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

71–80 of 488 posts

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#71

Post by jessaustin »

aidenn0 wrote: post #51
rdl wrote: post #9

Pretty amazing that materials science (lighter, carbon-fiber aircraft; hotter, more efficient/powerful turbines) has made this economic. Concorde never was. NYC-LON seems like the one market where this enables something fundamentally new (well, Concorde did); single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart. Transpacific flights would be nice, too, but cutting an alre…

If they could make it quiet enough to go over land, transcontinental US flights would be great; LA/NY in 2.5 hours would likely have a pretty high demand. [edit] As someone who flies LA/DC fairly regularly I do have to mention my favorite record of the SR-71 doing that flight in under 65 minutes.

I wonder if the "no booms over land" rule will always remain in force. When I was a child, the planes from Whiteman AFB broke that rule quite often. It was interesting to hear the boom over the phone when speaking with a school friend who lived say eight miles away, and then immediately hear the whole house shaking when the plane got to my end of the circuit. It would have been annoying at night, I suppose, but during the day it was not a hardship. These military planes made no particular effort to climb to high altitude before breaking the barrier, either. While the area I'm talking about is rural, it's much more heavily populated than are e.g. the Great Plains.

So, I think that high-altitude sparse-population daytime routes could be developed that would admit supersonic flight over much of North America.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#72

Post by 13of40 »

caractacus wrote: post #23

The photo of the engineer in what is clearly a cardboard mock-up: http://boom.aero/assets/boom-3-cd0822d52cb5c9ecaac404d5cfd09... .... does not inspire confidence.

There might even be a wooden plane or two before they get around to actual carbon fiber and metal.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/assembly-of-bombardie...

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#73

Post by ElijahLynn »

AdamFernandez wrote: post #61
NickM wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Bad" names can attract lots of attention. Perhaps they're more interested in turning heads than setting up the best possible brand connotations.

The best possible brand connotations are an interesting way of putting it. When you are trying to get a company off the ground (figuratively) that is experimental in nature and will require a lot of capital investment, why hinder yourself with this 'bad' name right out of the gate? There are any number of edgy names they could have picked that people didn't associate with the last thing you want to have happen on an…

I didn't associate it with anything negative the first time when I saw the headline. Didn't even think about it being a bad name till I read the comment.

Not sure as many people will think it is negative as you think.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#74

Post by JorgeGT »

doctorcroc wrote: post #7
themgt wrote: post #3

Sorry but is "Boom" really a good name for an aircraft company? I get it's supersonic, but my first association was an exploding airplane.

I agree with you - why not choose a more "boring" name that would make passengers feel more safe?

Like air coach or air bus or something?

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#75

Post by ohitsdom »

staceymakano wrote: post #18

And the environmental impact is... what? Amazing that this is not a consideration, especially since we are now in emergency territory: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/global-wa... It's great for you to leave SF in the morning, go to Sydney to watch the opera and be back in SF by midnight. But is the environmental impact of you doing that worth it for everyone else?

Definitely worth mentioning in the article, but not a big concern. Even if this plane actually comes to market and is successful according to their wildest hopes, it'll only be a very tiny fraction of the aviation market. This is due to many factors: small cabin, limited capacity, limited routes (only over water)...

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#76

Post by Someone »

rdl wrote: post #9

Pretty amazing that materials science (lighter, carbon-fiber aircraft; hotter, more efficient/powerful turbines) has made this economic. Concorde never was. NYC-LON seems like the one market where this enables something fundamentally new (well, Concorde did); single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart. Transpacific flights would be nice, too, but cutting an alre…

"Pretty amazing that materials science has made this economic."

That, I think, still is an open question. Someone must think there is a decent chance it will be, but if this were a no-brainer, there would be multiple players in this market. Also, oil price fluctuations, the bane of any airline company, will hit those running these planes harder.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#77

Post by partisan »

rdl wrote: post #9

Pretty amazing that materials science (lighter, carbon-fiber aircraft; hotter, more efficient/powerful turbines) has made this economic. Concorde never was. NYC-LON seems like the one market where this enables something fundamentally new (well, Concorde did); single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart. Transpacific flights would be nice, too, but cutting an alre…

> I personally would generally prefer an F cabin + great Ka-band Internet for 14h, vs. a coach/Concorde sized seat for 7h.

Agreed. I spent 5 of the most uncomfortable hours of my life on an airplane from JFK to San Diego, being 6'1 and not particularly slim. Thereafter, I upgraded my seats on that flight to Economy Plus. I guess I could stand a 2 hour flight like that, but not too much more. Getting me there faster, but in a more cramped space won't make me feel better.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#78

Post by ElijahLynn »

StavrosK wrote: post #64
rdl wrote: post #9

Pretty amazing that materials science (lighter, carbon-fiber aircraft; hotter, more efficient/powerful turbines) has made this economic. Concorde never was. NYC-LON seems like the one market where this enables something fundamentally new (well, Concorde did); single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart. Transpacific flights would be nice, too, but cutting an alre…

> single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart. Was the LON-NYC flight time the problem, though? I think that to go door-to-door right now you spend 50% of the time in the air and the other 50% on the ground. With this company, you'll be spending 3.5 hours in the air and 8 hours getting to and from airports and through security.

I would think that the people that can afford this have Uber helicopter service to/from the airport and all the line skipping extras paid for already. Not sure it is really 8 hours to and from airports/security.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#79

Post by ido »

rdl wrote: post #9

Pretty amazing that materials science (lighter, carbon-fiber aircraft; hotter, more efficient/powerful turbines) has made this economic. Concorde never was. NYC-LON seems like the one market where this enables something fundamentally new (well, Concorde did); single-day business trips between two major business centers which were otherwise a full day apart. Transpacific flights would be nice, too, but cutting an alre…

The top speed of a 747 is 0.85 Mach, so it should cut the duration by more than 2x.

Re: Boom (YC W16) – Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

#80

Post by spaceflunky »

jakozaur wrote: post #4

Great idea, but even with optimistic assumptions it will require a lot of capital. Something in order of SpaceX $100 mln to get first commercial plane.

> We're building our prototype now—and will fly late next year.

Will fly late next year? Where have I heard that one before...

Post reply on HN