3 ms·

Which is to say: Boom is aimed at the wrong product. The High Tech part of efficient supersonic transport is the engines, not the airframe. If there was an of

• pclmulqdq 4y ago
  The engines are actually hard to design, though. Most startups (even hard tech ones) try to avoid doing the hard part.
• nickff 4y ago
  Engine manufacturing is much more profitable, and seemingly challenging than airframe manufacturing. The engines they'll use are unlikely to be very different from those in other applications, so I'm not sure there's room for a new entrant. Keep in mind that the R&D and capital costs of becoming a turbine engine manufacturer are immense, and likely much higher than the costs to develop a new aircraft.
  • ajross 4y ago
    ... which is tantamount to saying that efficient supersonic transport won't happen because the engine is too expensive to design, though. And maybe that's true. But even if it is true it's still on Boom to make that happen somehow. Not all startups succeed, but those that build the wrong product fail at a 100% rate.
    • nickff 4y ago
      I think Boom will likely design and build a working aircraft, but they don't have the money or expertise to design an engine. Both GE and P&W are capable of designing and building the engine, the question is which will make the business deal with Boom. I am guessing that Boom either wants a cut of the service revenue, or wants to do most of the engine service themself.
      • Denvercoder9 4y ago
        > Both GE and P&W are capable of designing and building the engine, the question is which will make the business deal with Boom. I think the bigger question is whether either of them will make the business deal with Boom, or if they both deem it too risky and too expensive.
    • jjk166 4y ago
      Paying a well established and experienced engine manufacturer to design the engine you need which is only one part of your product is much more economical than becoming an engine manufacturer yourself. By analogy, if an AI startup needs custom chips, that doesn't mean they need to nor should build their own fab and try to compete with TSMC.
      • ajross 4y ago
        That's just the "off the shelf" argument. Which has just fallen apart because RR doesn't have the product and doesn't want to build it. You're right, that if Boom could just buy their engine it would be better for Boom. Boom can't just buy their engine though, and now it looks like their company is going to fail because they decided to build the easy part and not the hard part.
        • hef19898 4y ago
          There are very valid reasons why no ariframe manufacturer is building its own engines and vice versa. And having a civilian suoersonic turbofan engine nobody needs or wants doesn't get a comoany anywhere.
          • macshome 4y ago
            Honda builds both the engines and airframes for the HondaJet.
            • sokoloff 4y ago
              Those are built by a joint venture between Honda and GE Aviation (an existing jet engine maker). https://www.gehonda.com/ https://www.gehonda.com/
            • himinlomax 4y ago
              That's a niche product.
        • jjk166 4y ago
  • pstuart 4y ago
    The real money is in the service contracts.
    • starfallg 4y ago
      Yes, but the key to getting service contracts is to have a product that people can put into service.
  • inamberclad 4y ago
    Rolls Royce, and most other engine makers on this level, are essentially metallurgical gods.
    • aardvark179 4y ago
      They rely on metallurgists, but they may not employ them directly. I know somebody who consulted on that sort of thing, and worked on developing alloys that would work at high temperatures and thus allow greater turbine efficiency, but the engine manufacturers mostly just knew the properties they needed, not how to get them.