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

221–230 of 283 posts

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#221

Post by C1sc0cat »

mertd wrote: post #134
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.

You say like it is a bad thing but I'll take 12 hours in a nice stable train over 7 hours spent in going in and out of airports and sitting on economy airliner seats. I would actually pay a premium. This actually is reality today. Acela on the Northeast corridor is more expensive than comparable air fares and it's not even that good.

Same in the UK LON to EDR by train is more expensive than flying - and that's not counting the cost of peoples time for the longer train journey.

I do like the idea of the 3/4 day trip as part of a holiday

https://www.seat61.com/UnitedStates.htm

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#222

Post by C1sc0cat »

kolinko wrote: post #183
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.

12 hours is a lot, but for shorter distances most people would prefer a good train to a plane. Living in Europe, I will take 4-5 hour train ride compared to a 1h flight, most of my friends as well. Many people will also prefer 5-8 hour 100mph train ride to 1h plane ride due to comfort, price and carbon footprint.

Not if your doing it more than once a year and certainly business travellers wont want to.

I recall one of the senior marketing guys where I worked did London to Edinburgh on the overnight sleeper didn't get much sleep and was uncomfortable.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#223

Post by executive »

fredophile wrote: post #145
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…

Flying with first class tickets will get you into an expedited security line in most airports as well as other perks like lounge access. If you're paying Concorde prices I'd expect that to also come with the same perks as a first class ticket on a slower plane. That means less waiting than the rest of us and the wait you do have is more comfortable.

LAX also has Private Suite, JFK & MIA coming soon.

https://reserveps.com

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#224

Post by nickik »

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.

Electric Planes would make that obsolete long before its finished.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#225

Post by jcun4128 »

jonplackett wrote: post #161
latchkey wrote: post #39

Their parallax website is pretty entertaining... https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1/build

Nice, anyone have some suggestions for quick ways to build parallax sites like this? Like themes, frameworks etc

scrolling "mechanism" that you can hook into probably scrollmagic

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#226

Post by bluGill »

abeppu wrote: post #33

Can anyone here comment on the kinds of things you can and can't learn accurately from a scaled prototype? I'd guess that for something that flies, changing the surface area/volume ratio makes a big difference.

The unknown unknowns. There is always something you forgot to account for. So you do many different models and then a few full sized prototypes to give you the best chance of finding everything.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#228

Post by Jaruzel »

dmix wrote: post #146
latchkey wrote: post #39

Their parallax website is pretty entertaining... https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1/build

That pilot interface looks really nice. Not used to seeing a single seat like that for commercial planes. Although I'm guessing the real one will be scaled up.

I think there's FAA laws etc, that state that commercial flights must have a pilot and a co-pilot.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#229

Post by nickik »

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #192
notahacker wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also ran on only two routes for most of that time, with all others shut down because airlines lost money operating Concorde on them even without having to pay off the capital costs.

The Concorde was also blocked from flying a lot of profitable routes because of sonic boom concerns, some justified, others less so. In particular, you can't legally fly over any part of the US at Mach 1 or faster unless you're military.

I think this issue was range. Many of the over ocean routes it simply couldn't fly. One of the reason BOOM believes in themselves is that they open up many more routes.

Re: Boom supersonic jet readies for rollout

#230

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M »

nickik wrote: post #229
9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Concorde was also blocked from flying a lot of profitable routes because of sonic boom concerns, some justified, others less so. In particular, you can't legally fly over any part of the US at Mach 1 or faster unless you're military.

I think this issue was range. Many of the over ocean routes it simply couldn't fly. One of the reason BOOM believes in themselves is that they open up many more routes.

Boom's planned range of 4,500 nm is actually only a marginal improvement on Concorde's 3,900. Their site advertises routes like "LA-Sydney", but at ~6,500 nm this won't work without a refueling stop.
Post reply on HN