XB-1's wings are officially closed out
blog.boomsupersonic.com
blog.boomsupersonic.com
But the first image really sucked. The other 30 images and animated constructs were super cool, but the entire experience was wrecked by the first image that you see, which looked like a jpg of a plane drawn in ms paint.
I can imagine that with a tablet/mobile phone it's a nice experience.
Take-away: add a one line summary of who you are and what you do at the top of any such communication.
> The team also inspected flight control pulleys and cables, which are routed through the wings to the systems bay, as well as the aileron trays on the outboard portion of each wing. (Ailerons are the hinged part of each wing that control roll or maneuvers, and are controlled by the pilot via wire pulleys that run through the wings.)
I suppose that the cables have to run out of the wings and into the cockpit in order to be useful, and that you could put you adjustments for cable stretch, etc in a place you could get to them easily. Or add access panels, as you suggest.
https://blog.boomsupersonic.com/what-is-a-demonstrator-aircr...
Last commit, 7 years 6 months ago
It sounds like it would be a great project.
Thanks.
Hard: I took a class from a licensed A&P mechanic and while not mandatory, gave me a pretty good idea of what I'd be up against. It is extremely challenging even with a kit however. Lots of learning, lots of redoing stuff because of mistakes, many many hours.
Cost: whatever you want it to be really. You can do safe builds probably from around 40-50k for something like a Sonex or Kitfox to several hundred thousand for a Velocity twin or even something turbine powered.
Transport: most people build in their garage and leave the wings off then stick it in a trailer or U-Haul to complete final assembly at a hangar. It's mostly a non-issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPJgm7qP3FY
dramatically simpler than an RV-8. My -8A flying cost was about $75K a decade ago, it would probably take at least $90K today. An S-21 would probably be more.
Some kits come with a folding wing option, so they can be trailered.
The primary decider in the difficulty/time factor is community and your Technical Counseler [1] (usually a multi-kit builder and FAA approved). If you’re able to build near a very active community (Livermore has a lot of RVs), these people will show up at your house/hangar and get/keep you going. Amazing people who can teach you a lot.
1. https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-building/volunteer-assistan...
Many things you wouldn't expect are glued together. Many weld and rivet connections on cars have been replaced with glue in the last few years.
Also we don't like it too much because it's harder to repair.
Adhesives are used, but normally for secondary structure, or as reinforcement to fasteners. So for example you'd ensure that a failure of the adhesive wouldn't lead to catastrophic failure, but it may lead to early cracks that would be detected in regular maintenance.
In the case of Boom they seem to rely more on adhesives than the traditional airframe methods. At the same time they are making a one-off demonstrator here, so they can afford to choose methods that need particular care and inspection, even if it would be unrealistic to expect that level of quality on a real production line.
"It’s the following morning and bonding appears to be successful, but it’s essential to confirm that the bond lines are shaped correctly or “filleted.” A member of the engineering team, who is certified in the process, begins non-destructive tap testing to audibly listen for voids such as air bubbles within the bond. With several decades experience, he knows what to listen for. Using specialized tools, he taps all bond lines and listens for different and unusual noises. He confirms that bonding is a success."
In general it seems that their main fabrication cost is labor, and it would probably be very hard to scale for production. I wonder why wouldn't they choose titanium - the price of material doesn't seem to matter here, and while it is hard to work with than say steel, i'd think it is still more mass production friendly than carbon fiber.
That said, 'tapping' is an acoustic inspection technique, and can get good results.
I am not sure why they selected the manual option, but they probably have a reason.
Found a cool table for this, sort by "specific strength": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength#Examples
Originally, the F-22 was going to be built mainly of carbon fiber, this was changed to titanium to reduce cost. This was in the 1980s... CF is MUCH cheaper today and almost commodity material used extensively in civilian aircraft.
[*] It ain't all sunshine and roses. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. Substantial strength reductions due to heat and moisture absorption are real. Other factors exist that'll ruin your weight savings too. A former boss of mine designed a carbon nacelle inlet lip for a popular airliner, but it was a short haul aircraft, which means lots of trips, which means lots of abuse from careless ground handlers. After accounting for that, it weighed as much as his reference aluminum design. The nacelle went into production with aluminum inlet lips.
BTW, "scaling for production" in aerospace doesn't mean a tremendous amount of units, most of the time. Lotsa carbon aircraft running around have been built in a manner not too differently from this one. So those labor costs tend to work out okay.
For a while I did repair design and analysis for engine nacelles made out of carbon fiber. These were new parts, right off the production line, with various flaws that commonly happen when you make an airplane out of cloth and glue. I was amazed by how much manual labor can go into declaring a particular part flight-ready, and the financials still penciled out, apparently. We must have been well into the six figures on one particular nacelle in post-fabrication engineering analysis work, just to show that the flaws had been repaired adequately for entry into service.
Airbus A220 - $90M
Airbus A320neo - $110M
Boeing 787 - $140M
Boeing 777 - $320M
Airbus A350 - $325M
Gulfstream G700 - $75M
All of these can of course carry more passengers (except the Gulfstream), but assuming it's somewhat efficient from a fuel perspective, and assuming an airline could sell ~60 business class seats on each leg, I'm optimistic for them - cutting your trip time in half is certainly something to brag about.
For reference, as an example, a British Airways 787-9 used for transatlantic routes seats 8 first, 42 business, 39 premium economy, and 127 economy.
I wonder how the economics works out. We know consumers are willing to give up a lot of things for cheaper tickets. And for that market it is now a volume business.
Business Expenses and trip could certainly paid for super fast airline. But this could cut out business trips revenue from normal operation, so it means flight price would have to go up to compensate for the loss of business class?
Although I am pretty sure they will sell well for as a private jet. Most super rich has way too much money and too little time.
Aérospatiale/BAC Concorde - $169M 150 passengers. Cruising speed: Mach 2
The Concorde was a thing of beauty. Massively expensive to produce and run, and fuel inefficient, it was a passenger airliner that could outrun fighter jets. Fighter jets of that era could get to mach 2 using afterburner, but that's especially fuel inefficient so they could only keep up for 15 minutes or so. The money that went into the program (which is estimated in the neighborhood of $10.3 billion) was later recouped in the form of expertise that went into building Airbus.
A lot of time has passed since 1965 when the Concorde was first produced, and the improvements in technology (especially for materials) since, will hopefully allow the economics to work out better this time around. But with the rise of lie-flat seats and personal entertainment systems, flying business class is "good enough" compared to the surcharge that flights on the Concorde cost, so I'm cautiously optimistic.
Taking 3 hours instead of 6 is better, but still not low enough. Add getting to/from the airport, and checking into the hotel and all that, you're still out the better part of the day.
The really pie-in-the-sky way to travel is if a certain reusable rocket company ran (exorbitantly expensive) passenger service. Moscow to New York in 30 mins, or Moscow to London in 15.
One of my great travel-related discoveries has been that if I can find a train that takes even about the same amount of time, it will always be much more pleasant and less energy-draining than air travel.
With an entirely first class plane, and service, I expect they had special gates, and priority everything for the passengers.
Current airplanes travel at Mach 0.8-0.85. Boom is supposed to travel at Mach 2.2. That's a factor of 2.6-2.75x not 2x.
What is annoying is that Now you have mentioned it I cant get that "crashing" thought out of head.
What in particular would you have expected to see?
I'm sure it's all very highly technical work, but that caption and photo was hysterical.
Also from the startup ground robot prototypes I've seen (and made) this looks much neater and more planned out than what's normal.
Would you rather fly in business class comfort for 8 hours or with less comfort for 4 hours? Almost doesn't seem worth the expense and risk of going supersonic.
I would be so much more excited about an airplane that was large enough that economy class seating was as comfortable as business class seating is today. That would be much more revolutionary.
I would also get excited about an airplane that was vastly safer than the already-quite-safe airplanes we have.
An airplane with a fail-safe fuselage that can disconnect from the rest of the plane, parachute to the ground and land (or float) safely. This could potentially eliminate fire danger by jettisoning everything flammable (gas filled wings, engines, cockpit, and whatever else).
The fact that flying is uncomfortable and still-too-scary to millions of people are the biggest opportunities for innovation that I see.
Flying at 500+ MPH is already quite fast given the size of the planet.
there is really no point where it becomes worth it to make seats bigger without charging more. If there is more space on the plane, it makes more since to put more seats there, not keep the number of seats the same
I'd take the 4 hours any day. At that point, it's reasonable to take a trip to Europe for a long weekend.
There's gotta be a market for an all-business-class plane, since we know that first/business subsidize coach, but nobody's doing it yet. The airlines want to throw those business class seats out as perks to people spending corporate dollars, not charge the end user what they actually cost, in which case "real humans" could afford them.
Really? How come first has all but disappeared on European flights and business keeps shrinking?
I've also had this issue with the "Premium Service" United flights between SFO and NYC/BOS. It supposedly exists, but whenever I search, I can't filter on those particular flights.
Why is it less comfort? I dont see how the two are mutually exclusive.
Not sure how you can desire better safety. The last fatal crash of a US airline flight was in 2009.
The thing is, the vast majority of airplane crashes happen at takeoff or landing, because that's when there's the least time to react if something goes wrong. Unfortunately, this is also when a parachute would be least effective, because there isn't sufficient altitude to deploy one. (Never mind that we don't even have a design for parachutes large enough to safely land an airliner fuselage.) Additionally, by giving the fuselage the ability to separate from the wings, you seriously weaken the strongest and most critical point of the aircraft: the main wing spar. In other words, you gain an additional risky emergency landing method, which could only be deployed in certain very unlikely circumstances (if the plane is high enough to safely deploy parachutes, it it probably high enough to glide to a safe landing, or at least safer then landing wherever you end up with parachutes) - and in the process you also now have a much higher chance of the wings falling off in midair.
I think I prefer a normal airliner design.
It should be able to fly much further if they planned to run out of fuel and ditch.
I'd love to hear from someone at Boom what the main goals are for this aircraft. And how it will differ from the larger transport craft they're planning. Beyond size and capacity.
I think I'm curious specifically whether this is more about internal R&D and building systems, or if it's meant to demonstrate they have the capability to to create a performant supersonic aircraft, which they can take to potential investors.
It allows them to prove their exact final design will be quiet, along with verifing the rest of the aerodynamics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_to_the_End_of_the_Unive...
The usage of control cables and pulleys is odd. I would have expected hydraulic/electric actuation in a Mach 2+ aircraft.
I did some reading and the XB-1 does use hydraulics. From VEP and other companies.
It looks like they will be using titanium leading edges to handle the heat loads.
They are using a J85-GE-15. I don't think that will allow them to reach M2.2. Closer to M1.7 or so? Depends on the inlets I think. (I was wrong on the engines. They are using 3x engines, not the 2x afterburning that I was expecting. So the speed looks reasonable)
They are also involved in understanding the flight envelope.
If you think of them as "drivers", then you don't understand what they do at all.
I do maintenance test flights, which involves verifying what mechanics did to the plane before students attempt to fly. Always find something.
“Faster travel brings the world’s people, cultures, and experiences within reach. Life happens in person, and at Boom we see breaking the time barrier as a moral imperative. XB-1 is the first step in bringing supersonic travel back to the world.” -- Blake Scholl, Founder and CEO
The life happens in person part currently sounds like a relic from the past. I hope Boom makes it through the travel recession.
Supposedly it is inherently 3X as expensive as subsonic planes from a cost per seat mile point of view. It is basically a cheaper replacement for the Concorde.
Also it seems that their biggest difficulty is coming up with suitable engines. The engines that they need don't exist and there doesn't seem to be an affordable way to create them.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Overture
It is definitely cool from a tech point of view.
Air travel itself is already only for the rich, and travel in general is mostly for the rich, if you want to look at it from the poorest in the world.
Elon made this point the best with Tesla, and in 10-20 years the cheapest electric cars will likely be cheaper and better then current cheap gas cars.
I don't believe these 3x cost are actually 'inherent'.
This plane, while awesome, is not a Tesla, it's never going to be as cheap as a commercial flight, and it's certainly not going to make the world a better place.
And if people use it makes the world a better place by some definition. The worst you could say that it used more fuel.
Electric cars are nowhere near an affordable means of transportation right now (that would be a Hyundai Accent), so GP point stands true.
I've got a Model 3. It's a fantastic car, and as a BMW fan, I'd choose it all day every day over a BMW 3 series. But I'd take the A6 for the same price.
https://evannex.com/blogs/news/total-cost-of-ownership-tesla...
In any case, it's what Tesla's ambition is, even if electric cars still have a higher TCO then, it just means Tesla failed, not that it's the same kind of company as Boom is.
That's back of the envelope, but it's in the ballpark. Going faster costs more.
I love Concorde but it wasn't really a commercial operation the way you'd usually use the term.
In theory, as an SV DINK, I should be able to afford business class. But every time I try to pull the trigger on the tickets, it just kills me. What, $1400 coach and $7000 business? Times two people? Are you effing kidding me? Those business class seats do NOT take 5 times the space. And they want you to pay double ($2800 or so) for 'premium economy' which is a footrest, "economy plus" legroom (eg, a $100 upgrade), and a bit more shoulder room. Again, it's not 2x the space of a coach seat.
If they're gonna charge 3x as much, and provide a vastly different service, I'm all ears. Even if the seats suck just as much as a coach seat, at least I'm in it for a much shorter time.
...They also don't call them test pilots for nothing...
I don’t know how well versed these pilots are in manufacturing this kind of stuff, but I would guess that’s mostly psychological. But yes, it’s their lives that are on the line. If this wing we’re to break or fall apart at supersonic speed, I guess they (or one of them, if this is a single-seater) are dead.
Being a professional woodworker is not really a viable career option (unless you get lucky). Building kitchens, doing finish carpentry and other related fields of course are, but woodworking is only a relatively small part of that. Very few people can afford the amount of labour that goes into bespoke furniture items.
Although, it isn't listed on their Medium profile page yet so maybe something is up with it: https://medium.com/@boomsupersonic
That said, I’m not sure their choice of materials is the good one for a startup.
No and no.
CF can mean anything, but typically you end up with structural members that are heavier than aluminum when all is said and done.
Also, CF is used for sub-subsonic (actually sub-transsonic) skins, which SpaceX found out the hard way.
> It's more workable and less exotic than it was before.
No.
> I think most, if not all, aviation startups are using it, like the Icon A5.
Composites are used for subsonic planes and interiors. And the Icon A5 is a toy.
The one good thing about composite (as in the Diamond Aircraft models) is that it's hail resistant up to a certain diameter and intensity, around 1 inch. That has been helpful with some storms in Florida, for example.