Boom announces successful flight of XB-1 demonstrator aircraft

https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/inaugural-first-flight-xb1-supersonic-demonstrator

by rbanffy • 2 years ago

479 404 2 years ago

lupusreal• 2 years ago

Site won't load, but I assume this was just a subsonic flight, gear down, etc? A major technical milestone for sure, but I think the real trick with their proposal is the economic viability of such a plane.

stetrain• 2 years ago

Yes:

XB-1 met all of its test objectives, including safely and successfully achieving an altitude of 7,120 feet and speeds up to 238 knots (273 mph)

kelnos• 2 years ago

I noticed that bit in the video -- gear down -- why is that? Just to avoid one possible point of failure, the gear failing to deploy properly for landing?

fgblanch• 2 years ago

I had the same question. I guess too is a common protocol. Any insights on why these flights are gears down?

reso• 2 years ago

Yes. The bet is still that the airlines can find viable routes to fly with a vehicle that creates sonic booms.

mikepurvis6• 2 years ago

Japan Airlines is a logical customer then— they'd be flying all over the Pacific where none of that matters.

ben7799• 2 years ago

Turn off your ad blocker. For some reason it didn't load till I turned it off.

There are no ads on the page, but there must be something nefarious.

rvz• 2 years ago

Great company building actual difficult technologies.

What engine are they using this time in their supersonic aircrafts? Last time I checked, Rolls-Royce abandoned Boom as their engine supplier.

[0] https://simpleflying.com/rolls-royce-quits-boom-supersonic-e...

zitterbewegung2• 2 years ago

On their main page they referencing the following:

XB-1’s carbon composite and titanium fuselage is propelled by three General Electric J85 engines. [1]

[1] https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1

TylerE2• 2 years ago

In the prototype, which far from full scale.

LarsDu883• 2 years ago

Hmmm. Augmented reality display, Carbon fiber frame, supersonic intakes...

And 3 J85-15 jet engines designed in the 1950s (?)

I remember reading about these J85 engines in an issue of Popular Mechanics roughly 20 years ago. This engine was designed to be cheap and small enough to fit in a carry-on suitcase circa 1955. They are best known for powering the F5 "low-budget fighter" from 1959.

Crazy that a new aircraft is launching with such new tech, but still rocking engines that were fundamentally designed around 10 years after the dawn of jet aircraft.

TotempaaltJ• 2 years ago

If it ain't broke...

madmask• 2 years ago

It warms my heart seeing old designs still working just fine.

KolmogorovComp2• 2 years ago

They are not testing the engines here (which they will not be manufacturing anyway), but the aerodynamics and the systems.

zitterbewegung2• 2 years ago

Well since Rolls-Royce abandoned the project that might be why? This seems like more of a proof of concept of the airframe itself.

phonon• 2 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Symphony aren't ready yet.

rbanffy12• 2 years ago

Meh... I'll take whatever supersonic passenger transport is offered, but Mach 1.7 is disappointing.

jameshart4• 2 years ago

Why did they design it to fit in a carry on suitcase?

kube-system3• 2 years ago

Because you have to be able to take them on the plane, obviously. /s

But seriously I think 'fitting in a suitcase' wasn't the design goal, per se, but an approximate description of the design goals. The engine was designed to go in a missile.

pnw• 2 years ago

As I understand it, engine sourcing has been one of Boom's challenges. Rolls Royce was originally working on an engine for them, but cancelled it in '22. Boom announced their own engine design last year but I'm assuming that's not ready.

Apparently newer engines aren't designed for supersonic flight so I'm guessing options are limited for testing this airframe.

JumpCrisscross6• 2 years ago

Boom announced their own engine design last year but I'm assuming that's not ready

The complexity of designing an engine is comparable to that of designing an airframe.

spxneo2• 2 years ago

my spider sense is already tingling from reading this!

do we know the reason for why rolls royce pulled out???

mc32• 2 years ago

Do they have the metallurgical expertise to manufacture their own engines? That would seem like a stretch… but who knows…

trebligdivad• 2 years ago

Yeh, although on https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/inaugural-first-flight-xb1-... they say 'Supersonic intakes: XB-1’s engine intakes slow supersonic air to subsonic speeds, efficiently converting kinetic energy into pressure energy, allowing conventional jet engines to power XB-1 from takeoff through supersonic flight.' - so perhaps the engine design problem is not as tricky as it would otherwise be.

JumpCrisscross6• 2 years ago

Hermeus is starting with the engine [1].

[1] https://www.hermeus.com/

rbanffy12• 2 years ago

Smart - if you fail to develop an airframe, you can still sell engines. The other way around is much more difficult.

pandemicsyn• 2 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyKtxsdI0z8 but even they're using relatively old engines as the starting point. Because they're simple and well understood.

kilroy1232• 2 years ago

Personally, I'm far more bullish on hermeus than I am Boom.

llsf• 2 years ago

Yet still based on GE J85 turbojet https://www.hermeus.com/chimera

brcmthrowaway2• 2 years ago

Can we get LLMs to design the engine?

ortusdux• 2 years ago

Edit: I replied to the wrong comment. Hermes chose to start with the same engine as Boom - The J85. I'm assuming Boom chose it for similar reasons.

I like their explanation of the choice from a recent tour:

(Youtube transcript)

"So these are out of production, the J 85s. So we didn't work with GE at all. It was all just us working with, we were really working with the maintenance, repair and overhaul shops for them. That's really where the expertise and knowledge lies. These engines were, I think originally designed in the fifties. There's not a lot of electronics on board. There's no firmware we have to work through.

And really, it's a pretty elegant but hydro mechanical system for all the controls. So really it was about understanding the configuration of it and you can kind of chase down all the different tubes and everything to understand how it works. And then there's a suite of documentation out there. So it was really on us to learn how it worked."

https://youtu.be/UyKtxsdI0z8?si=EFAcdq8OzEpVH6Vz&t=1230

rbanffy12• 2 years ago

Crazy that a new aircraft is launching with such new tech, but still rocking engines that were fundamentally designed around 10 years after the dawn of jet aircraft.

Their goal is to prove the design's aerodynamics WRT sonic boom, not the engines.

bell-cot• 2 years ago

This is their 1/3-scale test/demo airplane. Spending big on engines for it would not make sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_XB-1

1letterunixname2• 2 years ago

Exactly. The real thing™ will have their custom Symphony jets.

The XB-1 is a tech and systems demonstrator platform cheaper than big design upfront and costs (and risks) all at once.

sandworm10110• 2 years ago

> Augmented reality vision system: Two nose-mounted cameras, digitally augmented with attitude and flight path indications, feed a high resolution pilot display enabling excellent runway visibility. This system enables improved aerodynamic efficiency without the weight and complexity of a movable nose.

(Cough) Don't tell the passengers it is all because the pilot literally cannot see the runway during landing.

JumpCrisscross6• 2 years ago

because the pilot literally cannot see the runway during landing

ILS solved this problem for airline transport pilots [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system

philwelch3• 2 years ago

Didn’t the Concorde have a droop snoot for the same reason?

NegativeLatency• 2 years ago

Probably a good engine choice because it's plentiful, and used on other similar aircraft, for example their T-38 chase plane uses the same engine.

B4CKlash• 2 years ago

High tech manufacturing at scale is often equally as challenging as development work. Starting with a proven design let's teams focus on leveling up their manufacturing capabilities prior to introducing the double complexity of manufacturing a part that just made it out of CDR.

A bit of a tangent, but this is the genius of Musk's Merlin engine. Simple design utilizing RP9 allows the manufacturing staff to hit their stride before introducing the raptor (methalox).

api• 2 years ago

Falcon 9's Merlin engine is really just based on a NASA reference design for a simpler low cost rocket engine. Raptor is new tech, but that was long after SpaceX had proven itself and had the capital and talent to invest in building something like that.

It makes total sense to use flight proven engines like this off the shelf at first.

HumblyTossed• 2 years ago

If they work, I don't understand the issue. Not everything has to be modern to be useful.

FrustratedMonky2• 2 years ago

I don't think people here understand how old a lot of the designs are that they use everyday.

Old Design + New Materials can still be cutting edge

fnord77• 2 years ago

This engine was designed to be cheap and small enough to fit in a carry-on suitcase circa 1955.

Not quite...

" a jet engine that’s all of 18 inches wide and 45 inches long."

sandworm10110• 2 years ago

While I acknowledge the cool factor, I don't like what Boom is doing. We should be looking at making air travel more efficient, reducing the energy/emissions per passenger-mile flown. We don't need to invent ways to make luxury travel by the rarified few ever more expensive and damaging.

bowmessage• 2 years ago

Overture is designed to run on up to 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

jameshart4• 2 years ago

“Designed to run on up to 100%” says nothing about what percentage it will in practice operate on in service.

I am capable of running on a sustainable diet of 100% nutrient balanced meals and a strictly controlled daily calorie intake. In practice, I’m operating on a mixture of pizza and Oreos right now.

apendleton2• 2 years ago

If SAFs are to be economically viable at all, they'll almost certainly need to be able to run in existing, unmodified engines. So: all engines will be able to run on some amount of SAFs anywhere for 0% to 100%, as will this new engine. This statement has no information content whatsoever.

mikepurvis6• 2 years ago

Unfortunately, I think the route to more efficiency is funneling people to massive hub airports where widebody planes carry them on less frequent runs to other hubs— but that results in longer boarding times, less flexible schedules, and more stopovers, none of which the market wants.

So instead we have a bunch of smaller "commuter" jets making point-to-point trips, many of which are short enough that they really should be trains, not air travel. And that's a whole other issue. Sigh.

rbanffy12• 2 years ago

many of which are short enough that they really should be trains

That's a good point, but rail infrastructure is very expensive to build and, unlike planes, where you only need to build the destinations, you need to build every route.

Anyway, the future of short commuter flights is electric.

sandworm10110• 2 years ago

A supersonic passenger jet would not find much of market on short haul flights. They would either stick to the dense pockets of wealth, the biggest airports beside the biggest cities, or rely on feeder airports to bring passengers in. Either way, I don't see this saving much in actual travel time over the current system.

wolverine8765• 2 years ago

If planes are full, how can it be more efficient to fly my ~200 lbs (including lots of luggage!) from point A to B to C, adding extra distance and another takeoff, rather than directly from A to C?

Are widebody planes that much more efficient?

jahewson2• 2 years ago

Dreamliner prevailing over the A380 already disproved that.

Espressosaurus• 2 years ago

Agreed. For noise reasons as well, I'd like to see these kinds of efforts get shut down.

rockemsockem5• 2 years ago

NASA is working on designs to significantly reduce noise from breaking the sound barrier, which I'm sure will inform changing requirements for supersonic flight over the United States. Right now the regulation is a very strict "you cannot fly supersonic over the US", except military aircraft of course

kylehotchkiss3• 2 years ago

Noise is a valid complaint but where these planes will really shine is oceanic flights, USA to Japan, Australia, Singapore are 3 routes mostly over ocean or uninhabited areas that could use the reduced travel time.

greggroth• 2 years ago

I think their sights are set on military contracts (I believe they already have some military funding) and commercial aviation is a way to fund the development.

jjk166• 2 years ago

Seems a little silly, the military is exempt from the regulatory burden they're spending a fortune to work around and has extremely deep pockets. It would be much easier to start with military contracts and establish everything they need to make supersonic planes and then transition that to civilian supersonic planes then to try and do everything and then some with no revenue and an unproven business plan.

mrguyorama3• 2 years ago

Military supersonics just aren't that important. We don't have Mach 3+ planes anymore not because we forgot or some nonsense, but because the things we used them for we now use space for: Need to spy on someone? The USSR is less happy to shoot a satellite out of the sky (this will change soon) than Mr. Powers in a plane. Want to nuke someone in a few minutes? ICBMs are mature technology.

So what are they supposedly offering the military?

notahacker4• 2 years ago

It would make a lot more sense to do that the other way round...

maccaw• 2 years ago

Why should we make it more efficient? Why not make more energy from clean sources first?

rbanffy12• 2 years ago

That's what sustainable air fuel is. There is a lot being done to certify existing engines to run on it. Moving to an incompatible power source (such as hydrogen) isn't feasible because it would require scrapping the current fleets (and well maintained planes live longer than their pilots).

shmatt• 2 years ago

Pretty much everything we use daily were introduced to "regular people" as a luxury product for the 0.1%. Even personal computers

Eventually companies are able to scale things

filleduchaos2• 2 years ago

Eventually companies are able to scale things

Companies generally don't scale things very well beyond the boundaries set by physics.

rockemsockem5• 2 years ago

They are making air travel more efficient. More time efficient. That's great for everyone flying, but also great for airlines. The last three flights I've been on arrived significantly ahead of schedule and were going much faster than usual. I assume this was to get the pilot to the location ASAP so they can fly again sooner.

Also how do you not see supersonic flight as just generally good for everyone flying? I want to sit in a plane for less time, always.

sandworm10110• 2 years ago

> how do you not see supersonic flight as just generally good for everyone flying

Because it require vastly more energy (fuel) per mile than most any other form of travel. Because the aircraft carry fewer people per takeoff/landing cycle, congesting airports.

Those who care about time can already travel at much greater speeds. Door-to-door travel times for first class, and especially private, are already about 1/3 to 1/2 that of the common economy passenger on a domestic flight. If we wanted to speed up the process, the easy fruit is the speed of the airport rather than the aircraft.

ghaff7• 2 years ago

I want to sit in a plane for less time, always.

In principle, yes? I also want to sit/lay more comfortably. I also want to pay less money. In general, halving my in-air time is honestly not worth a lot.

nradov• 2 years ago

When scheduled commercial flights arrive ahead of time it's because ground delays were less than average and/or winds were favorable. Airlines don't control those factors and don't really account for them in crew scheduling. They can sometimes cruise at slightly higher speeds to make up a bit of time when running behind schedule, but this comes at the cost of higher fuel burn and can only save a few minutes at most.

mlsu• 2 years ago

For a coast to coast flight, at least 30-40% of the flight time is spent getting to the airport earlier to de-risk the TSA line, or standing in the TSA line. Or, going outside to hail a cab to the airport, sitting in airport traffic, and driving to and from the airport.

For a 5h flight from LAX -> JFK, approx 3-5 hours is spent doing these things.

So, to shorten the 8-10h of an LA to NYC trip, the easiest possible thing to do is... build a f%@#$ train.

class3shock20• 2 years ago

Flying faster is fundamentally less efficient and thus worse for the environment.

t0lo• 2 years ago

The morally negligent corporate poster is my favourite mainstay of this site

lettergram• 2 years ago

While I acknowledge the cool factor, I don't like what Boom is doing. We should be looking at making air travel more efficient, reducing the energy/emissions per passenger-mile flown. We don't need to invent ways to make luxury travel by the rarified few ever more expensive and damaging.

Didn't they say it could run on sustainable fuel?

I'm sorry, but I want to maximize my (and really all humans) time on this Earth, if that costs energy, that's the cost. I wouldn't be concerned about emissions per passenger-mile as that's nothing more than a rounding error in "emissions". You're welcome to walk / swim from San Francisco to Europe, but don't expect me to.

sandworm10110• 2 years ago

> Didn't they say it could run on sustainable fuel?

The same can be said about my car/boat/monster truck/jet fighter and anything else that pumps out carbon. The average jet engine can be tuned to run rather well on olive oil. "Can run on X" is a far cry from "actually runs on X".

jocaal• 2 years ago

I'm sorry, but I want to maximize my (and really all humans) time on this Earth, if that costs energy, that's the cost

But by using too much energy, you are reducing the expected lifespan of future generations. I can't tell if your being sarcastic. Tragedy of the commons.

samatman• 2 years ago

There's no "we" here. You're not a part of Boom, and I daresay you aren't working to make commercial air travel more efficient either. You're kibitzing.

moralestapia• 2 years ago

Thanks, I shrug whenever I read "we"s used liberally here and there.

kilroy1232• 2 years ago

I disagree. The world badly needs new players in aviation shaking things up.

I'm very happy to see boom existing and trying to do what they're doing.

Plus, as someone who has done many long haul flights, I badly want this. (flying one in two weeks)

spxneo2• 2 years ago

I also disagree. As a fan of aviation, theres never enough experiments going on. We need to stop it with this carbon virtue signaling when everyone of us here would be glad to own a used 2017 Bombardier Global 6000

I applaud Boom's efforts I just don't know if its viable because if Airbus isn't working on it then it probably isn't safe/worth the insurance upkeep.

kylehotchkiss3• 2 years ago

Plenty of people around the world have legitimate needs to travel via airplane. Think about the millions of immigrants in USA with family abroad. Tech to better connect the world is worth celebrating.

rqtwteye• 2 years ago

That tech exists already. Those immigrants don't need/can't afford supersonic travel.

multimoon• 2 years ago

That’s one of the most shortsighted views I’ve seen in awhile.

They are making air travel more efficient. Improvements in aircraft aerodynamics and engine efficiency to achieve supersonic flight can sometimes apply backwards and make a normal plane more efficient. We can apply some of the same technologies to shorten runways and reduce the sprawling layout airports need. There’s so many places technology like this can go that it’s insane we ever stopped researching it.

Writing it off because of vague fear-mongered potential environmental impacts is silly. As another commenter said, you can swim to Europe if you’d like but I will take the supersonic jet personally.

trollerator23• 2 years ago

There are so many commies in HN that I have to think that's deliberate. That's gotta be state actors at play. CCP?

Like, who the f*k cares? There are other companies working on that too.

Extropy_3• 2 years ago

They're everywhere here. It sucks.

jrflowers• 2 years ago

I’ve always found the best way to fight for American freedoms is to post “CCP?” at people that I disagree with on the internet. These cyber actors may be well trained but they cannot stand up to the rigor of my investigative methods

anomaly_• 2 years ago

110%. The libertarian/anarchist hacker ethos is dead.

__loam• 2 years ago

Boom is specifically working on efficient and affordable supersonic flight. This isn't the 1980s.

foxyv5• 2 years ago

To be honest, the best air travel is high speed rail. Replacing regional flights with train trips would save so much energy and reduce emissions monstrously. I'm not even worried about these supersonic flights to be honest. They are 40 planes out of over ten thousand in service today.

Now, if Boom was working on a supersonic train? That would be AMAZING!

VelesDude2• 2 years ago

While yes this is a pessimistic take on it, the book 'Dark Age America' called out the problems of the original Concord and I think it applies to Boom as well. The authors argument being that Boeing pulling out of the 2707 SST project, while at the time was seen as a massive loss, turned out to be one of the smartest moves they had done in the space.

Yes, super sonic flight and things like Boom are a massive technical achievement, there is no doubt about that. But, we should not conflate technical capabilities with economic viability. Concord was very technically viable, but it was an economic white elephant.

This thing could see a role in the luxury space but I don't think we can reconcile the issue of brute forcing physics and cheap transport for the masses.

switchbak• 2 years ago

Hermeus is ostensibly going after the super/hypersonic commercial transport market too, but something seems kind of off with that approach (to me).

Their quarterhorse demo aircraft has plenty of utility in a variety of unmanned military roles. To such a degree that the civilian transport angle seems like kind of a distraction in this current era of military ramp-up.

Maybe it's just a hedge so they can keep their toes in two markets simultaneously and perhaps appeal to investment via those different interests.

notatoad• 2 years ago

We don't need to invent ways to make luxury travel by the rarified few ever more expensive and damaging.

you do if you're the Saudi government and you're worried about finding way to prop up declining demand for fossil fuels

https://youtu.be/aT0r_yJafmg?si=0aPDghhuU6RUaNNY&t=780 (obnoxious youtuber voice warning)

slide 25 here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24175697-osp-opportu...

csharpminor• 2 years ago

Boom (and supersonic aircraft) are a strategic investment priority for Saudi Arabia to sustain demand for oil. If that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know about their impact on emissions I don’t know what else does.

lizardking• 2 years ago

Who is "we" exactly?

nemo44x4• 2 years ago

Certainly a Stalinist “Who, whom” thing here. This assumption of collectivism and that the “we” are not only a thing but actually a decision maker is presumptuous at minimum. That there’s some “we” that knows best!

futhey• 2 years ago

Every single other major jet manufacturer is already making air travel cheaper and more efficient every year. It's all airlines who buy from Boeing or Airbus care about. The underserved niche is premium and small, not scale. Commercial aircraft will get 1% more efficient every year with or without new companies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#/medi...).

If we start in supersonic today, and innovate at the same pace for 20 years, you might match the efficiency boom from the "jet age" and make supersonic twice as efficient as today.

sn9• 2 years ago

The future is probably gonna be carbon neutral jetfuel synethesized with solar energy and air capture.

https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2023/06/26/the-ter...

nemo44x4• 2 years ago

“We”. Then do it. “They” obviously see a market for their product where “you” aren’t the object.

Who is “we”?

KolmogorovComp2• 2 years ago

Any news on the powerplant-side? Which is one if not the most critical part of the plane for commercial success. Didn't GE dropped the ball a while ago? I still see them mentioned in their website https://boomsupersonic.com/symphony

stavros• 2 years ago

Can you call it a supersonic aircraft if it hasn't broken the sound barrier yet? I assume they mean it's intended to be supersonic.

kylehotchkiss3• 2 years ago

Probably shouldn’t put the throttle to 100% on a brand new airplane.

apendleton2• 2 years ago

If you're building a submarine, you don't have to call it a "future submarine" until it submerges; people understand that if you say "I'm currently building a submarine," it has yet to go under water, but the thing you're building is still a submarine. I think that's generally true of not-yet-built or not-yet-used things: it's understood that if it hasn't done the thing yet, you're describing what it's going to be/do.

stephenitis• 2 years ago

I couldn't stop thinking that the name of the company is going to be unfortunate, brand killing, one day if they have a incident

bambax• 2 years ago

Even without incident, it's a poor choice of brand for a product most people associate with the deafening sound of the sound barrier being broken. It's what killed its predecessor.

wrsh074• 2 years ago

My understanding is the the Concorde wasn't profitable to fly (too large!)

You can fly subsonic over land and go supersonic over oceans. That would make a trip to Japan much faster! And won't impact humans living underneath the flight path (since it won't go supersonic until it's over the ocean)

Flights these days often aren't even traveling close to the speed of sound, so there's room to design a plane more efficient at that speed as well.

Implicated• 2 years ago

the deafening sound of the sound barrier being broken

As someone who grew up hearing sonic booms all the time this is very puzzling to me. I keep seeing mentions of how the sonic boom is such a huge issue... really?

jollyllama• 2 years ago

They're setting themselves up to get "Ok Boomer"'d

I can't help but imagine people used to think about these things, but they haven't for a while. I remember checking what was on the in-flight radio ~8 years ago to hear "Love when you hit the ground, girl."

Ekaros• 2 years ago

To me this just looks like civilian fighter plane... Quite far still to go to any real capacity even as business yet competitor...

rbanffy12• 2 years ago

It's intended to validate their design models. The next one will be much bigger.

FredPret• 2 years ago

As a consumer, the pain-point of flying isn't that the plane is slow (although it'd be nice to go faster) - it's the slap-dash construction of the planes. I know it's safe statistically, but I just can't stomach entrusting my life to a system that lets Boeing's many ridiculous failures through the cracks.

The other major issue is having to be at the airport hours early, and the planes can't fix that.

jmb994• 2 years ago

While the planes can’t fix needing to show up at the airport early, business class fares (usually) help. Priority security and priority checkin mean that, while you can’t show up 5 minutes before your flight, you also don’t need to show up 3 hours early. And, if you do, you have a lounge to relax in with as much food and drink as you can swallow while you wait.

I would imagine that every seat on these flights would be a business or first class fare (as I don’t see any other way they can make money), and would get you all of those benefits.

neom2• 2 years ago

The blog post didn't really explain what an XB-1 is or what it's for, but the wikipedia page helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_XB-1

justinator2• 2 years ago

From the marketing fluff,

"Supersonic intakes: XB-1’s engine intakes slow supersonic air to subsonic speeds, efficiently converting kinetic energy into pressure energy, allowing conventional jet engines to power XB-1 from takeoff through supersonic flight."

I'm under the impression that's something most jet engines do.

TylerE2• 2 years ago

Most jets aren’t supersonic at all.

rbanffy12• 2 years ago

I don't think the air intake speed of a subsonic plane is ever supersonic.

justinator2• 2 years ago

Most air intakes of jet engines are designed to slow airflow/compress the air (which was my point - my apologies for being oblique)

pictureofabear2• 2 years ago

Yes, this is what every supersonic intake does. The leading edge of the intake for supersonic flows is meant to create an oblique shockwave that reflects off the other parts of the intake to progressively slow the flow to subsonic speeds before reaching the front of the engine. Fixed intakes, like the one on the XB-1, are optimized for a certain speed.

The gap between the intake and the fuselage diverts the dirty boundary layer air so that the intake is more efficient.

class3shock20• 2 years ago

It sounds like marketing fluff, which I think alot of their site is, but this is a real thing. As soon as you start flying faster than sound you have to do extra work on the intake for your engine you wouldn't otherwise need to do (put simply).

pie4202• 2 years ago

This will never make it past prototype stages, unfortunately. Realistically, you need federal involvement to make something like this happen, a la concorde. I could see the US government getting involved for nationalism purposes if China starts actually building jets in large numbers to reassert US manufacturing supremacy.

It was sexy marketing for the Concorde to travel between NYC and Paris/London back in the 70s-90s. Today however, with the emergence of the middle east as a major travel hub, would supersonic travel be viable there? Dubai-Singapore? Dubai-Doha? Dubai-Moscow? Europe to Middle east wouldn't work due to having to fly over europe, right?

Also, is there enough luxury/high speed travel demand between asia and the north american west coast for something like this? It's nice to leave north america in the evening, sleep 8 hours, and arrive as the plane is landing in tokyo. Is there any demand to be get to Tokyo in 6-7ish hours?

It seems like the people that can afford 20-30k tickets can also afford to fly private, and with the internet there's much less need to be in person for making deals. Sadly, until fuel costs become negligible and they can make supersonic airplanes hold 200+ people, i think most people would rather fly private or fly first class on an A380 than on a cramped Overture.

wrsh074• 2 years ago

Why assume "cramped overture"? What if overture feels like first class but is ~faster?

I suspect fast planes are going to have an enormous amount of demand - people value their time. What's the most important part of travel? The flight cost? The lodging? The days off of work?

cocostation• 2 years ago

The Boom website has images of the proposed Overture cabin. Looks like international first class.

kwhitefoot2• 2 years ago

If people value their time how come there was no serious appetite for upgrading and eventually replacing Concorde decades ago?

After all they could have just built improved versions of them and had fleets of them flying across the Atlantic, perhaps even a larger extended range version for trans-Pacific routes.

And if time is really the driver how come Boom Overture is going to be slower than Concorde?

wolverine8765• 2 years ago

I could see the US government getting involved for nationalism purposes if China starts

If only that inspired the US to build high-speed rail.

Animats• 2 years ago

They beat Lockheed's X-59 to first flight. That was rolled out on January 12th, but it hasn't flown yet.

There are enough billionaires now to support making supersonic bizjets. They will mostly be a status cymbal.

wolverine8765• 2 years ago

The question always for the user is, do they want a crash or a ride? :)

exogeny• 2 years ago

This is absolute comedy gold and I wanted you to know that I saw it and appreciated it.

dangoodmanUT• 2 years ago

Why are the gears still down?

mnw21cam2• 2 years ago

For the first test flight of an aircraft, it's quite common to test a very limited set of parts of the aircraft, and retracting the gear might not be on that list. Also, if the gear is left down, then that's one less thing that could go wrong while the pilot is still getting used to an aircraft with a very different feel to anything they have flown before.

jmb994• 2 years ago

On the first test flight you want to minimize risk as much as possible - there’s many, many things that can go wrong, so adding variables is a bad idea. Landing gear can’t get stuck up if it’s never retracted.

class3shock20• 2 years ago

From wiki:

"On June 3, 2021, United Airlines announced they had signed an agreement to purchase 15 Overture aircraft with an additional 35 options, expecting to start passenger flights by 2029.[14][15] On August 16, 2022, American Airlines announced an agreement to purchase 20 Overture aircraft with an additional 40 options.[16]"

later on...

"On December 13, 2022, Boom announced that it would develop its own turbofan engine after "Big Three" engine manufacturers Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric, as well as CFM and Safran previously declined to develop a new engine due to high capital costs.[29][30][31][32] Named Symphony, (see § Engines below) the engine will be developed under partnership with three entities: Kratos subsidiary Florida Turbine Technologies for engine design; StandardAero for maintenance; and General Electric subsidiary GE Additive for consulting on printing components.[33]"

So not only do they think they are going to finish designing, prototyping, testing, certifying, and moving to production an entirely new aircraft, they also think they are going to design a brand new engine, that the big three didn't think made sense and also get it through all those efforts? All in the next 5 years?

If it doesn't come to anything, which seems likely, atleast it sounds like a fun way to spend lots of money.

OrwellianChild2• 2 years ago

One dynamic that may be at play: Designing a new engine is a gamble. For a company who already makes money with existing designs, there may be little upside on a small-volume new product. This is likely the reason the "Big 3" passed on designing an engine they don't have an off-the-shelf option for.

Boom would probably be the primary beneficiary of such an engine existing, so it isn't all that surprising that they will have to fund the development. The second supersonic airframe that can use their engine would be the one to turn that R&D profitable for Boom (and ease the introduction of more supersonic airframe options).

twobitshifter• 2 years ago

Also, boom could have asked for exclusive terms that they didn’t like.

class3shock20• 2 years ago

I would agree that the big three didn't think they could make it work, be that for technical reasons, money reasons, limited market reasons, etc. the end result is the same.

Where I would disagree is that Boom can make it work. The amount of specialized knowledge you need in design and analysis as well as test and manufacturing facilities makes it near impossible for an outsider get in the game. Which is why there aren't any in the commercial jet engine space. GE, PW, RR and I guess Safran is pretty much it. You can't just decide you are going to do the R&D yourself and pop out a new engine in 5 years.

aeyes• 2 years ago

Wasn't one of the Boom selling points that their aircraft would use conventional engines? Now they are developing their own...

hcks• 2 years ago

« It’s never possible to innovate » This is currently the top comment on news.ycombinator.com

greenthrow• 2 years ago

So I can count on you to invest in my new startup that will be inventing human flight without any extraneous equipment right?

lelandbatey• 2 years ago

I think this is a grand tradition on this fair site. I think we all are looking forward to whatever's coming next.

class3shock20• 2 years ago

It's always possible to innovate. It just happens that often the people claiming too are mostly innovating at separating people from their money. If you want to chat why I think this is more the later than the former feel free to reach out, I love talking aerospace.

Zigurd2• 2 years ago

Delusional project planning kills products and companies. How many years before Starship rockets achieve rapid reuse after being caught by launch tower chopsticks and are reflown quickly enough to supply a yet to be designed and launched orbiting fuel station before the fuel and oxidizer boil off so that Starship can go beyond Earth orbit?

The critical path will bite you in the ass especially if your idea of project management comes from software projects. If you pile on enough dependencies, especially on untried concepts, you might not know which possible critical path will bite the hardest.

jahewson2• 2 years ago

It’s not always economical though. When you have the top jet engine manufacturers in the world turning down your business the time has come to ask some tough questions.

This is old technology, we know how to do this - what we’ve not figured out is how to make it profitable. There were supposed to be 350 Concorde built but we got 14. Operating an Airline is a brutal business now matter how cool the planes may be.

ryanwaggoner• 2 years ago

That’s not at all what they said.

And the history of aerospace is littered with companies that made lofty claims, raised a bunch of money, and eventually went under. When Boom launched eight years ago, they were telling investors they were going to have a prototype flying in two years. For anyone who has any experience in aerospace, this is unrealistic to the point of being fraudulent. People said as much back then [1]. And sure enough, it took eight years, not two. And the actual hard parts are still ahead of them!

99% chance the full-size supersonic aircraft never flies, and 100% chance it won’t be before 2035.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11334780

Robotbeat3• 2 years ago

Note that SpaceX did this. They developed their own engines (altho initial 5 flights did get a 3rd party built turbopump, analogous to XB-1, I suppose), developed their own highly vertically integrated rocket, and offered launch services. Now, RocketLab does the same and they’re being joined by Firefly, Blue Origin, and Relativity, all being at least F9-level reusable eventually.

Everyone takes for granted launch vehicles being “easier” than airliners now, but go back to the 1990s and the attitude would’ve been switched (PARTICULARLY high-rate and economic reusable launch vehicles, which were considered virtually unattainable).

I think it’s totally doable to make both an airliner and an engine, and the main reason we don’t think so is successful PR by old aerospace primes.

woah• 2 years ago

Why have China and India been struggling to make jet engines for decades?

lobochrome• 2 years ago

Flying an engine once before a quick refurbish without risking human life isn’t the same as flying an engine for weeks before any significant downtime/maintenance.

It’s a very different optimization task.

class3shock20• 2 years ago

First, to certify a new aircraft takes 5-9 years (source below).

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certific...

Lets say they are really good and they are ready to test fly in 3 years to meet that 5 year goal (which I'll tell you right now is not happening), they still need engines. 3 years to design, develop, and build a clean sheet engine. It took GE and Safran (CFM) 10 years between the announcement of the LEAP and its certification:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_LEAP

So no, it is quite unlikely that a company with no experience in commercial jet engines (Florida Turbines, subsidiary of Kratos) will be able to field the equivalent of a modern day concord engine in 3 years. I would say the main reason people think it could be is successful PR from new startups.

remarkEon2• 2 years ago

and the main reason we don’t think so is successful PR by old aerospace primes.

It's partly that, and also partly that making engines successful is a different business. For capital intensive industries, it's natural that they separate and consolidate into specialties, which is why you see things work they way they do today. SpaceX is probably the exception that prove the rule, at least for space access. It would be nice to see Boom become that same exception for passenger jet aircraft. For obvious reasons, given the ongoings with Boeing.

anovikov• 2 years ago

SpaceX did it but nowhere like on the timelines they have anticipated. They also expected 4 years from start to Falcon 5 flight - which was cancelled and replaced by Falcon 9 eventually - but it took 8 years and then another 3 years before regular flights and another 5 before reusability started to really work.

wredue• 2 years ago

the big 3 didn’t think was possible

The statement was they didn’t want to invest in the development.

The only “impossible” thing about it was that a couple board members couldn’t be assed to get a slightly smaller bonus for a couple years.

Looks like a collusion ripe for disruption.

1024core2• 2 years ago

I was disappointed by the video. I was expecting more.

timthorn• 2 years ago

The undercarriage didn't retract in the video. Was that just an artefact of the stages of flight the film came from or was the undercarriage fixed for the maiden flight?

OrwellianChild2• 2 years ago

Pure speculation on my part, but on a first flight when you're shaking out the fundamentals, it's safer to not retract landing gear in case there is a catastrophic failure in, say, your hydraulic system.

LarsDu883• 2 years ago

You never retract the landing gear on the shakedown flight. I remember seeing this watching a documentary on the X-35 and X-32 prototype fighter jets.

pier252• 2 years ago

The 0.1% have all the time in the world. Why don't they just travel in a super luxurious cruise or something?

adlpz2• 2 years ago

Supersonic flight isn't necessarily for the 0.1%, just the 1% (or whatever other made up number) whose price per hour times the travel time reductions is greater than the added cost of the fare.

MostlyStable• 2 years ago

Time is literally the one thing you can't buy more of, and therefore, when you are rich enough, is the only thing that has real value.

pier252• 2 years ago

Right which means you can use it to enjoy quality time. Not hurry up to do stuff as fast as possible and stressed because you're running out of time.

Zigurd2• 2 years ago

It's not just the 0.1% who appreciate amenities over speed. A more-comfortable, reliable high speed rail so I do not have to go to airports would displace a lot of Boston-NYC-DC air travel.

nemo44x4• 2 years ago

Because sitting in the air is useless. When I take my family to the Maldives or w/e out-there place to holiday, I’d gladly spend $10k more to get there many hours faster.

cbsmith3• 2 years ago

"XB-1 met all of its test objectives, including safely and successfully achieving an altitude of 7,120 feet and speeds up to 238 knots (273 mph)."

Seems just a bit shy of the speed of sound (760 mph).

adlpz2• 2 years ago

It's a 1/3 scale prototype so I guess through some creative maths the speed of sound may as well be 1/3?

cebu• 2 years ago

speed of sound changes with altitude right?

cbsmith3• 2 years ago

Effectively, yes.

lutorm• 2 years ago

First flights are basically never more than a basic functionality check of take-off and landing configurations. (Note that there were no pictures of it with the gear retracted, because that's also typically something you don't try on a first flight.)

cbsmith3• 2 years ago

Yes, I get it. It's just they buried the lede of how far they have to go.

jmb994• 2 years ago

Just the first test flight, not a great idea to run anything at top speed before you’ve validated it won’t fall apart.

geocrasher• 2 years ago

Ya think? It's a test flight to make sure that the aircraft can take off, fly, and land. I doubt they even retracted the landing gear.

Flight testing will slowly and very methodically expand the flight envelope until it meets or fails its design objectives.

jasonwatkinspdx3• 2 years ago

No supersonic aircraft has ever demonstrated that on the first test flight. That you would write this comment is... something you should think about.

dingaling• 2 years ago

The Mirage F1 went to Mach 1.15 on its first flight in 1969. It wasn't unusual in that era.

lxe• 2 years ago

"We need your consent to load the Youtube service!

This content is not permitted to load due to trackers that are not disclosed to the visitor. The website owner needs to setup the site with their CMP to add this content to the list of technologies used. powered by Usercentrics Consent Management Platform"

The internet has become an unusable joke

zenlikethat2• 2 years ago

The swarm of negative comments here is both disheartening and unwarranted. How many of you are building ad networks or chat-with-PDF while these folks are working on truly difficult problems?

Flying supersonic is awesome, actually. Count me in for one at the first opportunity (25% of the cost of a Concorde ticket would really be something)

Congratulations for a successful launch to Boom!

Solvency• 2 years ago

HN lives in a closet world of React/Angular/Docker/Kubernetes/etc and is so thoroughly jaded and burnt by bland, bloated business technology apps that they have zero affinity or understanding of what kind of exciting technology is happening in other sectors.

jerpint• 2 years ago

I work on chat-with-pdf and still find this awesome!

justinclift• 2 years ago

What the heck is chat-with-pdf? :)

FrustratedMonky2• 2 years ago

Agree. In years past the negative comments were because it was 'vapor', just an empty overhyped startup. But It is not just vapor now, they have a flying prototype.

7e• 2 years ago

It is most definitely warranted. This idea is horrific for the environment and sonic booms are bad for residents. It solves a "problem" nobody but rich elites have. This company is a zero-interest rate phenomenon. I wish people would work on impactful projects instead.

cvalka• 2 years ago

This is as impactful as it gets.

whyage• 2 years ago

I totally agree with you, only that Boom's hype-laden announcement doesn't help build confidence.

zenlikethat2• 2 years ago

That's the game though. Unfortunately, there's no room for subtlety once you get to a certain audience size, and you need to make as much noise and project as much confidence as possible to stand out. While us HNers might appreciate subtlety and humility, I don't think it translates very well to the average person.

idlewords3• 2 years ago

I don't find giving rich people a way to make loud banging noises in the sky more inspiring than building ad networks. Not all difficult challenges are worthy.

et2o2• 2 years ago

Shame on you.

We will not have supersonic transport for average people unless outsiders do it first. There are only two meaningfully large manufacturers now, Airbus and Boeing.

Boeing and Airbus both cannot financially afford a technologically promising but possible failure now. Boeing built the 737 MAXX because they couldn’t afford a clean sheet update of 70-year old technology despite the savings. Airbus lost almost as much as the entire company was worth on the A380, kept afloat by EU subsidies.

All new technology happens for the wealthy first - we would not have smartphones today if Apple was forced to price them at the median price of cell phones in 2004.

zild3d• 2 years ago

first airplanes were also only for rich people, fortunately it has continued to progress and gotten more economical

mardifoufs• 2 years ago

I cant imagine where we would be if people were having this mentality back in the early 1900s when rich people were trying to fly using loud, terrible airplanes. Fwiw I don't think super sonic travel is going to succeed any time soon, but it's crazy how prevalent this type of NIMBY mentality has become.

mulmen6• 2 years ago

Supersonic flight over land has been banned in the US since the 1970s. Boom isn’t going to be making “banging noises in the sky” anywhere you’re going to hear them.

This airliner will draw the kind of people who fly business and first class today, which will reduce demand for those tickets and depress prices for everyone.

zarzavat2• 2 years ago

Flying supersonic is awesome. Living near people who fly supersonic is awful. Since there are far more people in group B than group A, a ban is warranted.

Also, now we have the climate crisis to deal with, commercial supersonic flight should be consigned to the history books where it belongs.

oulipo2• 2 years ago

We need LESS planes and LESS speed to combat climate change

Extropy_3• 2 years ago

This technology, like all technology, increases humanity's collective capacity to create solutions to problems and implement them. Faster travel means more time to solve problems. LESS planes and LESS speed make the world a worse place.

oulipo2• 2 years ago

Absolutely not, it means more URGENCY to solve problems because all these behaviors INCREASE the issues

blastbking• 2 years ago

awesome!!!! love it

amai• 2 years ago

Concorde 2.0. What could go wrong?

photonbeam• 2 years ago

“ XB-1 met all of its test objectives, including safely and successfully achieving an altitude of 7,120 feet and speeds up to 238 knots (273 mph).”

So really a shakedown, didnt try for supersonic

cm2187• 2 years ago

I love the idea of supersonic travel, but I can't help thinking that when you see how many things can go wrong in an airliner, how much safety was the result of trial and error, and how Boeing's woes shows how fragile safe manufacturing can get, how safe will an airliner built by a startup be?

polishdude20• 2 years ago

Narrator: "Not very."

nemo44x4• 2 years ago

Boeings problem is they have junkies assembling their aircraft down south because they cost less. The tech is well understood but the tolerances are tight and the pay isn’t high enough to ensure a competent middle management and labor force.

acyou• 2 years ago

Not sure if there is basic/core technology development being done or valuable technology being generated. Is supersonic flight essentially just throwing a lot of jet fuel at the problem of wanting to get someplace fast? Are we expecting to see novel insights and spinoff technologies from the development of this plane and industry?

I think there's a key, core military angle to this company, where their best and most stable and lucrative customers are sure to be nation-states. I think there is some real value to be generated around super-sonic technology development for missile applications, drone applications, fighter jet applications.

I think that this company gets a lot of peoples' backs up, because they don't appear to have any unique insight besides "Rich people and nation states will pay through the nose for wasteful and extremely obnoxious technologies that degrade humanity as a whole." It's a great business, might be nice and profitable, great for rich people and the most developed nation states, might not be so great for the humanity as a whole.

benced6• 2 years ago

Pretty disappointing this is the top (edit: 2nd) comment. It asks and asserts several things that are easy to look up. I'd recommend reading their FAQ page: https://boomsupersonic.com/faq

It's certainly not a guarantee that this works out but that's true of any speculative enterprise. Personally, I think a speculative world where Asia <> West Coast US is as fast as West Coast US <> East Coast US is pretty exciting.

deely3• 2 years ago

FAQ is mostly marketing with answers to obvious question. Sorry, I have a feeling that you did not read comment to which you replied.

ethbr12• 2 years ago

I think there's a key, core military angle to this company, where their best and most stable and lucrative customers are sure to be nation-states.

Yes, but not in the way you think.

No nation-state with an aerospace engine industry has difficulty making military aircraft go supersonic. Or just buying the same thing off the shelf.

However, a lot of nation states have nationalized flag carrier airlines, that they heavily subsidize for prestige reasons.

These are the same carriers who were able to afford Concorde, and they're exactly who Boom will be initially selling to.

ImaCake• 2 years ago

Airlines are also an interface for intelligence agencies and presumably a whole bunch of subtle geopolitical stuff. Great way to move your agents around, and you can run operations from the airline's local office.

mlindner3• 2 years ago

extremely obnoxious technologies that degrade humanity as a whole

What's your angle here? Jet aircraft aren't going away in the era we're heading into. We're just going to move to sustainably produced fuels from either biomass or direct carbon capture powered by solar. So there's no reason to make that as an argument against Boom.

largbae• 2 years ago

I know the Boeing safety reputation is a bit tarnished of late, but how many people are stepping on an aircraft called "Boom"?

izolate• 2 years ago

I would. If it ain't Boom, I won't zoom?

foxyv5• 2 years ago

Guile from Street Fighter would!

PBnFlash• 2 years ago

What is with the sudden surge of hypersonics? Surely this is military funding on some level?

vpribish• 2 years ago

it's just supersonic, hypersonics is not involved

ggm2• 2 years ago

Beautifully made promotional film but also very very obviously multiple takes, drone shots, reaction shots, over the shoulder cockpit shots, out of sequence, and regrettably not nearly enough pure flight shots. It's a composite of weeks of takes.

Also, the airliner may be glass screen cockpit on screens. This one had eyeballs to the sky.

resolutebat3• 2 years ago

The flight pretty much consisted of taking off, turning around and landing, it would be pretty boring if they just showed that. In particular, this didn't go even close to supersonic, this time.

tjohns• 2 years ago

Also, the airliner may be glass screen cockpit on screens. This one had eyeballs to the sky.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this?

The pilot had all glass avionics here. Other than the lack of an FMS (which is just never used in small aircraft), this had everything I'd expect to see in modern systems.

But also, even in an aircraft with a glass cockpit, the pilot is supposed to be mostly eyes up. Unless you're inside inclement weather, aviation operates on the "see and avoid" principle. Especially so when you're flying low and in congested airspace like the Mojave MOAs.

ggm2• 2 years ago

The airliner as described won't have windows for the pilot, it will be rendered on a screen.

1letterunixname2• 2 years ago

Woah, that's an achievement because most of the SSBJ companies have failed to raise money, much less fly anything.

XB-1 reminds me of an F-104 or X-3.

NASA's X-59 will be even longer still, but without direct visibility (yikes).

foxyv5• 2 years ago

It kind of reminds me of a stretched out F-5 with the metal back and painted front... Let's hope it's a little safer than the F-104 though!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5

lovecg• 2 years ago

I’m guessing this is the flight? Just a short circuit, I suppose it’s expected on the first flight.

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=add4b2&lat=34.920&lon=-...

Boom announces successful flight of XB-1 demonstrator aircraft

Related Stories