Boeing Hypersonic Aircraft Proposal
 

I keep my fingers crossed in hopes that this once mighty and highly respectable manufacturer can do something right.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4e34664a6.jpeg
Boeing Hypersonic Proposal

- Ed

It is "a refined, more realistic Mach 5 reusable air-breathing design targeting military and space launch roles,"

The lattest proposal, per linked article, is not an airliner. But you have to start somewhere. Hope it gets past CGI

The Hypersonic Cruiser?

B737-2050???

if I had a Pound for every supersonic/hypersonic "prototype"...

I don't think we have enough fingers

Probably makes more sense to take a spaceX rocket from A to B than use this.

B737-Hypermax?

The various supersonic/hypersonic/roger ramjet concept studies have only ever been useful for duping investors. Or diverting attention from the next bad news story just around the corner.

Supersonic civilian aeroplanes are the big boy equivalent of the flying car (which has been imminent now for at least 75 years)

Imminent AGAIN...

https://www.museumofflight.org/aircr...or-aerocar-iii

Maybe change from *Max 8* to *Mach 8* ? :rolleyes:

Seems to me it might be too noisy for some airports and overland and too expensive to make economic sense....

In the 1700's, the typical speed for long distance travel as ~6 mph - the speed of a horse drawn carriage. In the 1800's, the typical speed for long distance travel was ~60 mph - the speed of a steam locomotive driven train. By the 1900s, the typical speed for long distance travel was ~600 mph - the speed of a jet aircraft.

Is it really so unreasonable to think that by the end of the 2000s, we'll be traveling hypersonic for long distance travel?

When I was in college, one of my textbooks on aircraft design (published in the 1950's) predicted that jet powered commercial aircraft would never be successful as the high fuel consumption would make it uneconomical :rolleyes:. Advances in technology - along with the huge drop in turbine engine maintenance costs relative to piston powered aircraft - made that prediction laughably wrong.

Didn't Boeing's Sonic Cruiser prove that airlines prefer efficiency over speed?

50 years ago I built this one from an Airfix kit. It came with Pan Am decals. Pan Am is gone since 30 years. But Airfix and Boeing's dreams are still alive :)

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5c91363ecc.jpg

I think you’re out by about 100 years on that timeline. So maybe by 2100, but by then the zero carbon reality will make such a thing impossible, to say nothing of the enormous costs and all the other hurdles. Actually, I am sure that the technology exists right now to make such a plane, but there isn’t a commercial market for more than a handful. As far as the space vehicle launch platform goes, I would like to see how you could go hypersonic with that much drag and aerodynamic interactions.

Perhaps, but 60 years ago, commercial air travel was the domain of the rich - middle class people couldn't afford it. Today, technology has reduced the costs to the point that only the poor can't afford the occasional trip by air.
Who knows what the next 100 years may bring.

How lovely that some folks can still produce nonsense videos.

We all know why Concorde was taken out of service but one of the reasons that it was not going to last was: The laptop. You can now work your way in any flight, short or long. The time saving factor has been overtaken but function and cost..

In the future, the costs alone will rule this out. The financial cost, the environment cost and the social cost. It was no longer considered appropriate to fly Concorde unless the stock holders had no choice or you were paying for yourself. They might find themselves a niche of those who want a bucket list trip without the full on cost of the edge of space - but this is not going to work. I'm sure that the companies will have lots of fun with the money.

Well, hope springs eternal. History shows the federal government spending gobs of tax dollars on previous Boeing High Speed Aircraft projects when Boeing was still mighty and highly respectable - not one was built. A ground handling iron bird was built and tested at Moses Lake during the HSCT project (early to mid-90's) but it was hardly high speed, let alone hypersonic.

I hope tax dollars - direct funding or generous tax breaks - are not expended (wasted) on this project. This what a hypersonic flight experience would be like - a few hours airborne - and more time than that in the terminals at departure and arrival. I'd rather see effort expended in making significant improvements in the airline terminal experience.

There's likely to be much more hype than hypersonic flight coming from this.

A long time ago, in a childhood stock portfolio, this SLF/attorney owned two (2) shares of common stock of GE. Bought with birthday present money and paper route earnings. Because Popular Science ran an article in those kid-hood years about GE building the engines for the mid-1960s SST. (And because a parent thought that teaching a kid about investing in blue-chip enterprises might be a worthwhile pathway of parenting.)

In 1974 I traveled to Boston, just to see the first arrival of the "British-French" Concorde. No point in posturing to this audience, this SLF never really got over the absence of a U.S.-built SST. Not that such a sentiment makes sense, but there it is.

It's not a reason at all for anyone to change their thinking, about all the myriad and varied reasons another SST project is pointless, futile, unrealistic totally. It was just part of one human individual being's long-term, intense interest in airplanes and aviation, but big whup, so what? But let's do find something about travel by air that can capture the imagination of a youngster, and maybe in that person's lifetime and eventual future career, some good can be derived from it.