4 ms·
Boom's XB-1 becomes first civil aircraft to go supersonic
- stonogo 2y agoSo... we're memory-holing the Concorde then? Or are we pretending that the British Aircraft Corporation wasn't a private company?
- jdminhbg 2y agoI thought for sure this was just a bad headline, but no, the article makes the same mistake. Maybe someone can find a better source, this is still a good story.
- jedberg 2y ago> Scholl added that “XB-1’s supersonic flight marks the first time a supersonic jet has come from something other than a nation-state.” The Concorde, which was retired in 2003, was built jointly by the British and French governments.
- moffkalast 2y agoIt would be more impressive sense if Falcon 9s weren't making hypersonic sonic booms every other week for years now.
- bkanuka 2y agoFrom the article: > The Concorde, which was retired in 2003, was built jointly by the British and French governments. This is the technicality TechCrunch is using to make this claim.
- dragonwriter 2y agoYeah, but that's not what “civil” means.
- dboreham 2y agoAlso Concorde wasn't "built" by governments. Funded by, perhaps..
- rossng 2y agoStrange definition of 'civil'. I think I'd use 'built by a private company' instead. Great achievement though. Edit: apparently it was unclear to many readers - Concorde was a supersonic civilian aircraft. And, though partly built by private companies, it was certainly a state project.
- cozzyd 2y agoThe Concorde was barbaric
- michaeljx 2y agoCivilian, as opposed to military
- bobthepanda 2y agoConcorde was civilian, though.
- WillPostForFood 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_aviation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_aviation
- aidenn0 2y agoPrivately built, not civil; there's a huge difference. "Civil" in the meaning they seem to be using means "neither military nor religious" (e.g. civil servant). The Concorde was decidedly unaffiliated with the military, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't affiliated with any religious organization, though I can't find a source for the latter.
- bkanuka 2y agoThe Concordians believe that the Overture will be the second coming of their saviour.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 2y ago> "Civil" in the meaning they seem to be using means "neither military nor religious" (e.g. civil servant). More likely, just not-military, which is the well-established meaning of “civil” in the specific context of aviation. As you note, however, it is still wrong: as Concorde (and the Tu-144, despite its engines being controlled military technology) existed.
- asdfman123 2y agoThey mean civil as in "courteous and polite"
- jccooper 2y agoThe "civil" here is as in "civil aviation". Aviation is broadly either civil or state aviation. Presumably it's derived from "civilian".
- aidenn0 2y agoBritish Airways and Air France (both of which operated the Concorde) are both definitely civil aviation.
- nickdothutton 2y agoReminder: Concorde 1st flight was 2nd March 1969. Civilian supersonic flight was completely routine until 2003. You could book pure "pleasure cruises" doing a lap of the Bay Of Biscay, eating lunch, and returning to the same airport. IT was not "built by the government" either. It was built by Sud Aviation (later Aérospatiale) and the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC), both private companies. It was funded by government.
- fermigier 2y ago100% accurate, AFAICT and as a French man. I wonder why you are downvoted.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoIt was not routine. There were only what 14 commercial concordes? Something like 12,000 737s have been built as a point of comparison.
- nickdothutton 2y agoAre A380s routine? There are what, only 250 of those? Concorde had a regular schedule decade after decade. Only 14 airframes but 50K flights from BA alone, I presume a somewhat similar number from Air France. 12K 737s, a completely different market and customer for the most part. High-end can be routine too, you just needed to have the money.
- xoa 2y ago>IT was not "built by the government" either. [...]both private companies. It was funded by government. Eh? Apollo was built by private companies too. So were the B-52 or F-35 or SR-71. Using private companies to build and do engineering on government projects that are envisioned/funded/directed by government is the rule not the exception. Most people wouldn't describe the F-35 as a private company project though.
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoRelated: Boom Supersonic to break sound barrier during historic test flight today https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42852077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42852077 XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42853633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42853633
- glaucon 2y ago"first" meaning it hasn't occurred in the writer's lifetime ?
- turnsout 2y agoIs there another that they're not thinking of? The Concorde was a joint government project.
- davrosthedalek 2y agoHmm, in my understanding of language, a gov project would be called "public", which contrast with "private". Civil contrasts with military/religious.
- dragonwriter 2y ago“Civil” in reference to aircraft and aviation does not mean “unconnected to government”.
- sofixa 2y agoThat doesn't make it a military project (with regards to aviation, there are military and civil planes). Same applies to the Tu-144.
- JPKab 2y agoTechCrunch has degenerated into a clickbait site with horrifically unprofessional "journalists" working there. You get god awful articles like this, where "civil" is used instead of "civilian" and the author is too addicted to scrolling TikTok to be aware of the fact that this thing called the Concorde used to exist before he was born, rendering his mangled statement to be factually inaccurate.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kgwgk 2y ago> "civil" is used instead of "civilian" How is that a problem? For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_aircraft uses both "civil aircraft" and "civilian aircraft".
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- numpad0 2y agoDoes SpaceShipOne not count?
- yborg 2y agoSo the Virgin Galactic vehicles don't count either? I understand that we're doing marketing here, but non-military supersonic flight is 50+ years old.
- dweekly 2y agoNo, rockets don't count. Hobby rockets break Mach all the time. This is a private supersonic jet, which has to breathe air vs "simply" carrying its own oxidizer. (Yes, rockets are hard but supersonic jets are also hard!)
- bell-cot 2y agoFor those unfamiliar with the special meaning of "civil", in the specific context of aviation: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/civil_aviation#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/civil_aviation#English
- ttoinou 2y agoWhen will Americans stop using superlatives and lie all the time about everything they try to market / advertise ? There was russian tupolev and french-british concorde before ya know you're not the first one unless you modify the meaning of words ("civil" here, used for "a private company", but even here we could argue that Aéropostale was a private company) you're using or you create so small a niche that you're number 1 in it, purely for marketing / manipulation purposes. I very much dislike this kind of marketing and makes me not want to read anything techcrunch writes. Why do we still put up with those basic and obvious manipulation techniques ?
- dang 2y ago"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - also, please avoid nationalistic flamebait on HN - it only makes the threads worse...
- ttoinou 2y agoAgreed about the rules but this is a real cultural phenomenon (culture correlates strongly countries) that this article illustrates
- dang 2y agoMaybe, but nationalistic flamebait was the higher-order bit here. If you want to post thoughtfully about a real cultural phenomenon, it would be necessary not to lead with that ("When will Americans stop using superlatives and lie all the time"), as well as to make sure that indignation does not drown out curiosity in your post.
- ttoinou 2y agoThank you for the advice I will follow it in the future, and also thank you for moderating
- beardyw 2y agoA civil aircraft is an aircraft which is not military. Idiotic.
- dang 2y agoWe've moved the (few) comments that aren't about the title to this other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42853633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42853633. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22title%20fever%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- bruce511 2y agoIt's such a pity that a really exciting step for this company is bring ruined by such a bad report of it. Not surprisingly the focus of most of the comments are on the absurd statements of "first civil supersonic flight " or the Concorde was "built by governments". Which is a pity because the achievement is a milestone on the road to future supersonic commercial flight. How much better would the article be if it focused on the genuine step made rather than polluting it with easily dismissable nonsense.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 7e 2y ago[flagged]