Paris-Tokyo in 3 hours: Airbus wins patent for hypersonic plane

[jpak]

Source: Reuters

Airbus (AIR.PA) has won a patent for a hypersonic plane, but Concorde's hydrogen-powered successor is unlikely to leave the drawing board any time soon.

The European planemaker's proposal would slash the journey time from Paris to Tokyo to under three hours, from 12 hours.

The idea, first published in 2011, is to use three different kinds of engine power to hop, skip and jump above the atmosphere, yet taking off from a regular runway.

It has now won approval from the U.S. Patent Office.

<more>

Read more: http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/08/04/airbus-hypersonic-idINKCN0Q91KU20150804

[oldandhappy]

1. WOW and L.A. to Bangkok??

[cosmicone]

2. 3 hours and 9½ minutes. n/t

[brooklynite]

10. So, less time than it takes to drive to the airport?

[cosmicone]

12. In LA, most flights are shorter than the airport ride haha. n/t

[madokie]

25. took me 24 plus hours to go from LA to Cam Ranh Bay Vietnam

Both times

[BlueEye]

3. 50 years from now, I expect these types of planes will take over most long-haul flying.

With intermediate and regional distance flights being operated by electric airliners (since it would be impractical to try and hit Mach 5 between Chicago and NYC, etc.).

In fact, Airbus has made some progress on the electric plane concept as well:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33473969

It's good to see a company that large and influential pursuing sustainable technology. I hope Boeing takes note.

[Binkie The Clown]

4. 50 years from now we will be riding in horse-drawn wagons

and NYC will be under water, so nobody will want to go there anyway.

[Renew Deal]

9. You must be a lot of fun at a party

[cosmicone]

13. hahahahahahahahaha

[Baclava]

22. I suspect supersonic travel will be for the elite...just like on the Concorde

Luxury travel is not for the masses - we heard the same thing 40 years ago, then reality set in



At the end, 1 roundtrip ticket from JFK to London on the Concorde cost over $10,000

[BlueEye]

26. Oh I agree with that.

This Airbus proposal only has 20-30 seats. At least Concorde had 100 seats. The fares required to make a profit on such an airplane would be extraordinarily expensive. I could see it being marketed as a private jet.

I don't think it's totally impossible that someday there might be a supersonic jet for the masses. Boeing arguably came close with the 2707 design in the '60s, which could have seated as many as 280 people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707

Even the Boeing SonicCruiser, with its Mach 0.98 planned airspeed (which evolved into the 787) would have been a normal airliner, had it been built:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser

The big question is can an *efficient* high-performance turbojet engine ever be produced? Perhaps.

But hypersonic air travel.... The raw amount of energy required means that will probably always be an ultra-expensive trip.

[Historic NY]

5. USAF X51-A is in the forefront of actual flight tests....

of scramjet technology. http://www.geek.com/science/us-air-force-developing-hypersonic-mach-5-air-vehicle-1626810/

2023 is a date floated for working in service plane.

[n2doc]

6. The oligarchs will have a great time with that one

The rest of us won't be able to afford it.

[Historic NY]

8. Well many couldn't ride the Concorde either...

they went for 10 -12k. Then again they could only carry a limited amount of passengers.

Nothing changes some people could only afford steerage on the Titanic, but it was the ship they all wanted to be on.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. And this one can only carry 20. This really is for the ultra-rich only

Link for the 20 passengers:

Airbus believes the hypersonic jet could have both civilian and military applications. In civilian trim, the craft could serve as private jet or as an airliner with room for 20 passengers. In military trim, the jet could serve as a hypersonic transport for commandos or as a reconnaissance plane like the SR71 Blackbird.

In addition, Airbus has also proposed a variant armed with high-power electromagnetic pulse weapons to conduct precision strikes on high-value targets.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/airbus-just-patented-a-jet-that-can-fly-from-london-to-new-york-in-1-hour-2015-7

[Sunlei]

7. wow, I'd love to ride in one of those planes!!

[brooklynite]

11. What killed the Concorde wasn't the noise, but the fuel usage...

...hope this new model is more economical.

[cosmicone]

15. Yep ..

even at 14K R/T and 100% full flights, Concorde lost money. BA and AF hung on to it for prestige as long as they could.

[brooklynite]

16. I flew it in the last few months...

Very small compared to First Class on today's planes...and extremely noisy.

[cosmicone]

17. I have flown it several times on BA and AF

The Concorde lounges were superb -- especially at LHR4 and CDG

AF had way better food than BA

I have tons of souvenirs framed

[erronis]

18. I'm jealous. So you paid 14K to have great lounges, food, and souvenirs?

Still, I'm jealous. Many trips across the puddle on subsonic flights.

My companies wouldn't shell out for even business class altho I knew how to finagle a move up front.

[cosmicone]

19. It took several trips in cattle-class to have enough miles for an upgrade

it was easier back then to upgrade than it is now.

[AngryAmish]

20. This will never be built, let alone fly.

[olddots]

21. it will take 4 hours to get to the airport

Not funny ! we have been flying for over 100 years ,this makes sence .

[zipplewrath]

23. How long to unload the cargo?

That planes gonna be a bit toasty when it reaches the ground.

[FLPanhandle]

24. Speed isn't the success factor

The Concorde proved that.

Fuel efficiency is the success factor.

Can a plane get from point A to point B with better mileage per passenger carried? If so, it'll be the winner.

Boeing bet on the the slower but more efficient 747 vs. a supersonic airline.

That was the right answer then, it's the right answer now.