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

Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

johncoogan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 150 posts

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#111

Post by evgen »

cnlevy wrote: post #38
sofixa wrote: post #36

One of the main reasons the US banned supersonic flights overland is that the only plane capable of them wasn't American. The ban came only after Boeing abandoned their plans for a competitor.

It's rather more a consequence of the very bad handling by the FAA of the sonic booms campaign over Oklahoma City in 1964, and subsequent bad PR associated with supersonic aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests

You ignore the fact that sonic booms are really fucking annoying, so I will dispute your claim and say that there is no way to put lipstick on this pig and say it was mishandled by the FAA. The booms annoyed everyone. This issue is further compounded by the fact that there is no useful purpose served by supersonic passenger flight; it causes little inconvenience for a small benefit to a infinitesimal fraction of the population when done over water, it cause an ongoing inconvenience to a large group for that same small gain for a tiny group of wealthy people when done over land.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#112

Post by jafo »

> but there’s a good chance that engineers could lower the boom from 105 decibels to just 70 decibels. At that volume, US lawmakers might revisit the speed limit if it means getting from California to Washington DC in half the time.

"good chance"..."might revisit"

Talk about a wing and a prayer...

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#113

Post by beardyw »

tim333 wrote: post #16
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.

Looks like they fixed the article.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#114

Post by beardyw »

jafo wrote: post #112

> but there’s a good chance that engineers could lower the boom from 105 decibels to just 70 decibels. At that volume, US lawmakers might revisit the speed limit if it means getting from California to Washington DC in half the time. "good chance"..."might revisit" Talk about a wing and a prayer...

I remember Concorde coming over in London, below supersonic, and even then it was very loud. Also, I may remember incorrectly, but Concorde never went into a holding pattern. All other flights were put on hold. Not sure if it was due to manoeuvrability or noise. I suppose you can do that with government help.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#116

Post by cnlevy »

evgen wrote: post #111
cnlevy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rather more a consequence of the very bad handling by the FAA of the sonic booms campaign over Oklahoma City in 1964, and subsequent bad PR associated with supersonic aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests

You ignore the fact that sonic booms are really fucking annoying, so I will dispute your claim and say that there is no way to put lipstick on this pig and say it was mishandled by the FAA. The booms annoyed everyone. This issue is further compounded by the fact that there is no useful purpose served by supersonic passenger flight; it causes little inconvenience for a small benefit to a infinitesimal fraction of the…

You're right that the booms annoyed everyone; but the end result is that all supersonic aircraft have been banned, even those that would make less noise than a regular passenger plane.

Boom claims that they can reduce the sonic boom considerably; If the project is sucessful, I believe the ban for overland supersonic flights would change to be based on noise level, rather than aircraft speed.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#117

Post by MomoXenosaga »

beardyw wrote: post #114
jafo wrote: post #112

> but there’s a good chance that engineers could lower the boom from 105 decibels to just 70 decibels. At that volume, US lawmakers might revisit the speed limit if it means getting from California to Washington DC in half the time. "good chance"..."might revisit" Talk about a wing and a prayer...

I remember Concorde coming over in London, below supersonic, and even then it was very loud. Also, I may remember incorrectly, but Concorde never went into a holding pattern. All other flights were put on hold. Not sure if it was due to manoeuvrability or noise. I suppose you can do that with government help.

Could also be lack of fuel. Concorde had barely enough range to fly to New York.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#118

Post by fanf2 »

Reventlov wrote: post #69
captainmuon wrote: post #63

Can anybody tell how such a plane will sound like over land? Growing up in Europe in the 90s, we regularly saw fighter jets doing maneuver and we called the noise they make a sonic boom: a loud, scratching and thundering noise that seems to come from the wrong direction. But I've also heard that planes almost never flew supersonic over civilian areas and an actual sonic boom sounds like a double clap, and is much mor…

There is not really a sonic "boom": the sound you hear is shaped as a cone (behind the plane) so it's continuous and emitted as soon as the plane is supersonic. You only hear it one time because you're static, hence the "boom" (everyone on the path of the plane will hear it at different times). A supersonic plane is very loud, and if you're static it sounds like some explosion ( https://www.thelocal.fr/20200930/loud-…

Another example was January this year when a couple of RAF Typhoons intercepted an unresponsive civilian plane, and their sonic boom was heard over large parts of southeast England https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-55645967

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#119

Post by rbanffy »

Jabbles wrote: post #101
Zanni wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Anything over five hours is very unpleasant for me. Over eight hours and I'll actually segment the trip with a hotel stay in between. Turning a 10-hour flight into a five-hour flight would save me a full day .

Sure, I'd take the shorter flight, everything else being equal. But what premium would you pay for that ability? The article only mentions being better than Concorde at 5x the fuel cost (I assume it means per passenger-km).

It may be a significant premium over coach, but would be much less significant over business and first class. A Lufthansa now retired 747 carries 8 passengers in first class and about a hundred in business. With a plane like this, LH would be able to carry more first and business passengers over the same amount of time at equivalent prices. Remember Concorde 2 would be much more efficient than the first iteration, and that was with late 60's technology.

Re: Can Boom Supersonic Succeed Where the Concorde Failed?

#120

Post by rbanffy »

mikro2nd wrote: post #105
rbanffy wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ticket should cost anything between 2 to 4 times a normal one. If it works, it’ll capture a lot of business and first class tickets from normal airliners

I meant cost to the operator... ;)

My guess is that it'd be twice as much. It uses about 3 times more fuel than a modern widebody, but flies about 3 times faster than them too, so they'd be able to fly at least twice as frequently. All things considered, I'd expect ticket prices at twice the price of coach, perhaps less, but the added convenience of extra departure times and shorter flights would enable a lot of elasticity.
Post reply on HN