8 ms·
There are perhaps 3 companies on Earth that could conceivably provide engines for this application. RR was one of them. Where to now?
by topspin 4y ago
There are perhaps 3 companies on Earth that could conceivably provide engines for this application. RR was one of them. Where to now?
- keepquestioning 4y agoCouldn't SpaceX or Rocket Lab's engine be repurposed for this task?
- adastra22 4y agoThose aren’t jet engines.
- keepquestioning 4y agoIt's a pity there aren't more jet engine providers.
- topspin 4y agoThe last thing you want in your turbofans is a lot of variety. That's why everyone relies on a handful of producers.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nradov 4y agoConsolidation is inevitable in industries where huge capital investments are necessary to build a viable product. The only way a new manufacturer will appear is if a major government decides to finance it for strategic reasons regardless of economics.
- hef19898 4y agoI can think of three occasions where this happened: Eurofighter with the RR based Eurojet engine, Rafale with an engine from Snecma and the A400M with a specifically designed turboprop. None of these manufacturers rose to challenge GE, RR or Pratt and Whitney when it comes to mass produced turbojet or fans.
- bombcar 4y agoSpaceX engines can clearly get you to supersonic speeds, but they're not "jets" and are much more expensive to run.
- topspin 4y agoNo.
- echelon 4y agoJets vs rockets: Jets breathe atmospheric air for combustion because they operate in an atmosphere where oxygen is readily available for combustion. They have an air intake nozzle. Rockets carry their own oxidizer because they must. They only have an exhaust nozzle.
- __m 4y agoBoom is a competitor of SpaceX. Both plan supersonic international travel.
- detritus 4y agoAs much of a fan of SpaceX's vision as I am, the only ballistic point to point passengers I can envisage any time soon would be military operatives in a dire emergency. I just can't see the likelihood of ballistic weapo..er.. projecti..er.. vehicles being allowed anywhere near major population centres, by tens of decamiles, therefore mooting the purpose of such extreme point to point passenger journeys. Never mind the sonic booms and general noise. Even having regular scheduled passenger landings on water seems ... not entirely environmentally friendly.
- cortesoft 4y agoThe answer is in the article... the remaining contenders are General Electric and Pratt & Whitney
- topspin 4y agoYeah, that's the other two. Supersonic jet engines are a rarified field. There are Russian "companies"... good luck getting that certified for Western commercial aviation.
- daniel-cussen 4y agoDude when the sanctions end the sanctions will really really end.
- topspin 4y agoRussia couldn't get any of their civil aviation jets certified before the sanctions.
- nradov 4y agoRussia got the Sukhoi Superjet 100 regional airliner certified in Europe in 2012 (before the sanctions). https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/press-releases/easa-certifies-sukhoi-superjet-100-rrj-95b https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/press-rele...
- 0x457 4y agoSSJ 100 was certified to operate in Europe in 2012. How much of SSJ 100 is Russian is another question. Irkut MC-21 had its first flight in 2017 and was supposed to get certified somewhere around 2025, which is pretty normal period, I think? Obviously, not going to happen now.
- hangonhn 4y agoWhat about CFM or Safran?
- rjsw 4y agoSafran could probably make an engine for this as well.
- topspin 4y agoEh. Maybe. They haven't developed a clean sheet supersonic turbofan since the 80's. This Boom "Overture" thing is going to need an entirely new design for long duration super-cruise; Boom needs engine people with a lot of depth.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoSafran's M88 should be sufficient for Boom's 1/3rd scale demonstrator I think? Then at least they'd have something to show other manufacturers and investors.
- apendleton 4y agoAt least as of last public discussion, the plan was to use off-the-shelf GE J85s for the demonstrator.
- frozencell 4y agoWe are talking about economic war, FCPA, not "French cheese eating surrender monkeys".
- trhway 4y agoCan they use for test demonstrator something like Mig-29 engines - those used planes are available including in US just for few millions. Once they are flying, GE or RR will probably be more interested.
- topspin 4y agoIt's true that a lot of aircraft development has occurred using substitute engines while the final engines where still being developed. The problem for Boom isn't getting airborne. It's convincing one of the few outfits capable of this to put billions of dollars into a clean sheet engine design. Klimov RD-33's (the Mig-29 engine) are not super-cruise engines and aren't capable of demonstrating the intent of the Boom design. And frankly I think even a retrofit like that is beyond Boom's means.
- trhway 4y agoWith correct inlet design those high power military engines I think can be made into super cruise - it is just that the inlet and the compressor will not work for long in that regime due to heat. Again for tests/demo should probably be fine. Not having chops for retrofits like this would definitely be a total disqualifier in that business though.
- mshockwave 4y agoIt's not like GE and P&W are bad choices given the fact that they made some of the best military jet engines in this world. While comparing fighter jet with large aircraft might not be fair, I think B-1B Lancer will be a good analogy in this case (similar size, 4-engine layout, and twice the takeoff weight). And B-1B Lancer use engines from GE.
- jaywalk 4y agoThey're not bad choices at all, and I'm sure Boom would love to work with either of them. But the question is whether or not GE or P&W are interested in working with this vaporware company.
- datavirtue 4y agoI have recently toured the GE plants where the engines are assembled and developed. I have worked in the same office with the engineers who design and service the engines. No way in hell GE can do this given the amount of resources for this project. And I highly doubt Boom would like working with them at all. GE gets skittish about a project when the government has already given them billions to develop it.
- smachiz 4y agoThere is no engine that will make economic sense for either the engine manufacturer or the airline operator based on the technology we have. This was always a fools errand.
- topspin 4y agoI know. No one that understands turbofans would imagine otherwise. This sort of thing need sovereign government budgets.
- guhidalg 4y agoNo engine product ready for purchase or no engine that could ever be built? If the former, whatever tell R&D to go do their job. If the latter, maybe it was a scam. Which is it?
- topspin 4y agoUnless Boom can get some government to write off the billions needed to develop engines then it's all fiction.
- smachiz 4y agoWishful thinking, delusion or scam. There are so many foundational issues with low supersonic flight from a usability perspective as well (time zones are not your friend for some of it), that lots of routes can only command a premium in one direction. You have to make so many rosy assumptions to even believe this makes sense if someone was willing to pour billions into engine tech - and still maybe have no options that are commercially viable. It’s also a nightmare from an environmental perspective.
- ajross 4y agoMentioned this elsewhere, but it belongs better here: If there's a market for a product that existing suppliers don't want to provide, that sounds like exactly what a startup should be doing. Boom is wasting their time building an airframe but what they really need to win is an engine. They should have built the engine first.
- bombcar 4y agoThis is the main way you distinguish the grifters from the movers. The grifters work on the final product, the movers work on the first step, having a plan to make that profitable, so they can build toward the final product. SpaceX is probably the example that comes to mind, even if they did borrow engines.
- njarboe 4y agoFYI, SpaceX developed all of their engines in-house[1]. Other American rocket companies use Russian engines and Congress's bill forbidding that going forward has put ULA in a very bad place because Blue Origin's BE-4 engine still is not ready after more than a decade of development. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_rocket_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_rocket_engines
- bombcar 4y agoAh, then it fits even better. I could have sworn someone had been launching on borrowed Russian engines, but maybe that was Boeing.
- mrguyorama 4y agoI think the story is that Elon wanted russian engines and they snubbed him so he got vindictive, like he does, but this time in a good way.
- njarboe 4y ago