Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#11

Post by Tuna-Fish » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 9:29 AM UTC

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #4

"...where Concorde failed?" Hold on, when did Concorde "fail"? Concorde was profitable: https://simpleflying.com/did-british-airways-make-a-profit-f... ---- The reasons for Concorde's discontinuation are legion - I think even if it weren't for the 2000 Air France crash it would have been discontinued simply due to the age of the fleet, what other airlines are still running 50+ year-old airframes today? Let alone thos…

> Concorde was profitable

Only because the planes were sold to the carrier for a nominal (£1, iirc) price. If you consider the development and construction costs, the Concorde is billions in the hole.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#12

Post by notahacker » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 9:35 AM UTC

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #4

"...where Concorde failed?" Hold on, when did Concorde "fail"? Concorde was profitable: https://simpleflying.com/did-british-airways-make-a-profit-f... ---- The reasons for Concorde's discontinuation are legion - I think even if it weren't for the 2000 Air France crash it would have been discontinued simply due to the age of the fleet, what other airlines are still running 50+ year-old airframes today? Let alone thos…

> Concorde was profitable

Your own article points out that it really, really wasn't, especially not for the parties investing in its development, not their customers who profited mainly because they got the aircraft at knockdown prices (and operated it without any supersonic competition) in what was later described as one of the worst deals ever negotiated by any government

$3bn was spent developing an aircraft they hoped would be the next generation of flight. Only 14 ever saw commercial service, and most were basically given away because nobody else wanted them. The article suggests BA made $0.75bn profit (Air France less) over three decades, which meant they wouldn't have made a profit on operating it if they'd paid normal purchase prices for mass-market commercial aircraft, never mind if they'd had to underwrite the costs of the R&D programme which is what Boom needs customers to do...

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#13

Post by bell-cot » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 9:38 AM UTC

Wikipedia notes that a 1/3 scale Boom demonstrator plane is expected to begin flight testing in 2021. Otherwise, it sounds like they've produced zero planes that actually fly so far. Even the hype-ridden article admits that their founder/CEO has zero experience delivering real-world physical products.

Then there's the huge "SPACEX KILLER" banner at the top of that article...which has zero logic behind it, and is followed up by zero meaningful mentions of SpaceX in the article's text.

I'm sensing a really fawning fan-boy (writing the article), and/or a company that's absolutely desperate for credibility.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#14

Post by short_sells_poo » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 9:39 AM UTC

henrikschroder wrote: post #2

> To put that into perspective, a Tesla travels at 250 miles per hour Is this how you write super-relatable PR pieces now?

I'd also like to know which Tesla can get to 250mph (400kmh). The 100PD tops out at a "measly" 155. Only the most extreme hypercars can reach 250mph, and even out of those, a small handful are road legal.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#15

Post by rbanffy » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 9:42 AM UTC

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #11

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #4

"...where Concorde failed?" Hold on, when did Concorde "fail"? Concorde was profitable: https://simpleflying.com/did-british-airways-make-a-profit-f... ---- The reasons for Concorde's discontinuation are legion - I think even if it weren't for the 2000 Air France crash it would have been discontinued simply due to the age of the fleet, what other airlines are still running 50+ year-old airframes today? Let alone thos…

> Concorde was profitable Only because the planes were sold to the carrier for a nominal (£1, iirc) price. If you consider the development and construction costs, the Concorde is billions in the hole.

> Concorde is billions in the hole.

This is the role of governments. From this R&D hole, aerospace jobs were maintained, people were trained, technologies were developed and a whole lot of other side benefits to both countries involved.

It’s not unlike NASA’s space program - if you look at the market value of the equipment built, it’s just an enormous money sink. We all know it’s not.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#16

Post by tim333 » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 9:43 AM UTC

henrikschroder wrote: post #2

> To put that into perspective, a Tesla travels at 250 miles per hour Is this how you write super-relatable PR pieces now?

Aside from being a funny way of putting it, it also seems wrong. The top speed on the Plaid is about 200mph.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#17

Post by rbanffy » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 9:44 AM UTC

Sebb767 wrote: post #6

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #4

"...where Concorde failed?" Hold on, when did Concorde "fail"? Concorde was profitable: https://simpleflying.com/did-british-airways-make-a-profit-f... ---- The reasons for Concorde's discontinuation are legion - I think even if it weren't for the 2000 Air France crash it would have been discontinued simply due to the age of the fleet, what other airlines are still running 50+ year-old airframes today? Let alone thos…

But it didn't refresh its fleet, either. The Concorde itself might've been successful, but supersonic flight mostly died with it.

Politicians are notoriously impatient people with short attention spans that seldom go beyond a term. Concorde 2, which was more efficient, was cancelled while the planes we can think of prototypes were put in commercial service.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#18

Post by golemotron » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 9:45 AM UTC

Stratoscope wrote: post #8

I will never understand why Boom chose such a terrible name. Of course it is a novelty to hear a sonic boom once or twice, but who wants to hear them repeatedly? I imagine they will fly mostly overwater like Concorde, but why remind people on the ground of the most annoying thing that a supersonic flight does? Much worse, as safe and reliable as they can build and fly these airplanes, eventually there will be a fligh…

SV edginess

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#19

Post by tim333 » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 9:46 AM UTC

short_sells_poo wrote: post #14

henrikschroder wrote: post #2

> To put that into perspective, a Tesla travels at 250 miles per hour Is this how you write super-relatable PR pieces now?

I'd also like to know which Tesla can get to 250mph (400kmh). The 100PD tops out at a "measly" 155. Only the most extreme hypercars can reach 250mph, and even out of those, a small handful are road legal.

Of course the Roadster in space is doing something like 20,000 mph relative to the earth but that also isn't 250 mph.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#20

Post by barsonme » Sun, Oct 03, 2021, 9:47 AM UTC

short_sells_poo wrote: post #14

henrikschroder wrote: post #2

> To put that into perspective, a Tesla travels at 250 miles per hour Is this how you write super-relatable PR pieces now?

I'd also like to know which Tesla can get to 250mph (400kmh). The 100PD tops out at a "measly" 155. Only the most extreme hypercars can reach 250mph, and even out of those, a small handful are road legal.

Maybe if you push it off a cliff?