Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

boomsupersonic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 531 posts

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#121

Post by replygirl »

tedivm wrote: post #111
replygirl wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah, neat! looks like they recently switched from 3x turboprop to 4x turbofan edit: had to correlate sources to find that a bunch of popular aviation blogs got the original design wrong. was actually 3x turbofan -> 4x turbofan

Everyone claiming you are wrong hasn't bothered to google. Literally the first response for "overture turboprop" is a series of articles confirming what you said. > The Overture supersonic aircraft will be powered by three turboprop engines, which includes two that will be mounted under each wing, while the third engine will be fitted at the end of the fuselage. https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/overture-…

they're right after all—many blogs got it wrong. maybe boom's PR screwed up

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#122

Post by [deleted] »

replygirl wrote: post #88
replygirl wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah, neat! looks like they recently switched from 3x turboprop to 4x turbofan edit: had to correlate sources to find that a bunch of popular aviation blogs got the original design wrong. was actually 3x turbofan -> 4x turbofan

why the downvotes? the original design was trying to use 3x turboprops, and i can see articles on google about them switching to 4x turbofans after the xb-1 work edit: see parent edit, i was wrong. you guys are pretty good at making someone with misinfo feel bad though

[deleted]

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#123

Post by upupandup »

skellera wrote: post #64

If Boom is able to come out with a new supersonic aircraft, is it possible for a startup to compete with Boeing or Airbus in subsonic aircraft? Either coming up with a new design or another innovation that can compete. Or, are those companies pretty much set with impassable moats?

No. There is no way they can compete with say Airbus's quality and build quality. If they think people are gonna trust their lives to a startup company kept afloat by current interest rates over Airbus, I got a bridge to sell you.

If supersonic travel was in demand post-pandemic and rising inflation, interest rates, Airbus would've been all over it.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#124

Post by rkangel »

replygirl wrote: post #88
replygirl wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah, neat! looks like they recently switched from 3x turboprop to 4x turbofan edit: had to correlate sources to find that a bunch of popular aviation blogs got the original design wrong. was actually 3x turbofan -> 4x turbofan

why the downvotes? the original design was trying to use 3x turboprops, and i can see articles on google about them switching to 4x turbofans after the xb-1 work edit: see parent edit, i was wrong. you guys are pretty good at making someone with misinfo feel bad though

I think the logical explanation is that there was a mistake in the original article. A propeller is not the right choice for supersonic flight, I don't want to say impossible but it wouldn't be far off. They've gone from 3 jet engines to 4, and in both cases they would be turbofans.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#125

Post by cma »

tgv wrote: post #76
replygirl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

biofuels or synthetics. not sure if they plan to own the fuel supply chain, so "net zero" may come through offsets to cover the impact of producing the fuels

Biofuels is ecological fraud. It is not sustainable. And is there a synthetic fuel plant with zero impact at any scale already? No, this is just wasting more fuel for the heck of it.

I can imagine the deserts eventually covered in glass tubes to grow algae for fuel and be sustainable if they can figure out a sustainable nutrients part.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#126

Post by Elora »

akmarinov wrote: post #16
alphabetting wrote: post #3

Overture is being designed to carry 65 to 80 passengers at Mach 1.7 over water — or twice the speed of today’s fastest commercial aircraft — with a range of 4,250 nautical miles. Optimized for speed, safety and sustainability, Overture is also being designed to fly more than 600 routes around the world in as little as half the time. Flying from Miami to London in just under five hours and Los Angeles to Honolulu in t…

Not only very expensive, but basically coach class all the way through, even for the rich people.

The luxury is saving time.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#127

Post by closewith »

willyt wrote: post #77
gruturo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is achieved without afterburners (as I understand it is), then yes, this is an immense difference in fuel consumption and radically impacts the economics.

Concorde only used afterburner(en_us)/reheat(en_uk) for a small part of the acceleration phase of the flight not for cruise.

Afterburner is a common term in both countries. Reheat is and always was a semi-official slang used in the UK and is a reference to the similarity in concept to reheat steam turbine.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#128

Post by replygirl »

sokoloff wrote: post #118
replygirl wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why the downvotes? the original design was trying to use 3x turboprops, and i can see articles on google about them switching to 4x turbofans after the xb-1 work edit: see parent edit, i was wrong. you guys are pretty good at making someone with misinfo feel bad though

The XB-1 used 3 turbojet engines.

i didn't say anything about xb-1's propulsion

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#129

Post by arcticbull »

mikeryan wrote: post #113
akmarinov wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only very expensive, but basically coach class all the way through, even for the rich people.

Three hours from SF/LA to Hawaii would have a ton of takers at a premium price even at coach class. It makes that trip doable for a long weekend.

At just under 5 it already is, I know a few people who do it. Hawaii is a bad example because its very much a leisure market. They can barely make business class work with recliners let alone a Concorde replacement. That’s why they put their worst business class on the route.

This will end up running LAX-JFK-LHR in my opinion.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#130

Post by newsclues »

sktrdie wrote: post #117

Do we really need to go somewhere so quickly? There needs to be a line somewhere where "getting to the other side of the planet in less than 12 hours is unsustainable and environmentally horrible". I've learned to appreciate slow-travel using trains and have been a supporter of electric planes for reaching further places.

Some people want to live and work in different places.

Rather than high speed rail to get the masses into cities for work, we are getting fast planes for the wealthy to work in NYC and spend the weekend in European villas.

Makes you scratch your head trying to justify this while climate change is encouraging people to eat bugs.

Post reply on HN