Reaction Engines' A2 supersonic jet could easily humble the Concorde

Concorde, schmoncorde. At least that's what we assume Reaction Engines' A2 would utter if it could in fact speak. 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. Who knows how much a seat would cost, but we're guessing the sky's the limit.

[Via Engadget Spanish]

[Jons @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:13AM]

Alright, ill begin counting down the years till i can fly with one of these.

25........................

meh, f*ck it!

[superfresh @ Feb 22nd 2008 9:01AM]

This concept scares me the way driving at 55 mph probably scared people years ago.

The average human shouldn't be moving that quickly. It's unnatural, dammit!

[Flashpoint @ Feb 22nd 2008 9:49AM]

MEGATRON in Cybertronian jet mode.

[Gorillamonk @ Feb 22nd 2008 10:44AM]

wow. that freakishly fast. and still waaaaay below light speed. How fast would we get to Australia then? like minutes away!

[Nathan @ Feb 22nd 2008 2:23PM]

@ Gorillamonk

I'm pretty sure that at the speed of light you could get to Aus and back (from Europe...or anywhere on the globe for that matter) several dozen times in a second.

4000 mph =/= 186,000 miles per second

[p.flynn2 @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:15AM]

nice pun? not.


oh and 1st

[Carbonize @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:24AM]

Oh and not


Can I look forward to putting your name down for a Darwin award at some point in the near future?

[wickedpheonix @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:38AM]

Doesn't anyone realize that you run a huge risk of claiming first since if you aren't the first you are virtually guaranteed a low rank, and sometimes a low rank is guaranteed even if you are the first?

[tanjou @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:57AM]

I guess they fixed that sonic boom problem.

[Heimiko @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:17AM]

By that time (25 years) the oil is pretty much depleted, or, prices have gone so high, that traveling with this kind of premium speed, is pretty much inaccessible to "common" folk.

Hope they have a concept of a different kind of engine too, one that runs on water, or perhaps electricity from an on-board reactor ;-)

[Paris @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:26AM]

Concorde flight prices weren't exactly consumer friendly either.

[Gert @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:40AM]

Isnt there a synthetic oil in the works?

[blarvh @ Feb 22nd 2008 9:35AM]

@Gert
There already is!
Synthetic oil - Mobil1, or other motor oils.
Synthetic fuel - Was widely used and produced in Nazi-Germany.

[kjb434 @ Feb 22nd 2008 9:41AM]

Oil finished in 25years? What crazy kook-aid have you've been drinking?

This planet still have more oil than we know what to do with. An that oil we have found but haven't started drilling for. On top of that, geologist are realizing that we are just tapping this wonderful black gold that makes our live so wonderful today.

Oil is the engine of life in this planet. If you take away oil, you will instantly throw us to the stoneage. You can kiss all your electronics good-bye if oil is truly gone. Oil is not just used for fuel, but for everything.

[MARSHAK @ Feb 22nd 2008 10:05AM]

kjb is kinda right. oil is not an unlimited supply. however we are not due to run out anytime soon. sometimes oil is just harder to get at. oil sand in alberta, deep underwater drilling, drilling through hard rock costs far more than it did taking it from deserts in saudi arabia or texas.

[Joel Stephen @ Feb 22nd 2008 1:30PM]

This was in the February issue of Popular Science it is going to run on hydrogen and utilizes a new type of turbo-ramjet called the Scimitar Engine

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-01/green-skies-mach-5

[Jherez @ Feb 22nd 2008 5:07PM]

At the people with the last comments, the last time i checked it said that we have about 40 more years until oil supply runs out, and that was over 5 years ago. However, i saw on Discovery Channel, a documentary they did about the future that there is enough frozen methane in the deepest parts of the ocean to power us for 3000 years. Forgive me if I'm wrong

[Sam Winter @ Mar 6th 2008 5:40AM]

JHerez --

yeah, methane hydrate. They need to find a tech solution to sequestering carbon from burning Coal and Methane Hydrate. Add that to large scale solar energy harnessing in desert areas and large scale off-shore wind farms, and we've got this energy thing nipped in the butt.
That's not even including new nuclear technology that generates less and/or less harmful waste.
I think humanity will be fine... just need to get scientists and/or intelligent people in charge of the world and toss out the corrupt self-centered politicans

[Gert @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:34AM]

A seat would cost the same as a current 1st class (business) ticket. (Source: Belgium Newspaper De Morgen)

[Chris McDonald @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:58AM]

I'd like to see anyone accurately predict the price of any air tickets in 25 years' time!

[Gert @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:04AM]

Yeah true...but
This was said by a worker of Oxfordshire's own Reaction Engines and i think that Oxford guy knows a little more then you do.

[T-Bone @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:46AM]

What does the manufacturer have to do with seat prices? I don't see Boeing or Airbus telling their customers how much to charge for a seat.

[Gert @ Feb 22nd 2008 9:10AM]

Count the price of the plane, the repair and maintanance costs, fuel needed. Just count those things and look a the history of energy prices and the think about price competition between airline company's. And you'll get a fairly decent picture. Of course its predicting the future...

Anyway.

Besides another thing that i forgot to mention its that this plane flies way higher then current commercial planes dont ask me how or why) they wrote about flying from let say Brussels over the Northpole to Australia. I don have the article anymore. But Engadget should make its articles a little more in detail.

[Raph @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:35AM]

Hey the concorde record is 2 hours, 54 minutes, 45 seconds

So Less than 5 hours is basically little bit fatser than a 777!!!

if it's really twice faster than the concorde we should expect 1h30min

[Lance @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:44AM]

What do you think "Down Under" means?? The 5 hour flight time aforementioned in this story is from Europe to Australia (AKA "Down Under"). The flight time you quoted was from Europe to the U.S..

[Chasbo @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:44AM]

No Raph you aren't comparing like with like.
Concorde flew London to NYC in 2hrs 54 mins.
This thing will fly London to AUSTRALIA in 5 hrs.

[Matt @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:46AM]

Do you know where Down Under is?

[iuqiddis @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:02AM]

I think you can safely assume he doesn't know where Down Under is.

[Raph @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:43AM]

For my defense it was 7:35am and in general we always talk transatlantic time.

So my bad!

[Frankenstein Black @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:37AM]

Kewl, Aurora tech for people transport. Wonder if it will use the Slipstream tech as well?

[Matt @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:51AM]

It's a shame Moore's Law doesn't hold for the flight speed of jet planes. That kind of boast shows just how great Concorde was.

I'm sure Concorde would be quicker overall anyway, as by 2033 we'll have to turn up to airports two days early for quarantine and a full cavity search...

[julz007 @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:54AM]

lol

[r3loaded @ Feb 22nd 2008 9:20AM]

I actually squirmed in my chair when u said those last three words!

[blarvh @ Feb 22nd 2008 9:22AM]

Shame indeed. Air travel for the passenger hasn't changed much since the mid 50's!

The first passenger jet aircraft service was started in 1952, less than 50 years after the first powered flight!! Here we are 56 years later still flying in hollow tubes powered by something invented in 1910...

Where are our sonic air plows and ion thruster engines?

[cirian1975 @ Feb 22nd 2008 7:59AM]

Owch :-(

[AngrySockMonkey @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:05AM]

i am not to concerned, in 25 years we will be able to teleport to europe and flight wont be needed. i am working on a machine right now. i havent been able to teleport to another cardboard box yet. but i am working on it. now where did i put the duct tape?

[ReggieXuk @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:14AM]

if it runs on fuel it is a big massive PHAIL!

[Carbonize @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:19AM]

How else do you expect an engine to work if not by fuel? Petrol (gasoline) is fuel, electricity is fuel, food is fuel, hydrogen is fuel. Anything you can use to generate power is fuel.

[Carbonize @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:17AM]

Given that Concorde expands by about an inch at full speed how much will this one stretch?

[DT @ Feb 22nd 2008 11:12AM]

That's what she said.

[Ian @ Feb 22nd 2008 4:42PM]

i lol'd

[Rich @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:40AM]

I miss Concorde. *sniff*

[Lee Richards @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:43AM]

As someone has already pointed out, if this plane comes to fruition at the end of the stated period, it will be 57 years after Concorde first flew. Concorde, schmoncorde indeed! Is there any other technology that has advanced as slowly as air travel??

[r3loaded @ Feb 22nd 2008 9:22AM]

Aircraft development has been hindered by fuel shortages, global warming and the economics of high-speed aircraft. Unfortunately, the current world economy isn't demanding it at the moment with the current costs :(

[mcc @ Feb 22nd 2008 9:29AM]

Sure, how about the automobile industry? The internal combustion engine is still essentially the same as it was 100+ years ago, just more refined. At least the aircraft industry has gone through several different engine types such as piston, turboprop and turbofan (what we refer to as 'jet'), turbojet (the type of jet engine typically used in military planes, and Concorde). Personally I think the advances in aircraft technology from the Wright brothers to Concorde were pretty fantastic. Since Concorde there doesn't seem to be much more than incremental improvement however.

[kjb434 @ Feb 22nd 2008 9:48AM]

r3loaded,

Your statement shows how little you know of this industry. Actually, larger and faster planes have always been available for passenger travel, but modifying hundreds of the worlds larger airports to handle these aircrafts prevents their creation.

Just look at Airbus' new A380. This plane is forcing several larger airports that will have flights that utilize this jet to lengthen their runways.

Even the concord had to limit itself to fly to the few airports it serviced. The plane could have been a little larger to lower ticket prices, but no airport could handle it.

Although jet fuel plays a role, that cost is just passed on to the consumer. The BS of man-made global warming and other environmental concerns do no play a role.

[m @ Feb 22nd 2008 11:13AM]

kittyhawk to the moon in 66 years isn't slow, kid. read a book.

[sitruc @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:43AM]

So this thing runs on a liquid hydrogen engine that hasn't been developed and is twice the size of current jumbo jets? I assume that means all of those airports that can't handle the Airbus a380 will have undergone large expansions just for the A2 in the next 25 years.

[Aaron @ Feb 22nd 2008 8:47AM]

Concord did not retire its planes because they were too slow. They were too inefficient. At least with the Concord, fuel economy relative to velocity placed the cost of trip well out of the range of most travelers (I remember $5K tickets from US to Europe several years ago when they flew). Until Reaction publishes fuel economy numbers, I call BS on their claim of the same price as a regular business class ticket.

[m @ Feb 22nd 2008 11:20AM]

more than any other factor, the planes were just too old. it was becoming very hard to get parts and service them, not to mention deal with metal fatigue. what really did them in, however, was the horrific crash in paris. very few people were willing to pay upwards of $10-15k round-trip after that.