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

181–190 of 545 posts

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

#181

Post by bobthepanda »

sedatk wrote: post #159
cromulent wrote: post #121

“Currently, all civil aircraft flights are prohibited from operating above Mach one speeds over land in the United States.” [1] Mike Bannister’s excellent book Concorde talks at length about how “handsomely profitable” the BA service was (as opposed to the Air France one) from 1984 until the 2000 crash and subsequent grounding put them in to a spiral where keeping enough people certified was too expensive. One part o…

Concorde experiences one fatal crash in 27 years: entire product line gets cancelled. Meanwhile, Boeing 737 MAX... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Because the 737 Max had type commonality with the old 737s, and because of how behind Boeing was on deliveries, the pilots could still fly on the old 737s and that stemmed some of the loss of money.

Concorde was a very unique plane, the pilots were specially trained for it, and having them sit around was expensive.

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

#182

Post by nejsjsjsbsb »

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?

Arguably more impressive than deepseek.

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

#183

Post by ddalex »

rbanffy wrote: post #33
hangonhn wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I don't think that's correct. The Concorde used its afterburners during take off and to get through the transonic region, where the drag is very heavy. Once you've gone past that the drag drops. At that point the Concorde can turn off the after burners. Source: https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-engine-re-heats

Legend says the Tu-144 used afterburners the whole time while supersonic, but, then, it seems five units have engines without afterburners (RD-36-51's replacing the Kuznetsov NK-144 used in most of the fleet). I wonder what was the noise level in those late models.

WHAT ?!?

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

#184

Post by ethbr1 »

ghaff wrote: post #163
alex_duf wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume the question was about the questionable economics of running a super-sonic airplane profitably. The Concorde was notorious for bleeding money. Maybe the premium aspect will be enough, given that we have a bigger and bigger chasm between rich and poor, or maybe the economics of running it won't compete against sub-sonic, lower fuel consumption planes.

I'm skeptical. Trans-Pacific would be interesting for some because that's a long time in a plane even with lie-flat seating. But then you need a lot of range because once you have to refuel you've cut into your time advantage. NYC to London or Paris? Sure. But now you still need to find people willing and able to spend $5K+ each way. I'd like to do it but realistically I'm not going to.

I'd expect for trans-oceanic, you'd have people scheduling their travel around limited flights, given the unique offering.

I.e. you aren't trying to figure out "How do I 100% capacity a 8:17am daily flight?" (traditional subsonic carriers) but rather "How much demand is there per week/month?" (Boom)

If the flight is Wednesdays-only, then folks line their travel up on Wednesday. Because the alternative is a much longer flight.

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

#185

Post by ctippett »

ctippett wrote: post #60

Is it okay/usual for the test pilot to partake in a glass of champagne so soon after landing? On a side note: Channing Tatum is a shoe-in for playing the pilot, Tristan “Geppetto” Brandenburg, if this ever gets made into a movie.

For context, my father who's a commercial pilot for Air New Zealand says this wouldn't be condoned. Take that as you will.

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

#186

Post by fsloth »

ghaff wrote: post #163
alex_duf wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume the question was about the questionable economics of running a super-sonic airplane profitably. The Concorde was notorious for bleeding money. Maybe the premium aspect will be enough, given that we have a bigger and bigger chasm between rich and poor, or maybe the economics of running it won't compete against sub-sonic, lower fuel consumption planes.

I'm skeptical. Trans-Pacific would be interesting for some because that's a long time in a plane even with lie-flat seating. But then you need a lot of range because once you have to refuel you've cut into your time advantage. NYC to London or Paris? Sure. But now you still need to find people willing and able to spend $5K+ each way. I'd like to do it but realistically I'm not going to.

$10k transatlantic return hop. Add expedited immigration. Does not sound insane. First class tickets London-NY can be already in this price range. Not for everyone of course (certainly way out of my price range).

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

#187

Post by mandevil »

Analemma_ wrote: post #164
cromulent wrote: post #121

“Currently, all civil aircraft flights are prohibited from operating above Mach one speeds over land in the United States.” [1] Mike Bannister’s excellent book Concorde talks at length about how “handsomely profitable” the BA service was (as opposed to the Air France one) from 1984 until the 2000 crash and subsequent grounding put them in to a spiral where keeping enough people certified was too expensive. One part o…

My understanding was that, even for BA, the Concord was profitable on a cash accounting basis (as in, the tickets more than covered the cost of fuel, salaries, etc.) but not when accounting for a) the depreciation costs of the plane, which were much higher than for an ordinary Boeing or Airbus passenger jet since it was a one-off limited run and there were few spare parts and b) as you said, training new people to fl…

Also, my understanding is that AF was not profitable on Concord even ignoring those accounting costs. So AF wanted to shutter the plane after the accident, and changing the costs of shared maintenance equipment from 50/50 to 100/0 made BA's numbers go into the red too, because it wasn't very much profit.

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

#188

Post by chgs »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #144
cromulent wrote: post #121

“Currently, all civil aircraft flights are prohibited from operating above Mach one speeds over land in the United States.” [1] Mike Bannister’s excellent book Concorde talks at length about how “handsomely profitable” the BA service was (as opposed to the Air France one) from 1984 until the 2000 crash and subsequent grounding put them in to a spiral where keeping enough people certified was too expensive. One part o…

LA to New York or San Francisco to Honolulu in 2 to 3 hours would be a game changer. You could probably fill a plane at least once a day on those routes for a handsome profit.

I suspect if Concorde had been made by an American company the “overland” issue would have been solved.

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

#189

Post by 4ndrewl »

ceejayoz wrote: post #89
double0jimb0 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

When the production engine exists in physical form, we can absolutely discuss its capabilities. The XB-1 demonstrator is, using afterburner to get to speed, demonstrating other design features intended to keep the noise down. The original plan was a commercial partner for the engines, but the big three - Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric - turned them down. It's one of the biggest remaining question m…

s/When/If/
Post reply on HN