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

XB-1's wings are officially closed out

blog.boomsupersonic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 180 posts

Re: XB-1's wings are officially closed out

#121

Post by rconti »

earthtourist wrote: post #75

I like the idea of supersonic passenger jets existing again. I'm not sure I really see the point though. Would you rather fly in business class comfort for 8 hours or with less comfort for 4 hours? Almost doesn't seem worth the expense and risk of going supersonic. I would be so much more excited about an airplane that was large enough that economy class seating was as comfortable as business class seating is today.…

So far this sounds more 'affordable' than 'business class comfort' which I STILL cannot afford no matter how hard I try to justify it to myself.

There's gotta be a market for an all-business-class plane, since we know that first/business subsidize coach, but nobody's doing it yet. The airlines want to throw those business class seats out as perks to people spending corporate dollars, not charge the end user what they actually cost, in which case "real humans" could afford them.

Re: XB-1's wings are officially closed out

#122

Post by molszanski »

lmm wrote: post #107
robotresearcher wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concorde's first flight was 1969 and ran commercially until 2003. High end demoed.

It wasn't commercially successful enough to continue operating - partly because it wasn't permitted to fly supersonically over the continental US, through some combination of being too noisy and not being made in the US. Boom is the next iteration that addresses that.

Can it be less noisy? Don't think so. They should climb higher to be less noisy. To climb higher they have to go faster. To go faster they must have blackbird class body and engines. This is a very high ask

Re: XB-1's wings are officially closed out

#124

Post by lmm »

rconti wrote: post #118
lmm wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't commercially successful enough to continue operating - partly because it wasn't permitted to fly supersonically over the continental US, through some combination of being too noisy and not being made in the US. Boom is the next iteration that addresses that.

I mean, a 34 year run is a pretty good proof of concept. They weren't running on Sand Hill VC bucks.

They kind of were. The development programme was funded by not one but two national governments, seen as Europe's answer to Apollo. The programme didn't even make an operating profit, much less start to pay back development costs. BA claimed to make a small operating profit on it, but only by sharing maintenance costs with AF's loss-making operation; once AF pulled out it wasn't viable even with the prestige it brought them.

I love Concorde but it wasn't really a commercial operation the way you'd usually use the term.

Re: XB-1's wings are officially closed out

#125

Post by lmm »

molszanski wrote: post #122
lmm wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't commercially successful enough to continue operating - partly because it wasn't permitted to fly supersonically over the continental US, through some combination of being too noisy and not being made in the US. Boom is the next iteration that addresses that.

Can it be less noisy? Don't think so. They should climb higher to be less noisy. To climb higher they have to go faster. To go faster they must have blackbird class body and engines. This is a very high ask

Boom's whole value proposition is that they can make it less noisy essentially just by shaping the aircraft right, aided by improved fluid dynamics modelling techniques etc. They reckon they can improve enough to make a difference - or, cynically, improve enough to give an America-first FAA an excuse to approve them.

Re: XB-1's wings are officially closed out

#126

Post by aspenmayer »

herval wrote: post #123

A bit of a sidenote, but I’d feel a bit anxious traveling on an airplane made by a company called “BOOM”. A bit like driving a “Crash Vehicles” car?

When I was a kid I had these crash test dummies toys with a test car you ram into wall. That immediately sprung to my mind and I had a good laugh and a good reminisce. Thanks for that. Here’s a silly commercial for the car and toys. I honestly think they made me a more defensive driver years before I got behind the wheel.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=sMDPnf89Ef4

Re: XB-1's wings are officially closed out

#127

Post by ksec »

herval wrote: post #123

A bit of a sidenote, but I’d feel a bit anxious traveling on an airplane made by a company called “BOOM”. A bit like driving a “Crash Vehicles” car?

Having been following BOOM for years this thought never occur to me. I thought BOOM was the sound coming out of the engine signalling ultra fast / super sonic speed.

What is annoying is that Now you have mentioned it I cant get that "crashing" thought out of head.

Re: XB-1's wings are officially closed out

#128

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

ksec wrote: post #127
herval wrote: post #123

A bit of a sidenote, but I’d feel a bit anxious traveling on an airplane made by a company called “BOOM”. A bit like driving a “Crash Vehicles” car?

Having been following BOOM for years this thought never occur to me. I thought BOOM was the sound coming out of the engine signalling ultra fast / super sonic speed. What is annoying is that Now you have mentioned it I cant get that "crashing" thought out of head.

The boom in a sonic boom doesn’t come from the engines as such, but rather caused by the object travelling faster than the speed or sound (in air).

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom

Re: XB-1's wings are officially closed out

#129

Post by robotresearcher »

rconti wrote: post #119
robotresearcher wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the A6 compare with Model 3?

That's absurd. An A6 is a much bigger/nicer car than a Model 3. I'd say the A6 is Model S territory, both in size and price. Of course this is complicated by the lower running costs of the S, but the much more spartan interior, which was basic even in 2012. I've got a Model 3. It's a fantastic car, and as a BMW fan, I'd choose it all day every day over a BMW 3 series. But I'd take the A6 for the same price.

The parent comment said "Electric cars are nowhere near an affordable means of transportation right now". The absolute niceness of an A6 doesn't seem directly relevant to that. Model 3s are expensive to buy for a mid size sedan. I was wondering about the TCO. I found an A5, M3 and Camry TCO comparison (link below): M3 comes out similar to Camry, and way less than A5. I think the M3 is a much more fun car to drive than the Camry. I haven't driven an A5.

https://evannex.com/blogs/news/total-cost-of-ownership-tesla...

Re: XB-1's wings are officially closed out

#130

Post by redis_mlc »

kleton wrote: post #76

Why are human test pilots still used in $current_year?

Test pilots are often involved in designing the airplane, like Scott Crossfield and the X-15.

They are also involved in understanding the flight envelope.

If you think of them as "drivers", then you don't understand what they do at all.

I do maintenance test flights, which involves verifying what mechanics did to the plane before students attempt to fly. Always find something.

Post reply on HN