Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t “have to” make it environmentally sustainable…
The next generation will love your idealism.
Aerospace is hard, one step at a time. Every generation knows that.
Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]
441–450 of 545 posts
Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree that blind optimism is just as obnoxious. Blind pessimists are much less likely to reach beyond what's currently considered possible. We need irrationally optimistic folks.
Irrationally optimistic people will tell you they have a device that defies the laws of physics (I mean hard laws, like conservation of energy or the speed of light), and investors will give them money. I have seen this happen enough times I'd actually have to stop to think of the correct number. The point is both are disconnected from reality. What we need are people that aren't full of shit. There is a place betwee…
> There is a place between "everything is impossible" and "everything is possible" that works better for getting things done.
Exactly, and we know for sure that Boom are definitely NOT in that place, how?
Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
For companies with executives that travel a lot (visiting different offices or store locations or lots of in-person client visits across the country) it might be literally saving them money. And even if it doesn't save them money, the prestige and the fact that the people who approve the purchase are the same people who get to use it help justify the cost
Honestly if that is all they are hoping for, I sincerely hope they fail spectacularly. The world is unequal as it is and I certainly don’t want the rich flexing their wealth with vanity like this, especially not considering the climate cost of all this, and the fact that we are already in a climate catastrophe that is disproportionately caused by the rich while harming the poor.
Even if (a big if) Boom can come out with a supersonic passenger jet that is economically viable, you can be pretty certain it will be for people who routinely buy business/first tickets (or fly Netjets/other private) today.
Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]
#444Earlier 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.
I used to work for a big 6 accountancy and audit firm. their senior partners used to fly concorde, wheras us underlings flew virgin upper class (like first class on other carriers).
Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
In fairness, there's little practical benefit (and, in fact, a lot of downsides) to a supercar whereas a plane that does trans-oceanic in half the time is useful--of course, if you can build it, and sell tickets economically for maybe today's business class prices--keeping in mind that a lot of people flying business are doing so on upgrades/miles.
Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]
#446Earlier 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.…
> Concorde flew NYCLON in 3.5 hours. I guess Boom will fly the route in about 4 hours.
I feel that you're getting diminishing returns at the point of reducing 4 hours to 3h30, given that flight time is just a part of the whole "door to door" time, there are several hours at least that aren't flight time, and that the expensive tickets all come with an hour or three in an airport lounge.
Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
The F16 is already cheap, proven, integrated with everything, and available in great numbers. The Air Force also has a super sonic bomber in the B1 lancer, and a mass produced supersonic stealth fighter/bomber in the F35, which is actually pretty cost effective despite its public perception. Maybe there's a place for a large supersonic transport but the Air Force also has a lot of very heavy logistics aircraft alread…
F-16 is a beauty, but it can't do Mach 2 for a prolonged time; it actually can't even do Mach 1.1 for a prolonged time. F-22 is a marvel, and can fly supersonic for much longer, but its cost is exorbitant, and it's not even produced any more. F-35 is more economical but it literally can fly supersonic for a minute or two with the currently installed engines.
Also the last B-1 was produced in 1988. The US hasn't had a long range super sonic bomber in production for 36 years.
Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I care as much these days, but would I have liked routine Mach 2 flight that my company would have paid for when I was traveling a lot? Absolutely. But that wasn't in the cards. And the relatively fewer flights I take today for relatively longer trips in general, I mostly look at paying an extra $5K and think "I could do a lot more interesting things with that money than be more comfortable for some hours" (…
I guess the target market is those who feel about the opportunity cost of another $5,000 the way you and I do about another $5.00
Or $50 anyway. I have used miles to upgrade trans-Pacific and reluctantly even paid a few hundred $ co-pay out-of-pocket if I couldn't expense it. But I agree with your basic point. I'm almost certainly not going pay a few thousand extra even for a long flight out of pocket. I could but my money is limited and there are a lot better experiences I could purchase with $5K.
Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]
#449Boom’s real challenge isn’t just showing they can go supersonic—it’s designing an engine and airframe combo that can operate at scale, hit reasonable ticket prices, and address stricter environmental policies than Concorde ever faced. The XB-1 proves they’re capable of building a small supersonic jet, but the gap between a funded prototype and a viable passenger fleet is enormous. Unless they can tackle those regulatory hurdles (especially around overland noise), keep operating costs competitive, and deliver a new engine that supports their performance claims, we’re still not much closer to a reliable Mach-plus commercial service than we were in the 1970s. It’s progress, but we shouldn’t confuse a cool proof-of-concept with a profitable flight network.
Any case - truly impressed by their persistance. Pushing something for such a long time despite being so far from any commercial traction feels insance to me.
Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]
#450Earlier 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?
One of the unique selling points of their proposed aircraft is that it won't be so loud:
> Boom says Overture will be a lot quieter than Concorde and the supersonic military aircraft that were flying at the time the FAA ban