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

501–510 of 545 posts

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

#501

Post by class3shock »

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…

Taken from the first doubtful comment I found in the post you linked.

"Sorry, this is ridiculous, it just wont happen (not ever, just this company). From my experience in the aerospace industry, having a manned prototype aircraft of this scale fly within 2 years, supersonic no less (!!), is an impossibility. It is simply not possible, at least with any sane regard for safety."

Many of the comments related to Boom about them not being able to do what they say are about the timeframes they give. I know I've commented on their unrealistic dates before and likely will again. In 2016 they said they would be flying it in 2017-2018. And they did in fact completely fail to do that as the above commenter predicted. Unless you are saying being off about your schedule by 7 years is achieving your goal?

They say they will be flying their passenger aircraft in 2030. I invite anyone that reads this to check back then and see how they're doing. I can tell you right now though, you are not going to be able to buy a ticket.

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

#502

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

mrguyorama wrote: post #500
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 https://www.freethink.com/energy/boom-supersonic-flight

That's a claim without evidence. A sonic boom is a direct outcome of moving through the air faster than the air can move through itself. How have they demonstrated that they know how to cause quieter sonic booms?

Firstly, my claim that they say this is evidenced by the link. I did not assert it as historic fact that this thing works, just that this is what they say. The words "Selling point" and "proposed" are in that sentence for a reason: it's not actual yet. But if you think it's a deliberate fraud, then say so.

Secondly: Although the final proof of it is in the full scale aircraft for sure, a lot can be done with software modelling (1) and wind tunnels these days. And with the scale model that just flew, to be followed by "checking the actual performance that was demonstrated against what our models predicted, and how we expected it to fly." (2)

Thirdly, I point you to other "quieter supersonic" aircraft work in progress, the X-59. Some of their evidence-gathering process is detailed at the Wikipedia link, "development" section. (3)

It will be interesting to see how these work out; but if they do not, then it's a failure of modelling and design, not because they missed the directly obvious. But if you are an aerospace engineer and know more about this subfield, then say so.

1) "Boom has perfected its aircraft’s efficient, aerodynamic design using computational fluid dynamics, which “is basically a digital wind tunnel"."

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/28/travel/boom-supersonic-fi...

2) https://www.livescience.com/technology/engineering/boom-supe...

3) https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/x-59-quiet-sup...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-59_Quesst

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

#503

Post by WalterBright »

Toutouxc wrote: post #464
WalterBright wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are people forgetting about how incredibly loud is a sonic boom? Is it? I lived in Kansas in the 1960s. Sonic booms from the AF base were common. They weren't that loud. Electric storms (a regular in Kansas) were considerably louder. > The Concorde burned fuel (passenger miles per liter) at roughly twice the rate of non-supersonic aeroplanes. 5-7 times as much. My dad said when he pushed his jet supersonic, you cou…

> My dad said when he pushed his jet supersonic, you could watch the gas gauge unwind. Did your dad fly military jets? Most older jets can't supercruise, i.e. go supersonic without using afterburners, and afterburners consume unholy amounts of fuel. Concorde did consume quite a lot of fuel per passenger mile, but it could supercruise.

Yup, military fighters.

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

#504

Post by bookofjoe »

dang wrote: post #267
chainingsolid wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Yes!

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

#505

Post by [deleted] »

class3shock wrote: post #501
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…

Taken from the first doubtful comment I found in the post you linked. "Sorry, this is ridiculous, it just wont happen (not ever, just this company). From my experience in the aerospace industry, having a manned prototype aircraft of this scale fly within 2 years, supersonic no less (!!), is an impossibility. It is simply not possible, at least with any sane regard for safety." Many of the comments related to Boom abo…

[deleted]

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

#506

Post by mrguyorama »

macinjosh wrote: post #367
ungreased0675 wrote: post #344

Does Boom have a public roadmap? How much of a jump is it between building a fighter jet clone and building a passenger sized aircraft? I suspect it’s a massive jump. How much of the technology and testing is transferable? I also suspect not much. They’re going to spend an immense amount of money testing this aircraft, will it get them closer to passenger service as a result?

In the Q&A at the end of the video the CEO said: - Symphony engine being produced by EOY '25 - 3 years to have first full size Overture roll off the line - About 4 years to have it in the air for first time.

There's zero chance they can make a brand new, high output jet engine in one year, when zero of the market leaders want their business.

Are they going to build the engines themselves? Ask China how well that works even when have all the original engineering documentation.

Building a jet engine is not a technical or knowledge or willpower or anything like that challenge. It is a pure engineering challenge. It's about building and iterating new engines hundreds of times until you've made enough iterations that things stop melting in corner cases. It's about finding out, the hard way, every single way your assembly could possibly fail, melt, explode, wear too fast, or otherwise fail.

Understand that making modern engines often requires significant innovation in non-destructive testing to ensure the actual parts you are buying/making are up to spec.

Understand that Russia has a portion of decades of experience building, designing, and INNOVATING in jet engines and still struggles to build modern jet engines.

Understand that China struggles to produce economical modern jet engines despite massive funding, huge incentive, and literal national security concerns. The C19 jetliner currently uses an American engine.

Empirically, building modern jet engines seems HARDER than building modern rocket engines! It seems to require maintaining literal decades of raw engineering experience and patience, and now scale all that effort to a company that in 9 years has been told by all existing engine manufacturers "Nope, we won't make a profit on this plan", and has instead spent their time building a single demo plane that does not demonstrate any experience in building engines.

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

#507

Post by brucehoult »

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!

I didn't overlook development costs, I SPECIFICALLY excluded them, and SAID that I was doing so.

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

#508

Post by mrguyorama »

nine_k wrote: post #324
__loam wrote: post #239

Earlier 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.

You should be asking yourself why the US would buy a supersonic military aircraft when they've spent the last 70 years moving AWAY from higher speeds because it doesn't provide any value.

Why would you spend a single dollar on making your launch platform go a little bit faster when the thing you are launching goes faster than Mach 4? And that was true in the 80s.

Power output is important but top speed is not a priority. The B1 Program was cut partially because you could just buy 100 stealthy cruise missiles for the price of one B1 bomber which the Air Force did not think was more survivable than a B52. In the 80s.

Every country has built slower planes entirely because higher sustained top speed just means a more expensive engine, more fuel usage, and more frequent maintenance.

Boom insists they will somehow magically overcome all of those problems.

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

#509

Post by TinkersW »

chgs wrote: post #188
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LA to New York or San Francisco to Honolulu in 2 to 3 hours would be a game changer. You could probably fill a plane at least once a day on those routes for a handsome profit.

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

No chance, far too loud, and I doubt Boom will get approval either

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

#510

Post by willlma »

seltzered_ wrote: post #358
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.

You also have to make it environmentally sustainable like they did when they talked about a partnership with Prometheus fuels back in 2019, even then what's the point compared to regular planes if these "are likely to burn between 4.5 and 7.5X more fuel than subsonic aircraft in 2035." [0] [0]: https://bsky.app/profile/rutherdan.bsky.social/post/3lgstwvv... -> 2021 NASA assessment https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/2020…

I'm so glad that buried deep in the HN commments in an individual who cares about the environment. In the other conversations I've seen about this no one mentions or thinks about fuel consumption. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills sometimes. It's like "Yay! We figured out another way to accelerate the disastrous consequences of climate change. Go us!"
Post reply on HN