It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian supersonic airliner

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
So apparently Russia are going to try again at making a supersonic airliner based on the TU 160 bomber. However with how their economy is at the moment I can't see it happening anytime soon. I'm guessing it would take a hell of a lot of money and engineering to accomplish. It would be like changing the B1 to an airliner I would guess. story

Added a video if their last attempt
edit on 26-1-2018 by Woody510 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I hope they do.. flying takes to long as of now imo.

And might I add.. I love really love the TU-160 strategic bomber also called White Swan and Blackjack.
just look at those engines ! ‎4 x SSPE Trud NK-321 turbofans




posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

It does take a long time to fly somewhere but the majority of us can't afford a £10,000 ticket so we're stuck with subsonic I'm afraid
edit on 26-1-2018 by Woody510 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

I'd love to see them try. It would be a beast though.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

They say this one will be cheaper then previous subsonic transports
And its coming out of Denver

www.cnet.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh so would I but can't help but think it's a dream at this moment in time. It says it would be for VIPS or maybe the ones he doesn't like. They'll all be sat in their seats as the pilot lowers the bomb bay to get rid of them



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

That's still a hell of a lot more than the casual traveler can afford. I've spent less on an entire three week trip that included travel in country while there.
edit on 1/26/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Spacespider

That's still a hell of a lot more than the casual traveler can afford. I've spent less on an entire three week trip that included travel in country while there.


It burns more fuel but the flight time will be much shorter.. perhaps it not that bad.
And last they did this they used tech from the 80´s.. I bet many things have changed



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

A lot has changed. They're working on several that could go supersonic over populated areas. This one couldn't, but others being developed will be able to. But they're looking at $5,000 round trip on Boom. It's less than 60 seats, so the cost per flight to make a profit is a lot higher.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

Concorde was 60s tech mate. Its still an amazing plane in my eyes especially when you consider it was flying mach 2 at 60k feet whilst everyone was eating and drinking champagne. Especially when you consider Blackbird was flying a bit higher and they basically wore space suits.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

They also weren't pressurised. If Concorde had lost pressure at altitude they would have been in serious trouble.

That reminds me a joke. An F-16 is flying in formation with a B-52. The F-16 gets on the radio and says, "watch this". He punches afterburner, and goes shooting out and performing aerobatics. He comes back and says, "can you do that? "

The B-52 pilot says, "no, but I can do this". The bomber flies on for a few minutes, and the pilot says, "beat that".

The F-16 pilot says, "you just flew in a straight line. What did you do?"

B-52 pilot says, "got up, went to the bathroom, made a sandwich and came back to my seat".
edit on 1/26/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That is true its still something I find amazing though especially from the time it was made that a passenger could do sustained supersonic flight over the Atlantic. I remember a documentary on Concorde that said it used the same amount of fuel taxiing to the runway as a 737 to Amsterdam.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hahah I like that one.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

It was an impressive monster. They'd occasionally come to Honolulu, and for $2,000 you'd get to take off, go halfway to California and back at Mach 2. It was like a 2.5 hour flight because of the subsonic portions.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

If only they still did that somewhere now I'd happily save for it just to say yeah I've done it.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

There's another one with the same setup, only it ends with "shut down three engines".



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I prefer the toilet and sandwich ending I must say



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

I do too.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Walked around Concorde at Mascot..Small suckers.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Cramped as hell inside. Have to go down the aisle sideways.







 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join