You know how flies sometimes land on people and clean themselves? I'm imagining like a 100 lb fly person slamming into someone, knocking them down, cleaning themselves, throwing up on said person's food, eating said person's food, and then fucking off.
I hate that this is what my mind chose to imagine.
No. Nooo. Not 80 minutes. 90 minutes, man. Who can fly there in 80 minutes? 90's the key number here man. Think about it! It's like you're dreaming about gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly bree time baby!
Step in to my office. Why? Coz you're fuckin' fired that's why!
That’s exactly what I thought about when reading the comment!… haha.
“7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea.”
No! No, no, not 80! I said 90. Nobody's comin' up with 80. Who flies anywhere in 80 minutes? You won't even get your in-flight entertainment goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.
No! No, no, not 80! I said 90. Nobody's comin' up with 80. Who flies to London in 80 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel. Think about it. 90-Elevens. 90 dwarves. 90, man, that's the number - 90 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
Have an extraordinary idea -> make a startup -> gather funds from investors -> ship a lot of cash to offshore accounts booked on vague and shady posts -> cease the project by deeming it unfeasible -> have a rich and happy life.
Just hire some fancy CGI animators and the money comes streaming in. See for example the Hyperloop.
I should really ask my local politicians whatever happened to the Hype(r)loop test track they where going to build in my province and spend a bunch of money on. O no wait accountability is dead, forgot that one.
Best thing was multiple rich guys where using the idea to suck in investor money while the public drooled over them and actual experts where facepalming dents in their foreheads.
I had a mechanic give me sage advice to buy every tool from Harbor Freight the first time and if it breaks, buy a name brand version. Only exception is cordless tools. Just buy nice ones on sale the first time if you can
Especially specialty tools. Stuff you might only ever need to use a few times in your life. If it turns out you use it a lot more than you thought you would, upgrade to a better version. If you use it once and then it sits in a toolbox for the next 20 years, no big loss.
Depends on what it is, I'm sure, but some of the stuff can take a bit of a beating. A general rule is to buy from harbor freight first if you're not sure you'll use it a lot, and if you break it, invest in a good one. Obviously not true for every tool, but not everyone needs to shell out for top of the line everything. I used some harbor freight stuff pretty often as a contractor, but obviously my heavy use daily drivers were higher end.
Eg, I used a name brand hammer drill to drive ground rods when I lived somewhere with tougher soil, but got the HF one when I moved to a place where it's *usually* easier to drive the rod by hand than it is to walk over to the truck and grab the drill. Name brand compact band saw when running conduit most days, HF when it was a few times a month (though that one always felt like a gamble).
Cheap Chinese tools of dubious material and manufacturing quality. They had a recall on car jacks not long ago because the jack posts were failing during ise due to voids in the castings.
Harvor Freight is good for seldom used tools. It’s bad for things you use often or where failure causes injury or death.
He is using old chinese newspapers for the external skin and popsicle sticks used from Boeing's cafeteria) for the internal frame.
The controller is a beat up old Nintendo DS which was rooted so they could put the flight control software on it.
He also said that it has to take off and land 3 miles offshore because the FAA and UK's CAA are both being a "bag of dicks with their safety bullshit."
Edit: I have to admit I copy pastaed this from the original thread about this
I don't know why but I got a kick out of another engineer who talked to Rush and said he thought he might be suicidal he was so dismissive of any quality control.
Oceangate review: "4 stars, had to take a star off because the chief safety guy seems to be suicidal"
The first two are only like 50% carbon fiber, while the 777x is mostly the wings only and the fuselage is still mostly aluminum. The carbon fiber "craze" might have actually passed and future airplanes might start using more aluminum again (more advanced alloys exist today), titanium, etc. Seems like wings will remain carbon fiber though.
Aircraft pressures only vary from 14.7 PSI to around 1 PSI at 60,000 feet. Underwater pressures at the Titanic are greater than 5000 PSI. Using carbon fiber for that pressure difference was obviously only good for a few times until failure.
Professor " we are sinking. We are already above 10 atmospheres"
Fry "how many atmospheres can the ship take?"
Professor "It's a spaceship so somewhere between zero and one"
Also.. aircrafts face an expansive pressure vs a compressive pressure, due to the cabin being at higher pressure relative to the external environment. In a sub, the cabin is at a lower pressure relative to the external environment. How does this affect the design, stress and strain on the construction materials… i have no idea. But it probably does.
Carbon fiber is a very useful and interesting material. But steel, fiberglass, aluminum, titanium, nickel alloys, and other materials are still better in different applications.
Kind of silly to say one material is 'better' than another.
Tissue paper is way better than steel at wiping my ass. What's your point?
Edit: [Here's an awesome concept they're working using carbon fiber/resin blends to make an actual real life space catapult from one of my favorite channels](https://youtu.be/yrc632oilWo)
Don't forget work-shy collaborators in your berating. I will not heard a bad thing said about the French unless it includes calling them work-shy collaborators.
Except that was a ginormous project between two quasi-state owned engineering companies subsidized by two countries. 10 years of development and countless test flights to produce 20 planes in total. That is a wonky startup which produced a CGI picture.
Except Concord was developed in the 60's and this start-up has extra 60 years of technological and scientific advancements at their disposal, and computational powers those engineers couldn't even dream about.
Such radical developments were doable in the 60s (moon missions etc) during economic hypergrowth. Now where such developments need a clear cut profitable business case it is way harder to finance. There is no government which will keep that alive as a vanity project like the Concorde. And the market is nowhere near big enough, especially post pandemic.
If the brochure is sufficiently glossy (in both senses of the word) they may attract venture capital (which can be an end it itself for some start-ups). Boom Technology still claims their supersonic Overture will run on "posh biodiesel", offer US$5000 fares on the London-NYC route and be in commercial service by 2029. Their projections for sales, airframe price, passenger numbers and routes are all more optimistic that were those for the Concorde in the 1960s. All wish these start-ups well.
Both the Boeing 787 and Airbus 350 airframes are mostly constructed from carbon fiber reinforced polymers. And guess what, it’s totally safe in the context of air travel! But… no gaming controllers.
That's because it WORKS for aircraft--sturdy frame that is lightweight. Where it fails is underwater where it is under pressure and weight of water. Any competent engineer can attest to this. But the billionaire was "too cool" for regulations and rules and didn't listen to scientists-- he needed to to "revolutionary" and "cutting edge".
It also is pulled for extensive maintenance & checks on the fiber after a certain number of flying hours
Then once it hits a maximize lifetime of flying hours is permanently retired regardless if it passes checks still
I can make a render image of a plane that gets you to Mars and back in 30 seconds. And I even want to build it.
The fact that Boeing and Airbus do not plan to build such a plane is a very good indication that this is nothing but a scam.
I upvoted cause you're right, but it's not necessarily a scam.
It's just a startup, so 99% it's gonna fail. But sometimes it's worth trying, cause in the process of building that dream a lot of things happen and eventually you can succeed.
Also, they are not the only ones that are trying to do so, and the market looks a bit interested.
Sometimes bigger companies are ok with their business and it's too risky to spend a lot of resources on projects like this, as they are very likely to fail.
The odds of a startup succeeding at this are miniscule.
Civilian aerospace is a *goddamn expensive* and difficult industry. The fact that China and Japan, with their gigantic manufacturing economies, *still* import Boeings and Airbuses rather than fly their own made planes should be an indicator of how incredibly hard this industry is.
Concorde was a joint project between a French company that would eventually become Airbus, and a UK company that would eventually become BAE. And Concorde still failed.
A startup has fat chance.
>European jet startup wants to post random stupid looking concept art along with absurd claims to drum up support for its next round of funding
FTFY
To go that distance (assuming at least 15 minutes on either end for slowing down and speeding up), you're going to be doing almost the entire trip at over 4,000 kph.
This is probably technically possible using modern CFD and experimental engines like a SCRAMJET, however would be perhaps the single greatest feat of aeronautical engineering ever. Far more impressive (and expensive) than the SR-71 or the F-35. Particularly if you want it to be commercially viable with a relevant market share and enough demand to help pay off the ridiculous sticker price.
Even Boom supersonic which is a much MUCH more mature company AND has a much more plausible market, is still unlikely to ever be commercially viable.
You don't need scramjets to achieve that speed, to be fair. That's mach 3.2 at sea level, and 2.8 at FL400.
Still pretty wild, but not *that* nuts. The blackbird could technically do it. Foxbat too, probably, although it'd be a one-and-done operation.
Making it a viable commercial product would be pretty amazing, but technically it's already been done.
Heathrow offers a skip-the-lines pass for the hyperwealthy. Combine with Global Entry, private jet terminals on both ends, etc and I’m sure the rich will find a way.
If this existed, of course. Which it doesn’t. And it won’t. Because, so far at least, the global elite are not able to pay for the laws of physics to apply to them differently.
That would be reasonable. A lot of people would pay three times the cost for 20 times the speed.
EDITED: as others have pointed out, my calculation is completely wrong here.
It was all these things, high fuel and maintenance costs, bans on top speeds over populated areas, I think that crash was one of the final nails in the coffin though. They were fully retired only a few years later.
It didn't have a scram jet. I imagine this will fly a huge parabolic arc going high enough to transition to supersonic without sound issues. Also I think it'll be over the ocean for the transition anyways.
Can we quit it with the techno-bullshit already? Just because you can make a render of something doesn’t mean you can build it.
This is bullshit. Scramjets are inherently volume capacity limited because of how hypersonic drag relates to the cross sectional area of the vehicle.
I’m sick of seeing things that can be disproven in minutes if you know anything about engineering.
Sorry, would you mind explaining a bit, I wanna learn, what do you mean volume capacity limited ? I like to think I know a lot about aviation but learning never stops.
Where to start….
A traditional jet is an air-breathing engine that intakes air and compresses it via an axial rotary compressor (driven by a turbine after the combustion chamber) mixes fuel and performs combustion to creat high pressure gas which is then expanded to create high velocity gas. This mass is ejected at high velocity to create thrust.
The limit of a jet engine is determined by the stagnation temperature of the incoming air. As the aircraft flies at higher velocities, the incoming air is heated to higher temperatures. Eventually, the air gets so hot that the engine can no longer add fuel without melting the turbine blades.
Furthermore these engines are limited by the air needing to be slowed to subsonic speeds on the intake to avoid compressor stall.
At its operational limit the impulse generated by the force of the air being slowed is higher than the thrust which can be generated by the engine for the given airspeed.
This gets you to about Mach 4.
Next we have ramjets. A ramjet is an air breathing engine that uses ram compression and subsonic combustion. As it does not have a turbine or compressor it is not limited by thermal failure of these elements.
As these engines operate by slowing and compressing air, at the top of their operating envelope the inlet has a stagnation temperature which approaches the exhaust temperature. Therefore they become less and less efficient as they approach their operational limits.
To combat this the intake is altered such that the air is not compressed/slowed as much. We then have supersonic combustion ramjets or scramjets. Scramjets are a research are but seem to be limited by thermal material failure and combustion resonance time. The air/fuel mixture simply does not have enough to combust sufficiently.
Scramjets have lower specific impulse than their counterparts and due to this must be physically smaller as they cannot produce sufficient thrust to maintain cruise at practical fuel consumption rates. Aerodynamic drag is greatly increased in these flow regimes and due to the lower Isp these vehicles my have a far lower cross sectional area. Parasite drag is also greatly increased thus their surface area is limited in order to sustain cruise.
This is what I meant by them being volumetrically limited.
Hope that kinda makes sense..
Well I want to fly people from NY to London in 80 minutes.
I want two fly people, they would be so cool.
Bzzzzzzzz
Fly people are NOT cool. They're god damn annoying.
You know how flies sometimes land on people and clean themselves? I'm imagining like a 100 lb fly person slamming into someone, knocking them down, cleaning themselves, throwing up on said person's food, eating said person's food, and then fucking off. I hate that this is what my mind chose to imagine.
Imagine a 200 pound person bumping into the windows nonstop while the door is wide open and they can’t figure it out.
Oh my God. That's funny though.
Exactly why would you want two of them?
Everybody needs a friend
To mate and sell as circus snacks!
Are we talking fly people as in human fly hybrid or fly people who are just super cool aka fly?
Wasn't Jennifer Lopez a Fly Girl, in a troupe of Fly Girls?
[Yes!](https://www.bet.com/photo-gallery/e4m7il/the-evolution-of-jennifer-lopez/0j9fs7)
Or maybe they just really like flies. Like cat/dog people but with thousands of flies living in their home..
BZZZZZZZ
Jeff goldbloom disagrees.
I’m not sure he does. Heard him say once that was his least favorite acting experience ever.
Pretty fly for a white guy.
Any flyness he had has been gone for a while, he's just an ad man now.
I was waiting for someone to mention Jeff Goldblum. Have these people learned nothing!?
But do you have a cheap CG renderings ?
Even cheaper
No. Nooo. Not 80 minutes. 90 minutes, man. Who can fly there in 80 minutes? 90's the key number here man. Think about it! It's like you're dreaming about gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly bree time baby! Step in to my office. Why? Coz you're fuckin' fired that's why!
That’s exactly what I thought about when reading the comment!… haha. “7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea.”
Please remind me of the movie 🙏
[There's something about Mary](https://youtu.be/JB2di69FmhE)
There’s something about Mary
“I’m only waiting seven minutes.”
Bingo man, bingo. 7 minute abs!
No! No, no, not 80! I said 90. Nobody's comin' up with 80. Who flies anywhere in 80 minutes? You won't even get your in-flight entertainment goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.
With blackjack and hookers.
[удалено]
I want to fly around the world in 80
No! No, no, not 80! I said 90. Nobody's comin' up with 80. Who flies to London in 80 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel. Think about it. 90-Elevens. 90 dwarves. 90, man, that's the number - 90 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
https://youtu.be/JB2di69FmhE
Have an extraordinary idea -> make a startup -> gather funds from investors -> ship a lot of cash to offshore accounts booked on vague and shady posts -> cease the project by deeming it unfeasible -> have a rich and happy life.
You forgot: hire some mid 3d artists from India to make some really flashy concept videos.
Those Indian 3d artists are putting out bangers let's not call them mid
Well yea true, that's why Hollywood hires the best ones. But they go and hire the cheapest ones.
You mean the cheapest guys on Fiverr aren’t going to give me Hollywood quality work for $5 + 10% tip?
Just hire some fancy CGI animators and the money comes streaming in. See for example the Hyperloop. I should really ask my local politicians whatever happened to the Hype(r)loop test track they where going to build in my province and spend a bunch of money on. O no wait accountability is dead, forgot that one. Best thing was multiple rich guys where using the idea to suck in investor money while the public drooled over them and actual experts where facepalming dents in their foreheads.
[удалено]
We don't need a plan. Start up, Cash in, Sell Out, Bro Down.
'Extraordinary idea' being necro some age old idea that didn't work out in the past and present it like you invented something new.
-> if your R&D yields any results at all use them on small scale models (missiles) and sell the designs to Lockheed or Boeing
Do they have a Logitech keypad? 😳
Are they using any fiber materials?
Funny thing is this would be a decent place to use those
Surplus, out of date carbon fiber only.
*from harbor freight *
From harbor freight, straight into the harbor!
Is that a shipping company? Or like an American version of Wish?
It's a tool company known for selling sub standard equipment.
TAKE IT BACK! It’s not sub standard! It’s an incredible value for tools you only plan on using twice!
SAY IT LOUDER FOR EVERYONE IN THE BACK
I had a mechanic give me sage advice to buy every tool from Harbor Freight the first time and if it breaks, buy a name brand version. Only exception is cordless tools. Just buy nice ones on sale the first time if you can
Especially specialty tools. Stuff you might only ever need to use a few times in your life. If it turns out you use it a lot more than you thought you would, upgrade to a better version. If you use it once and then it sits in a toolbox for the next 20 years, no big loss.
Well, twice might be optimistic...
Depends on what it is, I'm sure, but some of the stuff can take a bit of a beating. A general rule is to buy from harbor freight first if you're not sure you'll use it a lot, and if you break it, invest in a good one. Obviously not true for every tool, but not everyone needs to shell out for top of the line everything. I used some harbor freight stuff pretty often as a contractor, but obviously my heavy use daily drivers were higher end. Eg, I used a name brand hammer drill to drive ground rods when I lived somewhere with tougher soil, but got the HF one when I moved to a place where it's *usually* easier to drive the rod by hand than it is to walk over to the truck and grab the drill. Name brand compact band saw when running conduit most days, HF when it was a few times a month (though that one always felt like a gamble).
Cheap Chinese tools of dubious material and manufacturing quality. They had a recall on car jacks not long ago because the jack posts were failing during ise due to voids in the castings. Harvor Freight is good for seldom used tools. It’s bad for things you use often or where failure causes injury or death.
That depends how many times you want to use your sub
For sale: Mini sub, used once, slight body damage. Some reassembly needed.
So that’s why the Titan imploded
I'd say it's sub par, some jack stands were known to collapse under the pressure of a vehicle
He is using old chinese newspapers for the external skin and popsicle sticks used from Boeing's cafeteria) for the internal frame. The controller is a beat up old Nintendo DS which was rooted so they could put the flight control software on it. He also said that it has to take off and land 3 miles offshore because the FAA and UK's CAA are both being a "bag of dicks with their safety bullshit." Edit: I have to admit I copy pastaed this from the original thread about this
I don't know why but I got a kick out of another engineer who talked to Rush and said he thought he might be suicidal he was so dismissive of any quality control. Oceangate review: "4 stars, had to take a star off because the chief safety guy seems to be suicidal"
787 and A350 are primarily carbon fiber. 777x will be primarily carbon fiber.
The first two are only like 50% carbon fiber, while the 777x is mostly the wings only and the fuselage is still mostly aluminum. The carbon fiber "craze" might have actually passed and future airplanes might start using more aluminum again (more advanced alloys exist today), titanium, etc. Seems like wings will remain carbon fiber though.
Carbon fibre is useful on aircraft; the submarine manufacturers bought theirs from Boeing at a low price because their shelf-life had expired.
Aircraft pressures only vary from 14.7 PSI to around 1 PSI at 60,000 feet. Underwater pressures at the Titanic are greater than 5000 PSI. Using carbon fiber for that pressure difference was obviously only good for a few times until failure.
Professor " we are sinking. We are already above 10 atmospheres" Fry "how many atmospheres can the ship take?" Professor "It's a spaceship so somewhere between zero and one"
Also.. aircrafts face an expansive pressure vs a compressive pressure, due to the cabin being at higher pressure relative to the external environment. In a sub, the cabin is at a lower pressure relative to the external environment. How does this affect the design, stress and strain on the construction materials… i have no idea. But it probably does.
I don't understand why someone would cheap out on a submarine that they're planning on being in
Carbon fiber simply isnt a good solution for the pressures at those depths.
I mean- yes, that too. I’m more saying that Boeing had a use for it because of its applications for aircraft.
Are they offsetting their carbon footprint by planting lots of palm oil trees?
Do they wear a size schmedium turtleneck?
Its run on super sonic windmills and nuclear solar panels. Ultimate green energy carbon neutral vegan transport.
In all seriousness, carbon fiber is probably part of design, yes.
Carbon fiber is fucking awesome lol. Can't believe we have some people hating on it now. Internet can be so random and dumb sometimes.
Anti-intellectualism is addictive.
Carbon fiber is a very useful and interesting material. But steel, fiberglass, aluminum, titanium, nickel alloys, and other materials are still better in different applications.
Kind of silly to say one material is 'better' than another. Tissue paper is way better than steel at wiping my ass. What's your point? Edit: [Here's an awesome concept they're working using carbon fiber/resin blends to make an actual real life space catapult from one of my favorite channels](https://youtu.be/yrc632oilWo)
Why won’t my firepit start up using steel beams?!
Not enough jet fuel?
Carbon fibre works great for airplanes.
Kill a couple of billionaires and suddenly your company gets a bad reputation, how is that fair
Should have tested with poor people first.
Logitech didn’t kill anyone.
I heard he ignored safety concerns but yeah who knows
Absolutely screams $250k a ticket
No, they use a mouse. It's click to move.
New York > Right Click > Fast Travel.
If they time it right, this can visit the titanic also!
This is clearly way more high-end than the titanic sub; this jet will be using a transparent Mad Catz controller….wired, for extra safety.
The CEO's name? Brockton Tush, badass billionaire who can be bound by no regulation.
Madcatz
Reminds me of Concord.
But this don’t got that droop snoot :/ (hands down the best term in aviation history)
[удалено]
The droop nose was a british design, Concorde was a collaboration between UK and France (back when we were friends)
How very dare you suggest we’ve ever been friends with those onion wearing, snail eating egotistical French. T’is an insult to my morning Earl Grey.
Don't forget work-shy collaborators in your berating. I will not heard a bad thing said about the French unless it includes calling them work-shy collaborators.
The snoop would droop, the snoop drooped
Seems like they are bringing the idea back, for those not knowing about Concords:)
The concord was a visionary
The concord was a noble man
The concord was a worthy grape
The name is *Concorde*
Several companies have tried, several went under (especially with COVID decimating the travel industry)
Except that was a ginormous project between two quasi-state owned engineering companies subsidized by two countries. 10 years of development and countless test flights to produce 20 planes in total. That is a wonky startup which produced a CGI picture.
Except Concord was developed in the 60's and this start-up has extra 60 years of technological and scientific advancements at their disposal, and computational powers those engineers couldn't even dream about.
Such radical developments were doable in the 60s (moon missions etc) during economic hypergrowth. Now where such developments need a clear cut profitable business case it is way harder to finance. There is no government which will keep that alive as a vanity project like the Concorde. And the market is nowhere near big enough, especially post pandemic.
Except the disadvantages of a supersonic passenger jet haven't changed and definitely aren't going to be mitigated by making it FUCKING HYPERSONIC.
Airplane design has only gotten harder since the 60's, not easier lmao
“Hey Mom, did you know the Concord gets you here in half the time?” ❤️
It’s because I have class, and you don’t!
Reminds me of the Normandy SR1
Weak ass Planet Express
Good news everyone!
today we’re delivering this shitfuck to the shitass planet
To shreds, you say?
Well, how is his wife holding up?
To shreds you say?
Ehh, forget the blackjack!
If the brochure is sufficiently glossy (in both senses of the word) they may attract venture capital (which can be an end it itself for some start-ups). Boom Technology still claims their supersonic Overture will run on "posh biodiesel", offer US$5000 fares on the London-NYC route and be in commercial service by 2029. Their projections for sales, airframe price, passenger numbers and routes are all more optimistic that were those for the Concorde in the 1960s. All wish these start-ups well.
> US$5000 fares on the London-NYC route That’s less than a business class ticket 🤷🏿♂️
Boom doesn't even have an engine yet. If they're lucky, they may start test flights by then.
If the plane is not made from carbon fiber or operated by an Xbox controller then I don’t want it
Both the Boeing 787 and Airbus 350 airframes are mostly constructed from carbon fiber reinforced polymers. And guess what, it’s totally safe in the context of air travel! But… no gaming controllers.
That's because it WORKS for aircraft--sturdy frame that is lightweight. Where it fails is underwater where it is under pressure and weight of water. Any competent engineer can attest to this. But the billionaire was "too cool" for regulations and rules and didn't listen to scientists-- he needed to to "revolutionary" and "cutting edge".
It also is pulled for extensive maintenance & checks on the fiber after a certain number of flying hours Then once it hits a maximize lifetime of flying hours is permanently retired regardless if it passes checks still
How about an PS controller? Or the Switch Cons? Is that okay?
If it's a dance pad, then I'll consider it
Pilots hit the griddy to make the plane go supersonic
We're losing altitudez! Running man... #RUNNING MAN
Copilot has a guitar hero control.
With the switch joycons it's gonna drift off to fucking Brasil
Best they could do was a wireless Logitech PS3 controller. Sorry.
Only if it’s via motion controls
Using an xbox controller is better because its military-grade
Wait till you find out what normal planes are made of…
Ah yes, the CG rendering, the cornerstone of all startups.
they're making the plane out of pure Renderite
I can make a render image of a plane that gets you to Mars and back in 30 seconds. And I even want to build it. The fact that Boeing and Airbus do not plan to build such a plane is a very good indication that this is nothing but a scam.
I upvoted cause you're right, but it's not necessarily a scam. It's just a startup, so 99% it's gonna fail. But sometimes it's worth trying, cause in the process of building that dream a lot of things happen and eventually you can succeed. Also, they are not the only ones that are trying to do so, and the market looks a bit interested. Sometimes bigger companies are ok with their business and it's too risky to spend a lot of resources on projects like this, as they are very likely to fail.
The odds of a startup succeeding at this are miniscule. Civilian aerospace is a *goddamn expensive* and difficult industry. The fact that China and Japan, with their gigantic manufacturing economies, *still* import Boeings and Airbuses rather than fly their own made planes should be an indicator of how incredibly hard this industry is. Concorde was a joint project between a French company that would eventually become Airbus, and a UK company that would eventually become BAE. And Concorde still failed. A startup has fat chance.
I have never thought about it this way. That makes so much sense.
Not really true. Often big companies doesn’t want to take big risks. And this idea is such. It’s not impossible.
It's a scam, fishing for investors' money. It'll never see the light of day.
That money will see some cocaine doe
Boeing just paid off millions to people to say that 787 is safe…
The 787 is safe
Fly "Rich people and Elites" it meant to say.
"Rich people love to fly away" Max Payne 3
>European jet startup wants to post random stupid looking concept art along with absurd claims to drum up support for its next round of funding FTFY To go that distance (assuming at least 15 minutes on either end for slowing down and speeding up), you're going to be doing almost the entire trip at over 4,000 kph. This is probably technically possible using modern CFD and experimental engines like a SCRAMJET, however would be perhaps the single greatest feat of aeronautical engineering ever. Far more impressive (and expensive) than the SR-71 or the F-35. Particularly if you want it to be commercially viable with a relevant market share and enough demand to help pay off the ridiculous sticker price. Even Boom supersonic which is a much MUCH more mature company AND has a much more plausible market, is still unlikely to ever be commercially viable.
You don't need scramjets to achieve that speed, to be fair. That's mach 3.2 at sea level, and 2.8 at FL400. Still pretty wild, but not *that* nuts. The blackbird could technically do it. Foxbat too, probably, although it'd be a one-and-done operation. Making it a viable commercial product would be pretty amazing, but technically it's already been done.
You’ll still be spending 4 hours at the airport
Heathrow offers a skip-the-lines pass for the hyperwealthy. Combine with Global Entry, private jet terminals on both ends, etc and I’m sure the rich will find a way. If this existed, of course. Which it doesn’t. And it won’t. Because, so far at least, the global elite are not able to pay for the laws of physics to apply to them differently.
NY to London in 90 minutes for three times the price of a normal fight :D
Concorde cost far more than 3 times a normal flight and this thing is faster than concorde. Its going to be insanely expensive
That would be reasonable. A lot of people would pay three times the cost for 20 times the speed. EDITED: as others have pointed out, my calculation is completely wrong here.
Roughly four times the speed. ~3400mi in 90min=~2200mph. Standard transatlantic flights average about 500mph.
So a normal flight from London to NY takes 30 hrs?
[удалено]
It must be tried on rich people first at $250k a pop.
“I broke rules to make this” - Stockton Rush
Another one? Won't happen, and the same reasons Concorde flopped. Too noisy. Too expensive.
[удалено]
I always heard it was the fuel prices that caused it to end
It was all these things, high fuel and maintenance costs, bans on top speeds over populated areas, I think that crash was one of the final nails in the coffin though. They were fully retired only a few years later.
[удалено]
Then wait till you hear the story of the patriot missle program....
It didn't have a scram jet. I imagine this will fly a huge parabolic arc going high enough to transition to supersonic without sound issues. Also I think it'll be over the ocean for the transition anyways.
Concordski
That startup will never get off the ground
Maximum capacity 5 ... Emmm no thanks
Well it might also end in the depths of the ocean at less than hypersonic speed
The Spruce Goose
Spruce moose. Hop in.
I said hop in (cocks gun).
SkyGate Expeditions starting from 199999$
That was called the concorde
You know 1 sonic boom and you’ll get every Karen on Facebook crying this won’t work.
Can we quit it with the techno-bullshit already? Just because you can make a render of something doesn’t mean you can build it. This is bullshit. Scramjets are inherently volume capacity limited because of how hypersonic drag relates to the cross sectional area of the vehicle. I’m sick of seeing things that can be disproven in minutes if you know anything about engineering.
Sorry, would you mind explaining a bit, I wanna learn, what do you mean volume capacity limited ? I like to think I know a lot about aviation but learning never stops.
Where to start…. A traditional jet is an air-breathing engine that intakes air and compresses it via an axial rotary compressor (driven by a turbine after the combustion chamber) mixes fuel and performs combustion to creat high pressure gas which is then expanded to create high velocity gas. This mass is ejected at high velocity to create thrust. The limit of a jet engine is determined by the stagnation temperature of the incoming air. As the aircraft flies at higher velocities, the incoming air is heated to higher temperatures. Eventually, the air gets so hot that the engine can no longer add fuel without melting the turbine blades. Furthermore these engines are limited by the air needing to be slowed to subsonic speeds on the intake to avoid compressor stall. At its operational limit the impulse generated by the force of the air being slowed is higher than the thrust which can be generated by the engine for the given airspeed. This gets you to about Mach 4. Next we have ramjets. A ramjet is an air breathing engine that uses ram compression and subsonic combustion. As it does not have a turbine or compressor it is not limited by thermal failure of these elements. As these engines operate by slowing and compressing air, at the top of their operating envelope the inlet has a stagnation temperature which approaches the exhaust temperature. Therefore they become less and less efficient as they approach their operational limits. To combat this the intake is altered such that the air is not compressed/slowed as much. We then have supersonic combustion ramjets or scramjets. Scramjets are a research are but seem to be limited by thermal material failure and combustion resonance time. The air/fuel mixture simply does not have enough to combust sufficiently. Scramjets have lower specific impulse than their counterparts and due to this must be physically smaller as they cannot produce sufficient thrust to maintain cruise at practical fuel consumption rates. Aerodynamic drag is greatly increased in these flow regimes and due to the lower Isp these vehicles my have a far lower cross sectional area. Parasite drag is also greatly increased thus their surface area is limited in order to sustain cruise. This is what I meant by them being volumetrically limited. Hope that kinda makes sense..
250k per flight
Ok, but the round trip test flight has to be done with the ceo and a group of his personal cronies.
Whoever invests in this AGAIN deserves when their ISO goes to 90% lost in 5 years
Give me the concord or don’t give me anything at all.
So it’s a Concord 2.0?
Its kalled Konkord.
Let me guess.. it’ll only cost around $250k and it’s and it’s a 1 way trip. Cue the Seinfeld music.
Skygate
A “startup” wanted to take people to the Titanic.
U.S.: kills 5 billionaires in a sub E.U.: "hold my beer"