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

Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 545 posts

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#91

Post by creer »

jdminhbg wrote: post #71
mshook wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted because you're right: they have the technology, they don't have an engine, and this just looks like a civilian version of a fighter jet pretty much (except it has 3 turbojets). And what people always fail to mention when it comes to supersonic flights is one of the main issue is neither a technological nor an economical one nor a supersonic boom one. Traveling west bound is gre…

> I'm not sure why you're being downvoted because you're right OP is being downvoted for saying there is still not supersonic civil aviation on a video showing a civil aircraft going supersonic.

You are right - (And it's not a civil aircraft just because it's painted white.)

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#92

Post by crowcroft »

mrtksn wrote: post #76

How cool is that, hopefully will pressure Airbus into developing one too. So far they did silly concept vides only. I'm also quite worried about Airbus after winning against Boeing becoming complacent since Chinese or Russians are not even close.

Airbus won't do anything until someone proves the economics of it make sense.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#93

Post by [deleted] »

dmitrygr wrote: post #10
bangaroo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there hasn't been supersonic civil aviation, as far as i am aware, since the concorde was grounded. there are no active commercial aircraft capable of going supersonic. this is significant because it's the first civil aircraft to reach that milestone since the ending of the concorde program.

> there hasn't been supersonic civil aviation There still isn’t, and this is not a very interesting stepping stone. We already knew that we could fly a plane quickly. This company has no engines for their allegedly full scale plane. The last manufacturer dropped them a few years ago, and there has been no movement in that direction. This demonstrates the easiest part of what they’re trying to do, not the hardest. Thi…

[deleted]

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#94

Post by ghaff »

bangaroo wrote: post #47
dylan604 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do none of the private jets like G6s or whatever fly supersonic?

nope. commercial and private jets generally cap out around mach 0.9 i am very rusty on the economics and details of supersonic commercial flight, but the general gist as i recall is: - going much faster scales up the cost of flying at a rate that's hard to justify for how much time it saves. there is less case in the 2000s for "having to be in london in 3 hours from NY" than there previously was, too. - noise restric…

And the range in which supersonic really gets interesting (to wealthy people/execs) is trans-Pacific. My dad got upgraded to the Concorde once from NYC to London and his reaction was more or less eh. Glad to have done it once but I'm now arriving in London at rush hour rather than having a nice dinner in first class.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#95

Post by ben7799 »

EA-3167 wrote: post #32
dylan604 wrote: post #6

I know nothing about Boom. Why is this impressive? We've achieved supersonic for passengers before. Are we meant to be interested just because someone is taking up the mantle again, or is there some new design that makes it impressive?

There are some interesting technological developments around fuel efficiency and minimizing the "sonic boom" that's felt on the ground. Neither of those killed Concorde though, because the entire idea of Concorde turned out to be incredibly faulty. MOST people weren't in such a hurry to get from point A to point B that they'd pay 5x-10x a normal business/first class ticket to cut a trip down by 50% or so. The intende…

If it's already going to be expensive and exclusive they can easily design a program where all the passengers have to be some kind of TSA++ pre-approved ahead of time and perhaps have a special terminal and/or security screening line.

The # of passengers on the plane is small so that could also speed up many aspects.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#96

Post by ghaff »

mshook wrote: post #69
dmitrygr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there hasn't been supersonic civil aviation There still isn’t, and this is not a very interesting stepping stone. We already knew that we could fly a plane quickly. This company has no engines for their allegedly full scale plane. The last manufacturer dropped them a few years ago, and there has been no movement in that direction. This demonstrates the easiest part of what they’re trying to do, not the hardest. Thi…

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted because you're right: they have the technology, they don't have an engine, and this just looks like a civilian version of a fighter jet pretty much (except it has 3 turbojets). And what people always fail to mention when it comes to supersonic flights is one of the main issue is neither a technological nor an economical one nor a supersonic boom one. Traveling west bound is gre…

Right. Whether I arrive in London at 4pm or 8pm doesn't really make much of a difference. (Admittedly it probably lets you arrive on the continent without a red-eye--depending on supersonic over land rules--as you pretty much have to do today.)

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#97

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bangaroo wrote: post #47
dylan604 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do none of the private jets like G6s or whatever fly supersonic?

nope. commercial and private jets generally cap out around mach 0.9 i am very rusty on the economics and details of supersonic commercial flight, but the general gist as i recall is: - going much faster scales up the cost of flying at a rate that's hard to justify for how much time it saves. there is less case in the 2000s for "having to be in london in 3 hours from NY" than there previously was, too. - noise restric…

> going much faster scales up the cost of flying at a rate that's hard to justify

Worse: drag in the transonic regime is generally worse than subsonic or supersonic.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#98

Post by teractiveodular »

bangaroo wrote: post #47
dylan604 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do none of the private jets like G6s or whatever fly supersonic?

nope. commercial and private jets generally cap out around mach 0.9 i am very rusty on the economics and details of supersonic commercial flight, but the general gist as i recall is: - going much faster scales up the cost of flying at a rate that's hard to justify for how much time it saves. there is less case in the 2000s for "having to be in london in 3 hours from NY" than there previously was, too. - noise restric…

Air travel is more popular than ever and 2024 broke basically all records. Why would there be less case for faster flights?

Supersonic flight will be the preserve of the 0.1%, but the vast majority of private jets can't fly trans-continental (without stops along the way) and there are people out there paying $50k per flight for Etihad's The Residence suites. So, yes, there are people who will pay for this.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#99

Post by dmitrygr »

double0jimb0 wrote: post #86
ceejayoz wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boom also requires afterburners, at least for now. You can watch them kick in on the telemetry (which goes from "100%" to "A/B" for all three engines) at the bottom of the video around the 58:35 mark. https://www.youtube.com/live/-qisIViAHwI?feature=shared&t=35...

The engine in XB-1 test plane is not the same that’s going in the production plane.

> The engine in XB-1 test plane is not the same that’s going in the production plane.

There IS no production plane, nor can there be. The last company they wanted to use for engines dropped them as a client years ago (others did earlier): https://english.alarabiya.net/business/aviation-and-transpor...

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#100

Post by mandevil »

ceejayoz wrote: post #82
ortusdux wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Concorde relied on an afterburner to achieve supersonic flight, so it burned a ton of fuel. It also could not go supersonic over land because its sonic booms were too loud. This mean that flights could only go over the ocean, and they were expensive due to fuel costs. Boom's goal is to reduce the sound of their sonic booms 30x and eliminate the need of afterburners.

Boom also requires afterburners, at least for now. You can watch them kick in on the telemetry (which goes from "100%" to "A/B" for all three engines) at the bottom of the video around the 58:35 mark. https://www.youtube.com/live/-qisIViAHwI?feature=shared&t=35...

Boom is not currently flying their intended engines, the Symphony, which does not exist yet. (1) The XB-1 is flying with J85's just like a T-38 has, and just like a T-38 it can go supersonic with afterburners. If the Symphony is able to meet its design goals, it will not need afterburners for any part of flight. How much they will be able to deliver on that remains the biggest open technical question for Boom. (2)

1: Well, their Plan B intended engines. Their Plan A was that one of the Big 3- RR, PW, GE- would make engines for them, but none were interested in taking the risk that a difficult engine could be designed and built in enough volume to make the investment back.

2: Their biggest legal question is over-land supersonic regulations. Their biggest economics question- and probably the biggest and most important of all of them- is how much will people pay for civil supersonic?

Post reply on HN