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."

24 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. Concorde 2.0 by gigne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Concorde 2.0 by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    2. Re:Concorde 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only slower, Concorde was Mach 2.04.

    3. Re:Concorde 2.0 by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Concorde 2.0 by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re: Concorde 2.0 by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Concorde 2.0 by ebh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The L-1012-Nukem-Forever?

    7. Re:Concorde 2.0 by HuguesT · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    8. 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
    9. Re: Concorde 2.0 by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:Concorde 2.0 by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:Concorde 2.0 by kimvette · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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'.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  2. 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 fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. 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.
  3. Yes, it could by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Yes, it could by Tx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    2. 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.

  4. Redundant redundancy by Racemaniac · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:Redundant redundancy by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      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!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  5. 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
    1. Re:Concorde by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  6. No mention of Concorde by Excelcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  7. Congratulations! by Comboman · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.