Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout • Hacker News Board

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#101

Post by TylerE » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 2:35 AM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #68

DomenicoMazza wrote: post #18

If I recall correctly the Concorde used about 2 tonnes of fuel rolling on the ground alone.. I wonder how this new aircraft fares for fuel consumption? I believe the Concorde is a marvel. You could travel faster than the rotation of the earth in it! However I don’t think we need more environmentally unsustainable travel.

Yeah, much more excited if there were talk of high-speed rail criss-crossing the U.S.

High-speed rail isn't high speed enough. Even with way faster than current tech and NO stops you'd still be looking at taking 12+ hours for what a plane can do in 5.

That's ignoring the trillions it would cost. The US does not have the population density to make HSR viable.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#102

Post by na85 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 2:37 AM UTC

DomenicoMazza wrote: post #18

If I recall correctly the Concorde used about 2 tonnes of fuel rolling on the ground alone.. I wonder how this new aircraft fares for fuel consumption? I believe the Concorde is a marvel. You could travel faster than the rotation of the earth in it! However I don’t think we need more environmentally unsustainable travel.

I think the real problem is that the Concorde wasn't fast enough to justify the cost.

Whether you can fly JFK-CDG in 8 hours or 4 hours, when you factor in how irritating airports are, parking, security line ups, waiting for baggage, etc, it still takes all day to make the trip.

Might as well save several thousand dollars and take a longer flight. I believe they would have to cut the flight time down to about an hour to justify Concorde pricing.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#103

Post by wahern » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 2:38 AM UTC

jimbob21 wrote: post #83

smachiz wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm... ask every 'business class only' airline that has come (and gone...) about that.

As they say, the best way to make a million dollars is have a billion and start an airline.

David Neeleman might disagree. But then again, his M.O. isn't chasing business customers.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#104

Post by TylerE » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 2:39 AM UTC

maccam94 wrote: post #91

bobthepanda wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The airports where one might refuel don't necessarily have to be big congested megahubs. Boom's a small plane, I wonder what the runway requirements are?

The Boom plans to land at 185 knots/213MPH, comparable to a 737-800. They probably need a fraction of the distance to stop though, since the plane has about 1/3 of the seating capacity.

Wouldn't be so sure. Stopping depends mainly on how good the thrust reversers are. Wheel brakes will only take you so far (and being lighter doesn't meaningfully help you.. lighter weight means less traction.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#105

Post by axaxs » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 2:40 AM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #101

JKCalhoun wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, much more excited if there were talk of high-speed rail criss-crossing the U.S.

High-speed rail isn't high speed enough. Even with way faster than current tech and NO stops you'd still be looking at taking 12+ hours for what a plane can do in 5. That's ignoring the trillions it would cost. The US does not have the population density to make HSR viable.

I'm still hoping for rail. It's much more carbon friendly, and has the opportunity to be way less stressful.

I'd do 18 hours on a NY to LA if I could walk around, eat, talk, sleep, etc over a 5 hour misery ride in an airplane any day.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#106

Post by TylerE » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 2:41 AM UTC

axaxs wrote: post #105

TylerE wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High-speed rail isn't high speed enough. Even with way faster than current tech and NO stops you'd still be looking at taking 12+ hours for what a plane can do in 5. That's ignoring the trillions it would cost. The US does not have the population density to make HSR viable.

I'm still hoping for rail. It's much more carbon friendly, and has the opportunity to be way less stressful. I'd do 18 hours on a NY to LA if I could walk around, eat, talk, sleep, etc over a 5 hour misery ride in an airplane any day.

A single NY-LA route alone would cost over $500 billion. High speed rail is well $100m/mile, just for the track.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#107

Post by Moto7451 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 2:42 AM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #86

Moto7451 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems to me that everything is nonlinear in the domain of aircraft, particularly when concerned with "efficiency". The same physics applies to fast trains and other modes of transit. Fast electric trains have the advantage of not having to lug their fuel along with them at speed. > consider that energy is a function of both power and time applied; if you double the speed to fly from say London to NY, would you cut…

Fast electric trains are also, well, electric already. Powering planes in a sustainable marrer is not a solved problem.

Even if the train’s electric power comes from coal, not carrying fuel with you is a win from an efficiency standpoint.

There are some military planes flying on biofuel, so ideally we’re not that far off.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/aviation-fuels

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#108

Post by projektfu » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 2:42 AM UTC

na85 wrote: post #102

DomenicoMazza wrote: post #18

If I recall correctly the Concorde used about 2 tonnes of fuel rolling on the ground alone.. I wonder how this new aircraft fares for fuel consumption? I believe the Concorde is a marvel. You could travel faster than the rotation of the earth in it! However I don’t think we need more environmentally unsustainable travel.

I think the real problem is that the Concorde wasn't fast enough to justify the cost. Whether you can fly JFK-CDG in 8 hours or 4 hours, when you factor in how irritating airports are, parking, security line ups, waiting for baggage, etc, it still takes all day to make the trip. Might as well save several thousand dollars and take a longer flight. I believe they would have to cut the flight time down to about an hour…

They could have their own special terminals and all passengers pre-cleared.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#109

Post by eloff » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 2:44 AM UTC

na85 wrote: post #102

DomenicoMazza wrote: post #18

If I recall correctly the Concorde used about 2 tonnes of fuel rolling on the ground alone.. I wonder how this new aircraft fares for fuel consumption? I believe the Concorde is a marvel. You could travel faster than the rotation of the earth in it! However I don’t think we need more environmentally unsustainable travel.

I think the real problem is that the Concorde wasn't fast enough to justify the cost. Whether you can fly JFK-CDG in 8 hours or 4 hours, when you factor in how irritating airports are, parking, security line ups, waiting for baggage, etc, it still takes all day to make the trip. Might as well save several thousand dollars and take a longer flight. I believe they would have to cut the flight time down to about an hour…

Or fly it out of a private airport without as much irritating stuff, much like private jets do today.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#110

Post by clintonb » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 2:44 AM UTC

na85 wrote: post #102

DomenicoMazza wrote: post #18

If I recall correctly the Concorde used about 2 tonnes of fuel rolling on the ground alone.. I wonder how this new aircraft fares for fuel consumption? I believe the Concorde is a marvel. You could travel faster than the rotation of the earth in it! However I don’t think we need more environmentally unsustainable travel.

I think the real problem is that the Concorde wasn't fast enough to justify the cost. Whether you can fly JFK-CDG in 8 hours or 4 hours, when you factor in how irritating airports are, parking, security line ups, waiting for baggage, etc, it still takes all day to make the trip. Might as well save several thousand dollars and take a longer flight. I believe they would have to cut the flight time down to about an hour…

> Whether you can fly JFK-CDG in 8 hours or 4 hours, when you factor in how irritating airports are, parking, security line ups, waiting for baggage, etc, it still takes all day to make the trip.

Security lines weren't a thing until 2001. The Concorde operated from 1976 to 2003. The retirement was due to low passenger count due to a crash in 2000 and 9/11 in 2001.