Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supersonic Jet Could Fly NYC To London In 3 Hours

Posted by samzenpus on from the but-I-want-to-be-there-now dept.

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."

8 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, yes it could. Did, in fact by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Yes, yes it could. Did, in fact by sycodon · · Score: 3, Informative

      And that's just the numbers they let you know. :-)

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  2. Re:Concorde 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Only slower, Concorde was Mach 2.04.

  3. Re:Concorde 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is a lot smaller than concorde was. More like a large business jet.

  4. Concorde by Alioth · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  5. Re:Concorde 2.0 by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's nothing, Spaceball One can go to ludicrous speed.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  6. Re:Yes, it could by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

    Am I the only one that grasps that the S-512 is a bizjet, not a passenger airliner? The economics of the former are considerably different from that of the latter.

  7. Noise was NOT a red herring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    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.