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

Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

airlineratings.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 283 posts

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#111

Post by dreamcompiler »

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.

> You could travel faster than the rotation of the earth in it!

You can do that in a conventional jet at latitudes far from the equator. You can walk faster than the earth rotates if you're very close to a pole (very very close).

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#113

Post by ls612 »

pedalpete wrote: post #51
galacticaactual wrote: post #23

As a (pre-Covid) extreme frequent flyer, supersonic and other rapid point to point initiatives are thoroughly unenticing. Part of the reason I loved long flights was the ability to put away the laptop and zone out to a book or movie with some wine before landing, dealing with immigration, hotels, Ubers, and days of frenetic, high stress meetings afterward. The prospect of trying to optimize how fast we can jump from…

You're not doing Sydney->Los Angeles, Santiago->Tokyo type long-haul, are you. When you're continent jumping (excluding Eastern US to Europe) 7hrs at supersonic is long enough to get a movie and relax a bit. When you're getting 16 hour flights on a regular basis, you get used to it, but when you've seen all the movies, you realize how much time you've wasted on a plane.

I’ve done US to Sydney twice, I just drank the free booze then popped a sleeping pill and woke up just in time for breakfast before landing. Not ideal at all but not terrible either.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#114

Post by dreamcompiler »

This is cool, but despite what the company implies, it's never going to be anything but a toy for rich people. In no conceivable scenario are flights on this jet ever going to sell for less than $10k per seat.

That might make Boom a viable business, but most of us will never get a ride on one.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#115

Post by flyGuyOnTheSly »

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…

The concorde didn't fail because it was expensive.

It ran profitably for 27 years. [0]

It failed because it crashed and killed 109 people 3 years before they threw in the towel. [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Operating_economics

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#116

Post by jeswin »

> The timeline for the planned entry into airline service has now also slipped from the previously envisaged 2023-24 to between 2025 and 2027.

A jet which has not even been flown once might enter airline service in 5-7 years? The whole article is a PR insert.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#117

Post by axaxs »

TylerE wrote: post #106
axaxs wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd like to see it thoroughly planned out, and a real cost estimate. Most of the trip is plainsland...simple. Getting through the Rockies, way more complicated. I've tried to read on the subject but estimates are an order of magnitude off between projects.

All that said, of course, figuring out how to lower costs safely would be a great thing.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#118

Post by alfalfasprout »

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.

The reason for that is that the concorde used afterburners (basically, pump fuel into the high speed exhaust for extra thrust) which are incredibly inefficient. Great for a fighter jet where you need a sudden burst of extreme thrust, but not something you want a long-haul airliner to use.

Boom uses turbofan engines to reach supersonic speeds which are much, much more efficient. In fact, many airliners could theoretically go past mach 1. The reason they don't is that the airframe itself doesn't have the correct shape to deal with transonic and supersonic speeds.

I'd expect fuel consumption to be higher than a typical passenger jet but nowhere near concorde levels. Fuel consumption would also depend on the climb profiles of the plane, ideal cruise altitudes, etc. Since the more time you spend in subsonic flight and at lower altitudes the more fuel you burn (more friction and the aerodynamics and engines will be optimized for supersonic flight).

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#119

Post by robotresearcher »

clintonb wrote: post #110
na85 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Security lines were absolutely a thing in the UK and France, where the Concordes flew from, due to terrorist campaigns.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#120

Post by TylerE »

axaxs wrote: post #117
TylerE wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'd like to see it thoroughly planned out, and a real cost estimate. Most of the trip is plainsland...simple. Getting through the Rockies, way more complicated. I've tried to read on the subject but estimates are an order of magnitude off between projects. All that said, of course, figuring out how to lower costs safely would be a great thing.

The Rockies are the big obstacle of course, but the stretch east of the Mississippi is also problematic... hard to go around all the towns, and you've also got to cross the Appalachians and/or Alleghenies.
Post reply on HN