
A plane 10 times faster than Concorde - seycombi
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161206-what-a-16000mph-airliner-might-look-like
======
kylehotchkiss
Last time DARPA flew something at 17,000mph within the atmosphere, didn't it
just sorta fall apart in the sky? And once you're moving that fast, aren't you
more just destroying all the air particles instead of moving them so it's not
really aerodynamics?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_speed#Classificatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_speed#Classification_of_Mach_regimes)

------
jandrese
At that speed you're basically just taking a ballistic missile to your
destination. You can get anywhere in the world in a couple of hours, but the
tickets cost more than a comfortable house in the suburbs.

------
raattgift
"What a 16,000 mph airliner might look like"

A tube full of pureed humans should even a small buffet be encountered in high
speed flight.

A debris field of charred parts should the heat shielding fail.

Bits and pieces washing up on distant shores should a loss of control occur in
flight.

~~~
moron4hire
We should get the engineers in contact with you. It seems you've identified
some critical flaws they haven't considered.

~~~
gus_massa
I don't like the style of the GP comment, but the plane discussed in the
article is more a general idea than a detailed design that has been tested in
simulations and just need some money to get build. If it were software, I'd
classify it as vaporware.

------
out_of_protocol
2,180 km/h x 10 = 21,800 km/h = 6 km/s

Article claims 25600 km/h = 7 km/s (You need 7,9 km/s to go into space)

Slightly not enough to fly into space. Once again, why do we need it?

~~~
skykooler
More accurately, you need 7.9 km/s to get into orbit. You can fly into space
at a far lower speed of about 1.2 km/s; you just will fall back. That said;
travelling at 7 km/s at 12 km seems ludicrous; air is over 100 times denser at
that altitude than at 25 km, where the Space Shuttle reentered the atmosphere
(at about the same velocity). So this aircraft would need two orders of
magnitude better heat protection than the Space Shuttle. Not to mention the
aerodynamic drag at these altitudes and velocities, which will be tremendous.

~~~
out_of_protocol
Exactly. ... And this is that article claims, right?

~~~
skykooler
The article claims an aircraft design. To meet such a design would require no
less than a revolution in materials science.

------
k__
> London to New Zealand to little under 30 minutes

Well, 2h would be enough for me.

On the other hand, it's probably easier to control a 16,000mph plane for 30min
than a 4,000mph plane for 2h.

------
beepboopbeep
Assuming it wasn't a concept... How would the passengers inside cope with that
kind of acceleration (and I imagine, deceleration)?

------
mrfusion
Surely they mean scramjet as opposed to ramjet at that speed.

------
yongjik
From wikipedia, in case anyone else was also wondering who he is:

> Charles Bombardier (born 1974) is a Canadian engineer, innovator and angel
> investor. who creates vehicle concepts and shares them openly with the world
> with his non profit Imaginactive.org.

> Bombardier's grandfather was Joseph-Armand Bombardier, founder of Bombardier
> Inc. and Bombardier Recreational Products and inventor of the snowmobile.

...so, the rich grandson of a business founder who designs airplanes for fun.
Not sure how seriously we can take his "designs".

~~~
CPLX
You're oddly leaving out the fact that Bombardier is a renowned Fortune 500
company, and a major manufacturer of airplanes.

~~~
yongjik
Sorry, I thought most people knew Bombardier the airplane maker, but maybe I
should have kept that info.

In any case, Bombardier (the company) and Charles Bombardier don't seem to be
in any business relationship...?

