this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
71 points (98.6% liked)

Futurology

1801 readers
80 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Carobu@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Pretty sure we already had one of these and it was deemed not economically viable after like 30 years of operating at a loss basically.

[–] expected_crayon@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems to be an attempt to solve one of the two problems with the Concorde - reduce the sound of the sonic boom so that it can fly at supersonic speeds over land and not just water. This would make the planes more economically viable as they can fly more routes. The other problem, though, which is not mentioned in the article, is the absurd amount of fuel the Concorde needed. Still going to be a major issue if they haven’t made these more efficient.

[–] Rednax@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

There exists a research paper claiming that a much more fuel efficient plane is possible: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2022-3314

Problem is, it is locked behind a paywall that I cannot circumvent. But even if the paper is only half-true, it still implies a large efficiency gain is possible.

[–] NotSpez@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

But there is a Lego set of it coming out in a week or so and it is majestic.

[–] rtk_dreamseller@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I wonder if Concorde would have been more feasible in the pacific with less worry about the disruptions caused by the sonic boom.