28 ms·
XB-1's wings are officially closed out
- iandanforth 6y agoThe level of care and organization in this photo feels equivalent to what I would expect for a ground robot prototype out of a startup. Can any aerospace engineer comment on what they see? Does their setup inspire confidence?
- gouggoug 6y agoThose photos don't look much different to me than any other photos I've seen of airplane assembly lines. What in particular would you have expected to see?
- na85 6y agoEchoing sibling comments. Looks pretty standard. Actually their hangar/shop is cleaner than I would have expected. They probably tidied up a lot.
- russellbeattie 6y agoI noticed that too. I loved the caption on the second photo: "The closeout process is relatively simple, yet requires the highest level of precision possible." LOL. If you look at the picture, one guy is moving a chunk of rough cut lumber, another guy seems to be eyeballing it, there's stacks of plywood sitting there, hand clamps with wooden shims, wires dangling and a bunch of strips of tape with hand written arrows on it. I'm sure it's all very highly technical work, but that caption and photo was hysterical.
- cornellwright 6y agoI've seen many of Boeing's wing assembly lines and there are a lot of similarities here, except that this is clearly not set up for mass production. (Which makes sense for a demonstrator.) Also from the startup ground robot prototypes I've seen (and made) this looks much neater and more planned out than what's normal.
- starpilot 6y agoIt looks normal. Our shop (assembly line building full aircraft from material stock, 2 football fields long) was like that except most of the workers were filipino or hispanic, wearing street clothes. When they filmed a TV commercial there, they brought in actors wearing red jumpsuits to scurry around as technicians. Because like you, that is what the public expects.
- throwaway1777 6y agoBroken link
- TheSwordsman 6y agoWorking for me here. Although, it isn't listed on their Medium profile page yet so maybe something is up with it: https://medium.com/@boomsupersonic https://medium.com/@boomsupersonic
- throwaway1777 6y agoMaybe something wrong with the medium app. It works on the web, but redirecting into the iOS app leads to a 400.
- phkahler 6y agoI keep wondering if planes could benefit from the new materials developed by SpaceX. If they really have a stainless steel that's significantly lighter, it could be a game changer.
- jonnycowboy 6y agoNot in this case. With SpaceX they also need high (de-entry, Mach heating) and low temperature (cryo fuel & oxygen) resistance but in the case of Boom the surface won’t heat enough to need high temp materials. That said, I’m not sure their choice of materials is the good one for a startup.
- starpilot 6y agoCF prices have come down rapidly in the past 20 years and it's becoming the standard structural material for original airframes. It's more workable and less exotic than it was before. I think most, if not all, aviation startups are using it, like the Icon A5.
- redis_mlc 6y ago> CF prices have come down rapidly in the past 20 years and it's becoming the standard structural material for original airframes. No and no. CF can mean anything, but typically you end up with structural members that are heavier than aluminum when all is said and done. Also, CF is used for sub-subsonic (actually sub-transsonic) skins, which SpaceX found out the hard way. > It's more workable and less exotic than it was before. No. > I think most, if not all, aviation startups are using it, like the Icon A5. Composites are used for subsonic planes and interiors. And the Icon A5 is a toy. The one good thing about composite (as in the Diamond Aircraft models) is that it's hail resistant up to a certain diameter and intensity, around 1 inch. That has been helpful with some storms in Florida, for example.
- ghaff 6y agoAs I understand it, they are using 300-series stainless steel instead of carbon composites. Which relates to some novel techniques in manufacturing parts from stainless [1]. But they don't have a lighter stainless steel, which mostly doesn't make much sense because any steel is basically iron in terms of weight--plus or minus depending upon the additives. Some steels are lighter or heavier than others but within a relatively narrow range. [1] https://everydayastronaut.com/stainless-steel-starship/ https://everydayastronaut.com/stainless-steel-starship/
- rebolek 6y agoXB-1? Is it named after Ikarie XB-1 from the classic Czechoslovak sci-fi? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_to_the_End_of_the_Universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_to_the_End_of_the_Unive...
- smuser 6y agoI believe it's "eXperimental Boom - 1" but I doubt they mind the coincidence.
- trhway 6y agoi'm in no way qualified to give any praise/criticism, it just caught my attention (from the linked post on their cockpit/fuselage bonding https://blog.boomsupersonic.com/20-hour-bonding-event-speeds-xb-1-toward-first-flight-b50a682d924 https://blog.boomsupersonic.com/20-hour-bonding-event-speeds... ) "It’s the following morning and bonding appears to be successful, but it’s essential to confirm that the bond lines are shaped correctly or “filleted.” A member of the engineering team, who is certified in the process, begins non-destructive tap testing to audibly listen for voids such as air bubbles within the bond. With several decades experience, he knows what to listen for. Using specialized tools, he taps all bond lines and listens for different and unusual noises. He confirms that bonding is a success." In general it seems that their main fabrication cost is labor, and it would probably be very hard to scale for production. I wonder why wouldn't they choose titanium - the price of material doesn't seem to matter here, and while it is hard to work with than say steel, i'd think it is still more mass production friendly than carbon fiber.
- Justin_K 6y agoYea, not very scientific. Seems like ultrasonic tests would be good here. I think they do something similar to check welds on ships.
- nickff 6y agoUltrasound inspection is very common for multi-layer composite construction. There are large machines which transmit the ultrasound through a water jet, for use in mapping the characteristics of curved surfaces. This water jet ultrasound non-destructive testing (NDT) is used in aerospace for carbon laminates. That said, 'tapping' is an acoustic inspection technique, and can get good results. I am not sure why they selected the manual option, but they probably have a reason.
- jandrese 6y agoThey're probably having the guy hit it with a mallet and listen for voids because they're a Mickey Mouse operation by aerospace standards. Plus this is a model so if something does go catastrophically wrong it at least won't kill anybody, probably.
- yazaddaruvala 6y agoThe blog post is hyper focused on the wings and didn't make a lot of sense without context. This link[1] was extremely useful to better understand what Boom is doing and how far along they are. [1] https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1/build https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1/build
- everyone 6y agoomg that website is freakin' terrible!
- mrcartmenez 6y agoLike they tried to rip off the old Mac-Pro site but fluffed it slightly
- xiphias2 6y agoWikipedia is here to the rescue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_XB-1_Baby_Boom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_XB-1_Baby_Boom
- aetherspawn 6y agoI thought the website was really cool. But the first image really sucked. The other 30 images and animated constructs were super cool, but the entire experience was wrecked by the first image that you see, which looked like a jpg of a plane drawn in ms paint.
- xiphias2 6y agoProbably you're not looking at it from a laptop with touchpad...it's really hard to scroll, also it's really hard to use the keyboard. I can imagine that with a tablet/mobile phone it's a nice experience.
- aetherspawn 6y agoI was scrolling on a laptop with a mouse which worked really well.
- mirimir 6y agoHaving built a glass/kevlar/epoxy kayak, it's a little mind blowing to read about people building a supersonic airplane, using similar (albeit far^N more precise) techniques.
- 0xff00ffee 6y agoDid you build a pygmy kayak kit by any chance? I did, it was the most fun I've had building something in my life. The entire "epoxy plus fibrous material" is truly a winning solution for so many applications, apparently hyper-sonic wings, too!
- mirimir 6y agoNo, this was a high-volume play boat. About 35 years ago. And it wasn't a kit. I was boating with a club with a shop, and members who knew what they were doing.
- 0xff00ffee 6y agoSorry, didn't mean to offend you by suggesting you were anything but a pro.
- mirimir 6y agoMe, a pro? Never. But I learned from some serious whitewater freaks. I quit because poor impulse control got me almost killed, too many times.
- spitfire 6y agoThose look really cool! Amazing some of the things you find on HN.
- mauvehaus 6y agoThis is probably a dumb question, but if the wings are now closed forever, how does one do maintenance or inspection of the mechanical flight control systems composed of cables and pulleys? Is the expectation that the XB-1 is going to be used in flight for far less than the design life of those mechanical systems?
- starpilot 6y agoThey probably use an electrified system with wiring and servos, levers and push rods. Prior to that we used hydraulics. These parts are probably accessible with removable panels.
- mauvehaus 6y agoIf they had, they'd still have mechanical pivots and so forth that can wear, but the article specifically mentions pulleys and cables: > The team also inspected flight control pulleys and cables, which are routed through the wings to the systems bay, as well as the aileron trays on the outboard portion of each wing. (Ailerons are the hinged part of each wing that control roll or maneuvers, and are controlled by the pilot via wire pulleys that run through the wings.) I suppose that the cables have to run out of the wings and into the cockpit in order to be useful, and that you could put you adjustments for cable stretch, etc in a place you could get to them easily. Or add access panels, as you suggest.
- ocdtrekkie 6y agoFWIW, the XB-1 is a "demonstrator". It's not necessarily intended to be a production design.
- hadlock 6y agoYeah as I was reading this, all I could think about was how there was no serviceability or reproducibility, the focus was on just building it, probably within a weight budget. There doesn't seem to be any long term breakthroughs or industry advancement here as all applications are specific to this model. By sealing the wings forever you are sort of guaranteeing steady business for the fabricator's check book as new ones will have to continue to be built for whenever there's damage (ground strike, etc).
- jamestimmins 6y agoDoes this mean if any repairs are needed they'll have to rebuild the wing from scratch? I'd love to hear from someone at Boom what the main goals are for this aircraft. And how it will differ from the larger transport craft they're planning. Beyond size and capacity.
- AWildC182 6y agoCarbon repairs are relatively easy as long as they don't damage any internal structure. IIRC they usually just patch and sand.
- loeg 6y agoOnly way to verify no internal damage is an X-ray. I'm sure they've thought of that, though; this is carbon manufacture 101.
- loeg 6y agoThe company's goal is overland supersonic flight. Profitably, ideally. To make that even a legal possibility means demonstrating they can be somewhat quieter than prior supersonic aircraft. This aircraft is a proof-of-concept.
- jamestimmins 6y agoIs it specifically to demonstrate that they can make a quiet aircraft then? I think I'm curious specifically whether this is more about internal R&D and building systems, or if it's meant to demonstrate they have the capability to to create a performant supersonic aircraft, which they can take to potential investors.
- tqi 6y agoThis test plane has a range of 1k nautical miles but a cruising speed of Mach 2.2, which works out to like 40 minutes of flight time at max speed? That seems like a really tight window for takeoff + test + land + any kind of safety buffer. I'd be curious to know how they handle those logistics.
- phire 6y agoAircraft range is defined with various safety reserved and takeoff/landing taken into account. It should be able to fly much further if they planned to run out of fuel and ditch.
- elil17 6y agoThey have a safety reserve of fuel. They fly it in the desert so they can glide to a landing anywhere. And plenty of your time will be below max speed (since air resistance is non-linear, your fuel consumption is much lower during these times).
- ricardobeat 6y agoThis is quite scary for a non-engineer. You're telling me that this little supersonic plane has the whole wing structure held together by a handful of 4mm thick metal struts, manually glued to the wing surface, with wire pulleys running on the inside :O
- __sy__ 6y agoyou should see how most of the internet is glued together :)
- cgb223 6y ago//causes obscure network latency issue, fix this later Last commit, 7 years 6 months ago
- AWildC182 6y agoBuilding a plane in my garage. You'd be surprised how minimal yet how strong a lot of these structures are. The vast majority of the material I use is thinner than a credit card.
- bacondude3 6y agoI want to hear more about building a plane in one's garage. Are you using a kit? How hard is it? Cost? How will you transport it to an airport once it's finished? It sounds like it would be a great project. Thanks.
- AWildC182 6y agoKit: Yes, in my case it's an RV-8 by https://www.vansaircraft.com/ https://www.vansaircraft.com/ they're probably the biggest name in town by volume and they make mid-cost kits. There are some more and less expensive options however. Hard: I took a class from a licensed A&P mechanic and while not mandatory, gave me a pretty good idea of what I'd be up against. It is extremely challenging even with a kit however. Lots of learning, lots of redoing stuff because of mistakes, many many hours. Cost: whatever you want it to be really. You can do safe builds probably from around 40-50k for something like a Sonex or Kitfox to several hundred thousand for a Velocity twin or even something turbine powered. Transport: most people build in their garage and leave the wings off then stick it in a trailer or U-Haul to complete final assembly at a hangar. It's mostly a non-issue.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 0xff00ffee 6y agoMan I'd be sweating like a pig if I was direct-applying epoxy to a prototype so close to done. I'm used to code where trial and error is de rigueur, I forget sometimes you only get one chance.
- AWildC182 6y agoI work in aerospace software so I live in between those two realities. Much like software, they'll do testing to make sure everything is bonded. They've also done plenty of modeling to determine what the expected strength is and they have a significant error margin baked in. ...They also don't call them test pilots for nothing...
- Someone 6y agoFTA: ”Boom’s two test pilots were also onsite to verify that all aspects of the wing met their approval.” I don’t know how well versed these pilots are in manufacturing this kind of stuff, but I would guess that’s mostly psychological. But yes, it’s their lives that are on the line. If this wing we’re to break or fall apart at supersonic speed, I guess they (or one of them, if this is a single-seater) are dead.
- AWildC182 6y agoSorry for the late reply... Test pilots by definition are pilots with an engineering background. They're often seasoned aircraft mechanics and/or aerospace engineers.
- mauvehaus 6y agoThe biggest change in switching from software to woodworking is that when you cock things up in woodworking, you can't git reset your problems away. The closer I get to done, the more careful I get. Scrapping a part at the beginning sucks, but it's mostly a material cost at that point. As you close in on done, the time dominates the cost, and you get real careful when you have a lot of that in.
- 6y ago
- gok 6y agoVery exciting stuff. Even ignoring the supersonic aspect, there are some very cool new ideas being applied to this aircraft.
- jupp0r 6y agoFrom their web page: “Faster travel brings the world’s people, cultures, and experiences within reach. Life happens in person, and at Boom we see breaking the time barrier as a moral imperative. XB-1 is the first step in bringing supersonic travel back to the world.” -- Blake Scholl, Founder and CEO The life happens in person part currently sounds like a relic from the past. I hope Boom makes it through the travel recession.
- opencl 6y agoConsidering that their production aircraft is at least five years from going into service, I sure hope the travel recession is over by then.
- babesh 6y agoThey are targeting $5K for round trip tickets between NY and London. It is really just making it faster for the rich to travel for fun or work. Supposedly it is inherently 3X as expensive as subsonic planes from a cost per seat mile point of view. It is basically a cheaper replacement for the Concorde. Also it seems that their biggest difficulty is coming up with suitable engines. The engines that they need don't exist and there doesn't seem to be an affordable way to create them. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Overture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_Overture It is definitely cool from a tech point of view.
- nickik 6y agoI hate points like this. Pretty much all technology starts out for rich people. I mean if you don't have supersonic flight at all its technology will not improve either, neither will the economics of scale. Air travel itself is already only for the rich, and travel in general is mostly for the rich, if you want to look at it from the poorest in the world. Elon made this point the best with Tesla, and in 10-20 years the cheapest electric cars will likely be cheaper and better then current cheap gas cars. I don't believe these 3x cost are actually 'inherent'.
- tinco 6y ago
- divbzero 6y agoAre there other industries like supersonic and space flight where a competent startup could attract top engineers in the field from government and academic jobs? (This question is partly rhetorical. If you have a good answer… Go do it!)
- person_of_color 6y agoThis company is comma ai of aviation.
- gr2020 6y agoSomewhat OT - but from their FAQ they say they're targeting a price of $200M for the Overture. I'm certainly no expert, but this feels to some extent a bargain given the capability. Capacity 55-75 passengers. A few data points for comparison (all of these approximate of course, with multiple variants available of each): Airbus A220 - $90M Airbus A320neo - $110M Boeing 787 - $140M Boeing 777 - $320M Airbus A350 - $325M Gulfstream G700 - $75M All of these can of course carry more passengers (except the Gulfstream), but assuming it's somewhat efficient from a fuel perspective, and assuming an airline could sell ~60 business class seats on each leg, I'm optimistic for them - cutting your trip time in half is certainly something to brag about. For reference, as an example, a British Airways 787-9 used for transatlantic routes seats 8 first, 42 business, 39 premium economy, and 127 economy.
- elil17 6y agoAdditionally, if you cut your trip time in half you double the number of trips you can take. This is why the metric is Available Seat Miles. In a way it's like making a plane with a capacity of 110-150 pax.
- ksec 6y ago>I'm optimistic for them - cutting your trip time in half is certainly something to brag about. I wonder how the economics works out. We know consumers are willing to give up a lot of things for cheaper tickets. And for that market it is now a volume business. Business Expenses and trip could certainly paid for super fast airline. But this could cut out business trips revenue from normal operation, so it means flight price would have to go up to compensate for the loss of business class? Although I am pretty sure they will sell well for as a private jet. Most super rich has way too much money and too little time.
- raverbashing 6y agoI don't think it will cut much revenue from regular business class, rather, it will cut from "first class" (which is on its way out for most routes) and from last minute tickets.
- 6y ago
- earthtourist 6y agoI like the idea of supersonic passenger jets existing again. I'm not sure I really see the point though. Would you rather fly in business class comfort for 8 hours or with less comfort for 4 hours? Almost doesn't seem worth the expense and risk of going supersonic. I would be so much more excited about an airplane that was large enough that economy class seating was as comfortable as business class seating is today. That would be much more revolutionary. I would also get excited about an airplane that was vastly safer than the already-quite-safe airplanes we have. An airplane with a fail-safe fuselage that can disconnect from the rest of the plane, parachute to the ground and land (or float) safely. This could potentially eliminate fire danger by jettisoning everything flammable (gas filled wings, engines, cockpit, and whatever else). The fact that flying is uncomfortable and still-too-scary to millions of people are the biggest opportunities for innovation that I see. Flying at 500+ MPH is already quite fast given the size of the planet.
- missedthecue 6y ago>I would be so much more excited about an airplane that was large enough that economy class seating was as comfortable as business class seating is today. there is really no point where it becomes worth it to make seats bigger without charging more. If there is more space on the plane, it makes more since to put more seats there, not keep the number of seats the same
- badfrog 6y ago> Would you rather fly in business class comfort for 8 hours or with less comfort for 4 hours? I'd take the 4 hours any day. At that point, it's reasonable to take a trip to Europe for a long weekend.
- benhurmarcel 6y agoIf I had the money for a supersonic round-trip on a weekend, I'd have the money to take Monday off.
- rconti 6y agoSo far this sounds more 'affordable' than 'business class comfort' which I STILL cannot afford no matter how hard I try to justify it to myself. There's gotta be a market for an all-business-class plane, since we know that first/business subsidize coach, but nobody's doing it yet. The airlines want to throw those business class seats out as perks to people spending corporate dollars, not charge the end user what they actually cost, in which case "real humans" could afford them.
- kleton 6y agoWhy are human test pilots still used in $current_year?
- missedthecue 6y agoBecause it's currently still safer than software trying to fly an experimental aircraft
- selectodude 6y agoPilots have a better chance of saving the plane if something goes wrong, software is less good at dealing with edge cases than an experienced test pilot and in order to figure out what the edge cases are in order to programmatically deal with them, you need a human to find out what they even are and figure out how to fix them.
- redis_mlc 6y agoTest pilots are often involved in designing the airplane, like Scott Crossfield and the X-15. They are also involved in understanding the flight envelope. If you think of them as "drivers", then you don't understand what they do at all. I do maintenance test flights, which involves verifying what mechanics did to the plane before students attempt to fly. Always find something.
- testfoobar 6y agoAmazing stuff. The blog post mentions tolerances in inches. Is Aerospace engineering done in inches or meters?
- pdoege 6y agoI'm surprised by the assembly tolerances. .05-.1" The F-35 is assembled to .003" The usage of control cables and pulleys is odd. I would have expected hydraulic/electric actuation in a Mach 2+ aircraft.
- mauvehaus 6y agoThe F-35 is also low-observable. I'm a total lay-person on this one, but I'm betting that the tolerances for achieving flight (even at Mach 2.2) are a lot looser than the tolerances for being invisible.
- pdoege 6y agoYeah, the F-35 is actually milled down during/after assembly for low observables. However, the Mig-21 can hit the same speeds as the XB-1 and it has panel gaps visible from several meters. I did some reading and the XB-1 does use hydraulics. From VEP and other companies. It looks like they will be using titanium leading edges to handle the heat loads. They are using a J85-GE-15. I don't think that will allow them to reach M2.2. Closer to M1.7 or so? Depends on the inlets I think. (I was wrong on the engines. They are using 3x engines, not the 2x afterburning that I was expecting. So the speed looks reasonable)
- herval 6y agoA bit of a sidenote, but I’d feel a bit anxious traveling on an airplane made by a company called “BOOM”. A bit like driving a “Crash Vehicles” car?
- aspenmayer 6y agoWhen I was a kid I had these crash test dummies toys with a test car you ram into wall. That immediately sprung to my mind and I had a good laugh and a good reminisce. Thanks for that. Here’s a silly commercial for the car and toys. I honestly think they made me a more defensive driver years before I got behind the wheel. https://youtube.com/watch?v=sMDPnf89Ef4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=sMDPnf89Ef4
- ksec 6y agoHaving been following BOOM for years this thought never occur to me. I thought BOOM was the sound coming out of the engine signalling ultra fast / super sonic speed. What is annoying is that Now you have mentioned it I cant get that "crashing" thought out of head.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoThe boom in a sonic boom doesn’t come from the engines as such, but rather caused by the object travelling faster than the speed or sound (in air). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom
- Reason077 6y agoAnd that's also one of the big reasons that supersonic passenger aircraft have failed in the past - restrictions against supersonic flight over land due to the extreme noise. It seems strange to me that Boom would want to draw attention to this in their brand name!
- fcanesin 6y agoThe whole premise of the startup is to build a silent supersonic airplane. Building atop several years of existing research and experimental programs around silent sonic boom.
- tango12 6y agoThis gives me a 400 on medium. Does anyone have an alternate link?
- xvilka 6y agoThere also exists a Boom rival - Spike Aerospace[1]. They successfully completed and operated flight demonstrators (SX-1) and working on delivering a production plane now. [1] https://www.spikeaerospace.com/ https://www.spikeaerospace.com/
- tim333 6y agoThere's something a little sketchy seeming about Spike if you look at their website. The Boom demonstrator in this article is a real, hopefully supersonic aircraft with lots of photos etc, but Spike seem to have zero photos of the SX-1 which is/was apparently a subsonic radio controlled aircraft.
- NotSammyHagar 6y agoHow can spike say on their front page "The Spike S-512 is the only supersonic jet in development that will fly at twice the speed of other jets without creating a loud sonic boom." Boom is also aiming for 2x existing jets without sonic booms. That's wrong, misleading, is there some narrow explanation for how that could be accurate?