5 ms·

Mid 2020s, not mid-2020. That is, 2025ish, not 2020.5ish.

rootusrootus 5y ago
Even then. It took Boeing, a company with vast amounts of experience developing airplanes, close to ten years to create the 787. And that is a bog standard subsonic airliner design with the most notable feature being the composite construction. Boom seems like vaporware.
- iab 5y ago
  I take your point here, but bristle a little bit on the "bog-standard", given the truly amazing engineering that goes into modern airliners
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    I agree, airliners are marvels of modern engineering. I am grateful that we can be flippant and call them bog-standard because we have (collectively) become so good at making them.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > It took Boeing, a company with vast amounts of experience developing airplanes, close to ten years to create the 787. This is a bit like saying SpaceX's Starship isn't possible because Boeing's SLS is costly and delayed. "If Boeing can't do it, it must be tough" is no longer the same statement it would've been in the 1960s.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Airbus, if you would like an alternative comparison, kicked off development of the A350 in 2005 and the maiden flight was in 2013, eight years later. Boom hasn't even finished the scale prototype they've been promising for a while, much less started development on an actual full size plane. If they ever fly the plane, it will be more than a decade from now.
  - cma 5y ago
    > This is a bit like saying SpaceX's Starship isn't possible because Boeing's SLS is costly and delayed. SpaceX also says they'll have operational cross-earth passenger service for less than business class ticket by the end of 2028. I'd gladly take a bet against that.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      > I'd gladly take a bet against that. So would I. It sounds like the kind of dreamy claim Elon likes to make for Tesla that he routinely misses.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Boeing has a special sort of ineptitude when it comes to execution. Other companies don't suffer the same problems.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Alright, let's use Airbus as an example, then. The A350 (seems to be their most recent airliner) had its maiden flight in 2013, after being in development for 8 years, since 2005.
    - dingaling 5y ago
      The A350XWB was launched in December 2006
      - rootusrootus 5y ago
        There seems to be conflicting information. Sounds like they had orders lined up in 2005. One source says industrial launch was on 6 October 2005, another says final approval for the launch got delayed to 2006. All a bit ambiguous. But in any case, it looks like Airbus has a similar development timeline for new planes that Boeing does. I suspect that is broadly applicable to other manufacturers as well. As a sanity check, I looked at the development of the smaller airliner from Bombardier (now Airbus A220) and it was January 2007 for industrial start, to September 2013 for maiden flight.
- hedora 5y ago
  It took Boeing 3 years to design and start mass production of the 747 (1965-1968): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 The 747 is a descendant of the 707, which took 3 years. It’s based on the 367-80 prototype which took less than 2 years (they only built one 367-80). The 787 isn’t really representative of a reasonable timeframe for an experienced company to design + build an airliner.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    We don't live in the 1960s and tolerate 1960s accident rates any more. The 787 is much more representative of a reasonable timeframe for an experienced company to design and build a new airliner than anything that happened in the 1960s when there were minimal regulations and no competition.
    - nopzor 5y ago
      the difference is not just the regulations and risk tolerance. it's also a regression in skills, culture, accountability, and urgency.
- sheepybloke 5y ago
  To be fair, the 787 isn't bog standard. It's built from composites, which change a lot of dynamics in the plane. Similarly, there were a lot of avionics updates from the previous generations. It looks standard, but there were a lot of improvements to the plane that required a lot of work.

Even then. It took Boeing, a company with vast amounts of experience developing airplanes, close to ten years to create the 787. And that is a bog standard subsonic airliner design with the most notable feature being the composite construction. Boom seems like vaporware.

iab 5y ago
I take your point here, but bristle a little bit on the "bog-standard", given the truly amazing engineering that goes into modern airliners
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I agree, airliners are marvels of modern engineering. I am grateful that we can be flippant and call them bog-standard because we have (collectively) become so good at making them.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> It took Boeing, a company with vast amounts of experience developing airplanes, close to ten years to create the 787. This is a bit like saying SpaceX's Starship isn't possible because Boeing's SLS is costly and delayed. "If Boeing can't do it, it must be tough" is no longer the same statement it would've been in the 1960s.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Airbus, if you would like an alternative comparison, kicked off development of the A350 in 2005 and the maiden flight was in 2013, eight years later. Boom hasn't even finished the scale prototype they've been promising for a while, much less started development on an actual full size plane. If they ever fly the plane, it will be more than a decade from now.
- cma 5y ago
  > This is a bit like saying SpaceX's Starship isn't possible because Boeing's SLS is costly and delayed. SpaceX also says they'll have operational cross-earth passenger service for less than business class ticket by the end of 2028. I'd gladly take a bet against that.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > I'd gladly take a bet against that. So would I. It sounds like the kind of dreamy claim Elon likes to make for Tesla that he routinely misses.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Boeing has a special sort of ineptitude when it comes to execution. Other companies don't suffer the same problems.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Alright, let's use Airbus as an example, then. The A350 (seems to be their most recent airliner) had its maiden flight in 2013, after being in development for 8 years, since 2005.
  - dingaling 5y ago
    The A350XWB was launched in December 2006
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      There seems to be conflicting information. Sounds like they had orders lined up in 2005. One source says industrial launch was on 6 October 2005, another says final approval for the launch got delayed to 2006. All a bit ambiguous. But in any case, it looks like Airbus has a similar development timeline for new planes that Boeing does. I suspect that is broadly applicable to other manufacturers as well. As a sanity check, I looked at the development of the smaller airliner from Bombardier (now Airbus A220) and it was January 2007 for industrial start, to September 2013 for maiden flight.
hedora 5y ago
It took Boeing 3 years to design and start mass production of the 747 (1965-1968): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 The 747 is a descendant of the 707, which took 3 years. It’s based on the 367-80 prototype which took less than 2 years (they only built one 367-80). The 787 isn’t really representative of a reasonable timeframe for an experienced company to design + build an airliner.
- notahacker 5y ago
  We don't live in the 1960s and tolerate 1960s accident rates any more. The 787 is much more representative of a reasonable timeframe for an experienced company to design and build a new airliner than anything that happened in the 1960s when there were minimal regulations and no competition.
  - nopzor 5y ago
    the difference is not just the regulations and risk tolerance. it's also a regression in skills, culture, accountability, and urgency.
sheepybloke 5y ago
To be fair, the 787 isn't bog standard. It's built from composites, which change a lot of dynamics in the plane. Similarly, there were a lot of avionics updates from the previous generations. It looks standard, but there were a lot of improvements to the plane that required a lot of work.