Fastest jet in the world still doesn't solve tarmac delays at JFK.
Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes
21–30 of 488 posts
Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes
#22Be interesting to see how they manage to increase range and payload substantially where Concorde wasn't able to.
Interesting from a tech point if they manage to build and certify a brand new supersonic airplane based on new materials. From a customer's stand point though, hardly anything new.
Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes
#23The photo of the engineer in what is clearly a cardboard mock-up:
http://boom.aero/assets/boom-3-cd0822d52cb5c9ecaac404d5cfd09...
.... does not inspire confidence.
Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes
#24And the environmental impact is... what? Amazing that this is not a consideration, especially since we are now in emergency territory: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/global-wa... It's great for you to leave SF in the morning, go to Sydney to watch the opera and be back in SF by midnight. But is the environmental impact of you doing that worth it for everyone else?
[deleted]
Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes
#25As tangent, instead of focusing on NYC to London, a Mach 2.2 travel actually will make travel from Americas to Asia more comfortable. US to India and US to China routes benefit the most, and perhaps where people will be interested in paying top-dollar vs. Europe.
I believe the problem with those was always the sonic boom created by flying at > 1 Mach. It shattered windows on the ground.
Could be wrong tho
Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes
#26Sorry but is "Boom" really a good name for an aircraft company? I get it's supersonic, but my first association was an exploding airplane.
And I'm sure the TSA agents will love a bunch of people saying "boom" at the airport, although maybe if it desensitizes them to it it's a good thing.
Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes
#27I hope they have billions of dollars in the bank. Concorde production was stopped for a reason.
Given SpaceX's well documented experience, I would not trust any cost estimates from the legacy aerospace industry. It's a deeply moribund field as a result of decades of stagnation and dependence on government/military funding. Still I would be absolutely floored if they could do it for under $500mil, so what you say still applies-- maybe just not quite to the point of billionS with an S.
There's a steep difference in the acceptable safety of a space vehicle and of a commercial airliner.
Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes
#28So are they building their own plane, and launching a new airline? Will they also sell the plane to other airlines? Or is this trying to be vertically integrated, like Apple / Tesla? Also, I echo the other sentiments here about the name, really don't want to fly on an airline named "Boom". Nor "Explode", "Kapow", or "Blast". And god forbid if one of their planes crashes during test flights, the PR nightmare that woul…
Boeing tried that and it was banned.
Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes
#29looks like an investors-bait.
Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes
#30That's good news for ozone layer. Luckily this seems to be only a few guys, a wish, and a rendering.