Live data from Hacker News

Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

boom.aero

331–340 of 488 posts

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#331

Hi - I'm Blake, Founder/CEO at Boom. After watching no tangible progress in supersonics since Concorde was shut down, I started Boom because I want supersonic flight in our lifetime. Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly. Will try to answer as many questions here as I can.

What are you looking to build from scratch vs OTS? Anything interesting in the avionics dept?

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#332

Hi - I'm Blake, Founder/CEO at Boom. After watching no tangible progress in supersonics since Concorde was shut down, I started Boom because I want supersonic flight in our lifetime. Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly. Will try to answer as many questions here as I can.

Great idea. The airline industry needs innovation around product and service to get out of it's current race to mediocrity. 2 questions: 1) Why 2.2 times the speed of sound? (Why not aim higher?) 2) Where will you get the capital? Seems like a very big ask compared to the typical company coming out of YC. Again - good luck! I would love to clip 4 hours from the SF to NYC flight.

Speed: Mach 2.2 is the fastest speed possible with known technology already accepted by the FAA. At that speed, you can have good takeoff performance (and comply with airport noise restrictions) and good cruise performance. We'd to build a faster V2 or V3, in due time.

Capital: I can't comment quite yet. (Sorry)

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#333

Hi - I'm Blake, Founder/CEO at Boom. After watching no tangible progress in supersonics since Concorde was shut down, I started Boom because I want supersonic flight in our lifetime. Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly. Will try to answer as many questions here as I can.

From the Bloomberg article: "Boom’s software can also run millions of computer simulations a day on its designs, so the startup doesn’t have to spend months tweaking things in wind tunnels."

Can you elaborate what computer simulations this is referring to?

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#334

Hi - I'm Blake, Founder/CEO at Boom. After watching no tangible progress in supersonics since Concorde was shut down, I started Boom because I want supersonic flight in our lifetime. Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly. Will try to answer as many questions here as I can.

Exciting work! I'd be glad if supersonic flight was a reality again. How do you plan to tackle the challenge of opposition to supersonic flight? Overland supersonic flight has been banned in US and Europe because the loud noise of sonic booms annoyed residents that the planes flew over. Coastal residents continued to object to supersonic flight. Is there a path to offering transcontinental flights again, and if not,…

Nostalgia... In the 70s I lived in a London suburb that was under one of the approach paths to Heathrow, and could always tell when Concorde was passing over on final. Its sound was many decibels above a 747 and had a harsh, rock-crushing quality.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#335

Hi - I'm Blake, Founder/CEO at Boom. After watching no tangible progress in supersonics since Concorde was shut down, I started Boom because I want supersonic flight in our lifetime. Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly. Will try to answer as many questions here as I can.

From the Bloomberg article: "Boom’s software can also run millions of computer simulations a day on its designs, so the startup doesn’t have to spend months tweaking things in wind tunnels." Can you elaborate what computer simulations this is referring to?

There's computational fluid dynamics—which are very good today especially at supersonic conditions. Also, we have some design optimization tools we've built in-house which let us quickly explore many alternatives and zero-in on the best design.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 NYC LON.

But a given airplane can carry a lot less people in a business-grade seat than in an economy seat. Also, NYC LON for $500 is the price of only very few seats in a plane.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#337
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it make sense for you to fly West from SFO, turn around, go super-sonic over the ocean and fly towards NY — then again, decelerate over the Atlantic, and turn back? i.e. what is the distance from the shore you can boom?

The sonic boom isn't created when the aircraft transitions through the speed of sound. Although I never hear it explained this way, I believe it is caused when the velocity of the aircraft with respect to the listener transitions the speed of sound. That's when the sound waves approaching the listener bunch up and cause the boom. When the aircraft is directly above a listener on the ground, the relative velocity is z…

[deleted]

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of scorched earth in supersonics, since Concorde wasn't an economic success and the Boeing SST project was cancelled. Since then, there has been research on 300 seat Mach 2.4-Mach 3 vehicles, but these are extremely challenging. To make this happen and happen soon, you have to start much smaller than the established players usually consider. We're at 40 seats—that's the minimum economic size. Supersonic…

I had always thought that the small size of the Concorde was what made the per seat cost so expensive and held the Concorde back economically. So my expectation was that to be economically successful, you'd have to build a supersonic plane that carried more people. Clearly you know more about this than me, but can you elaborate on why my view isn't correct?

Actually, Concorde was too big: 100 seats. It worked NY/London but at ~$20k/seat they couldn't fill enough seats several times daily on other routes. Which means you can't have many airplanes, which means no economies of scale.

With 40 seats and business class prices, the Boom airplane works on many more routes, which means we can make a lot of airplanes and enjoy economies of scale.

Looking into the future, as fuel efficiency further improves, per seat costs come down, and it will make sense to make ever larger aircraft. It's a virtuous cycle that will eventually allow supersonic flight at economy prices.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the environmental impact per passenger compare to a modern passenger jet? Do you actually think most anyone can afford $5000 round trip to London?

We have the same gas mileage (fuel per seat mile) as a lay-flat bed in business class. Since the aircraft can do nearly 3X as many trips in the same time, on net it's better. That's just the start of course—with more innovation on fuel efficiency the price and emissions both come down. $5,000 is what a business class ticket NY/London costs today, and many business travelers are able to do that routinely. This compare…

"Since the aircraft can do nearly 3X as many trips in the same time"

Isn't that a bit optimistic? I would think it's closer to 2X. 2.6 times the airspeed, but why would turnaround time at the airport be any lower than for a comparably modern 'slow' airplane?

For example, 6 hour flight plus 1 hour turnaround time versus 2.3 hours plus 1 hour turnaround time is more or less a factor of 2. For longer flights, the ratio goes up a bit, but getting it over 2.5? I doubt it, at "the 2.6 times as fast as a typical passenger jet" level.

Post reply on HN