As I observed on another thread, now Safran, P&W, GE, R-R, and CFM are all officially uninterested in supersonic commercial engines. That doesn't leave a lot of serious large jet engine makers left. Pretty much none in the West, I think unless I'm forgetting someone.
 
As I observed on another thread, now Safran, P&W, GE, R-R, and CFM are all officially uninterested in supersonic commercial engines. That doesn't leave a lot of serious large jet engine makers left. Pretty much none in the West, I think unless I'm forgetting someone.
There's a few lower-tier players in the west that mostly do subcontract work for the big but could conceivably get an engine to market, especially if a handful of them formed a consortium to make it happen, but it's fairly unlikely for all manner of reasons. Even if they achieved that feat, or signed on with a non-western turbine, going with anyone other than the established big names is going to lead to a lot of additional scrutiny from investors and regulators.
 
In a nutshell:
“Is there a market for supersonic? Maybe,” he says. “But I don’t see that that market is significant enough to divert investment to a supersonic engine.”

Maybe partner up with someone who's already doing something similar?

 
Probably already out there in public domain already but a few years ago a Gulfstream executive visited our company who we supply parts to and told us they were going to wait and see what other companies would do first before proceeding. They would rather be 2nd place in the race. Not sure if Boom were a going concern then (mid 2020).
 
Probably already out there in public domain already but a few years ago a Gulfstream executive visited our company who we supply parts to and told us they were going to wait and see what other companies would do first before proceeding. They would rather be 2nd place in the race. Not sure if Boom were a going concern then (mid 2020).

Boom came out of stealth mode in 2016 and rolled out the XB-1 demonstrator in 2020, so yeah, they were a thing.

XB-1 still hasn't flown and I am starting to suspect that it won't.
 
That is my personal opinion of the civil/commercial SST market, yes. Giant passenger airships and lifting-bodies, VTOL feederliners and personal jetpacks are similar perennial projects that survive principally on gulling investors with fantasy scenarios. But never underestimate the American military's determination to burn money and fossil fuels in the pursuit of early arrival at the battle zone.
I was editing a business paper a while back that charted how genuine innovations found a small niche at first and expanded from it. Rather than ambitious plans to be game changers, innovators sought to solve a problem that was both unsolvable by most means and worth the expense, or the initial expense produces significant longer-term savings in that niche. From that basis, they expand into wider adoption as users find unanticipated applications and then market volume becomes sufficient for real competition and economies of scale. TLDR version: provide a solution in a clearly defined area that nobody else can provide where it's much needed, then cross fingers and be ready to respond. BTW, that seems to be Reaction Engines' current strategy.
Sounds a lot like The Innovator's Dilemma, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator's_Dilemma.
 
Probably already out there in public domain already but a few years ago a Gulfstream executive visited our company who we supply parts to and told us they were going to wait and see what other companies would do first before proceeding. They would rather be 2nd place in the race. Not sure if Boom were a going concern then (mid 2020).

Boom came out of stealth mode in 2016 and rolled out the XB-1 demonstrator in 2020, so yeah, they were a thing.

XB-1 still hasn't flown and I am starting to suspect that it won't.
I hope you're not right but concede the delays are concerning. To their credits we simply can say that nobody has built a commercial Supersonic since long.
See how NASA is stuttering with Artemis.
 
So, Boom says they plan to develop their own engine in collaboration with a unit of Kratos Defense, Florida Turbine Technologies (aka Kratos Turbine Technologies).


Kratos bought FTT a couple of years ago to develop new small turbines for its UAVs. Jumping to a supersonic turbine scaled for airliners seems like a big leap to me, but maybe it could work? Probably also signals that Kratos is interested in larger, supersonic UAVs.

 
Oh good Lord, this was the best partner they could find to develop an engine ? Even for an experienced company like Rolls Royce developing an engine optimized for supersonic flight would be excruciatingly difficult. But for a small company with no relevant experience trying to design an advanced powerplant like this ? No way. This project is dead. It was fun to dream while it lasted.

 
Last edited:
Wait a minute. RR build engines for a range of airliners built by large companies that build them by several hundreds. Their economic model is based on a duality b/w reliability and sustainment (they gain money on large fleet mainly).

RR hasn't since long started a completely new development project for a specific model that would sell only in the low hundreds, if not 100 at max. It's not what they do anymore.

I don't think that today announcement changes anything much. Today, like 20 years ago, there is nobody willing to invest in that market. The situation hasn't changed and will not until someone understand that you can't build only the airframe.

Then, this is what Boom seems to realize today. Pairing with a veteran like Kratos in risk sharing is one of the best thing they could have done.

Then, that engine, once again, doesn't have to be fully new, have airliner like endurance and sustainable like any civilian turbofan. It's a beast by itself and will resize the market around its own performances. Do it good, safe* and not unreasonably costly. That will make it works.

*safe per flight or dozen of flights. Not by the thousands hours.
 
Last edited:
The new engine is being called Symphony. 35,000lb thrust… basically the same as Olympus for Concorde!

They also quietly pushed back their timeline (again) by 1 year… test flight now promised for 2027.


View: https://youtu.be/8SoWlPZvHQ8
 

Attachments

  • F87F4792-C4B4-46A1-AA87-A3786D5038EA.jpeg
    F87F4792-C4B4-46A1-AA87-A3786D5038EA.jpeg
    326.2 KB · Views: 46
Last edited:
H'mm. A big, clean-sheet aero engine combining several novel and/or advanced features, designed by a newcomer with limited experience in their team, yet dovetailing into a low-maintenance, low-cost operating regime, all by 2027. After that, the establishment will come clamouring to manufacture the production version. Yeah, right.

It's a bright dream. I wonder if the design and development of the prototype engines has been costed and funded yet.
 
Last edited:
4 turbines?

I also wonder what is their reference for the 25%claim. Olympus?!

"*When compared to derivative engine approaches"

So, compared to fictional engines that don't actually exist or have real-world track records.
 
More about the Symphony engine - including a somewhat sceptical appraisal of its prospects:
My bolding from the article as a reminder since you seem to have such a very, very negative view of this program.

While Riegel isn’t working with any Boom investors, he said he has been asked to comment informally on the Overture program. “I have not accepted fees or been willing to advise anyone else, because I view this as a non-starter,” he said. “It’s laudable that somebody wants to rise to different challenges. It’s entirely possible I'll be proven wrong.”
 
@steelpillow : Won't happens.

Quick response cargo, today, is a Starship derivative, ideally that can land horizontally.

Hummm :rolleyes: *

I will remind you that there is already two (2) different programs for such.



*where did I see That?
 
Definitely having doubts about the Ovation configuration being able to make thrust at the 1.8M cruise point. A single stage fan, even if it looks like the 1st stage of the F119 fan, is not going to generate the fan pressure ratio needed in a mixed flow non afterburning turbofan (see the big mixer at the aft end?) to push the exhaust out fast enough to make thrust at that cruise speed. Even with modern aero design it will be hard to get the fan pressure ratio much beyond 2:1, which gets you M1 at the nozzle exit. The F119 has a 3 stage fan to get the exhaust velocity needed for positive thrust at those speeds in the F-22.
 
Coming from turbine engine design myself, this cross section is at best a cartoon. This design is not going to provide the thrust at the flight condition that is needed. The combustor that is shown is not likely to be very efficient in its use of cooling flows. As was mentioned by @F119Doctor the single stage fan is not likely to provide the pressure ratio needed. This looks to be sized as a design that is in the 2:1 - 3:1 bypass ratio. This bypass ratio for a M1.6-1.8 design is so far out of line with engines that are powering aircraft in this flight regime. Should likely be no higher than 1.2:1 and that is likely even stretching it.

There are then other details such as program funding and lack of IP. To develop a new engine in this thrust class and take it all the way through cert, $10B would not be an unreasonable number to book. 5 years from nothing to first flight can be done, but it is really dicey, but without testing facilities to accommodate an engine this large will complicate it. The next challenge comes from an IP standpoint. There is a lot of IP that would likely be contested. If they are desiring to avoid IP issues, then they will have to be going out the gate with tech that is ~20 years old and still meeting all the requirements that they are claiming to deliver. The last thing that I do not see mentioned is supply chain. Many of your long lead items are years from design release to first part, then the engines need to be assembled, then the engines need to be tested before they are on wing. With a 5 year window to first flight (not even to cert), this means that you have not a lot of time to get your designs out to the supply chain.

In the end this will not meet the schedule that has been put out.
 
I am a fairly knowledgeable very non-engineer-y person. I just like the fact aero-engineers and other are working on new things. Maybe short staffed, short of funds pushes the boundaries. I mean massive MIC bureaucratic companies like Boeing are “always” successful right?

Chance of breakthroughs slim but less than zero.
 
I think ppl here should not discuss the viability of a design based on rendered model, specifically noted as non-representative and probably heavily red-acted by their designers.
Notice for example how the shafting has rescaled parts and missing connection. Notice how the outer casing is fictional. The fan is irrelevant in dimension with the displayed nacelles.

We have some indicators in this render that are conveying some design choices however. This is what we should focus on IMOHO.
 
I remember Boom claiming that Overture was going to be so much better than Concord because of technology advancement, such as CFRP, area rule, CFD etc.

Well now they have a range of 94% of Concord’s, at 85% of Concords speed and 73% of Pax.

At 91% of Concord’s max take off weight I’m not seeing any benefits from the new tech, indeed most key points have trended in the opposite direction, particularly the lower pax capacity;- there goes the revenue income. Hence its operating economic are probably significantly worse, which was Concord’s biggest single criticism.

Also years of experience in aeroplane design produced the wisdom “never fly a new airframe and an unflown engine together”. These guys are not only going to fly a new airframe and new engine, they’re going to do it with companies that have never been through the design/certification cycle, with a product that has only once before been through that cycle.

I’ll get some popcorn.
 
Last edited:
I’ll get some popcorn.
I’ll get some undertaker (for them).

Meanwhile suborbital transportation with ricochet trajectories, one turbofan, and one RP-1/N20 rocket engine, awaits around the corner... no hypersonic thermal nightmare, no sonic boom (at least not along the entire flight path) can switch to LH2 within the blink of an eye (we know how to build LH2 rockets since Centaur).


9.81*327*ln((240+20)/(36+20))+1100 = 6025 m/s


1672657571836.png

Just sayin' - mass fraction 0.85, the weight of an Airbus A330, 20 tons of payload to the other side of the Earth within minutes, begnin fuel (kerosene) begnin oxidizer (N20, H202, or nytrox) no sonic boom, no hypersonic thermal nightmare, no complicated airbreathing advanced engine - just one subsonic turbofan for quiet takeoff and landings...
Can fly out of very ordinary airports without bothering the FAA nor ATC (which are presently making Musk life a misery with Starship BFR so yes, better to think about the FAA and ATC before unleashing RLVs into the airspace standing between Earth solid ground and 60 000 ft...)
 
Last edited:
And in other completely unrelated old(ish) news, Theranos Inc. announced that it had devised blood tests that required only very small amounts of blood and could be performed rapidly and accurately, all using compact automated devices which the company had developed - oh wait...
 
Last edited:
Virgin Galactic have let their orders for the Overture lapse.


Virgin Group, the aviation side, not the Virgin Galactic space business.

They apparently dropped the options in 2020, which lines up with some severe financial strains on Virgin.
 
Yep, Virgin-the-airline exists since 1984 at least. Virgin-galactic dates from after SS1 won the X-prize, that is late 2004. The two are wholly independant except a) the name Virgin and b) Branson involvement (if not micromanagement).
And the late Virgin Orbit was yet another company (AFAIK: the one that dropped a rocket from an ex-Virgin-the-airline 747, second-hand Virgin thus).
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom