Slashdot Mirror
Supersonic Jet Could Fly NYC To London In 3 Hours
An anonymous reader writes: A new supersonic luxury plane that could fly people from New York to London in just three hours is being developed by a team of engineers. Spike Aerospace's S-512 Supersonic Jet was introduced in 2013, but the company recently announced a few updates to the plane's design. Discovery reports: "Spike Aerospace's engineers claim the S-512 could reach a maximum speed of Mach 1.8 (1,370 mph, or 2,205 km/h), which is 1.8 times the speed of sound. For comparison, the fastest Boeing 747 commercial "jumbo jet" can reach a maximum speed of Mach 0.92 (700 mph, or 1,126 km/h). If the S-512 really is built to reach these supersonic speeds, it would be as fast as an F-18 Hornet, a military fighter jet with a max speed of Mach 1.8. This would also make the supersonic jet about 450 mph (724 km/h) faster than the fastest civilian jet, according to Spike Aerospace."
A new Concorde for the modern age... destined to meet the same ultimate demise for the same reasons. Too expensive, too noisy.
Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
Supersonic Jet Could Fly NYC To London In 3 Hours
Not only could, but did.
2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds, to be precise.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The question is not whether it could do it in three hours or not. The question is, could it do it at economically viable prices?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is literally the article with the most redundancy I've ever read. nearly every facts is repeated twice or thrice in various ways. :).
I also love the explanation of Mach, this is much needed on sites like this
Also, the amount of redundancy in this article is ridiculous!
They want their news story back.
The limitation to supersonic international flight is not and has never been whether you can build a plane flying a the appropriate speed. The question is whether you can build a plane that can fly at the appropriate speeds and is ECONOMICALLY VIABLE.
The Concorde was more expensive per passenger to operate, but given the premium they could charge for shorter flight times, it was close enough to be (barely) economically viable for most of its operational lifespan.
If you want me to get excited about supersonic international flight, don't tell me how fast it goes (or make pointless comparisons to other aircraft I won't ever fly in). Tell me how its operating cost per passenger is projected to compare to a 747.
Computers got better, therefore everything gets better at the same rate.
Combined with 3D printers, I fully expect we can scan 50 year old magazines and print out a Boeing SST or Lockheed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But these were government funded, just like Apollo, and we all know the Free Market (tm) can do much better. Which is why I planned a weekend on Moon Colony Gingrich ...
No mention of Concorde in the summary, which could do this at over Mach 2?
How have the economics changed that this will be viable where Concorde wasn't? IIRC, British Airways only managed to fly it profitably because they got the aircraft for £1 each. Concorde's engines were thermodynamically very efficient when in supercruise, and the aircraft burned as much fuel as a B747 while hauling only about 1/4 to 1/3rd of the passengers. I don't think there's much that can be done to get the fuel burn down per passenger seat, and due to the nature of supersonic flight it's always going to be more of a maintenance nightmare than a subsonic airliner.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
I love how there is no mention of the Concorde, which did it faster and carried more passengers on 1970's technology.
It's like building a new space shuttle that is smaller than the shuttle was, and then comparing it to the Gemini capsules in the marketing. What, do they think the world has become globally amnesiac in the last ten years?
Boeing decided that it is not worth pursuing. That is good enough for me.
Not sure how this summary was approved with no mention of the Concorde. Honest mistake or intentional obfuscation?
The longest part of a trans-Atlantic flight is now going through security and queuing up for the runway.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Isn't that cool?
Of course, the 747 and other airliners do not fly their maximum speed, ever. Most airlines in the 21st century are both morally and financially bankrupt. They've long since clustered together in a ragtag group of star alliance, world alliance, or one world team collusions designed in much the same way a homeless person trades in their shopping cart for a roller-bag to appear less disheveled.
Along with this transition came new rules. "international" airport in the 21st century means nothing, because airlines are constrained by financial obligation to route people like shit through a sewer. And as for maximum speed? its egregiously avoided at all costs because it burns much more fuel than a slow lope across the globe. It taxes engines and in turn drives up maintenance costs. So when we say a new player will emerge, those whom are financially beholden to this gilded superjet will likely dial back the engines to a more modest 1.1 mach...or in some cases never a mach at all and pocket your misplaced investment in the future of airline efficiency..
Good people go to bed earlier.
It gives billionaires a reason to spread some of their wealth.
Where the rats have more personality than the humans
And no doubt in a few years we'll be hearing about a "revolutionary" new type of rocket that can not only take people and cargo to LEO, but can glide back down again and after an extreme amount of maintenance, be partially re-used.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I think the come and go of Concorde represents the peak of hydrocarbon based jet flight technology. Supersonic passenger services are unlikely to return in a form that is economically viable.
I wish I'd had a chance to travel on one.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
FYI: current fastest civilian aircraft is tu-154m
"...flying supersonic is clearly the future^H^H^H^H^H^H past of aviation"
There. Fixed that for you.
Seriously: having a plan on (metaphorical) paper for something that has already been accomplished (and abandoned) constitutes news?
Spike aerospace?
Sure the flight is 3 hours now but they will add and extra two hours of commercials when it goes public.
could fly NYC to London in just 15 minutes - let us know when the speculation and pipe-dreaming is over, and you have one of these in the air.
The average scheduled flight time for jets crossing from London to New York is 7 hours. Seven hours includes scheduled taxi time, which can be fairly long at both JFK and EWR. So add 30 mins in for taxi time for the new jet and we're looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 hours 30 mins. So you pick up roughly 3 1/2 hours on the crossing. That could be valuable, but the it comes at what cost? If its roughly the cost of a business class ticket $6000 - $8000 then that becomes a possibility. However, as we have seen with both the failures of MaxJet and Silver Jet - business-only across the Atlantic does not seem to work when not run by a major. Unless one of the major carriers purchases this aircraft AND its fairly inexpensive from an acquisition standpoint and is easy and inexpensive to maintain and run (this was also a real problem for the Concorde) then you might see it. Given all the above AND the market is being addressed pretty well at the moment I don't see this ever going beyond the design stage.
Did Henry Ford start by building a GT 350?
This whole venture sounds like something on the front page of Popular Mechanics. I'll be a monkey's uncle if they build the thing.
*** Don't be dull.***
I used to live in Rosedale Queens, which was the landing approach path for JFK airport. Concorde came in at regular hours I believe it landed at 8am and then a second one at 8:15 precisely (they were never in holding pattens due to fuel issues --i.e., the tanks were touching empty when they landed).
Loved looking at those things when they came in. And you got plenty of warning too, those engines sounded very different, and about 10 minutes prior you got a low rumble telling you they were coming.
So; have Millenials completely forgotten Concorde? Who wrote this crappy summary, that claims no civilian aircraft has gone Mach 1.8? (Concorde hit Mach 2 pretty regularly); And then explains that Mach 1.8 is 1.8 times the speed of sound? Really? I never knew this!!!
Next we'll be hearing about a revolutionary transportation system using rails and is powered by steam. And steam is made by boiling water! Imagine that!
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
They want their previsualization back.
A discerning buyer could probably pick up a real F-18 Hornet for far less since they are in the process of being phased out. I expect they'd have much more fun too!
Hell, a brand new one costs the same as this plane.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I bet we'll see people flying in Moller flying cars before we see this thing fly. Weeeeeeee!
I seem to remember something that did that back around 1970. What was it called - Harmony, Consensus or something like that?
Its been feasible for a long time, but not economical.
Your sense of geography is disturbingly fact proof. Your memory of the business case deeply flawed.
You didn't have to be a hippy to hate the idea of coast to coast SST service, even the fly over states aren't empty enough to put a sonic boom footprint on.
one of they key reasons Concorde failed is American jealousy
Simply not true (and I say that as a Brit). Concorde was planned before the OPEC cartel massively raised the cost of oil. The huge increase in the cost of fuel made it uneconomic because it was very inefficient. In addition there was the issue of noise pollution due to the sonic boom. Modern technology has made supersonic flight far more fuel efficient. While I am not in a position to know whether it is efficient enough to be economically viable I would not just dismiss it out of hand.
You say Mach 1.8 is 1.8 times the speed of sound? Are you actually sure about that? You might want to go reasearch a bit more and get your facts straight if you are wrong. It's amazing. btw - 2+2-2=2. There are numerous other facts you could have typed besides typing the same one six times.
The published specs do not indicate an engine exists to power the plane (which needs 2 of them). They were specifying a sub Mach engine from a cargo plane in the first rendition, but now they just list the required engine thrust of 20,000lbs each. Good luck with that... it will require a Supercruise engine design to work efficiently and with the exception of the engines designed for the Concord and the Tupolev TU-144 those are exclusively military engines.
So that's something like 1% ^ 3, minus some overlap -- what part of US or global society do you have to be to make use of this?
The only important reason it failed is because it was incredibly impractical and expensive to operate. Yes it was a marvel and all that, but you couldn't make money off it.
My understanding is that Concorde's unprofitability was mostly myth. There were problems in the beginning because fear-mongering in the States left only JFK as a destination, but once things settled and the ticket prices were reset to ultra-high class, things settled out just fine.
Had the Concorde really not been profitable, it would have been terminated long before the crash over Paris. That's just how business works. The problem was simply that the planes were aging, no replacement models were being made, and the operators were left to scavenging parts from other Concordes. With the Paris disaster, they had more expenses reinforcing the fuel tanks to try and prevent the disaster from occurring again. These things ultimately tipped the scales to grounding the program.
But is there a demand for crossing the Atlantic in 3 hours? Is there demand to cross the Pacific in 5 or less? Hell yes. If they build it, people will pay the ticket price (and enjoy the view of the curvature of the Earth through the window).
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
"is being developed by a team of engineers" ==> "is being designed by a team of engineers"
It's just a paper design.
We have seen many proposals for supersonic business jets, and none of them was viable. Why should it be different this time?
You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
No doubt this will also have a laser-ignited fusion engine in a U-238 cavity to capture fast neutrons for electricity generation to power the lasers.
That airplane could deliver a devastating punch with very little time to react. I sure hope air defenses are up to snuff.
That plane was fucking awesome.
I used to think so, still do as far as looks and capabilities go, but it was a bit disheartening to discover that the plane leaked fuel like a sieve. By design! You fill up the leaky tank to get the SR-71 off the ground, but so much leaks out during takeoff that you have to immediately do an in-flight refueling maneuver with a tanker. Only then can you really fly the plane as it's meant to be flown. In the extreme cold of the extremely high altitude the plane is capable of flying at, the engines will get so hot the titanium frame expands, putting a stop to all fuel leaks. Then you are finally good to go!
It is indeed an awesome plane, but you have to admit, that leak-then-refuel thing is pretty lame from an engineering standpoint.
"Airbus is to help start-up Aerion with design, manufacture and certification of a supersonic business jet, aiming for availability of the $100 million-plus aircraft in 2021."
http://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/airbus-help-aerion-design-supersonic-business-jet
It is indeed an awesome plane, but you have to admit, that leak-then-refuel thing is pretty lame from an engineering standpoint.
Not awesome, agreed, but at least it was by-design. My understanding is that they fuelled the machine on the ground only sufficient for it to meet its in-flight refuelling tanker to minimise the issue you describe.
Still not ideal, but obviously the result of some significant engineering compromises likely due to the materials technology of the day.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
I want a sub-orbital
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.