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 3 of 4)
Marlinj Brown Feb 25th 2008 10:18AM
FOR JAMES (POST 15)
THANKS FOR ADDING TO WASTED SPACE AND TIME WITH YOUR POST.
Cire Feb 25th 2008 10:35AM
Are the ticket prices going to be twice the price 'cause it's twice the speed of the old & discarded, yet pretty damn fast, Concord? [$15-$20,000 fare each way?]
JT Feb 25th 2008 10:37AM
This is the advancement aviation truly needs..
airbus is making all this hoopla over there super jumbo jet..a so called "state of the art" jet with 600 seats, hot tubs and beauty salons..and flies SLOWER than a boeing 707 did 45 years ago..we don't need bigger airplanes, we need supersonic airliners to eliminate the typical 12 -16 hr flights to cross the pacific from the US or the 6-9 hr flights from the US to Europe.
amount Feb 25th 2008 10:49AM
aol has the dumbest peiople working for it in the owld stuuuuuuupiddd
kep Feb 25th 2008 11:46AM
yup almost no airports have a runway long enough. only military installations.
Heidi Horowitz Feb 25th 2008 11:32AM
Oh vey...being a Jewish American Princess, I can do my nails and land in Australia before they even dry. I will have more time to shop for my kosher products too.
Ta ta for now,
Heidi
Joe Feb 25th 2008 11:31AM
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THE HELL THAT TELEPHONE BOOTH IS THAT THE AUTHOR OF THIS STORY IS TALKING ABOUT? THEY ARE DISAPPEARING FASTER THAN THAT JET CAN GO. LOL
Lee Feb 25th 2008 11:33AM
That's progress. That's rapid transit, huh? It will be great for the globetrotters of the future. It will be quite expensive, too, given the current oil prices. Imagine what they will be in 25 years. I cannot foresee viable alternative fuel sources, beyond petroleum to power aircraft. However, what do I know? I am not a chemical engineer, nor an aeronautical engineer.
Starly Feb 25th 2008 11:57AM
Good grief! That's much too fast. Yeah, they can go 4000 mph, but did anyone think that's how fast they go down too? *_* I'll take a boat, thanks!
DanP Feb 25th 2008 12:04PM
The A2 is designed to run on hydrogen, not conventional fuels. Furthermore, the A2 is more fuel efficient at all speeds, unlike the Concord, which had bad mileage when it was flying under the speed of sound. The reason for the lack of windows is that to withstand the stress of hypersonic flight, the windows would have to be the equivalent of space shuttle windows, which are too heavy to be practical on a commercial jet.
Try reading popular science or go to popsci.com. You'll get a lot more useful information on these things than if you read all the other comments here.
m Feb 25th 2008 12:13PM
flying that fast isn't the issue, stopping is a bitch though
jokesl3 Feb 25th 2008 12:30PM
Goes 3800 mph in someone's immagination
Greedy13 Feb 25th 2008 12:38PM
That's great, although I'll be dead by then. With all the new technology, why can't they bar code the luggage, similar to zip codes, when you check in and automate that process? Why do we need to get to the airport 2 hours ahead of the flight? Why not have automated screening with walk through detection? The speed of the plane is the least of the problems.
jaguignon Feb 25th 2008 12:52PM
Can you imagine the mess that would make in a crash?! why don't they make that a military bomber, at that speed there can't be any rocket that can catch it!
rob Feb 25th 2008 12:44PM
we have one NOW called the "Aurora"
Google it for yourself.
bob wong Feb 25th 2008 12:47PM
Just like the Condorde, this effort will fail for the same reasons.
jack Feb 25th 2008 12:54PM
As happens so often, the AOL headline writer tells us a lie in order to get us to go to the story -- and a new set of advertisements. The headline told us about a supersonic jet that "goes" 4000 MPH. No, it's about a type of jet ENGINE that will help an aircraft fly that fast in a quarter of a century.
Liars, liars, liars -- over and over.
JustinOpinion Feb 25th 2008 12:55PM
I would ABSOLUTELY go for a trip in that! It looks AMAZING! The faster the better! Having traveled each and every week for work for the better part of 8 years, fast is better.
Ed Bogusz Feb 25th 2008 1:04PM
if only you could get through the airport that quickly
George Feb 25th 2008 1:42PM
Of course with increasing air traffic delays, you'll spend another 5 hours sitting in a line of aircraft, waiting for departure.