Rolls Royce Exits Boom's Supersonic Airliner Project (flightglobal.com) 51
Rolls-Royce has ended its involvement in a project by Boom Supersonic to develop a faster-than-sound passenger airliner, leaving unclear the powerplant options available to Boom. FlightGlobal reports: "We are appreciative of Rolls-Royce's work over the last few years, but it became clear that Rolls' proposed engine design and legacy business model is not the best option for Overture's future airline operators or passengers," Boom said on 7 September. "Later this year, we will announce our selected engine partner and our transformational approach for reliable, cost-effective and sustainable supersonic flight."
Earlier in the day, news broke that R-R had backed out of the Boom project. "We've completed our contract with Boom and delivered various engineering studies for their Overture supersonic program," the UK engine manufacturer says. "After careful consideration, Rolls-Royce has determined that the commercial aviation supersonic market is not currently a priority for us and, therefore, will not pursue further work on the program at this time. It has been a pleasure to work with the Boom team and we wish them every success in the future."
Boom, with offices in Denver, has been developing a supersonic aircraft called Overture that it says will carry up to 80 passengers and cruise at Mach 1.7. It initially intended for Overture to have two engines, but recently changed to a four-engined design. The company has been targeting first flight of Overture in 2026 and first delivery in 2029. "Overture remains on track to carry passengers in 2029, and we are looking forward to making our engine announcement later this year," Boom says.
Earlier in the day, news broke that R-R had backed out of the Boom project. "We've completed our contract with Boom and delivered various engineering studies for their Overture supersonic program," the UK engine manufacturer says. "After careful consideration, Rolls-Royce has determined that the commercial aviation supersonic market is not currently a priority for us and, therefore, will not pursue further work on the program at this time. It has been a pleasure to work with the Boom team and we wish them every success in the future."
Boom, with offices in Denver, has been developing a supersonic aircraft called Overture that it says will carry up to 80 passengers and cruise at Mach 1.7. It initially intended for Overture to have two engines, but recently changed to a four-engined design. The company has been targeting first flight of Overture in 2026 and first delivery in 2029. "Overture remains on track to carry passengers in 2029, and we are looking forward to making our engine announcement later this year," Boom says.
Legacy business model (Score:4, Interesting)
We are appreciative of Rolls-Royce's work over the last few years, but it became clear that Rolls' proposed engine design and legacy business model is not the best option for Overture's future airline operators or passengers," Boom said on 7 September.
Is "legacy business model" now a euphemism for not willing to take risks? It'd sound super ironic if Rolls-Royce now doesn't want to move fast and break things [wikipedia.org].
Re: Legacy business model (Score:5, Insightful)
Legacy business model is probably a euphemism for RR not using a euphemism and telling Boom that move fast and break things is a good way to get shitcanned out of the airplane business by every aviation regulator on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean... isn't Boom's entire reason for existing to move fast and break things (in this case, the sound barrier?) ...I'll see myself out.
Re: (Score:2)
I think boom is moving towards metaverse based travel and considering iEngines
Re: (Score:2)
When I read between the lines, RR said "This is what can be built with modern engineering and how much each will cost." And Boom said, "No way, that's not acceptable, we should be able to do better."
When the Marines' Osprey was in prototyping in the early '90s my father did the cost analysis for the Navy. What he told the Navy was that company's proposed price would result in a design around an engine that wouldn't prove powerful enough to reliably keep the craft in the air. Many crashes later, it's clear t
Re: Legacy business model (Score:1)
Military equipment has always traded performance for reliability relative to civilian equipment. The failure rate tolerated in F-16 engines, for example (one per year per 1k aircraft, as an order of magnitude) , would bankrupt a manufacturer trying to sell engines for airliners.
A few ospreys crashed. Not because of engine failures, mostly because of getting into weird aerodynamic conditions, but yes some engine faults were in there. But so do Chinooks and Apaches and Black Hawks.
The osprey gets crap becaus
Re: (Score:2)
It means they want industry-standard prices.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a euphemism for "we'll totally change the airline industry bro, trust us with your investment!"
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, legacy business model means actually having a considered business plan rather than “YOLO, lets go disrupt!”
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I've no idea how anyone's bought into the plan of building a low-volume, expensive to build and operate aircraft that will use a shitton of fuel at a time when oil is expensive and emissions are top of everyone's mind. Again. And expect it to work this time.
Re: (Score:1)
Losing focus can be a good thing (Score:2)
Re: Losing focus can be a good thing (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We are appreciative of Rolls-Royce's work over the last few years, but it became clear that Rolls' proposed engine design and legacy business model is not the best option for Overture's future airline operators or passengers," Boom said on 7 September.
Is "legacy business model" now a euphemism for not willing to take risks? It'd sound super ironic if Rolls-Royce now doesn't want to move fast and break things [wikipedia.org].
It's a very American form of insult directed at Rolls Royce for refusing to drink the cool-aid and 'believe in the dream' while ignoring engineering challenges and financial reality. Probably mostly the latter. If the Airbus 380 supposedly flopped over the economics of airline operations then a supersonic airliner will flop even worse unless it can operate at costs roughly similar to the Airbus 320/350 or Boeing 737/787 since the 380 at least had relatively decent operating costs and is being dragged out of
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. They may have more of a business model if they scaled down the plane a bit, in order to be competitive with private jets. I think there is a market to cater for extremely rich people for whom the extra kerosene cost is offset by the profit they will make by being productive a couple more hours a day.
Re: (Score:2)
This thing will have all the same downsides as the Concorde.
It is a complete different plane, and uses only a fraction of the fuel the Concorde did.
I doubt I ever will fly in one (if every one flies at all), but they are nice new technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Legacy business model (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess is that they can't afford to fund development of engines, so they want a partner who is willing to do that with their own money. RR decided that supersonic jet engines probably aren't worth spending the money to develop because there won't be a big enough market for them, so Boom is now looking for an engine supplier that will.
They need a supplier who is not just willing to invest in the R&D, but willing to get those engines built on the timescale Boom wants too. All I can say is good luck with that.
Alternative powerplant... (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
haha .. . hmm ... I hope you are joking.
Re: Alternative powerplant... (Score:1)
Let's be honest, they could probably get more quick funding from the MIC by prototyping a Thunderscreech based Boom (can't lie about their name) Annoyatron-9000 drone fleet whose sole job is to inexpensively fly above hostile territory 24x7 and cause the enemy and any supporting civilian populations sleep deprivation and demoralization.
If it could somehow support Ukraine, they'd throw literal wheelbarrows full of cash at it.
Re: (Score:2)
"the blades on the XF-84H's propeller traveled faster than the speed of sound even at idle thrust, producing a continuous VISIBLE sonic boom that radiated laterally from the propellers for hundreds of yards."
Not believable (Score:4, Insightful)
These guys aren't writing code, they're cutting metal and doing a little bit of real live rocket science.
Boeing's commercial airplane unit has many thousands of employees. Same for Airbus and Embraer. Even "little" guys like Gulfstream and Cessna have thousands of employees.
Boom has a few hundred employees and some cad models and powerpoint charts. Four years before the supposed first flight and they're still fiddling with the cad models.
Back in the WW2 and Korea days they could churn out a new fighter plane in about a year. Based in large part on an existing mass-produced design and using existing manufacturing plants and a seasoned corps of engineers and factory workers. These guys do not have those things at their disposal and they're trying to do something harder.
Yes it would be nice to fly to Europe or Hawaii in a few hours, but wishing it to be true does not bend the laws of engineering design or manufacturing reality.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice to fly from Europe to Hawaii in a few hours, but even these peeps werent going to accomplish that - while they alluded to flying supersonic over populated land, they never actually committed to it, so the market for these aircraft is really only for trans oceanic routes.
Re: Not believable (Score:2)
Does trans oceanic routes exclude Hawaii and Europe somehow?
Re: (Score:2)
Quite obviously I misread the original comment a d read it as Europe *to* Hawaii - the point remains, one of this companies biggest early sales points was “we are going to solve the sonic boom issue, so you can fly supersonic over land”, which would dramatically increase the viability of this aircraft.
That was quietly dropped.
Which means that for most routes, this aircraft is pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't heard they were no longer planning supersonic over land, that's too bad. I'm skeptical but maybe with more ocean routes (compared to the Concorde's one) it could still be viable.
Re:Not believable (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes it would be nice to fly to Europe or Hawaii in a few hours, but wishing it to be true does not bend the laws of engineering design or manufacturing reality.
LOL, as I said in another thread, this thing was never even going to be built, let alone get off the ground. It was just another wish-dream. If supersonic travel could be done affordably, Lockheed and Boeing would have finished building their Concorde rivals.
The idea for a supersonic airliner is revisited about every decade or so, and every time, after engineers take a hard look at reality, they remember why the effort was abandoned in the first place.
It sucks for us aviation freaks that dream of rocketing across the sky in a sonic boom, but the future of air travel is just more of the same thing we've been getting since the 707: ever-more fuel efficient subsonic tubes that stuff as many people inside as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
These guys aren't writing code, they're cutting metal and doing a little bit of real live rocket science.
Boeing's commercial airplane unit has many thousands of employees. Same for Airbus and Embraer. Even "little" guys like Gulfstream and Cessna have thousands of employees.
I get your point, but Gulfstream is part of General Dynamics (very large defence contractor) and Cessna were bought by Textron a few years back (a large industrial conglomerate). But I say your point stands.
"Boom"'s biggest problem is that don't have an aircraft, let alone a business model to fly it. All they've got is some wild eyed fantasies about "the supersonic". Ultimately it was economics that killed the Concorde, the fact is it's cheaper to send over 10 777s than 1 Concorde and people weren't payi
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately it was economics that killed the Concorde, the fact is it's cheaper to send over 10 777s than 1 Concorde and people weren't paying 10 x a 777 seat to get on a Concorde.
Actually, 10x a 777 seat sounds about correct, if you mean a normal coach/economy 777 seat. The economic problem arises in the fact that the 10x 777s are carrying about 2-3 times as many first/business class passengers as 1x Concorde, and then adding a few thousand coach passengers and some tons of cargo.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if Boom was willing / able to pay whatever was needed to make a suitable engine, am sure RR will be willing to put in the work.
If RR has to make a new engine from scratch, inventing some new technology in the process, it could be a billion or multi billion dollar process. And they will not do it without assurance that they can get back the money spent. If Boom can't provide the assurance (and probably a guarantee, considering they are a pretty small outfit compared to the Boeing / Airbus giants) I d
This sux, BUT, hopefully, GE or P/W will do it (Score:2)
Next to R-R, Both GE and P/W have some decent technology dealing with supercruise engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Several months ago I posted some skepticism on this point. Namely that much like the batteries in an electric vehicle, the engines of a proposed super sonic airplane are where you need to innovate in order to turn this into reality. If I recall their initial mock-up used some JB-85's which is a straight up cold war design, gas guzzler. It'll push metal to past the speed of sound, but no way you can operate an airliner...too much fuel, too loud, bad environmental aspects.
Developing a new engine will cost b
There are few photos of Concorde at altitude ... (Score:3)
It turns out that an airplane that can fly at Mach 1.5+ at 50-60,000 feet is actually tremendously difficult to photograph at altitude, because essentially no existing military aircraft can chase it.
Concorde at Mach 2 and 60,000 feet couldn't be chased. You could shoot it down, but that's much easier.
https://theaviationgeekclub.co... [theaviationgeekclub.com]
Few fighters designed in the past 20-30 years are even capable of Mach 2, as high top speed is no longer a priority. On the other hand, scads of fighters designed in the 1960s and early 70s could (and still can) fly at >Mach 2.
However, those 1960s Mach 2 fighters ... (Score:2)
... couldn't do "supercruise" as in supersonic flight without "reheat" (afterburner). Thus they were restricted to single digit minutes of supersonic flight rather than an entire ocean of it.
Concorde was a pretty cool engineering trick. Like the SR-71 it was a pig on the ground, but unmatched at altitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the English Electric Lightning (first flight 1957, front line service 1960) was capable of supercruise. It's still very difficult to intercept something flying that fast.
Re: However, those 1960s Mach 2 fighters ... (Score:2)
The number of aircraft that have cruised at Mach 2 without afterburner, so far, I think is two: Concorde and the Tu-144.
The SR-71 and XB-70 used continuous afterburner - efficiently - while cruising at speeds near Mach 3.
Re: (Score:2)
I sincerely doubt that the Concorde was flying at Mach 2. The Concorde was built for fuel efficiency, not for speed. With single-stream jet engines, the best fuel efficiency lies just above the speed of sound. In fact, going faster than the speed of sound immediately increases the drag of the aircraft, but flying faster makes a single-stream jet engine more efficient.
Off course, the Concorde was rendered obsolete by the invention of the double-stream jet engine.
So I would say that Booms business model is th
Re: (Score:3)
I sincerely doubt that the Concorde was flying at Mach 2.
The travel times for Paris-NYC or London-NYC weren't 10% or 20% shorter than subsonic aircraft, They were less than half as long (3.5 hours compared to 8 hours)
Here's a Concorde pilot in a YouTube video linked from the wikipedia article:
The only thing that tells you that you're moving is that occasionally when you're flying over the subsonic aeroplanes you can see all these 747s 20,000 feet below you almost appearing to go backwards, I mean you are going 800 miles an hour or thereabouts faster than they are.
Re: There are few photos of Concorde at altitude . (Score:2)
Concorde cruised at 60,000 feet, Mach 2.
As mentioned in the link I gave, in order to allow a fighter to get a photograph of Concorde cruising at altitude, it had to slow down to Mach 1.5.
Re: There are few photos of Concorde at altitude . (Score:2)
There are some problems with supersonic flight that will prevent it from being ordinary, but there is certainly a market for it.
* Fuel economy - probably decent at cruise but not in other regimes
* Sonic boom - the hope is that decades of research have created designs with drastically reduced sonic boom
* Emissions into the stratosphere - a drastic expansion of air travel into the stratosphere would probably not be allowed by environmental regulators
But there are plenty of filthy rich people in the world thes
Re: There are few photos of Concorde at altitude (Score:2)
I can't say as I've seen a lot of formation flying involving commercial transport aircraft even when subsonic.
The cost of flying Concorde was in the neighborhood of $50,000-100,000/hr (2022 dollars) so that would be a pricey photograph - I doubt the aircraft would be allowed to fly in proximity while carrying passengers so basically both aircraft would have to be ferry/deadhead.
So far RR got paid for their work, (Score:4, Interesting)
Boom is a scam to take money from investors (Score:2)
Deck chairs (Score:2)
Somehow talking about how neat it will be to get from New York to London in a few hours
sounds a lot like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
What's the projected environmental impact of each and every supersonic trip across the pond?
Anybody want to guess which service (fast trip across the ocean or being able to breathe) people
actually want?
It's a perfect example of why I seriously doubt that we are going to live through this self-inflicted
mortal wound. When the convienience of the elite overshadow
Good, As-in Riddence (Score:2)