market with zero competition. The traditional players have decided it's not a useful market to chase. The technology of a supersonic is also sufficiently different from a sub-sonic jet that it will be tough to chase them once they bring a product to market. Regional jets have been optimized over the better part of a century, are heavily regulated and have heavy competition from incumbent players. Based on the historic gains in commuter flight performance we're likely within 10-20% of the optimum plane configuration for any given market. A new entrant would take ~10 years to bring an aircraft to market, during which time an incumbent could introduce a competing aircraft or simply leverage their existing product lines and sales channels to compete with suboptimal aircraft.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Who is the market for supersonic travel not already served by military aircraft that can go supersonic and space vehicles that go suborbital? I’m not saying such a market doesn’t exist, but show me these folks with their wallet open for this civil speed.
  - Misdicorl 6y ago
    Crossing the Pacific ocean in five hours instead of twelve with be a pretty huge improvement for a lot of people with deep pockets
    - thombat 6y ago
      The projected range for the Overture craft is 8300km. That would just barely get you from San Francisco to Tokyo (shades of Concorde, which on days with contrary winds had to stop to refuel on the New York - London/Paris runs), but not from Los Angeles. Australia and NZ are far too far. With a refueling stop in Hawaii then Auckland is ok, though Sydney is still marginal. So less wonderful than you'd hope: the Pacific is darned big.
      - Misdicorl 6y ago
        Didn't realize. Pacific crossings seem like the ideal place to capitalize on high speed, and it seems silly not to make that the primary and expand from there. Perhaps the supersonic range issue is just a really tough nut to crack?
        ghaff 6y ago
        >Perhaps the supersonic range issue is just a really tough nut to crack? Almost certainly. You're right that trans-Pacific would be more compelling. Even with decent food, nice drink, and lie-flat seating, a trans-Pacific flight is still a long time to stay mostly sitting. (Though airlines could have lounges like the old first class lounge in the hump of 747s; people just don't want to pay for the space.) Honestly, transatlantic is really not a big deal. Very few people are interested in flying back and forth in a day. And if you're going to stay overnight, NY to London, say, is really not a bad trip in business and you don't even need to do it as a red-eye. I'd add that, if it weren't already the case relative to when the Concorde flew, I suspect that this period will permanently damp flying across the ocean just to sign a deal or do a quick meet and greet. (Which was certainly part of the market for Concordes).
  - 6y ago
- PaulHoule 6y ago
  Regional jet technology has been ahead of the planes you've likely been flying on for 20 years. The E195 is smaller than the B737 but feels like riding in a B767, it is like Buck Roger's spaceship but Airbus and Boeing kept it at bay; Canada developed a B787-level technology competitor for it, and Airbus bought it after Boeing and Airbus colluded to keep it off the market. The E195-2 is almost as nice as the A220. If they can just shut down the 737 line and change the labor laws in the US that discourage E195-sized planes, life could be much better for fliers. The Concorde demonstrated the failure of the Mach 2 class airliner, not just because of "high fuel consumption" but because it could not do multiple trips across the Atlantic in a day thanks to takeoff and landing restrictions. Originally people thought the SST would crush all other airliners economically because they could fly twice as many flights in the same time ("half the capital cost") but that was not realized. (People in London and NYC have to sleep once in a while) The Mach 3 class typified by military projects such as the SR-71 and XB-70 might be successful at both problems. Believe it or not supersonic cruise at Mach 3 is about the optimum fuel economy for supersonic flight and it might be fast enough to do more flights and lower the capital cost. One gap between the Mach 2 and the Mach 3 classes is that at Mach 3 you have to give up on aluminum as a structural material and switch to Iron, Titanium, or something else. The SR-71 squared some of the design circles by taking off with a minimum fuel load and refueling mid-air -- airliners would have worse problems in terms of wing design. There is no commercial airliner in the Mach 1 class, the economics are certainly worse than Concorde. The Mach 1 business jet might just work if somebody values the time over the economics.
  - tomatocracy 6y ago
    The big problem with Concorde was that it wasn't allowed to fly supersonically over most land due to noise restrictions. Thus eg transcontinental US, where the time gain might have been quite attractive, was ruled out. The same issue combined with limited range also ruled out nonstop London-far east (Singapore, Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo) or London-West Coast US. Are these issues likely to be any different now? Also - not sure what you call Mach 1 class but the business jet market has a lot of planes which will cruise at eg Mach 0.93 or so - ie faster than airliners - and speed is valued in that market. If noise issues over land can be navigated successfully then I would expect there is a good market for supersonic business jets.
usrusr 6y ago
Well, they are starting with a single seater prototype, that's a bit closer to a luxury private than to a liner. But I'd also be far more thrilled by a truly next gen regional. Unfortunately the physical barriers for making regional aircraft significantly more economical are actually harder than for throwing more fuel at the problem of going faster. Between supersonic and next gen regional, they are not only taking on the more glamorous problem, it's also the easier one.
numpad0 6y ago
Also why start a new company rather than buying out or partnering some existing manufacturer? After looking at Mitsubishi spectacularly failing to deliver MRJ, I wonder if it’s a wise choice.
- nick_kline 6y ago
  Wow, I hadn't heard about that. If they were 1 or 2 years quicker they might have been out in the market before the pandemic presumably killed them?
  - numpad0 6y ago
    They put together an agile flying plane, but they didn’t do any of paperworks beforehand, so couldn’t get it certified or make it maintainable due to complete lack of understanding for commercial aviation market
Gravityloss 6y ago
A modern regional turboprop could really kill it ten years from now. If emissions really start making a difference to the ticket costs. Sweden and Finland are already introducing such measures. There's a lot of room for more efficiency. With carbon wing spars you can have whatever aspect ratio is practical for operations with not much weight penalty. In the last decades, the wind power industry has pushed forward methods for large composite structures mass produced cheaply. Boom can always pivot. From Concorde came Airbus as well.

miketery 6y ago

Boeing has not only lost their way (i.e. 737 MAX), but was actively malicious in its use of the federal government to impose tariffs against Bombardier in a huge deal to Delta airlines. End result is that Bombardier suffered a huge loss, had to sell IP to airbus (joint venture deal), prices to end consumer are higher, and aviation manufacturing competition is stiffed.

nickff 6y ago
Boeing did not abuse the tariff system; they used it exactly as designed. The tariff system encourages reports by competitors, and awards a portion of the collections to the competitors. I am a free-trader, and think all tariffs are bad, but Boeing acted in the spirit of that law. Bombardier's aspirations were stymied by an incredibly expensive certification process, which they underestimated.
jacquesm 6y ago
Airbus got a very nifty little plane out of it too, one that Boeing can not currently effectively compete with.
Ericson2314 6y ago
Bombardier IIRC fucks over NYC and other cities with crappy over-budget behind-schedule subways cars, so eh, a pox on both their houses.
908B64B197 6y ago
I'm still puzzled by the Canadian government's decision not to help Bombardier when that happened. I mean the tariffs were eventually waived. The A220 has something like 600+ firm orders from what I recall. It's going to be hugely profitable and Airbus is basically making all the profits. Was it politically motivated? Why wouldn't Canada want an aerospace sector?
- themihai 6y ago
  Bombardier was not really a sure bet and maybe Canada didn't want to risk tax payer's money? Just because Airbus succeeded with A220 doesn't mean Bombardier would have done the same.