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

211–220 of 531 posts

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#211

Post by semi-extrinsic »

samstave wrote: post #107
cjrp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turbofan (what's on most commercial jet aircraft), not turboprop (jet engine driving a propeller, generally on smaller commercial and some private aircraft).

r/noStupidQuestions ; Can these be 'stacked' - Can you have a turboFan in line with a turboProp such that the output of the wash of the Fan feeds into the Prop, but with a portion of the wash spinning to thrust on the outer ring of output.=, via a design in the cowlings which is hyper directed thrust vents (think the grid of straws used to funnel water into a cohesive column, which can be directed) Imagine a small di…

Why would you do that though, instead of just running a multi-stage turbofan such as they used on the F-100 engine (F15 and F16).

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#212

Post by baby »

phire wrote: post #83
nikhizzle wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that this is slower that the Concord which cruised at Mach 2. I wonder if a slightly lower speed makes the economics more sustainable.

Boom were previously targeted a cruising speed of Mach 2.2, I wonder why they lowered it to Mach 1.7 with the latest design update. Might be related selecting an engine. The previous version of the design had a fantasy engine that didn't exist (I think the specs came from a military engine that they couldn't use due to export restrictions), but now they are working with Rolls-Royce, and appear to have actually select…

Export restrictions are not just messing cryptography!

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#213

Post by mshook »

wongarsu wrote: post #165
chx wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a winning proposition. Even if we presume these will fly from a VIP terminal so the time you spend at an airport is low, you still need to get there. I just can't see everyone being flown in and out on a helicopter but maybe my imagination is stunted. Once you begin to add up those hours, you are just not saving enough time for the surely astronomical cost. You'd need a much longer range for this to be a…

Shaving off enough hours to be able to board a plane in the early morning, have a two hour business meeting in the destination and fly back and arrive home in the late evening of the same day is a huge draw to some.

Except it doesn't really work. It could almost work flying west then east to get home but regular Concorde flights couldn't give you the option to fly back the same day.

BA001 LHR 10:30AM -> JFK 09:25AM

BA002 JFK 08:30AM -> LHR 05:15PM

AF002 CDG 10:30AM -> JFK 08:15AM

AF001 JFK 08:00AM -> CDG 05:45PM

That's why flying westbound supersonic is less of an advantage. Because as you can see, flying west, your day is still wasted, even if you leave early.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#214

Post by cortesoft »

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-…

There is no way you could go supersonic with a turboprop

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#215

Post by cjrp »

milesskorpen wrote: post #153
cjrp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true, and makes sense where your face-to-face time is the key thing. But where it's just "work time", surely you can do a good amount of work on a 7 hour flight in a decent business class seat with reliable internet? Especially if you can also minimise the time wasted on the ground (fast security line, lounge with areas to work, airline calling your flight when it's almost finished boarding not at the start, etc…

Airplane wifi is garbage and wildly unreliable.

Getting better in my experience, last flight I had about 1-2Mbps which was plenty for browsing and sending messages/emails. If that's all you require to do work, then it's fine.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#216

Post by _gu8l »

awb wrote: post #183
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…

> over water All the imagined routes are over large bodies of water. Is it key to the functionality or intent of the aircraft in some way? Why not NYC to LAX in 3 hours?

A bunch of replies say that wouldn’t be allowed, but I heard sonic booms regularly while living near an Air Force Base in California. It didn’t seem to affect the hundreds of thousands of residents nearby. Is there an actual reason why we can’t have one every day at 10am or on some other regular schedule?

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#218

Post by Scoundreller »

krallja wrote: post #170
chx wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a range of 4,250 nautical miles. > Need a part from GuangZhu CAN-LAX is 6,284 nm. > Ohio to Munich OK that can work, CLE-MUC is 3,759 nm.

CLE-MUC also has about 1/3 of the route over land, which you’d have to fly subsonic.

Ah pffft, those are other people problems. Wealthy people want to get around quickly.

What’s a few shattered windows and waking up entire states with bangs at 3am? They shouldn’t have chosen to live under a flight path between an organ donor and recipient.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#219

Post by simonebrunozzi »

spatulon wrote: post #42
paxys wrote: post #18

They agreed to purchase 20 aircraft, not the company itself. The title is a bit ambiguous.

Sorry, I had to reword and shorten the headline from the linked page to fit within HN's title length limit.

Quite misleading - not that you did it intentionally, but the title "reads" as AA acquires the company, not an order for 20 aircrafts.

Better title - and still within HN limits - would have been:

"American Airlines to buy 20 Overture aircraft from Boom Supersonic"

Post reply on HN