https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/supersonic-airplane-qsta-lockheed-martin/index.html

Not accessible from the UK.

I googled it, because the link was not accessible in Phoenix either.  It is a long way off from what I saw, and nothing to get too excited about, seems meant more for business jet travel than commercial travel, and it is slower than the Concorde was, substantially.  For me travel has not been how fast I get to the destination, but how well I feel when I get to the destination.  Aircraft with lower cabin altitudes, like the 787 or A350, seem pointed in the right direction.  I feel keeping the human body as comfortable as possible, at a speed that is fast and reasonable, is what should be studied and pursued for future airline flights. 

It takes time to recover from an airline flight, which I have found especially as I near 60, and much of it has to do with the close quarters, too close I feel, that cramp passenger muscles sitting next to each other, such as single armrests shared by two passengers in coach, which when eating an airline meal is abhorrent, as I have had to do many times outside of when I was bumped up to first class.  If an airliner could be designed just a bit wider, so seats form fit the passengers, passengers would not care how fast the flight is, and the airliner can be designed to be still efficient as a wider body, with the right aerodynamic research.

John

Copy and paste to the address bar, Ray.

Edited June 20, 20196 yr by Christopher Low

14 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Copy and paste to the address bar, Ray.

I did that an hour ago Christopher. Didn't work. Now it does.

I remain sceptical. Only 40 pax? Tickets would be expensive just like Concorde's. The proof of the pudding will be when they build and test a prototype. One thing not mentioned was airflow at supersonic speeds. Concorde had ramps which disrupted airflow into the engines slowing it from supersonic speed to subsonic in 11 feet. Presumably this aircraft will need a similar system.

Edited June 20, 20196 yr by Ray Proudfoot

I fixed the link and it works now. Just a bit late posting as I've been busy with other things.

 

 

I saw this on my Android phone feed. Interesting design, with cameras in the nose instead of the "droop" for Concorde so pilots can see the runway.

As much as I like the tech as an aviation geek, I'm skeptical that even a reduced sonic boom footprint will be acceptable in many areas for flights over land. It's described as no worse than a slammed car door, but that will still be annoying when it's associated with people much wealthier than you are, flying overhead and attracting attention. 

Same problem with Airbus and Uber "urban air taxis," basically.

Will only a planned 40 passenger capacity be economically feasible - that was one of the downfalls of the Concorde (among other factors) with about a 100 passengers...  And the Concorde also charged big bucks (or shillings) for a ride... 

10 hours ago, overspeed3 said:

Will only a planned 40 passenger capacity be economically feasible - that was one of the downfalls of the Concorde (among other factors) with about a 100 passengers...  And the Concorde also charged big bucks (or shillings) for a ride... 

Boeing attempted to build an even bigger version of the SST but gave up either due to unsolvable problems or budget. Perhaps 100 was the optimum number. Incidentally it could have taken around 120 if the seat pitch had been reduced but BA and AF never went down that route.

Concorde’s demise was two-fold. Technology meant executives didn’t need to pond hop in one day any longer and AF never made as much money as BA on the New York runs.

9/11 and the AF crash in 2000 didn’t help much either.