Reaction Engines' A2 supersonic jet could easily humble the Concorde
By Darren Murph 
posted February 22nd 2008 7:06AM
posted February 22nd 2008 7:06AM
[Via Engadget Spanish]
posted February 22nd 2008 7:06AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
kittyhawk to the moon in 66 years isn't slow, kid. read a book.
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.
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.
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.
Sir Richard Branson said that within his lifetime, the hardware that drives Virgin Galactic will allow regular London to Sydney travel in 30 minutes.
If Virgin Galactic can run profitably, it won't take long.
Exactly!
The future of commuter travel is in low orbit travel. If we can efficiently get there, there is essentially no power necessary for the transit, just to guide down for a landing.
But think of floating to a community weightless bathroom....ewww!
On the other hand, no more salted nuts is a good thing without gravity.
this jet will make it easier for Aussie bands (besides INXS) to invade the American shores, not just English bands. that in it of itself is worth the price and environmental harm.
also for the record the price of an airline seat on this thing in 2033 is similar to the price of a typical first class seat in 2056. so that should help put things in context for everyone, which as we all know will perversely cost less than an economy seat from 2024 due to the 28th Amendment (Flight Rights) due to be passed in 2014.
it looks like a really big boxer with tiny legs
also
by then we will all probably be using "the entity"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/IT_(South_Park%3B_The_Entity).jpeg
The "entity" is currently a lot more comfortable than travelling to or from any US airport.
That's one way to get investors geeked: The promise of ROI, post mortem.
Judging by the size and position of that wing, this thing is going to need to land at Mach 1. And judging by the shape of the fuselage, a repeat of BA flight 38 in 2033 is going to make it act like a supersonic javelin. I hope it can resist the temperature of the Earth's Mantle. I also hope there are no telepathetic rubber birds and silly jabbering balding men with whips down there. Sigh, I guess none of you are old enough to remember "At the Earth's Core"
p.s. You cannot mesmerise me... I'm British!
Based upon the book by Edgar Rice Burrows? And that line was delivered by Peter Cushing, while flapping an umbrella...
Nope, never read the book or saw the movie.
Yep, I'm old.
Showing your age now. I have no recollection of stupid looking drilling machines and Welsh mountains.
Peter Cushing? Who's he?
If you ask me, the drilling machine was the least stupid thing about it, but nevertheless I loved the movie!
God show a woman a machine that spins, vibrates and goes deep into dark places and she'll never say a bad word about it.
Haha very well done! I set myself right up for that!
And yet again its British, fantastic news
I remember the death of the Concorde being described as one of the few times in modern history that technology took a drastic step backwards. It's crazy that we'll have to wait at least 25 years (presuming this dubious startup with nought but a concept sticks to its vague timetable) to get back to the kind of technology we had in 1969.
The problem is that there simply wasn't (isn't?) enough demand for supersonic travel to justify the GREATLY increased cost of supersonic flight. With very few exceptions, people don't flit about the globe all year long, they usually take a couple of flights here and there. So what if it takes a few hours longer? If the demand ever gets there, you can be sure supersonic will take over.
Props vs jets is different than jet vs supersonic, as props were highly unreliable, inefficient, and very uncomfortable (due to vibration and noise) for long flights. Jets solved the problems associated with props, but what advantage does supersonic offer other than higher speed?
Ticket Price Be Damned...
Unless it is as fuel efficient or better than a 747 (Kg of fuel/Kg of payload/Km distance traveled) then it should not take off. Don't get me wrong, I use to live on Long Island, near JFK and once a day I could look up and see the Concord taking off. Damn that was a beautiful bird!
IS a beautiful bird. They still exist they just don't fly. We have one near me at Filton, Bristol.
@Carbonize
In the air, it was a beautiful bird...
On the ground, a bird is cat food...
Unless it's an Ostrich ;)
Upscale the bird, upscale the cat...
Cut [Tabby]
Paste [Tiger]
Don't Gerry and Sylvia Anderson have copyright on this design? (Thunderbirds - 1960's)
Ok, it says it can be built in 25 years... 25 years???? Are you kidding me? That's a long time of going from concept to reality. This jet is vaporware boys and girls...
Pure science fiction. A pipe dream. If we can really do high quality conferencing over the internet, then there really wouldn't be much need for this type of transport. Except for people who just want to travel for fun.
Forget teleportation. The first time somebody gets scrambed during transport the lawsuits will effectively put that business to rest.
Why? Not like the person's going to be able to complain afterwards ;)
in 25 years time i hope the star trek transporters are operational ;)
in 25 years we should be able to teleport to any destination. No need for aircraft.
Yes, please!
I was born just a decade too late. I never got to fly the concord... make me this plane!
Poof!... You are this plane.
>.>
Shoom!
Its about time we get supersonic travel again. Part of the future died with the concord. I hope this all works out.
Small wheels, big engine...
LMAO i dont know why the picture makes me laugh
its like
randomly shooting upward at an impossible angle when its on the ground
Poof!... You are this plane.
"Concorde, schmoncorde?"
"Down under?"
"Who knows...?"
"At least that's what we assume...?"
My question is, was this story written by Paris Hilton? Is it a requirement that reporters and bloggers write like high school cheerleaders, or are their Web writers' requirements so low that sites hire all applicants? As they often say, "Hmmm..." Their ad for a journalist must have said, "non-writers needed to write non-stories." Scientific American, this ain't.
Correct, my friend. Last time I checked, it still said, "Engadget." Perhaps you meant to aim your browser here: http://www.sciam.com