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

281–290 of 531 posts

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#281

Post by mmaunder »

mmaunder wrote: post #262

Burning more Jet-A to get less people around the world faster has got to be the most tone deaf idea this decade. I'm a pilot, I just attended Airventure, and I love the history around SR-71, Concorde and the other incredible high speed planes we've built. But this is an idea that had its time and aviation has moved on to high bypass turbofan engines, reliability, safety, fuel efficiency and reducing our environmental…

Just want to reply to my own post here to add that most people don't realize that the Cirrus SR22 is the world's best selling single engine piston aircraft and has been for the past 20 years. And it's wholly owned by the Chinese government. I'm aware this is a different market, but I want to illustrate how we're losing our lead in some critical areas, while we focus on creating solutions looking for a problem.

Incidentally, Boom is 5 minutes from my office here in Centennial, Colorado and where I fly out of KAPA. I'd like to see innovative US aerospace companies succeed, but I feel like these guys are chasing the wrong idea.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#282

Post by moomin »

zionic wrote: post #37
ISL wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rich people value time highly. Coach-class that gets you somewhere quickly can be worth a lot more than first-class that takes twice as long.

Also sanity. I’ve done a 16 hour flight before, and let me say never again . I slept for half of it and the other half was still miserable.

Try doing 24 hours, with a 9 month old.

It was not fun.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#283

Post by mrcartmeneses »

gnfargbl wrote: post #185
willyt wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's en_gb and not en_uk (although UK is exceptionally reserved [1], and we recently begun using UK on car nationality identifier stickers). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2#Exceptional...

GB is the more neutral term, UK is pushed by the Conservatives and nationalists/royalists

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#284

Post by tankenmate »

Rackedup wrote: post #269
metadat wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plural of aircraft is still "aircraft".

sometimes I don't get English...

It's an artefact of where English gets the word "craft" from. In general in English the plural of uncountable things is the same as the singular. For example, the plural of sugar is sugar (sugars in English implies a group of different types of sugar). The word craft comes to English from Germanic (kraft). The meanings of these two words (English craft vs German kraft) diverged over time. In English the word has a meaning similar to that which is made or the manner in which it is made. Whereas in German it means the means by which something is made (i.e. power, in both the physics and non-physics sense). For example Kraftwerk in German means power station.

Since the "means by which" is uncountable (craft) then the plural should be the same as the singular; i.e. one craft, many craft. This also applies in English to older agglutinates like aircraft. Newer agglutinates (for example laptop) are far less likely to follow this rule; one laptop, many laptops.

English, due to its muddled heritage and well intentioned but half informed linguists over the years, is a very messy language.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#285

Post by foobarqux »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #225

IMHO a better title would have been: "American Airlines to buy 20 Overture aircraft from Boom Supersonic" When reading the original title, I had the impression that the company was going to be acquired by AA. Instead, it's "just" an order of 20 aircrafts. Note that this is not a new move by Boom, they played this card when raising money when they pitched at YC demo day, and they're doing it again. The problem I have…

Yes these are "non-binding" commitments that are just marketing. Very deceptive but standard practice in aerospace. For example only a fraction of the Concordes that were committed in this way were actually purchased.

Until the plane is actually flying in the air you should just treat any announcements as misleading (they announced that their test airframe was ready, what, 3-4 years ago?).

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#286

Post by mbg721 »

awb wrote: post #192
mbg721 wrote: post #156

"We are beginning our ascent, and thank you for flying BOOM!,"

It's the manufacturer's name, not the airline. No one says "Thank you for flying Airbus". They would still say "Thank you for flying American Airlines".

It's better than saying "AA". I was going someplace on the double-A highway and needed directions, so I plugged it into Google Maps and got to hear about the "AAAAAHHH!!!!!" Highway the entire time.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#287

Post by mertnesvat »

I wonder what Elon thinks about this. There was one demo from SpaceX about using their rockets for Trips where they can lower down transatlantic flights to 20 30 mins (if you have strong sto-mach) Or Boring Company focused to hyperloops.

My humble opinion is that it's aviation company without huge innovation or disruption of the industry. More like a fast horse rather than car.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#288

Post by arcticbull »

krallja wrote: post #166
jfk13 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would they be allowed to go supersonic for LAX-JFK?

No, that route is over land.

Ah yes, I should have said 'I see a potential market for faster premium air travel on both the LAX-JFK legs and the JFK-LHR legs within the range of the Boom plane' - you are of course correct that they would not be able to fly LAX-JFK supersonic.

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#289

Post by malkia »

Recently I've read an article about plane leasing, and it left me realizing that air-companies lease planes from such companies (one of biggest ones are Ireland) rather than buying them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/28/irish-lessors-have-terminate...

"Aircraft Leasing Ireland (ALI), members of which include SMBC Aviation Capital, Avolon, Aircastle and AerCap Holdings, which is the world’s biggest aircraft leasing company, said that all of its members have complied fully with the sanctions."

Re: American Airlines agrees to purchase Boom Supersonic Overture aircraft

#290

Post by ahh »

adolph wrote: post #270
ahh wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the Tu-95? It's famously loud due to (says Wikipedia) supersonic propeller tips. Do you know why they're still effective?

The Tu-95’s props are paired for counter-rotational torque balance. The second prop does not add additional thrust.

The supersonic speed was the question, not the contrarotation.
Post reply on HN