Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Back to Squawk list
  • 71

Boeing reveals "Hypersonic Flight Concept"

Enviado há
Chicago - Flying five times faster than the sound speed might sound like a distant future story, but according to Boeing, the hypersonic flight can be a reality in twenty to thirty years. The American aircraft manufacturer presented its first-ever concept for a hypersonic passenger plane for military or commercial customers, which could cross Atlantic or Pacific ocean in two hours. ( Mais...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Jesse Carroll 5 many rewards points will it take to buy first class ticket?
Wonder if they will give Super Senior (100+) a discount?
CaptainFreedom 4
Earth is getting too small for us.
Richard Orgill 1
Well said. Flew the F-4 with the Corps for years and always said the same back in the 70s. When we transitioned to the 18 I thought it was even more.
AWAAlum 3
And gee whiz, look - it has windows !
Ryan Pickett 2
I’m surprised no one has commented on how to prevent the sonic boom that’s associated with flying supersonically. These ships can’t just be made to cross the oceans. Someone’s going to want to have transcontinental transport options available for same day business travel.
ken young 1
fascinating stuff....
8984p 0
LA to NY? Sure, no problem. Just go the other way,
it's supersonic
WhiteKnight77 0
According to Brian Shule, author of Sled Driver (good book so far, but not cheap), supersonic flight over the continental US is not allowed under 30,000 feet. After refueling, they did what was called a "dipsy" maneuver where they climbed up to 35,000, pushed the nose over to gain speed and get to Mach 1 before bottoming out at 30,000 so they could climb to altitude.
WhiteKnight77 1
mike demeulles 2
It'll take longer to check in. Go thru security, then customs on the other end than the length of the flight!
sparkie624 3
Looks nice... I know they tried to compete a long time ago with the Concorde and it almost Bankrupted them... I wish them good luck and will be great to see what the final product does.
ThinkingGuy 3
"but according to Boeing, ...hypersonic flight can be a reality in twenty to thirty years."

Hmmm... where have I heard something like this before?
Jon Herd -8
Boeing had problems with the US green movement at the time, not the technology.

The 2707 got killed off because of those lying swine.
skylab72 4
Sure, greenies were so powerful in 1971. North American would have made all the XB-70s the Pentagon wanted if those shortsighted greenies had not interfered.
Transonic tech is sooo simple...
Peter Low 2
We have seen this type of thing from them in the past and now with the price of fuel rising will this really come to fruition ?
Luke Runciman 3
Biofuel is a potential solution to rising fuel prices. Not just any biofuel, biofuels derived from the various types of algae - as they don't require fresh water or arable farmland to produce. If an idea like this were to become reality, then we would definitely require some form of liquidised fuel. Battery electric or even hybrid/fuel electric would be unable to produce enough "grunt" to reach hypersonic speeds for a practical amount of time. Algae biofuel is the closest alternative to conventional jet fuels - with an almost identical energy density per kilogram. Biofuels in my opinion, are the most practical and cleanest replacement for existing fuels - especially in aviation.
ken young 0
Why not Methanol?...That is serious question.
Luke Runciman 1
It depends on what the methanol is derived from. If you were to extract it from wood e.g. from trees out of forests, the politicians may argue that it isn't sustainable. But if you were to use forestry waste from a pine plantation e.g. wood chips, branches, maybe trees which are not suitable for processing, then how could you produce enough to meet demand? A combination of algae biofuel, methanol, possibly bio-ethanol could be the answer we are looking for, Ken.
sparkie624 1
Depends on the Fuel Efficiency cost vs passenger mile and time savings. I think it will be hard to make the break even, but even at that, us Americans have the need for speed for some reason (and yest I am guilty too( of wanting to go faster.... That is why cops invented speeding tickets... LOL
Jeffrey Bue 1
It would be greatness if this ever comes to fruition. I grew up in the 60's and remember when Congress cancelled funding for the Boeing SST. I was pretty bummed about it as a kid. I believe that materials technology and tech in general has progressed to the point where this is actually viable. Having endured many many international flights of 12-16 hours, cutting travel times by half, third or even a quarter would be a God-send.
skylab72 1
Cute pic. I guess the artist thought engines are ugly, so he hid them. Or maybe it goes so fast cuz it needs no stinking engines...
8literbeater 1
Or maybe since the picture is basically a smoothed out XB-70, the engines aren't visible from that angle just like they weren't visible from that angle on the XB-70. It had six of them.
skylab72 1
I know about the engines in an XB-70. They were YJ93s from GE, basically a refinement of the engine that powered the B-58 that used a fuel which allowed higher operating temperatures and had slightly higher specific energy. I was bagging the artist for not knowing what he or she was trying to draw. Had it actually been a stylized xB-70, I would have been quiet. Show me anything that indicates you did a little homework or care about the subject. The not-b-70-part is the nose, it swoops down like a sub-sonic Connie not up high like a B-70 keeping the shock wave out of the engines-nestled-up-under-the-wing as you suggested might be intended. Really that drawing is just that, a drawing. one that meets someone's aesthetic criterion, and bears no real relationship to the article. Of course, that artist probably works for Boeing and was given the assignment and no visual input from which to start, and told NOT to let it look an XB-70 (also no canards), because that is NOT a Boeing airplane... {my apologies, snark off}
8literbeater 1
You're completely missing the point. It makes no difference the pedigree of the engines, or what fuel they used. The point is that it had six engines, and they were scarcely visible from that angle. Also, how is it that you know the proper shape of a hypersonic plane, that will eliminate the sonic boom? It's taken the world's engineers decades to propose a possible design that will eliminate the sonic boom, and you're over here expounding on the prudent angle of the nose to create a properly placed shockwave. Why haven't you already built one? Or have you? The top does swoop down, just like the Valkyrie, but it's impossible to see the shape of the bottom.

The XB-70 was a North American, which was bought by Rockwell, which was bought by Boeing. So yes, it is a Boeing now. Boeing references anything they own, at their leisure.

Alas, the art was no doubt done by an artist, not an engineer, and certainly under the close scrutiny of Boeing. The XB-70 was copied in the Sukhoi T-4, the Concorde was copied in the Tupolev Tu-144, the B-29 was copied in the Tupolev Tu-4, and so on, and on. It would be pretty irresponsible for Boeing to throw out an accurate drawing of a prototype to "Airliner Watch". I'm sure it's inaccurate on purpose.

In the end you're criticizing the accuracy of a cartoon plane.
skylab72 1
Yes! Absolutely! I criticised the accuracy of a cartoon plane. I even offered, and offer again, my apologies.

First, I came to know the proper shape of a hypersonic plane, one that could reduce the sonic boom to acceptable levels by working with the world's aero-engineers (some of whom were actually working on trans-sonic, supersonic and hypersonic flight domains) for decades. I am a retired digital systems engineer, an ex-aircraft mechanic (unafraid to properly use a red pencil), and contributing to my collegiate credentials are 29 under-grad hours and 5 post-grad hours in aeronautical engineering (they gave me the credit for the post-grad work because they wanted me to teach the lab for a course about using computers to control wind tunnels). My user id here is not wanna-be. I did work for Lockheed under contract to NASA supporting the Apollo Program, in Mission control for 15, 16, and 17, the entire Skylab Program, and the Apollo-Soyuz Flight. I also spent a few years with McDonnell-Douglas while they were merging, facilitating preservation and transfer of intellectual property and building a contractually required software system, that was to prevent the kind of financial disaster that brought Douglas to the merger option.

Next, allow me to expose some details. North American was not"bought" by Rockwell. They merged and when it was over they called it North American-Rockwell, a reflection of the relative financial strength of the two going in. Yes, I am aware Boeing swallowed both. And indeed, Boeing references anything they own, at their leisure. They almost dropped support for the MD-80 series before they finally relented to customer pressure and rebranded it as 717.
Next nit, the physics will not allow us to "eliminate" the sonic-boom, we can and do reduce it to levels people seem willing to tolerate.

Finally, you make good points about the intellectual property aspects of using real design concepts in artwork for fluff pieces. However, the cat is already out of the bag. Check out "Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstration", "Lockheed Martin X-59 QueSST", and the "Gulfstream X-54" Wiki pages. And if it is Boeing work you lust after just Google "image Supersonic Biz Jet".

Have a nice flight.
skylab72 1
Never mind the Google it looks like it gets mostly Lockheed-Martin work.
Nick Aguilar 1
Hypersonic ? two hours to cross the ocean ? this is an accomplishment.
jcw1953 1
i remember this Boeing concept about 20 years ago.... something like 15 to 17,000 mph speed...
New York to Sydney in about an hour or an hour and one half....
.... you could take off today in Sydney and arrive 'yesterday' in NYC....
what happens with the sonic booms? will not the environmentalists have another issue???
interesting ...when SST was running between NYC and London..if you were on a NJ Beach around
Point Pleasant at about 3PM each could hear the sonic boom when the SST started it's
approach to could set your clock by it.... love to fly on this new item if I am still
alive by then...take care all
Bob Keeping 1
Come on guys - it's just a $200 artist's drawing
abang geutanyo 1
Great job...
Tim Marks 1
I believe the key theme here is this could be military or commercial - emphasis on military. Think tactical strike aircraft that can get to a hot location in only a couple hours (or less).

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Paul Holden 5
Jim, She Lost
Jon Herd 8
Thereks always one.

Go live in a cave.
ken young 2
I offer you a huge round of applause.
Sam Hernandez 3
So Jim, if Airbus were trying to develop the same technology in your utopian socialist Europe, you'd be ok with it? Is it just because it's a U.S. aerospace company developing the technology that you've gotten your "deplorables" hat on?

Guess what: everyone is working on this technology - U.S., Europeans, Chinese, etc. It's the next frontier of aviation. Trump has nothing to do with this, except for perhaps fostering a favorable regulatory, political and economic climate to allow U.S. companies to compete on a global level once again.

You don't believe me? Then don't take my word for it, even the Brits agree with me:

Oh, wait, here are the communist Chinese developing the same technology:

Please stop embarassing yourself and the rest of the Democratic Socialist party of America. Better yet, keep it up: the more ignorance you spew, the more the undecideds/moderates will see what a farce your worldwiew truly is.
Alexandr Molyavko 3
Who said that it has to run on fossil fuels? What about biofuels, or LNG, or LH2? Article doesn't offer any real detail on propulsion system.
Tim Dyck 3
Biofuel maybe but LNG lacks the BTU needed. Maybe Hydrogen or a Hydrogen blend is the answer?
AWAAlum 2
Who knows what fuel will be available 20-30 years into the future. Fossil fuels may be but a distant memory.
George Cottay 1
Or maybe a nuke?
wingbolt 1
Oddly there is a prototype nuclear jet engine at the Idaho National Labratory. It is so huge it now sits on a rail car at the breeder reactor museum.
Jesse Carroll 2
Hmmmmm...sounds like a disgruntled Obama/Hillary voter!
Also, to answer your question, no, you are wrong!
ken young 1
Oy vey....SNH with face palm
ken young 2
that is SMH....Dummy.
ken young -1
Here are a couple practical issues.
1st. sonic boom. Unless Boeing's engineers can figure out a way to violate the laws of physics. such an aircraft would not be able to fly supersonic over any populated land mass.
second.Presuming this aircraft would fly at altitudes exceeding 60k feet, there are certain stresses on materials that would have be addressed. I read quite a bit about the development of the SR-71 Blackbird.
WhiteKnight77 1
Sonic booms can be made over the US and has been done for years with the SR-71. One cannot forget the record setting flight from LA to DC in 1 hour and 8 minutes at 2200MPH. That was at about 80,000 feet.
8literbeater 1
It's illegal for civilians. The SR-71 is far from the most recent supersonic flight over the US. There have been plenty, but they all wear uniforms.


Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!