hypersonic passenger jet,no? Boeing says yes!

[url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/boeing-hypersonic-jet-3-hour-pacific-flight/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=1sig&utm_campaign=One%20Signal]link[/u rl]


a short piece here talking about a commercial race to fast air travel for regular people

a reply to: penroc3

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: penroc3
Oh this old game. Seems to be something Boeing (Airbus to for that matter) does every few years to drum up media interest and public excitement. Last time we saw this it was the sonic cruiser and that turned out to be the bad idea I thought it would. When they start talking about it as seriously as the NMA i'll believe they are serious.You would think they would look at supersonic first, something with 250-300 seats, Mach 1.6-2.2 and intercontinental range. Then tackle hypersonic.

“You would think they would look at supersonic first, something with 250-300 seats, Mach 1.6-2.2 and intercontinental range. Then tackle hypersonic”

They did (the Mach 1.6 to 2.2 part).

It was called Concorde.

A factor of two increase in productivity was not enough to justify the increase in cost. That’s why Concorde never made a profit.

An increase in productivity of 5X could change the equation.

a reply to: thebozeian

originally posted by: 1947boomer
“You would think they would look at supersonic first, something with 250-300 seats, Mach 1.6-2.2 and intercontinental range. Then tackle hypersonic”

They did (the Mach 1.6 to 2.2 part).

It was called Concorde.

A factor of two increase in productivity was not enough to justify the increase in cost. That’s why Concorde never made a profit.

An increase in productivity of 5X could change the equation.

a reply to: thebozeian

Concorde's biggest problem was the sonic boom. That drove residents of the East Coast of the USA nutty. The only solution was to only go supersonic once 100 miles into the Atlantic. But that drove down profits from each flight. It was only the ultra-rich who could afford the air tickets.

a reply to: 1947boomer
If this was 1973 I would agree with you, it isn't. Plus it wasn't Boeing that conquered supersonic airliners.

As for the reasons that Concorde didn't take off, it had very little to do with the economics, as BA repeatedly pointed out, once they had the seat price point where it should have been Concorde was actually the most profitable operation they had. Yes we all know that effectively the UK and French taxpayer bankrolled it but it wasn't loosing money. No what really killed off Supersonic transports was the anti campaign that miraculously sprang up after it became clear that the US was never going to close the gap on the Concorde effort. And that was the fault of the US administration of the time that unreasonably directed Boeing and Lockheed to out do the Europeans at any cost with an answer that flew faster and higher and with twice the number of people. And in 1967-73 that just wasn't practical with the design and material science available. Forty five years later however, it is very possible. A 300 seat 7500-9000 mile range Mach 1.8 airliner is actually doable and without the intolerable sonic boom. I think a Mach 5 is also doable but it isn't nearly so reachable as a supersonic step that could see a ticket between say SYD-LHR or LAX -NRT for maybe 10-20% above a current economy ticket in half the time when all factors are considered, that is immediately doable.
And we know that the restrictions on supersonic travel over land and populated areas is about to change, even the FAA has conceded this.