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."

Comments

Concorde 2.0

[gigne]

A new Concorde for the modern age... destined to meet the same ultimate demise for the same reasons. Too expensive, too noisy.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[Big Hairy Ian]

Plus it's not as fast as Concord wich took Mach2 in its stride

Re:Concorde 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Only slower, Concorde was Mach 2.04.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Concorde 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA only talks about a maximum speed of mach 1.8, whereas the...

Concorde had a maximum cruise altitude of 18,300 metres (60,039 ft) and an average cruise speed of Mach 2.02, about 1155 knots (2140 km/h or 1334 mph)

(from wikipedia, emphasis added--pretty good show, that with a maximum speed of mach 2.04)

Now, if these guys could make their aeroplane fly quieter and cheaper, then the drop in speed might be overlooked: It's still a substantial win over subsonic cruise. Doing something about the sonic boom would be useful since that's what gets the thing banned from going supersonic over land. Then there is that the Concorde was technologically advanced for the 1970s but didn't get updated afterward. I for one would like to see what we've learned in the intervening 40-odd years.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[Paradise Pete]

destined to meet the same ultimate demise for the same reasons. Too expensive, too noisy.

I imagine it will be targeted at high-priced trans-oceanic flights. It doesn't have to reach mach 1 until out over the ocean. I make those trips (at regular speeds of course) all the time, and my recovery time is getting longer and longer as I get older. This will be no doubt out of my price range, but for those who can afford it it's a big gain in productivity.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[AmiMoJo]

Concorde would have been a lot more successful if some US states hadn't banned it. Sour grapes because US companies couldn't develop their own supersonic passenger jets first, and weren't even really in the game by the time Concorde started flying.

For a first generation aircraft it was an excellent machine, proving many new technologies. If it had been developed fuel consumption would have been greatly reduced. The noise issue was mostly a red herring, as it could simply avoid going supersonic until it was well away from the mainland or populated areas. Newer models would have been quieter too.

Re: Concorde 2.0

[jedidiah]

So it may not be too expensive after all...

It sounds like a scaled back version of the same idea that will likely do better because it doesn't depend on the same level of higher demand that Concorde needed to keep it afloat.

They should probably go one further and have a personal model.

The small numbers of ultrawealthy and companies that value this sort of thing could completely bypass the big airliner industry and the larger airports.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[ebh]

The L-1012-Nukem-Forever?

Re:Concorde 2.0

[HuguesT]

According to this article it made money every time it flew, about 30 millions British Pounds a year, but it never recouped the development costs.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[Muad'Dave]

The old L-1011 already went to 11!

Re:Concorde 2.0

[ArcadeMan]

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

Re:Concorde 2.0

[TheRaven64]

This will be no doubt out of my price range, but for those who can afford it it's a big gain in productivity.

Is it as big a gain in productivity as booking a nice seat in first class and paying for WiFi on the plane, so that you've got a comfortable environment to work in and can keep in touch and have a decent sleep before you land? Because that's what it's going to be competing with.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[AmiMoJo]

Indeed, after the bans in the US most of the orders were cancelled. They were expecting to sell a few hundred until then. Even after the bans were lifted and the fears proven unfounded, sales didn't recover.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[Errol backfiring]

Except that the Concorde was built for fuel efficiency, not for speed. Single-stream jet engines are more efficient if you fly faster. Only somebody invented the double-stream jet engine, which makes the engine far more efficient at lower speeds. To prevent the large drag rise that comes with breaking the sound barrier, most airliners fly a bit slower than the speed of sound.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[pr0fessor]

The speed limit here is 75mph about 120kmh and it's not uncommon for people to drive 90mph about 145kmh whether it is efficient or not is entirely dependent on the car's design and gearing. Over the years fuel efficiency has taken a big hit due to emissions laws. Cars with the throttle body carburetor of the late 70s and early 80s get better gas mileage than todays hybrids although they couldn't pass an emissions test.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[Jawnn]

For those of us whose time is more valuable than most, it's not "too expensive", not even close. And noisy? From inside, I'm sure it's quite nice. Who gives a shit about people on the ground?

Regards,

The Chosen 1%

Re: Concorde 2.0

[currently_awake]

If you want to bypass the larger airports you'll need a swing wing design, to allow slower flight for smaller airports. As a private jet that would be a huge status symbol, for the handfull of ultra rich who could afford it.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[squiggleslash]

As someone who lived in Reading, 30 miles from London and right under Concorde's flight path, I can honestly tell you the noise issue was NOT a red herring.

That plane, tens of miles away from LHR, drowned out the TV when it flew over daily. It sucked. I think those States that banned it did so entirely reasonably.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[chispito]

Yeah but it is American, so there's hope for it given that one of they key reasons Concorde failed is American jealousy at the successful design and development of it meant they made life commercially impossible for it to exist.

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.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[kimvette]

That is actually partially true; America hadn't yet built a supersonic passenger jet and outlawed overland supersonic flights over populated areas citing sonic booms (at FL600 sonic boom really isn't much of a problem) to protect the American airline system; having foreign airlines' supersonic airliners take business from American airline companies was unacceptable. It was an anti-competitive move. Had we not done that and in response instead developed supersonic airliners, the problem of sonic booms would have been eliminated a couple decades earlier - it wasn't until recently airfoils with wave cancelling properties (essentially creating two opposite-phased sonic booms) have been developed, so there won't be any need to outlaw low-altitiude sonic booms, let alone ones generated below 60,000'.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[clovis]

I wonder how related travel fatigue from a very long flight is to the "lag" caused by timezone changes.

It'd be interesting to talk to people to take the NYC - Buenos Aires 11 hour nonstop and see how lagged they feel even though the time change is only an hour.

You would think it would be much less, but I can see where taking an overnight flight and getting poor/little sleep could leave you just as lagged on the morning of your arrival as if you'd changed timezones radically.

I used to fly US coast to coast a few times a year, and I believe that "jet-lag", the being tired from time zone change, is mostly hogwash.
I was tired because I just a had a multi-hour experience in a low-pressure (~8,000 ft equiv) with constant vibration and low-frequency noise.
And yet, at home, I could stay up working non-stop for 24-36 hours and go onto a totally different shift without experiencing the feeling that was called jet-lag.

I've asked some acquaintances that flew to and from Brazil now and again to compare the jet-lag or tiredness of North-South flights to flying coast to coast.
I always got the same reaction. They were unable to speak of it. I mean they literally froze and said nothing or said things like "I don't understand".
I am neither joking nor exaggerating. Out of the 10-15 people I tried to discuss this with, none were able to speak of their experience in terms of relating it to jet-lag on east-west flights. They all could talk on other topics just fine, but that one ended the conversation. It was weird.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[serviscope_minor]

If you're landing fast enough to create a sonic boom, then the sonic part of the boom is the least of your worries.

Re:Concorde 2.0

[afidel]

It made an operating profit, lifetime net profit of 500M on a cost of 128M obviously more than making up for any interest charges. If more units had been operated the program cost of 1300M could have been easily recouped assuming there were a half dozen more economical routes (likely).

Yes, yes it could. Did, in fact

[wonkey_monkey]

Supersonic Jet Could Fly NYC To London In 3 Hours

Not only could, but did.

2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds, to be precise.

Re:Yes, yes it could. Did, in fact

[fahrbot-bot]

Supersonic Jet Could Fly NYC To London In 3 Hours

Not only could, but did.

2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds, to be precise.

Alternatively, the SR-71 Blackbird did it in 1 hour 54 minutes and 56.4 seconds in 1971 - apparently still the fastest record:

The SR-71 also holds the "Speed Over a Recognized Course" record for flying from New York to London—distance 3,461.53 miles (5,570.79 km), 1,806.964 miles per hour (2,908.027 km/h), and an elapsed time of 1 hour 54 minutes and 56.4 seconds—set on 1 September 1974 while flown by U.S. Air Force Pilot Maj. James V. Sullivan and Maj. Noel F. Widdifield, reconnaissance systems officer (RSO). This equates to an average velocity of about Mach 2.72, including deceleration for in-flight refueling. Peak speeds during this flight were likely closer to the declassified top speed of Mach 3.2+. For comparison, the best commercial Concorde flight time was 2 hours 52 minutes and the Boeing 747 averages 6 hours 15 minutes.

That plane was fucking awesome.

Re:Yes, yes it could. Did, in fact

[sycodon]

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

Re:Yes, yes it could. Did, in fact

[kimvette]

If you read the story it WAS stalling - it was fly^H^H^Hfalling at 152 knots. The SR-71 can't even fly as slow as the first tankers used to refuel it in air; it had to wait for the tanker to climb to its ceiling and hook up in a dive to refuel.

Yes, it could

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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?

Re:Yes, it could

[Tx]

We won't know unless is actually comes to market, but let's no talk as if they're unaware of the economic aspects. FTA:

"Every aircraft has to be designed to meet specific mission requirements including range, number of passengers, speed, payload, high performance (fighter jets), fuel efficiency and cost. Unfortunately, there are always trade-offs. If you have high performance, you typically don’t have fuel efficiency. If you have carry a high number of passengers you lose out on speed or range. These trade-offs have to be juggled to design an aircraft that can be engineered, manufactured and sold at a price customers will pay for. The engineers spend a lot of time coming up with solutions and then seeing how that impacts the other flight characteristics. The sales team then explores the trade-offs with customers to gauge market requirements and potential.

That is exactly the process that the Spike S-512 Supersonic Jet has gone through. As we continue our engineering efforts, there will likely be additional changes to the aircraft that optimize flight and performance characteristics. The latest design meets at the intersection of engineering, business requirements and market demand for an incredible supersonic business jet."

They clearly think there is a viable market for a supersonic business jet, but only time will tell if their numbers add up.

Re:Yes, it could

[JaredOfEuropa]

Maybe... the real question is: will rides be anywhere near affordable?

Suppose they make this thing a little less luxurious, cram in 30-40 small-ish business class style seats, and operate this thing at around the same per-seat price as business/first class on a regular aircraft. They would still sell tickets at 3-4x the price, because there will always be a few people who are willing to pay a lot extra for the prestige and reduced flight time. Concorde proved that. So even if it's economically viable, it'll not be for you and me.

Re:Yes, it could

[DerekLyons]

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.

Redundant redundancy

[Racemaniac]

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!

Re:Redundant redundancy

[ColdWetDog]

Here at Slashdot Central we call it 'pre duping'. A dupe encased in the original article. Saves time with the hassle of the Firehose and all.

Progress!

Concorde

[Alioth]

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.

Re:Concorde

[Richard_at_work]

No, BA didn't get their Concorde for £1 each, they paid full price for the aircraft they ordered and nearly full price for the aircraft that were dropped by other airlines before they took delivery. And even if they did pay just £1 for each airframe, the purchase cost pales in comparison to the operating cost - getting the aircraft for a pittance would have little impact on profitability against the costs of actually running the aircraft.

British Airways operated Concorde profitably by charging enough money for the tickets - it was indeed one of the airlines main profit centres before it was grounded by the crash and subsequent retirement a few years later. When BA was privatised, one of the first things they did was drastically raise Concorde ticket prices and none of their regular passengers batted an eyelid.

Re:Concorde

[bluegutang]

One difference is that the intercontinental travel market has grown immensely since the days of the Concorde. US-Asia and Europe-Asia are gigantic flight markets that barely existed when the Concorde flew.

Also, the Concorde was designed in the 50s and 60s. There's been a lot of innovation in aeronautical engineering since then. A new supersonic plane would take advantage of that to be more efficient and quieter than the Concorde.

Re:Concorde

[TheRaven64]

How many of those passengers are willing to pay 2-4 times the price of a first-class ticket on a slower plane to save a few hours? If you're flying first class, then flying is actually quite a pleasant experience, so if I could afford to fly first class then I'd want a compelling reason to spend less time in the air.

Re:Concorde

[tompaulco]

I don't know how the development costs were distributed. But that's an issue, usually, for the manufacturer, not the operator.

Development costs were heavily subsidized by a joint venture of French and U.K governments. But the failure to recoup development costs was caused by not selling enough units, due to a lot of buyers backing out when the U.S. would not allow the plane to fly at supersonic speed over U.S. land. The U.S was not the only one to put restrictions on the Concorde, but it was probably the biggest factor in airlines not purchasing more Concordes. The Concordes that were sold were sold to British Airways and Air France again with heavy government subsidies, which did not help recoup costs.
Concorde stopped flying for three reasons. A crash, which was due to debris on the runway, not any fault of the airframe. The 2001 terrorist attacks and the resulting worldwide economic downturn, and the Airbus company, which had evolved from the British Aerospace/BAC developer of the Concorde, decided to stop providing maintenance for the airframe. Up until then, the flights had been profitable, if not wildly so.

No mention of Concorde

[Excelcia]

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?

Congratulations!

[Comboman]

The longest part of a trans-Atlantic flight is now going through security and queuing up for the runway.

Re:No mention of Concorde - coming up next

[petes_PoV]

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.

Perspective

[XB-70]

Let's put this in perspective: This is a graphic. With all respect to the good people at Spike Aerospace, their company has not built anything whatsoever prior to this.

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.

Just un-retire Concorde

[tekrat]

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!

Re:Just un-retire Concorde

[tekrat]

-- and having just looked at the article and the image; this is a private aircraft, i.e., it's a toy for Billionaires. Larry Ellison will own one as will Paul Allen, and maybe a few folks from Dubai and Saudi Arabia. And that's it.

F-18

[sycodon]

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.

Fuel Cost not Jealousy

[Roger W Moore]

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.

After a Shaky Start, Concorde WAS Profitable

[WheezyJoe]

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).