Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Reaction Engines' A2 supersonic jet: Europe to Australia at 4,000 mph
"The supersonic jet, designed by Oxfordshire's own Reaction Engines, could one day shuttle passengers from Europe to Down Under in less than five hours, cruising at up to 4,000 miles-per-hour along the way. Granted, the aircraft is still in concept mode at the moment, but if all goes to plan, it could be operational 'within 25 years.' Reportedly, the 156-yard long jet could maintain a speed of 3,800 miles-per-hour -- over twice that of the famed Concorde -- and could carry 300 guests on each trip."
Very cool -- but 25 years? That's a long time. Who will want to fly in a plane when we have the technology to step into a telephone booth and dial up any place and time in the world and be there in seconds, complete with some gaudy-looking CG depicting wormholes and such? Not me.
Gallery: Reaction Engines' A2 supersonic jet
Filed under: Transportation
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 4)
Tim Feb 25th 2008 8:38AM
What do I care because I will be DEAD in 25 years. It will be flying over my Dead body.
nk34 Feb 25th 2008 2:00PM
I SAY THE SAME. After 25 years I will be in heaven but if not, I come from Europe so if I have to travel I will with boat to enjoy the ocean and the blue sky, I don't care to be in europe within 2 hours thats b/s. How many from all the people of any age knows what and where will be after 25 years?
James Feb 25th 2008 8:44AM
Congratulations AOL for once again wasting computer space and time on bullsh*t.
Nick Feb 25th 2008 8:47AM
We will have warp drive by then and can go to the next galaxy in the time it takes that thing to get to Australia
LeRoy Feb 25th 2008 8:48AM
Its 2008
We should have our personal jet packs by now. Didn't anyone read Popular Science in the 60's? In 25 years that transporter thing should be up & running, so who needs a SST?
americancheeez Feb 25th 2008 8:51AM
i find it fascinating that those who know so little have so much to say. however, not seeing any unrelated political arguments was a nice change of pace.
Charlie St. Feb 25th 2008 9:13AM
I liked the Concord Consept, except for the fuel consumption. I like this plane as well. BUT, as fore mentioned, in 25 years technology will have surpassed this plane. 25 years ago I had tha idea of entering a phone booth, pushing a origination code and a destination code, hit SEND and in a few seconds, arrive at your destination. This idea occured just about the time we advanced from rotary dial to push button calling.
Mackie Feb 25th 2008 9:09AM
I wish it would come sooner. I can't wait to enjoy such speed. I now get bored flying between the US and the Caribbean and worse Europe and those islands. Get me there way faster.
Dan Feb 25th 2008 9:07AM
Man, what if something went wrong? Can you imagine hitting the ground at 4000mph? Can you say "greasy spot?"
Kris Marshall Feb 25th 2008 12:09PM
Dan- Just guessing here, but I suspect hitting the ground at 4000 mph would feel very much similar to hitting it at 500 mph. Look on the bright side, you would have only 1/8th the time to worry about your impending death if you were crashing from cruising altitude!
Sam Feb 25th 2008 9:11AM
Concord anyone? It never made money. The concept was cool and held promise. Few could pay for a ticket and routes were very limited?
ordinary radical Feb 25th 2008 10:21AM
The reason the Concord never made money is because there was too much concern about the sonic boom it produced which restricted it to flying supersonic (where it was most efficient) only over water. There was no way it would ever make money servicing just four or so airports.
Newer designs, btw, reduce the sonic boom so that complaint is not an issue any longer.
michka Feb 25th 2008 9:33AM
i bet that we will see planes with 4000 mph capabilities before their forcasted 25 years. although, like the concord, ticket prices will be well over $10,000, maybe even double that figure given how we will run out of oil some day. companies will find it very dificult to proffit from supersonic flight, haven't they learned from the concord?
michka Feb 25th 2008 9:34AM
it will never happen! tickets will be more than $10,000. unless a group of celebrities feels that they want one!lol
t-BOW Feb 25th 2008 9:29AM
i don't see any windows so what view were you going to enjoy
Joseph Feb 25th 2008 9:46AM
It's just a "concept". So what? I can concieve traveling 10,000 per hour just as well so why stop there. What a silly discussion over nothing. A waste of time, just like me tapping out this comment.
Ordinary Radical Feb 25th 2008 9:56AM
Wow! Some of you are pretty ignorant. For the amount of work required to build the plane and pass all FAA regulations, planning 25 years out is normal for aircraft manufacturers. This is like having auto makers planning 5-10 years out. And just like plans for flying cars, there are always technological hurdles we don't see yet when we prognosticate.
Too fast?? [note spelling] That's what critics of horseless carriages and steam locomotives said. Dang luddites!
I agree that security, passenger and luggage handling will have to be changed dramatically, even for non-supersonic planes.
Deb Feb 25th 2008 10:00AM
Having flown on the Concorde, I cannot wait for something like this. The Concorde flight is the closest I will ever get to outer space and seeing the curvature of the earth. Losing it was going backwards in aviation.
Keith J. Mohrhoff Feb 25th 2008 9:58AM
Fuel Consumption: SSTs are actually extremely fuel efficient at Supersonic speeds. 50% of the fuel used by an SST is burned off during the short periods of take-off and approach during which, the aircraft has to fly below super-sonic. This happens fro two reasons: A) delta-wing configurations are VERY efficient at high-speeds and VERY inefficient at low speeds, B) at supersonic speeds, an SST is actually following a self-induced ballistic trajectory through very thin atmosphere so, it basically carries along on it's own momentum. At subsonic speeds, it must make course corrections which mean canceling out its current inertia and replacing it with another...this, takes fuel.
Mackie: there won't be any SST flights to the Carribean because there are no runways there long enough to accommodate one.
Matt Feb 25th 2008 10:03AM
This all makes for a nice set of cartoons. But it is still decades off in the distant future before it is a reality in terms of technology and cost. The vast majority of us will not live long enough to see it as a practical reality.