tech

Superjet technology nears reality after Australia test

17 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2016 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

17 Comments
Login to comment

What's the logic ? We have a lot of spare time.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Unfortunately, the logic is missiles: If you can send a passenger aircraft from Sydney to London in two hours, you can send a missile from California to Moscow in half that time. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see it panning out for commercial travel, at least not for a half-century. Perhaps the comment about launching satellites brings a glimmer of hope.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I'm more positive about this... it could usher in a new age of travel by air.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The SSTs of the 70's were partially killed because they had to keep their speeds low when near population centers, especially take-off and landing. Also for commercial travel the g-forces will need to be kept fairly low, probably not exceeding 1.3G and you would be under that acceleration for 10 minutes or more during take-off with the reverse at landing. Despite the talk, this technology is for military applications (jet fighters, jet bombers and missiles) with minimal commercial flight applications.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

What's the logic ? We have a lot of spare time. maybe you do, traveling at that speed you could do your office job in London, then fly home to Sydney on the weekends. itll make the world just that little smaller for many

3 ( +3 / -0 )

You'll still spend 6 hours in line getting through security and waiting for your bag.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

It would be doubtful that it would be for the masses ; Concorde, the fastest passenger jet ever was only for the 1%!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Scramjet tech (which is what they are talking about here) is a very long way from any practical use. It has a lot of problems to overcome, from a commercial point of view the major one that researchers never bother to explain is that a scramjet only works AFTER it gets up to supersonic speeds, so you have to have some other motor to get it from zero to that speed in the first place, which incurs a serious mass penalty. Very unlikely to be economic at prices you and I would be willing to pay. The other problem is you have to operate it at extreme heights or the atmospheric heating will burn up it and its passengers. As a missile engine it still isn't the best solution, you have to use a rocket engine to get it up to operational speed so why not use a proven tech (rocket) to get to your target at much less cost. Even at longer ranges there are better and cheaper solutions. (but that doesn't make as much money out of the tax payers pocket as proposing some Whizzy high tech solution that requires lots of expensive research!).

2 ( +2 / -0 )

A two-hour flight from Sydney to London is a step closer to reality

Pull the other one, military-industrial complex!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I believe Japan already developed such a plane more than a decade ago.It was from Mitsubishi and called "Sonic",they supposed to put it in the market,then all the sudden we couldn´t hear or search nothing about it.The project seemed to have disappeared or vanished,but,similar plane seems to have surfaced as a secret military weapon in certain country,(Sonic Boom)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I believe Japan already developed such a plane more than a decade ago. is that just a pathetic excuse to make it sound like Japan was the pioneers of this tech, LMFAO

2 ( +3 / -1 )

itll make the world just that little smaller for many

And that's a good thing?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It could work, but the more likely developments are the standard supersonic jets that are being developed to reduce sonic booms. Due to the booms, you can't really have large scale commercial travel near populated areas so this seems the most promising

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Bring back the Concord..... it sounds like it traveled the same speeds this article is talking about here

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Bring back the Concord..... it sounds like it traveled the same speeds this article is talking about here

The Concorde had a max velocity of just under 2200 kph, about Mach 2. 17,000 kilometers in 2 hours, as stated in the article, (ignoring acceleration and deceleration) is 8,500 kph, or in excess of Mach 7. More than 3.5 times faster is hardly 'the same speed'.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I would still rather have a concorde flight.... NYC to London in 3 hours is better than what is available today..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yes the Concorde was a faster trip. But when you add in the need to check in and then go through security and then pick up your luggage at the other end, how much time does it really save as a percentage of total trip time from airport arrival to leaving the destination airport? Consider that time savings against the tickets being about 5 times what a conventional jet cost and except for the 'gee whiz' factor it isn't worthwhile. It wasn't even worthwhile for the airlines with cost being the major factor in its retirement.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites