Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

boom.aero

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 488 posts

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#171

Post by justsid »

oddeyed wrote: post #31
staceymakano wrote: post #18

And 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?

My first thought as well. The drop in the price of oil has discouraged airlines from investing in more efficient engines for their fleet, I assume there are similar economics at play here.

That’s simply not true! Airplanes are developed over decades and then stays in service over decades, current low fuel prices won’t change decisions that are being made years into the future.

All current in development airplanes (and I’m talking non-GA non military here), focus on increased efficiency and fuel consumption.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#172

Post by sjm-lbm »

jessaustin wrote: post #71
aidenn0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they could make it quiet enough to go over land, transcontinental US flights would be great; LA/NY in 2.5 hours would likely have a pretty high demand. [edit] As someone who flies LA/DC fairly regularly I do have to mention my favorite record of the SR-71 doing that flight in under 65 minutes.

I wonder if the "no booms over land" rule will always remain in force. When I was a child, the planes from Whiteman AFB broke that rule quite often. It was interesting to hear the boom over the phone when speaking with a school friend who lived say eight miles away, and then immediately hear the whole house shaking when the plane got to my end of the circuit. It would have been annoying at night, I suppose, but durin…

At least one real-world test was conducted about how people acclimate to sonic booms[1] with an eye towards seeing how people would take SST airliners. It didn't go very well. In general, it seems that enough people do think it a hardship to kick up a fuss that will keep SSTs from being a reality over the US for awhile.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#173

Post by mangecoeur »

rdl wrote: post #9

Pretty amazing that materials science (lighter, carbon-fiber aircraft; hotter, more efficient/powerful turbines) has made this economic. Concorde never was. NYC-LON seems like the one market where this enables something fundamentally new (well, Concorde did); single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart. Transpacific flights would be nice, too, but cutting an alre…

On the other hand, when you have have a video call instantly and practically for free this looks like a very self-indulgent expense. Not exactly the eco-friendly option either.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#174

Post by jessaustin »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #167
jessaustin wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but these were 1980s-era fighter/trainer jets flying at probably 1000 ft., and it only shook the whole house when they flew pretty close. Other times one might only hear the boom when outside. I think a passenger craft of recent design of recent materials, flying at 40k ft. could do much better, even before routing to avoid populated areas. I don't think anyone, even those who live on ranches in the Dakotas, re…

I could have sworn the Concorde was still glass-breaking loud at 40,000. Reardless, NASA is working on getting rid of the sonic boom http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-is-building-a-jet-that-brea...

Maybe? I don't think the Concorde ever flew over the Ozarks, or indeed any location in which I found myself while they were still flying.

Boom's Kenrick Waithe worked on that same project when he was at Gulfstream and when he was at NASA.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#175

Post by bedhead »

Look no farther than Bombardier, a relatively small but nonetheless very experienced company that's sadly nearly bankrupted themselves by simply trying to develop 787-like version of a regional jet. It doesn't appear like this kind of commercial aircraft development is suitable for anyone other than Boeing and Airbus.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#176

Post by zokier »

petercooper wrote: post #121
mapleoin wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets scarier, they compare it to the Concorde based on price: Unlike Concorde, flying Boom is affordable—the same price as business class. Ok, so the Concorde had some critical engineering faults, making it cheaper definitely sounds more secure.

Prior to the (2000) accident, Concorde had been arguably the safest operational passenger airliner in the world in passenger deaths-per-kilometres travelled with zero

Isn't the deaths-per-km generally zero prior to the first accident of any airliner?

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#177

Post by imaginenore »

neurotech1 wrote: post #143
aidenn0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they could make it quiet enough to go over land, transcontinental US flights would be great; LA/NY in 2.5 hours would likely have a pretty high demand. [edit] As someone who flies LA/DC fairly regularly I do have to mention my favorite record of the SR-71 doing that flight in under 65 minutes.

I doubt the cost would be low enough to support demand. Transonic (approximately Mach 0.80 - 1.2) flight uses significantly more fuel than subsonic flight does. Business jets like the Gulfstream G550 burn more fuel at M0.9 than regional Boeing 717(MD-95) at M0.75 with 4 times more passengers. The F-22 Raptor can supercruise at M1.6, with half the range compared to cruise at M0.85 similar to other fighters. If Boom ca…

That's why the ticket is $5K. Even if your fuel estimates are correct, they will burn 4-5 times more fuel, but they will charge 10 times per ticket compared to economy. I just checked, and you can get $532 roundtrip NYCLON.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#178

Post by themgt »

jdc wrote: post #118
themgt wrote: post #3

Sorry but is "Boom" really a good name for an aircraft company? I get it's supersonic, but my first association was an exploding airplane.

Man, HN's standards for a top story and a top comment are really different, are they?

I upvoted your comment for the meta-irony

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#179

Post by dankohn1 »

I was lucky enough to fly on Concorde in 2002, when they were offering steep discounts to get passengers back after the crash in 2000. It was clear at the time that the service was totally uneconomic. The seats were comparable to economy (although service was champagne and caviar).

I'll always cherish my memories of seeing the curvature of the Earth and the windows feeling hot to the touch (as well as my Concorde cufflinks).

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#180

Post by esaym »

flavio87 wrote: post #112

This sounds awesome. However I'm a bit saddened that there is no mention of CO2 or climate change in this discussion. What about building solar planes vs just faster planes will do even more harm to the environment if people start flying more because time is now shorter?

Just think how much C02 you'd produce if you took a ship across the ocean for days on end....
Post reply on HN