SSJ 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.
CFM hasn't ever developed a supersonic engine. Safran's one military turbofan is an 80's non-supercruise design. It would be a long way to go for either of these outfits to produce an entirely new supercruise turbofan.
No 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.
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.
Mentioned 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.
This 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.
> 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
For me, it's Virgin Galactic showcasing the seats before they'd made it to space versus SpaceX building its engines and only much later unveiling spacesuit designs.
FYI, 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.
He wanted to buy some Russian rockets to send a greenhouse to Mars, but they did not take him very seriously and quoted very high prices. After that is when he got serious about starting SpaceX.
Spot on. If you build a more efficient engine P&W, GE, Honeywell, and a few other companies would be clawing eachothers' eyes for the chance to buy you out.
Boeing and other airframe mfgs would throw you a huge contract immediately if they thought you could actually build the engines and deliver them.
Even if you just build an engine on-par with everybody else. Or even just a bit sub-par. Not everybody wants or able or have use case for those large top of the line very efficient and very expensive engines from the top manufacturers. You can check out the global international drama during the last few years around Ukrainian Motor-Sich engine manufacturer - one of the main engine manufacturers from the USSR times. There are just too few of those engine manufacturers, even if sub-par, around for the current world demand. Anybody wanna make a startup for the engines, initially for UAS market? It is going to blow up after the war as drones have been showing their future dominance. And just look at that beauty (uses the Motor-Sich engines as Turkey don't have their own) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baykar_Bayraktar_Ak%C4%B1nc%C4... .
It'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.
They'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.
I 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.
Can 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.
It'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.
With 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.
Eh. 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.
Safran'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.
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.
Consolidation 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.
I 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.
As 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.