Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's still a supersonic jet, just not the one you want. What is essentially a privately-built supersonic fighter jet is still impressive, but how much more investment will they need for the full size passenger version?


I trust Boom has smart people working on these things, but... model aviation doesn't scale up[1].

It's interesting they're going with a scaled-down model instead of a full-scale testbed. The article seems to incidate they're wanting to go from the scaled-down model as a PoC, then onto an actual airline that JAL want's to fly. I'd think they'd need a full-sized PoC first...

> “They want to enjoy a first-mover advantage in supersonic and have invested 10 million dollars.”

That's chump change for an airline. Doesn't really signal strong support or anything - more of a curiosity I think. A Boeing 737-800 costs around $100 million, for comparison.

[1] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3300/why-havent...


Quadcopters don't scale up. Flyable scale models have used extensively in other aviation research:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgDRkNseNxU


Certainly but it’s not quite that simple https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number


quadcopter aircraft scale up fine, for example the bell x-22 [0] research vehicle.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-22


There's nothing special about a quadcopter.

An airfoil is an airfoil.


My guess is it's more about marketing and perhaps securing investment from those that do not know about aviation.


Blake said last year to Forbes that development would take about 6 billion dollars.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/01/04/boom-...

So yeah it’s gonna take a lot more money. I hope they get it!


> Blake said last year to Forbes that development would take about 6 billion dollars.

From the article, it sounds like that's just the cost of development. They're going to need a hefty chunk on top of that for lobbying.


They may also find SpaceX eating their lunch, if the rumors of ballistic flights have any substance to them at all.

And the EPA doesn't curb-stomp them.


Ballistic flights make no sense at all. Consider how finicky rocket launches are about weather. So you need to go to the spaceport for your launch, hope that you don't get scrubbed by the weather and save a few hours? Hard to see how that makes any sort of business sense.


Some of the wind sensitivity comes from the hulls being long and narrow. SpaceX's Starship design will be much wider and thus more robust compared to their Falcon 9 rocket.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: