Hypersonic jet A2 unveiled

[waspiflab]

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/ ... 1&src=news

[expat]

I can't help to to think that it will never happen.

Matt

[a1]

Wow that is awesome.

[C]

I can't help to to think that it will never happen.

Matt

Just as well really. I'm sure I'm not the only one to realise their small faux-pas with their unoriginal naming though. There's been a very fast A2 before. That A2 led to the A4, later known in its form with a warhead as the V2...

[LeFeaoux]

MAN ... I just saw it on "Yahoo News" and was going to post about it but you beat me to the punch!

I also, doubt that it will ever go into service. As far as I can see, it is just another version of the Concorde. I think it will flop for the same reasons the Concorde did. But, who knows ... stranger things have happened.

I really think that they need to be thinking much "smaller" to tell you the truth. A smaller version of the aircraft (say the size of a CRJ-700 or even a Lear 45) would be cheaper to build/buy, a lot more economical to fly/maintain and could be accommodated by FAR MORE airports worldwide.  Sure, it won't hold 300 people like this aircraft is supposed to but seriously, do you really think they will ever seat THAT many people on an average flight? I mean really, the tickets for this aircraft will likely be way too expensive for very many people to afford it ... especially on a regular basis. Then, they will just run into the same problems the Concorde had ... too expensive to use in a practical manner. Just my opinion.

[Splinter562]

I really think that they need to be thinking much "smaller" to tell you the truth. A smaller version of the aircraft (say the size of a CRJ-700 or even a Lear 45) would be cheaper to build/buy, a lot more economical to fly/maintain and could be accommodated by FAR MORE airports worldwide.  Just my opinion.

You are absolutely correct. Jumping straight into large-scale suborbital transportation will more likely than not result in financial failure. Only the mega-rich will be able to afford these types of flights at first because of the development and operating costs involved. Not enough to fill a 100+ seat aircraft for regular flights. Once the mega-rich have footed the bill to get the technology established and the costs down, you can start thinking about making a bigger aircraft for average joe's to fly in.

[Ivan]

[quote]MAN ... I just saw it on "Yahoo News" and was going to post about it but you beat me to the punch!

I also, doubt that it will ever go into service. As far as I can see, it is just another version of the Concorde. I think it will flop for the same reasons the Concorde did. But, who knows ... stranger things have happened.

I really think that they need to be thinking much "smaller" to tell you the truth. A smaller version of the aircraft (say the size of a CRJ-700 or even a Lear 45) would be cheaper to build/buy, a lot more economical to fly/maintain and could be accommodated by FAR MORE airports worldwide.

[an-225]

Sure, I can SAY, I am going to make a rifle that can shoot a bullet 5000m, with variable aperture to correct for wind speed so that it always hits the target, and it is semi-auto, firing incendiary rounds, but will it actually WORK?

Impossible to fly at that speed without going into a suborbital phase or at the most LEO - but then, what about the descent, and can something that heavy really make it?

[chornedsnorkack]

MAN ... I just saw it on "Yahoo News" and was going to post about it but you beat me to the punch!

See a thread on page below. About popping to Spain.

I also, doubt that it will ever go into service. As far as I can see, it is just another version of the Concorde. I think it will flop for the same reasons the Concorde did. But, who knows ... stranger things have happened.

I really think that they need to be thinking much "smaller" to tell you the truth. A smaller version of the aircraft (say the size of a CRJ-700 or even a Lear 45) would be cheaper to build/buy, a lot more economical to fly/maintain and could be accommodated by FAR MORE airports worldwide.  Sure, it won't hold 300 people like this aircraft is supposed to but seriously, do you really think they will ever seat THAT many people on an average flight? I mean really, the tickets for this aircraft will likely be way too expensive for very many people to afford it ... especially on a regular basis. Then, they will just run into the same problems the Concorde had ... too expensive to use in a practical manner. Just my opinion.

BA bought two A318 planes and will in 2009 equip them with 32 business class flat beds - 8 rows of 4 abreast. They are going to fly London City - somewhere in Ireland - New York.

32 seats per frame. Concorde had 100 seats per frame - one obvious problem was that 100 seats above first are impossible to sell.

If you aim at a SST with 32 comfortable seats, then in case you limit the trip duration to 5 hours or less, you may not need fully flat beds - no time to sleep. The cramped elbowroom and 37 inch pitch of a Concorde may not be enough, though. JAL used to have Class J on their short-hop 777-s - Haneda-Itami is less than 60 minutes, and they thought 8 abreast seats and 38 inches pitch was enough on so short a trip. It was not: they discovered they had to add First Class, with 6 abreast seats and 50 inches pitch.

But still - CRJ-700 size cabin with 10 rows of seats at 3 abreast ought to be comfortable...

[Craig.]

what a lot of people forget is concordes intended use and client aim.
The businessman. It was there in a time when business's were setting up on both sides of the atlantic, concorde was developed to help the owners and businessmen/women monitor their companies from both sides of the atlantic without the hassle of losing time in travel.
With the invention of the internet and other modes of communication it became less nessicary to travel back and forth.
So unless this plane can offer fares at a cheap price, or several large companies without the internet want to setup in sydney and london. It wont work.
I am sure they can make it, just finding a market for it.

[LeFeaoux]

MAN ... I just saw it on "Yahoo News" and was going to post about it but you beat me to the punch!

I also, doubt that it will ever go into service. As far as I can see, it is just another version of the Concorde. I think it will flop for the same reasons the Concorde did. But, who knows ... stranger things have happened.

I really think that they need to be thinking much "smaller" to tell you the truth. A smaller version of the aircraft (say the size of a CRJ-700 or even a Lear 45) would be cheaper to build/buy, a lot more economical to fly/maintain and could be accommodated by FAR MORE airports worldwide.  Sure, it won't hold 300 people like this aircraft is supposed to but seriously, do you really think they will ever seat THAT many people on an average flight? I mean really, the tickets for this aircraft will likely be way too expensive for very many people to afford it ... especially on a regular basis. Then, they will just run into the same problems the Concorde had ... too expensive to use in a practical manner. Just my opinion.

Like this?
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/projects/ssbj/

EXACTLY what I am talking about!  ;)

My father and I were talking about this tonight and he made the comment that they surely had to have done long-term analysis of what to expect from the travel market in the future (during the time this aircraft is supposedly going to be in production and use) in order to justify the MEGA expense of this project. I had to laugh! I asked him: "So, they expect that much more of the world population will be filthy rich by then"? LOLOL

I would even speculate that a 100 seat aircraft would even be too large. Personally, I would look to something more like 30-50 seat capacity. Small, yes but just as fast and TONS more efficient in every way. Really, does anyone here really believe that they can fill 300 seats or even HALF of that on a regular basis? I don't! 30-50 seats seems much more realistic. The smaller plane means far lower maintenance/operation costs, more personalized service for passengers, it would be much easier to "fill" the empty seats along with what I mentioned about being able to be accommodated by more airports. I imagine it would also be a much safer aircraft.