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

Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

boom.aero

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 488 posts

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#461

Post by niccolop »

reso wrote: post #261
bscholl wrote: post #192

Hi - I'm Blake, Founder/CEO at Boom. After watching no tangible progress in supersonics since Concorde was shut down, I started Boom because I want supersonic flight in our lifetime. Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly. Will try to answer as many questions here as I can.

Given that sonic booms are one of the main reasons the Concorde didn't work, is calling your company "Boom" the best idea? Half-kidding. Having said that, I'm a huge Concorde fanboy, and I really hope you guys can make affordable supersonic travel a reality!

Wasn't one of the issues with Concorde that is was just too expensive as well, in terms of running it (from a fuel stand point) and maintenance?

Notwithstanding the accidents.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#464

Post by cylinder »

elliotec wrote: post #363
cylinder wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly started laughing halfway through scrolling because I thought this was satire mocking the startup scene. Wow.

I hope so much that you'll find this comment in a decade and laugh about how wrong you were!

I hope so as well.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#465

Post by gruturo »

SeoxyS wrote: post #417
mikeyouse wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to our electric friends, electric motors are >90% efficient while turbofans top out at somewhere near 35% efficiency (as far as I can find).. So what appears to be a 40:1 advantage to kerosene is more like a 15:1 advantage -- substantial but much more accessible with ongoing battery improvements. Though as another commenter mentioned, fuel planes do definitely benefit from shedding weight the entire time t…

A jet engine (e.g. turbofan) relies on combustion in the engine in order to function. The ignition of the fuel from within the engine is key… it is not just there to just create energy to drive rotational force. You would you use an electric motor on a plane without going back to what is essentially a propeller design?

Actually, a good 80% of a modern airliner's thrust comes from the huge fan in front of the engine.

A turbine after the combustion chamber steals some of the energy to move the compressor and the fan. Most of the air (>90%) just goes through the fan and bypasses the engine. You could argue that these engines are _already_ cleverly camouflaged propellers :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-a-jet-engines-thrust-is-de...

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#466

Post by ant6n »

azernik wrote: post #279
ant6n wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Startup idea: rentable tele-presence rooms. tele-presence restaurants, tele-presence bars.

Lots of hotels that cater to business customers already to this - go to the local Hilton and pay $XYZ to use their telepresence room for an hour.

But can I buy the guy on the other end a beer?

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#467

Post by jessaustin »

taneq wrote: post #416
kuprel wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specific energy of hydrogen is 142 MJ/kg. Why not a hydrogen fuel cell powered electric jet?

Because hydrogen is very hard to store in any reasonable size or shape, and that's even without focusing on the inefficiency of generating it.

Ammonia doesn't have this or several of the other drawbacks of hydrogen, but is otherwise equivalent.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#468

Post by bertil »

paulmd wrote: post #413
bertil wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not saying this is easy, but what they need to do is build one airplane, and get it to fly back and forth. That is nothing like the scalability and repeated reliability that building thousands of car is asking for. I know several people (starting by my brother) who build their own plane (granted, it was a two-seater several several times louder than a grass-mower and seemingly slower, but you get the idea). One…

Your brother's plane is likely an ultralight or light-sport category, and regardless as a kit-built is nowhere near the certification required for commercial operation. A key requirement of kit-built or experimental aircraft is that you can't ask money to fly passengers on them. He's not even allowed to ask for gas money if you take a trip together. Commercial requirements literally start at "one aircraft that gets t…

It was, originally but with some improvements since, and it got the wing-stress that you mention involuntarily and while in flight (my mom & his wife were watching — fun times). He got out without a scratch and improved the next one further.

I can completely see the expected extra cost of having to make two prototypes — and, yes, my first reaction to the article was: “please, please, let them have a billion in VC money”. But the truth is, the success ratio of projects about “we want to make a plane that goes that fast” seems far higher than success ratios of any company.

The business side sounds a lot more doable, given how many people fly those destinations and would like to do it faster.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#469

Post by jessaustin »

rwmj wrote: post #436
bscholl wrote: post #192

Hi - I'm Blake, Founder/CEO at Boom. After watching no tangible progress in supersonics since Concorde was shut down, I started Boom because I want supersonic flight in our lifetime. Not just as a private jet, but something most anyone can afford to fly. Will try to answer as many questions here as I can.

Why do you bother having pilots on board? Why not have the majority of the flight directed automatically, perhaps assisted by a ground manager dealing with several planes at once?

Savvy passengers might value someone with "skin in the game".

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#470

Post by jessaustin »

blairanderson wrote: post #408
putzdown wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrific premise; I hope you succeed. But advice: 1. "boom" is not the right name. Explosions. Annoying/scary sonic boom. These are not the associations you're looking for. Try "glide," "zip"—something along those lines. 2. In your very first team picture I see a grumpy-looking fellow with hands in pockets. A few images on he's still there, now joined by another grump with crossed arms. These people look disengaged a…

Please do not tell people what to do. Its a waste of bandwidth. Thank you.

Upvoted for irony.
Post reply on HN