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

261–270 of 545 posts

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

#261

Post by xnx »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #248
chgs wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As a pilot, Americans are incredibly sensitive to aircraft noise. And regulators do all sorts of stuff to route planes around noise sensitive areas. It breaks noise regs to fly most subsonic 1960s eras jets with their original engines these days, you have to modify them with hush kits, etc. They forced a lot of these very American jets to be quiet for the sake of just the landing and takeoff phases. I have a hard tim…

> I have a hard time seeing that they would/will find a way to make sonic booms acceptable to the general public.

NASA has a research craft aiming to make the noise profile more of a "thump" than "boom": https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-lockheed-martin-revea...

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

#262

Post by ghaff »

twoodfin wrote: post #230
ghaff wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London doesn't even require a red-eye from NYC--or actually from Boston/Washington although it's a very early star--on a conventional jet. I've done it pretty regularly. Not pleasant but I can get to London in time for a late dinner.

BA has one daily morning flight from Boston to Heathrow. The only non-red eye transatlantic out of Logan that I’m aware of. Always quite busy, and personally I’d much rather not try to get a good night’s sleep on a barely 6 hour flight.

You can fly to EWR and then onto LHR on United which is what I usually do. It's a very early AM pickup but it works.

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

#263

Post by thedrbrian »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #257
sedatk wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The Concorde manufacturing was cancelled in the 1970s. The crash was in 2000. The last flight was in 2003. They didn't stop flying due to a crash. It was the money.

That and airbus didn’t want to keep supporting Concorde. And they held the type certificate

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

#264

Post by actionfromafar »

echoangle wrote: post #259
two_handfuls wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Boom succeeds in making a supercruise engine that can stay supersonic without needing afterburners, then the military may be interested because that will be cheaper than their current engines that need afterburners and use more fuel.

How is that special? The military already has the F-22 which can supercruise just fine. Or the Eurofighter if your military isn’t the USAF. And also, fuel cost is probably the last concern of an Air Force. Maybe logistics of supplying fuel in an actual war is important, but I think the money for buying the fuel itself is basically zero compared to maintenance and getting the plane in the first place.

F22 isn't produced and fuel is more about range than cost.

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

#265

Post by dingaling »

bobthepanda wrote: post #179
Analemma_ wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It also had a three person crew, and post 9/11 was the start of structurally higher oil prices, both of which were a death knell. The true nail in the coffin was the development of the lie flat business seat, which meant that you could cross the Atlantic in three hours in a plush but cramped seat, or spend less money to sleep for six on a redeye and arrive well rested. At that point three hours was not a compelling e…

> and post 9/11 ...

Two-thirds of BA's Concorde regular passengers died on 9/11. The service never recovered financially from that loss.

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

#266

Post by ergocoder »

echoangle wrote: post #224
jameslk wrote: post #115

Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11329286 I remember seeing this post about Boom going through YC, 9 years ago. It's really cool to see the founder laying out what he wanted to accomplish in the comments and then seeing it happen today. Especially fun looking back at those comments saying it couldn't be done and all the haranguing over the name "Boom" :) Congrats to…

It’s a good start but I wouldn’t say the critics are proven wrong already. Even getting the full-scale version flying won’t be enough, you need to make the whole operation economically viable so it actually makes sense to operate it. I’m not saying they won’t manage to do it, but they haven’t proven that they will be able to do it today.

Basically, the critics: "unless you build a 100B company, we are not wrong"

I mean, yeah, sure.

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

#267

Post by dang »

chainingsolid wrote: post #260
bookofjoe wrote: post #204

This thread: https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.htm... which covers over a decade, contains many hundreds of entries from Concorde pilots, crew, flight engineers, cabin crew, maintenance personnel, and air traffic control recounting anecdotes and amazing things about the plane and events surrounding it. I started reading it and spent about three absorbing hours fascinated and amazed, unable to s…

Someone linked this a few days ago on another post and I've been reading it scene. It's been a very interesting read. I do recommend.

probably https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42835622?

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

#268

Post by dingaling »

bangaroo wrote: post #8
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 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 are no active commercial aircraft capable of going supersonic.

Both the Cessna Citation TEN and the Bombardier Global 8000 were taken supersonic during test flights, as they have to demonstrate stability at speeds of M0.07 greater than max cruise.

They aren't certificated to do it in service, but structurally and aerodynamically have no problem.

Long-range business jets have been pushing aeronautical boundaries well beyond the mundane airliner state-of-the-art.

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

#269

Post by Retric »

ergocoder wrote: post #266
echoangle wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a good start but I wouldn’t say the critics are proven wrong already. Even getting the full-scale version flying won’t be enough, you need to make the whole operation economically viable so it actually makes sense to operate it. I’m not saying they won’t manage to do it, but they haven’t proven that they will be able to do it today.

Basically, the critics: "unless you build a 100B company, we are not wrong" I mean, yeah, sure.

It’s hard to argue a startup succeed until profits > investment.

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

#270

Post by mshook »

niklasrde wrote: post #223
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…

If you solve the boom component, can you just keep going West? London, NYC, LA, Tokyo, Singapore, Dubai, London?

Concorde holds the world record in both directions actually.

F-BTSD did it:

- westbound in 32 hours 49 minutes and 3 seconds on 12/13 October 1992, LIS-SDQ-ACA-HNL-GUM-BKK-BAH-LIS (Lisbon, Saint-Domingue, Acapulco, Honolulu, Guam, Bangkok, Bahrein, Lisbon)

- astbound in 31 hours 27 minutes and 49 seconds on 15/16 August 1995, JFK-TLS-DXB-BKK-GUM-HNL-ACA-JFK (New York, Toulouse, Dubai, Bangkok, Guam, Honolulu, Acapulco, New York)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde_histories_and_aircraf...

Post reply on HN