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

431–440 of 545 posts

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

#431

Post by sofixa »

calmbonsai wrote: post #369
nhoss2 wrote: post #18

Pretty exiting times in aerospace these days. Seeing spacex doing awesome innovation with starship and boom making good progress bringing back supersonic air travel Can someone innovate general aviation

Until the FAA oversight and permitting regs are updated, it's far too cost and time prohibitive to bring anything (aside from avionics) truly innovative to the GA market. For a vivid example, look at the multi-year certification torture that even a minor new engine design (DeltaHawk https://www.deltahawk.com/ ) must endure, or hell, the comical marathon of low-lead avgas adoption, or even a basic 12V https://www.yout…

> Until the FAA oversight and permitting regs are updated, it's far too cost and time prohibitive to bring anything (aside from avionics) truly innovative to the GA market.

Unless you take a look at why those regulations came into place - literally tens of thousands of people dying in fiery crashes. Aviation safety is an incredibly complex topic, and even with the strict regulatory regimes of today, companies like Boeing manage to skirt the rules and proudly sell planes that crash themselves, or fall apart in mid air.

Lowering regulatory boundaries in aviation will certainly result in more death.

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

#432

Post by sofixa »

benced wrote: post #254
actionfromafar wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't let go of the suspicion that this could become some kind of military (drone or not) airframe.

I can't think of a single aerospace company that is not dual-use. I doubt Boom is building with that in mind but if they're around in 50 years, I'd be shocked if they did not have a thriving defense business. (which I think is good but ymmv)

> I can't think of a single aerospace company that is not dual-use

Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are pretty squarely military only.

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

#433

Post by michaelt »

WalterBright wrote: post #423
anovikov wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It worked because not just the development costs were paid for by the government, but acquisition costs were, too. Planes were given to the airlines for free, completely paid for by the states. Also, only be BA made good profit on it and only after mid-1980s. Air France could barely break even. If not the PR effect that put those airlines above all others as the only ones flying supersonically, they'd never make any…

> Who'd pay that kind of money today for a commercial flight? Government people. I remember Kissinger flying on it. A first class ticket on the Titanic would be $50,000 today.

The problem with $50,000 tickets is a higher price means fewer customers, and at a certain point that means less money coming in overall, worse economies of scale, and less ability to cover your upfront engineering costs.

The Toyota Camry is a $30,000 car that sells 300,000 units per year. The Lamborghini Huracan is a $300,000 car that sells 600 units per year. Much easier to cover the costs of developing a reliable electrical system, or a new hybrid drivetrain, when you're Toyota.

Concorde couldn't repay its development costs for the same reason.

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

#434

Post by sofixa »

crowcroft wrote: post #92
mrtksn wrote: post #76

How cool is that, hopefully will pressure Airbus into developing one too. So far they did silly concept vides only. I'm also quite worried about Airbus after winning against Boeing becoming complacent since Chinese or Russians are not even close.

Airbus won't do anything until someone proves the economics of it make sense.

They won't do supersonic jets in particular, but they already have a ton of moonshots to try make sustainable aviation possible and with economics that make sense. Stuff like hydrogen propulsion, hydrogen electric, and battery electric designs, with a variety of weird shapes and forms. They're the only big aircraft manufacturer with such a wide array of potentially groundbreaking (if they make it) research. And theirs is drastically more important than Boom - time and time again, it has been proven that mass aviation is all about economics, not speed. Soon it will be economics + sustainability, speed being a niche which might not even be profitable (Concorde, Convair and many others have tried differentiating themselves on speed and failed).

https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/energy-transition/hydro...

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

#435

Post by postexitus »

rob74 wrote: post #399
ChuckMcM wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree that it's proof they will succeed, it is however proof that they can build a supersonic aircraft. That is no small thing. Given that they can, they now need to build a larger one, which with more surface area will be more difficult than this one. In terms of 'risk stacking'[1] they are definitely a big step closer to being in successful. [1] Risk Stacking is the set of risks a company faces between t…

> Given that they can, they now need to build a larger one, which with more surface area will be more difficult than this one. Not only that, but the XB-1 uses "stock" engines, while for the full-scale Overture they want to develop (and build) an all-new supersonic-capable engine. So one more challenge to put on the stack...

If that's the case, what was the point of the test flight anyway? What were they exactly testing?

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

#436

Post by notahacker »

postexitus wrote: post #435
rob74 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that they can, they now need to build a larger one, which with more surface area will be more difficult than this one. Not only that, but the XB-1 uses "stock" engines, while for the full-scale Overture they want to develop (and build) an all-new supersonic-capable engine. So one more challenge to put on the stack...

If that's the case, what was the point of the test flight anyway? What were they exactly testing?

They were testing (at a different scale, with a different powerplant) their air intakes for the engine which are designed to enable conventional turbofan engines to operate at supersonic speed, plus some control systems. And no doubt demonstrating to investors that they could fly something at supersonic speed before they ask for the funds to design and build a new powerplant and airliner-scale airframe...

It was originally envisaged as a maiden flight that would happen within a couple of years of founding, but aerospace is hard.

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

#437

Post by michaelt »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #414
Jakob wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not taking away from your point, just for comparison: A British Airways first class LHR-JFK roundtrip is $10K today for an 8h flight. Supersonic would be 3h.

Is Boom aiming to be faster than the Concorde? I don't think so. Their website says: > Overture will carry 64-80 passengers at Mach 1.7 Concorde flew NYC LON in 3.5 hours. I guess Boom will fly the route in about 4 hours. Also, regular commercial flights on NYC LON are currently 7 hours. Also, using Google Flights, I priced LHR JFK on first class about T+1month for 7 days (Mon->Mon). It is about 5.3K USD round trip.…

> Are people forgetting about how incredibly loud is a sonic boom? It is unlikely that it will get rights to fly over land, just like the Concorde.

Remember a few years back when the Canadian-made Bombardier C-Series was selling well, so Boeing got their allies in the US government to impose a 300% tax on them as an "America First" policy?

Well, the rules around sonic booms were similar. Were there sonic booms? Sure. But the real reason for the ban was that they were foreign-made sonic booms.

Now the world's only supersonic passenger plane is being made in America, you might find Congress is much less worried about sonic booms.

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

#438

Post by thombat »

mkoubaa wrote: post #212
belter wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you make this profitable?

Could this thing take a polar route from New York to Hong Kong?

Planned range for the Boom Overture is 4900 miles, so only a little better than the 4500 miles of Concorde, which occasionally had to make a refueling stop going westward over the Atlantic. So it won't have the capability for transpolar or Trans-Pacific flights.

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

#439

Post by michaelt »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #415
brucehoult wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concorde at least made more money than it cost to operate (and maintain). The TU-144 made 102 commercial flights, with 55 of those carrying passengers -- the others I assume were cargo. Not 102 flights per day or month -- 102 flights TOTAL between the first commercial flight in December 1975 and retirement from passenger service in 1978 and from all commercial service in 1983. With 16 built, that's an average of 6 fl…

> Concorde at least made more money than it cost to operate (and maintain). This overlooks development costs. Wiki says: > Delays and cost overruns increased the programme cost to £1.5–2.1 billion in 1976, (£11–16 billion in 2023). That is an astonishing price for 20 aeroplanes!

£16 billion in inflation-adjusted development costs is peanuts.

You should look at the costs of the F-35 :)

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

#440

Post by usrusr »

anovikov wrote: post #374
justmedep wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concord was actually a cash cow for all airlines who had them. The only reason why airlines stopped using Concord was because of the crash and the inherent safety issues that were found. But the actual business model worked - limited in scope but it was highly profitable. “That said, the airlines that flew the Concorde did make a profit. Concorde was only ever purchased by two airlines: BA and Air France. While the c…

It worked because not just the development costs were paid for by the government, but acquisition costs were, too. Planes were given to the airlines for free, completely paid for by the states. Also, only be BA made good profit on it and only after mid-1980s. Air France could barely break even. If not the PR effect that put those airlines above all others as the only ones flying supersonically, they'd never make any…

> Who'd pay that kind of money today for a commercial flight?

People willing to throw money at connecting with others who do the same thing. That was the main value proposition back then I think, getting from continent to continent in a short time has never been more than a tangential benefit. Of course this type of business only really works when everybody involved claims the opposite.

Post reply on HN