A New Engine Could Bring Back Supersonic Air-Travel (economist.com) 127
An anonymous reader shares a report (may be paywalled): Every morning, time once was, a giant roar from Heathrow Airport would announce the departure of flight BA001 to New York. The roar was caused by the injection into the aircraft's four afterburners of the fuel which provided the extra thrust that it needed to take off. Soon afterwards, the pilot lit the afterburners again -- this time to accelerate his charge beyond the speed of sound for the three-and-a-half hour trip to JFK. The plane was Concorde.
Supersonic passenger travel came to an end in 2003. The crash three years earlier of a French Concorde had not helped, but the main reasons were wider. One was the aircraft's Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus engines, afterburners and all, which gobbled up too much fuel for its flights to be paying propositions. The second was the boom-causing shock wave it generated when travelling supersonically. That meant the overland sections of its route had to be flown below Mach 1. For the Olympus, an engine optimised for travel far beyond the sound barrier, this was commercial death.
That, however, was then. And this is now. Materials are lighter and stronger. Aerodynamics and the physics of sonic booms are better understood. There is also a more realistic appreciation of the market. As a result, several groups of aircraft engineers are dipping their toes back into the supersonic pool. Some see potential for planes with about half Concorde's 100-seat capacity. Others plan to start even smaller, with business jets that carry around a dozen passengers. The chances of such aircraft getting airborne have recently increased substantially.
Supersonic passenger travel came to an end in 2003. The crash three years earlier of a French Concorde had not helped, but the main reasons were wider. One was the aircraft's Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus engines, afterburners and all, which gobbled up too much fuel for its flights to be paying propositions. The second was the boom-causing shock wave it generated when travelling supersonically. That meant the overland sections of its route had to be flown below Mach 1. For the Olympus, an engine optimised for travel far beyond the sound barrier, this was commercial death.
That, however, was then. And this is now. Materials are lighter and stronger. Aerodynamics and the physics of sonic booms are better understood. There is also a more realistic appreciation of the market. As a result, several groups of aircraft engineers are dipping their toes back into the supersonic pool. Some see potential for planes with about half Concorde's 100-seat capacity. Others plan to start even smaller, with business jets that carry around a dozen passengers. The chances of such aircraft getting airborne have recently increased substantially.
Supercruise (Score:4, Insightful)
F-22 has engines that provide so much efficient thrust, it can cruise at supersonic speeds without using the afterburner.
So you just need to scale up the F-22 to carry 100 people!
Re:Supercruise (Score:5, Funny)
So you just need to scale up the F-22 to carry 100 people!
Would still be a cheaper program than the F-35
tower this is ghostrider requesting a flyby (Score:3)
tower this is ghostrider requesting a flyby
Re:Supercruise (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Would passengers have access to their own missile launchers? I'd pay extra.
Yes, but I wouldn't recommend using it to target the family with the crying baby three rows up. The explosion might have repercussions for you too.
Has to be optimized for above Mach 2 (Score:5, Interesting)
Drag is really bad from just about Mach 0.8 to about 1.8 or so. That doesn't have anything to do with the engines or anything else you can control. It's a constant known as cD that isn't largely independent of aircraft design.
Meaning you need to cruise at about Mach 2 to have reasonable efficiency in terms of drag.
Supersonic flight isn't just "subsonic flight, but faster". The design of a high speed aircraft is all about how the air flows around the aircraft and through the engines. At Mach 1, which is kinda like "the maximum speed of air", that totally changes. Things work completely differently.
So you have to design your engine for Mach 2, your airframe, etc. All of these will be designed very differently than they would be for subsonic flight. Especially if you intend to fly over land, you're going to need to fly subsonic a significant portion of the time (plus you need to take off and land, and you're not landing at supersonic speeds).
So you have a problem. You need a plane designed to work very well at Mach 2, and it has to be designed to work well subsonic. These are two very different designs. It's hard to have the same plane do well with both. It's kinda like designing an ocean-going ship that's also a bicycle.
Re:Has to be optimized for above Mach 2 (Score:5, Interesting)
So you have a problem. You need a plane designed to work very well at Mach 2, and it has to be designed to work well subsonic. These are two very different designs. It's hard to have the same plane do well with both. It's kinda like designing an ocean-going ship that's also a bicycle.
A perfect example is the SR-71. The metal in the plane would get so hot and expand so much that they had to build in gaps with tanks and seals. As a result it would constantly leak fuel both on the ground and in subsonic flight and would only seal up once it reached supersonic speeds.
Re:Has to be optimized for above Mach 2 (Score:5, Funny)
I had a car like that once.
Re: (Score:2)
Made in the UK, I guess.
Re: Has to be optimized for above Mach 2 (Score:2, Interesting)
> a constant known as cD that isn't largely independent of aircraft design.
CD is not constant, it varies quite a bit with velocity. You said that yourself, "bad from 0.8 to 1.8". What happens above that speed? Cd goes down, way down, until mach 5 or so.
But yeah total drag goes way up, because it's velocity squared times Cd. V^2 is much larger than Cd.
Thanks for playing
Not really (Score:3)
It doesn't really vary much at all with velocity per se (partly because the definition of Cd includes a division by V2 term).
Its pretty much constant from 1 kmh through the entire subsonic regime to over 1,000 kmh. Just below Mach 2 the Cd is right back to its subsonic value and remains constant at hypersonic velocities. It's onlyduring that transition from about Mach 1 to Mach 2 that the suddenly very different behavior of air flows makes it wonky for that particular range.
You are correct that V2 is a ver
Re:Has to be optimized for above Mach 2 (Score:4, Interesting)
Thats what swing wings are for. Swung forward at sub sonic and swung back at supersonic speeds
Re: (Score:2)
We have had variable geometry aircraft for over 50 years now.
These have been around too (Score:2)
These have been around for over 50 years too. Bet you've never ridden in one, for the same reason you don't normally eat dinner with a Swiss Army Knife.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Not with a nose up attitude. Zero pitch (Score:2)
Certainly not with a nose-up attitude :)
Zero pitch would probably be a good idea.
You can land in a nose-down attitude at supersonic speeds, but only once.
* For those unfamiliar, the "attitude" of a plane is which way it is pointing and leaning. (Pitch and roll, and sometimes yaw, depending on context).
Pretty easy... (Score:2)
So you just need to scale up the F-22 to carry 100 people!
Big hook in the back of the F-22 and a 100-person capacity glider towed behind. Just get it above supersonic, then release as at that point it's going too fast to slow down before the glider reaches its destination.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
"And this is now. Materials are lighter and stronger. Aerodynamics and the physics of sonic booms are better understood."
And the new materials and better understanding of aerodynamics can be traced back to the R&D responsible for creating the F-22 and F-35. Most of the advanced technology in use today was the result of the well funded military R&D. Cell phones, satellites, GPS, and the very foundation of the freaking Internet started life looking for possible military applications. Hell even TOR sta
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Supercruise (Score:5, Informative)
Concord supercruised as well. That capability wasn't sufficient to make it profitable.
The term "supercruise" isn't all that well defined. There are several military aircraft that can sustain supersonic speed without afterburner given enough altitude and limited or no external stores. The F-22 is just a new degree of supersonic capability; it can perform most of its mission above supersonic speed including weapon deployment and aggressive maneuvers at lower altitudes that previous combat aircraft.
Re:Supercruise (Score:5, Informative)
F-22 has engines that provide so much efficient thrust, it can cruise at supersonic speeds without using the afterburner.
So did the concorde.
It didn't need afterburners to accelerate Mach 1, it was simply more efficient to do so. The concorde cruised at Mach 2.2 without afterburners running, which is somewhat faster than the F-22 can supercruise.
Re: (Score:2)
So could concorde.
Re: (Score:1)
So could Concorde - it may have needed afterburners to reach Mach 2, but not to cruise once there.
The Olympus engines were optimized for Mach 2, and very efficient - the wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593) quotes a cruising thermal efficiency of 43%.
Yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea progress, lets make an exclusive form of travel even more exclusive.
If I could ride in an air craft with a lots of legroom and only have to deal with a few people. I wouldn't mind it flying slower. (But I like taking a train when it is economical though)
Re: (Score:2)
If a new, smaller supersonic could reduce the price per seat over the Concorde, it could get knock on benefits. Making it across the Atlantic in three hours isn't as impressive if there's only one flight per day. Making it cheaper and easier to use makes it less exclusive, not more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As to spike and Aerion, I hear they are still mov
Re: (Score:3)
I love progress. A plane that can go past the speed of sound and only half the number of seats of Concord? Sounds like a great plan.
This is progress. The end game is not to build a plane that can carry 1000 passengers instantly but rather a form of transport that works effectively and efficiently at a cost that is profitable enough to run and cheap enough that passengers will use it.
You may notice that for long haul international flights the 787 Dreamliner has about 5x the number of orders than the A380 despite being introduced later and being able to carry half the number of passengers.
If less seats is what makes it viable, then it is
Re: (Score:2)
It sells more because it can operate from more airfields and it uses less fuel. A supersonic aircraft will use more fuel. Basically.
Will they beat Musk? (Score:5, Insightful)
30 minutes to any city on earth sounds pretty good, and I am pretty sure SpaceX will be getting at least one such commercial flight out in the next five years or so... they also can carry 100 people at a time, and passengers get a free sub-space visual to boot.
Even supersonic would look pokey next to that.
Will they beat flying cars? (Score:1)
No wonder companies continue advertise here: Slashdot remains a target-rich environment filled with consumers who are easily persuaded by flimsy promises. Why don't we go ahead an speculate on which flying cars we'll have in five years while we're at it?
Re:Will they beat flying cars? (Score:4, Insightful)
>> I am pretty sure [thing promised by company will happen] in the next five years No wonder companies continue advertise here: Slashdot remains a target-rich environment filled with consumers who are easily persuaded by flimsy promises. Why don't we go ahead an speculate on which flying cars we'll have in five years while we're at it?
I dunno, every time people say that Musk can't do something, he says "hold my bong [knowyourmeme.com]" ...
Why do you think it will not happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot remains a target-rich environment filled with consumers who are easily persuaded by flimsy promises
What is flimsy about such a prediction? The BFR is flying just next year. It's not hard to see them putting up at least one commercial flight within the next five as a test of viability, after all it has a huge attraction for flights like NYC to Australia which otherwise take a very long time. Tickets would sell like hotcakes.
Why don't we go ahead an speculate on which flying cars we'll have in five years while we're at it?
That's actually about five to ten years out, made possible by self driving car tech. it was never going to happen when humans were the ones flying the car, which is why we've never really see that come about even tough every now and then you read about flying car designs. Just like self driving cars, the first applications will be taxis more than personal transport, though that too will come.
What never ceases to amaze me about Slashdot is that people used to technology, can be such negative luddites despite years and years of being shown technology can make amazing advances quickly when conditions are right.
Re: (Score:1)
NYC to Australia which otherwise take a very long time. Tickets would sell like hotcakes.
It depends on the price. If it's 1.5 or 2x the cost of a standard economy class ticket, yes it will do very well. If the price is 10 or 20X the cost of a first class seat on a standard airline, no, not so much. There may very well be a market even at that price, but people will not be going crazy over it.
What is a day worth (Score:2)
It depends on the price. If it's 1.5 or 2x the cost of a standard economy class ticket, yes it will do very well. If the price is 10 or 20X the cost of a first class seat on a standard airline, no,
Shortest flight from NYC to Sydney I could find was 20 hours. 20 hours vs 30 minutes... You care to revise that prediction at all?
Re: (Score:1)
Shortest flight from NYC to Sydney I could find was 20 hours. 20 hours vs 30 minutes... You care to revise that prediction at all?
Nope. If I can find a flight on a standard airlline for $1k, I sure won't pay 10 or $20k. To cut the travel time. I know there are people that find this is worth doing. But it's not something that a large part of the population is going to do, or even be able to afford.
Doesn't need to be a large part (Score:2)
Nope. If I can find a flight on a standard airlline for $1k, I sure won't pay 10 or $20k.
The original message I responded to was saying 10-20x the cost of first class tickets.
People today are ALREADY paying almost $10k for business class . They are ALREADY paying up to $30k for really luxurious first class cabins. And those are making money hand over fist and getting plenty of bookings - today.
So now think of all those people who are buying luxury cabins. Are they really doing that because they want to b
Re: (Score:2)
This is how business class works. Time is money, and for some people it is worth paying more money to save time. In the case of business class seats you save time because the passenger can go to work right when they get off the plane.
Re: (Score:3)
Virgin Galactic was considering charging a few hundred thousand for a suborbital flight, weren't they? If you get that packaged with your flight somewhere interesting there will be a market.
If SpaceX can build a fully reusable suborbital ship with minimal maintenance requirements the economics for near-economy class tickets actually look realistic.
Re: (Score:3)
The main problem with direct flights between the US and Australia is that there are a lot of people who travel between "the US" and "Australia" on any given day, but not a lot of people who are LITERALLY traveling between any given pair of big cities in the US. That's a problem, because the only jets with enough fuel capacity to make the flight nonstop are jets that are too big to fill with passengers.
Put another way, if 95% of the people flying between the US and Australia have to change planes at least on
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're thinking too small about the airport thing. If suborbital flight is that fast (and relatively inexpensive) and fuel is no extra cost, who's to say a hub wouldn't open in Cleveland, or St Louis, or wherever.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a HUGE difference noise-wise between Boom's proposed supersonic engines, and even the quietest rocket engine that anybody can even FANTASIZE about. VERY FEW cities have airports positioned where an plane on final approach can almost totally avoid flying over populated areas. Fort Lauderdale, JFK, and LAX? Sure. SFO and Tampa? Er... not so much (the approaches are over water, but they're adjacent to expensive populated areas). Even Miami and Orlando have sprawled to the point where the area directly
Re: (Score:2)
There is a spaceport in the Mojave desert already. It is basically mostly unused though.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't feed the trolls - I'm sure he used to say that landing rockets was impossible too. Gwen really, really wants the e2e system in place, because she wants to use it personally. When she says within a decade, that's on Gwen time, not on Elon time.
Re:Will they beat flying cars? (Score:4, Interesting)
It really isn't that far of stretch...
Imagine Just Read the Instructions being manufactured and deployed en masse. You have landing zones essentially anywhere there is water - Lake Erie for Buffalo, Back Bay for Boston (ha! jk, I mean near Logan), Upper Bay for NYC, Biscayne Bay for Miami, etc etc all over the world.
That's anywhere, with sea access, in the world in 30 minutes.
Flight, from launch to landing, is already 100% automated / controlled from ground.
Re: (Score:2)
How many people old enough to afford it can stand the 9Gs necessary to accomplish it?
How hard is 3Gs with good chairs? (Score:4, Informative)
How many people old enough to afford it can stand the 9Gs necessary
3Gs, not 9. [stackexchange.com]
With good chairs that doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, didn't astronauts in the Space Shuttle pull about 3Gs? And as for age, John Glenn holds the record at 77. That said, there are a couple of astronauts in their 60s (Frank Musgrave, Dennis Tito) and plenty in their 50s.
Re:Will they beat Musk? (Score:5, Interesting)
Travel of any kind follows the same rules of economics as everything else, in that the least expensive thing that meets the wants and needs of the buyer generally wins out. Travel has the added component of wanting to reduce duration as much as practical, but even then, cost wins.
Extremely fast suborbital sounds cool, but the vast majority of people can't justify the cost. Even the ultra-rich can't justify it, even if they can afford it.
By contrast, at one time Concorde had promo-packages available, my wife as a child got to fly Concorde back from the UK as part of a vacation package her parents found. It wasn't cheap, in the eighties it was probably a thousand dollars a person for them, but it was still far cheaper than anything suborbital would cost at this point.
Travel time is a huge value (Score:2)
Travel of any kind follows the same rules of economics as everything else, in that the least expensive thing that meets the wants and needs of the buyer generally wins out. Travel has the added component of wanting to reduce duration as much as practical, but even then, cost wins.
Cost often wins when you consider only convenience - most people are going to be willing to spend nine hours in coach instead of paying $4-5k more for business class.
However note those business class sections are almost always full
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true then everyone would be taking trains or busses. Instead, there are tens of thousands of short-haul flights.
Time and convenience matter. The economics of transportation, like pretty much everything else, is multifactorial.
Re: (Score:2)
For the ultra-rich, bragging rights and/or conspicuous consumption are justification enough.
Re: (Score:2)
30 minutes to any city on earth sounds pretty good, and I am pretty sure SpaceX will be getting at least one such commercial flight out in the next five years or so... they also can carry 100 people at a time, and passengers get a free sub-space visual to boot.
Even supersonic would look pokey next to that.
Even this SR-71 couldn't get to "any city on earth" in 30 minutes.
In this case the article says it flies at mach 1.4, so it can only go about 550 miles in 30 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
30 minutes to any city on earth sounds pretty good, and I am pretty sure SpaceX will be getting at least one such commercial flight out in the next five years or so... they also potentially could carry 100 people at a time, and passengers would potentially get a free sub-space visual to boot.
Even supersonic would look pokey next to that, should my predictions come true.
FTFY, you're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How about working on a way to reduce the time between arriving at the airport and boarding the plane below three hours?
Is anyone working on a way to get past the security checks at mach 1.4?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried applying yourself instead of whining on /.? I've never heard a worse case of self-limiting victim mentality as what you've got going on there. "Developers only come from Ivy League schools"? Seriously? WTF?
Re: (Score:1)
My company ONLY recruits developers from IVY League schools. WTF?! Yourself.
Then get out of your funk and find a *different* company. This is no excuse for your whining.
Whining? Apply myself?! You know NOTHING about me asshole!
So, fuck you!
Way to go proving his point, dipshit. With an attitude like that, it's no wonder you're stuck in a "dead end job."
Ha Ha Ha No (Score:2)
So in trying to reduce CO2 emissions, that will be the major reason supersonic commercial air travel doesn't "take off".
If that were true they would not still be holding climate change conferences where 500 people fly in on 500 private jets.
Those are the same people that would be using the supersonic transport if it were available....
The only question you have to ask when considering if CO2 emissions will be a factor in something not being done is; would it inconvenience the ruling class?
Re: (Score:2)
You beat me to the only 100% true comment in this thread. +5 insightful if I had mod points.
not everyone is using private jets (Score:2)
The top government officials, at least in Sweden, usually go with regular flights to conferences and meetings. Some travel in 1:st or business class.
There is a government jet also, operated by the Air Force (probably like the US Air force 1?) but it has a quite minor role. On the contrary, several ministers and European MEP:s actually take the train when possible, even internationally within Europe. For example, to the current climate summit in Katowice, Poland.
But yes. I know of several climate researchers
Re: (Score:2)
". I know of several climate researchers that have stopped flying altogether - even when the purpose of the flight is worthwhil"
What tossers. As long as rich fucks are taking private jets just to go get dinner or a haircut, climate researchers flying to conferences adds up to a rounding error.
Re: (Score:2)
Journeys for most groups of society adds up to a rounding error.
But if more and more people start taking climate impact as a constraint as serious as the expenses budget things may change. At least because the attitude of people change, which actually may affect the courage of lawmakers.
Energy is obviously too cheap (Score:1)
if we can afford to waste it like that.
I miss it (Score:2)
Being jet-lagged a couple of hours earlier and longer was so much fun.
Would be nice, but many forms of competition (Score:5, Insightful)
TFS does list a handful of the issues with commercial supersonic flight, and I do think that there may be room for those smaller planes. However, supersonic flights have increased competition...
1.) "The cost of three hours". NY to Heathrow is a 7-8 hour flight using standard jets. NY to Heathrow at mach 1.4 is 3-4 hours. If the cost of a ticket is triple, then those three hours have to be worth thousands of dollars *and* there has to be a reason why "fly the day before and book a hotel" isn't practical.
2.) First Class. For the cost of a supersonic flight where every seat is basically a coach seat, passengers can get posh seats that go completely horizontal and get good food and entertainment. A better flight experience can make the 3 hour difference far more tolerable. Concorde didn't have that, and the cost of a first class seat on a supersonic flight would be so exorbitant that it could only be afforded by people who probably have their own private jet anyway.
3.) Telecommuting. Some things still need to be done in person, but Zoom and WebEx have made it possible to have multi-continent, real-time teleconferences. A meeting that would cost a company tens of thousands of dollars to arrange to get everyone in the same room in such a tight timetable that a three hour difference is worth the cost *might* happen once or twice a year, but dozens of teleconferences in between make those cases exceptional at best.
4.) Fuel costs. It takes a LOT more fuel to run a plane at supersonic speeds. Even a small change in fuel costs will drastically impact per-passenger profitability for a flight that's as fuel hungry as supersonic. Yes, planes are lighter now, and yes, this is less of a deal on the smaller planes, but it's still a big deal to airlines, and the tightrope walk between "keeping it profitable" and "keeping the costs low enough to justify using this service over the other options" may very well mean that even a modest bump in fuel costs turns a 1% profit into a 1% deficit.
Commercial supersonic flight is very, very difficult to do profitably.
Re: (Score:3)
Concorde was around £8,300 for a return ticket. Standard 8.5 hour business class flights are around £1,500 to £5,000 depending on flight time and airline. Naturally Concorde got you the most convenient time slots, but on the normal business class you get a lie-flat seat, basically a little bed.
So yeah, I guess very few people were looking at it to try to save some money. Probably just rich people and CEOs who don't want to spend 9 hours on a plane.
Much less of a need to get there in three hours... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
You'd be surprised how often it occurs. I was just finishing up guidance on a project in London a couple of decades ago, and my office called to alert me to an immediate need for me to get to Washington, D.C. I was a Heathrow an hour later to get on the Concorde to JFK (New York), then a charter to D.C. and I made it in about 6 total hours (plus a couple of hours to get to Heathrow).
My client was happy, and we solved the problem in time for the crisis to pass...wouldn't've been even possible without super
Re: (Score:2)
Supersonic over the Pacific would still be a game changer. My last 17 hour flight to Singapore was way, way too long. Even in business it's just not fun.
Re:Much less of a need to get there in three hours (Score:4, Informative)
Supersonic over the Pacific would still be a game changer. My last 17 hour flight to Singapore was way, way too long. Even in business it's just not fun.
If you could have this (Concorde) for 8 hours supersonic -
https://media3.ausbt.com.au/15... [ausbt.com.au]
Or this (Singapore Airlines) for 17 hours subsonic (for the same price) -
https://samchui.com/wp-content... [samchui.com]
Which would you choose?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'd probably go for the supersonic for eight hours.
I understand the argument. You can be comfortable for 17 hours or uncomfortable for 8. In that situation, though, I'd probably take the uncomfortable for 8 over the comfortable for 17.
The main reason, obviously, is that I can sit for eight hours and then lie down in a real bed. Yes, First Class is nice, but it certainly doesn't beat the nice queen-sized hotel bed and I can definitely find restaurants with much better food than what the airline
Re: (Score:3)
Snob value ... like Apple crap ... is sufficient to justify anything.
Not really - If it was, the Concorde would still be flying.
There aren't enough snobs to make a service like Concorde profitable.
Ah that target demographic (Score:1)
Of the super rich. Russians, Arabs, and the CEO's of America. All just have to have a biz jet that can carry the few, the special, the anointed. Remind me again about global warming. Exactly what is the carbon footprint of such a jet. I know a fully loaded 7X7 is a fraction better than a minivan. I'm guessing a 12 passenger supersonic jet, not so great.
Elephant in the room (Score:5, Insightful)
London-NY subsonic: 7.5 hours
London-NY supersonic: 3.5 hours
Waiting at the check-in desk, checking in, waiting in line at the airport for the security theater, walking the airport's corridors, waiting at the gate, boarding, taxiing, landing, disembarking, walking some more, waiting at the baggage claim, etc: 3 hours if you're lucky. That's assuming flying supersonic isn't reserved for rich fucks who get to fast-track the whole process of course...
Conclusion: if you want people to travel faster, it would make more economic sense to reduce the time it takes *before* and *after* the flying proper.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever tried business class? I got a free upgrade once and it was quite incredible how different it was. The lounge had a great buffet with hot food, decent showers with all the towels and stuff provided. Didn't have to wait in line with the plebs either, they have a business class VIP security gate. Oh, and none of this "turn up at least two hours before you flight" stuff either, more like 30 minutes before because the business class baggage drop is fully staffed.
I later found out that you can often
Re: (Score:2)
That's assuming flying supersonic isn't reserved for rich fucks who get to fast-track the whole process of course...
I'm just wondering what kind of a rich fuck you need to be these days. Every idiot who uses a plane more than twice a year is a priority passenger. Business class seats aren't very expensive. And if you really want the "fancy" treatment, check with your local airport. I mean for $130 / year I get priority check in, priority security, priority boarding, the use of a very nice lounge, priority baggage, valet parking, and iris based passport clearance with no line at my local airport.
I actually make a point of
Yeah yeah (Score:2)
Engine was never the issue (Score:3)
The whole problem with supersonic flight is that it's not efficient. The sonic boom and the aircraft heating up is a sign that you're pushing really hard against the fluid that is the atmosphere. If they can somehow magically eliminate the sonic boom and all the external heating from all that drag then you stand a chance to become more efficient. You need a whole lot more than epic engines to make this work. It's like slapping a truck engine into a small car and claiming that suddenly you can race in Formula 1.
Probably too little, too late (Score:2)
SX is makin
I wonder... (Score:2)
Planes for the super rich (Score:3)
I don't see why everybody else needs to give up their sleep just so the super rich can be somewhere a few hours early. For society as a whole, that is actually a really bad trade off.
Concorde at Heathrow (Score:2)
This past spring as I flew out of Heathrow the plane taxied by a BA Concorde. I don't know if it is an actual one that flew or a replica but it was very nice to see one final bit of history as we went by.