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

531–540 of 545 posts

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

#531

Post by dopamean »

Schiendelman wrote: post #522
dopamean wrote: post #521

Nothing I’ve read or heard has made me believe there’s a market for supersonic airliner. This is very cool for sure but I don’t know how they’ll ever sell a full size passenger jet. I guess I’ll believe it when I see it.

Here's a quick validation of how well you're estimating the market: Without looking it up, how many commercial planes do you think are in the air right now?

Over the US during the day at any moment I'd say at least 5,000. Probably not more than 10? Not sure about the rest of the world. For Europe I'd guess probably half of that. Not sure about Asia, SA, and Africa though.

I wonder how many routes there are that would actually be well served by supersonic aircraft.

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

#532

Post by brucehoult »

iancmceachern wrote: post #529
brucehoult wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But you can't just exclude them. They are part of the cost.

Of course you can exclude them, to determine whether the aircraft themselves are a viable commercial proposition for the people who bought them (the airlines) -- which they were, just as other aircraft such as the A380 today are. The people who bought A380s are happy, and will be using them for decades. Emirates would still like to buy more (and may end up buying used ones from less successful airlines)

The fact that the aircraft manufacturer spent far too much on development relative to the sales they made is of course important to the manufacturer -- or at least to whoever is financing the manufacturer, but that is a DIFFERENT question. In fact more than one question.

There is the question of whether the price they were sold to airlines for was greater or less than the incremental cost to build one aircraft. If the price was greater than the cost then there was some hope for a successful program, and they simply overspent on development and/or didn't sell enough copies.

If they were sold to airlines for less than the marginal cost then it's just an all-around manufacturing screwup that could never be solved by any amount of sales.

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

#533

Post by manquer »

StevenWaterman wrote: post #520
manquer wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps for Jared Issacman type of billionaire . Rich people prefer the Rolls or Bentley when being a passenger, Sport/ performance vehicles are only fun if you are driving, I would expect the G650/800 style jets would be the preferred plane even if it is slower when you can travel in style and with your entourage . Also range would be a consideration to this type of jet for passenger travel. Travel times makes diffe…

On the road, you have to go the speed limit whether you're in a rolls or a lambo. You might prefer a lambo if it could get there twice as fast

Lambo (all sport cars) owners tend to take speed limits as suggestions, it might actually be going twice as fast if not legally, still people being driven around, would prefer a Rolls.

Rolls and Bentley are normally driven slower than even regular cars like high end sedans, they are big and unwieldy, and their passengers really care about ride quality, the scene from parasite about coffee cup comes to mind.

If you had the money to own either car, you are rich enough that whenever you reach the destination is on time, other people work on your schedule, then speed becomes less important.

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

#534

Post by mgfist »

michaelt wrote: post #439
throwaway2037 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 :)

F35s are now selling for $81m on average per plane - https://www.airandspaceforces.com/f-35-program-office-lockhe...

And yes, the program is expensive but there will be thousands of F35s by the end of it all (1000+ already)

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

#535

Post by Schiendelman »

dopamean wrote: post #531
Schiendelman wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a quick validation of how well you're estimating the market: Without looking it up, how many commercial planes do you think are in the air right now?

Over the US during the day at any moment I'd say at least 5,000. Probably not more than 10? Not sure about the rest of the world. For Europe I'd guess probably half of that. Not sure about Asia, SA, and Africa though. I wonder how many routes there are that would actually be well served by supersonic aircraft.

You're about right - 10k worldwide. So you've got at least 1000 business class seats full at any given time around the world.

In terms of routes that Boom's proposed plane can serve, you've got at bare minimum New York to London and Seattle to Tokyo, and lots of connections between Asian capitals where there's much less noise regulation and lots of money. I think their point is that if they can keep noise down, they will be successful operating long haul routes within NA, like LA to New York, San Francisco to New York, Seattle to New York, probably New York to Miami, LA to Toronto. My guess is that they end up with maintenance in Seattle, New York, Los Angeles.

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

#536

Post by credit_guy »

wnolens wrote: post #530
credit_guy wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> something to market to investors and potential employees Neither the investors nor the potential employees strike me as gullible. By the way, the $100 ticket price target was not for the first aircraft, see [1]: > The four hour, $100 dream is Boom’s long-term aim, two or three generations of aircraft down the line. [1] https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/boom-supersonic-four-hour...

Yes, and self driving cars are right around the corner!

I don't get the analogy. The Boom CEO explicitly stated that $100 tickets are not around the corner. Two or three generations down the line means four decades at a minimum, if we think one generation takes 20 years. Lots of things can happen in 4 decades, like: significant advances in ramjet engines, rotation detonation engines become mainstream, people get comfortable with windowless aircraft (so there's no need for drooping nose Concorde-style), airports could start being equipped with arresting wires, like aircraft carriers today, airplanes without the vertical tail fin become common place, stronger and lighter composites become available, and, who knows, maybe even some jets will start running on hydrogen rather than jet fuel (hydrogen having about 3 times more energy density per unit of mass). I have to admit the even with all these things, $100 per ticket to any place in the world still seems like a stretch, but I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

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

#537

Post by jjk166 »

echoangle wrote: post #252
jjk166 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There actually is still significant lift. We define the edge of the atmosphere to be where the lift to drag ratio of a plane would be less than 1 below orbital velocity (ie if you were going fast enough to lift your weight with conventional wings you'd be in orbit), so you can't fly conventionally in space but lift might still be generating a force which is significant compared to your craft's weight.

Well the assumption was that there is no drag because the air density is so low. You can’t just say there’s no drag but still assume that you get lift. Your lift/drag ratio won’t go up infinitely just because you’re flying higher.

GP's assumption was travelling through space to avoid drag which doesn't necessarily imply generating lift in space.

My comment was not a support of that argument, but a clarification that simply being in space does not automatically mean no aerodynamic forces. I'm also not saying L/D increases, actually the opposite happens at higher speeds and altitudes.

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

#538

Post by throwaway2037 »

nukeman wrote: post #472
throwaway2037 wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I think the real advantage would be for transpacific flights. San Francisco to Tokyo is currently about 11.5 hours, assuming a similar ratio (maybe slightly better due to flying supersonic for longer), Boom’s time would be around 6.5 to 7 hours. Savings would be more significant for East Coast flights, ATL-HND would go from 14.5 hours to under 8.5.

East Coast US to Japan supersonic? This is the stuff of fantasy. With the insanely high fuel burn and very small aeroplane body size, where are you going to put all the fuel for a trans-Pacific flight? NYCLON was already nearly the limit for the Concorde. As I understand, they had high priority when landing due to low fuel.

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

#539

Post by [deleted] »

engineer_22 wrote: post #454
michaelt wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

...and yet, despite your lamentations, Lamborghini operates a profitable business.

[deleted]

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

#540

Post by nukeman »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #538
nukeman wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the real advantage would be for transpacific flights. San Francisco to Tokyo is currently about 11.5 hours, assuming a similar ratio (maybe slightly better due to flying supersonic for longer), Boom’s time would be around 6.5 to 7 hours. Savings would be more significant for East Coast flights, ATL-HND would go from 14.5 hours to under 8.5.

East Coast US to Japan supersonic? This is the stuff of fantasy. With the insanely high fuel burn and very small aeroplane body size, where are you going to put all the fuel for a trans-Pacific flight? NYC LON was already nearly the limit for the Concorde. As I understand, they had high priority when landing due to low fuel.

Interesting, I hadn’t realized the range was so short. I guess if they did trans-Pacific it would mostly be limited to Seattle to Tokyo, or routes with a stopover in Hawaii.
Post reply on HN