# Son of Concorde News



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 31, 2017)

Aerion, the company developing the AS2 alongside Airbus, has announced that the jets will be powered by General Electric engines, allowing them to reach Mach 1.5, or one-and-a-half times the speed of sound.














The Aerion AS2 business jet will fly at a top speed of 1,150 mph (1,851km/h), which is almost as fast as Concorde, which flew at 1,350 mph (2,170 km/h).

The team has so far made initial designs for a carbon-fiber wing structure, fuselage, landing gear and a fuel system.

Design features include wings which reduce overall drag by 20 per cent, allowing for lower fuel consumption and longer range and a luxurious 30ft-long (nine-metre) cabin that will seat up to 12 passengers.

'We see clear and achievable technical solutions to the design of a supersonic jet, and a realistic road map for helping Aerion proceed toward construction and flight,' said Airbus senior vice president Ken McKenzie.

Airbus will provide all the major components and Aerion – a company backed by Texas-based billion Robert Bass - will complete the final assembly.


----------



## P4-630 (May 31, 2017)

@trump if you still have some cash left after being president, you want one....


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 31, 2017)

Hmmmm .....  remarkably similar design to the F-104 Starfighter, which also looked good design-wise.  Pilots called it the Widowmaker instead of the Starfighter.


----------



## RealNeil (May 31, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> Hmmmm .....  remarkably similar design to the F-104 Starfighter, which also looked good design-wise.  Pilots called it the Widowmaker instead of the Starfighter.



You are right about the Starfighter, it was sold to other countries to use and it should have been retired.

As for the AS2,.....such little wing surface means very little gliding prowess if engine power is lost. This one needs those two GE engines to work flawlessly all of the time.


----------



## Ferrum Master (May 31, 2017)

well... ain't it she?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 31, 2017)

The best glide ratio of the Concorde at subsonic speed is around 7/8 : 1 (dependent on load)  which is about half of an A330 or B777

If a Concorde at it's cruising altitude of 60,000 feet lost power it could theoretically glide only about 80 miles.


----------



## Ferrum Master (May 31, 2017)

Well best bet would be using variable sweep wings actually... Dunno why not.


----------



## RealNeil (May 31, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> If a Concorde at it's cruising altitude of 60,000 feet lost power it could theoretically glide only about 80 miles.



And that means little on a trans oceanic flight. (location would be key)
Also, landing that airframe without power would be a nightmare.


----------



## ne6togadno (May 31, 2017)

RealNeil said:


> very little gliding prowess


you'd be supriced what wing root extensions can achieve


RealNeil said:


> This one needs those two tree GE engines to work flawlessly all of the time




normaly should be able to "land" even with only one engine running


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 31, 2017)

ne6togadno said:


> normaly should be able to "land" even with only one engine running


Normal plane with larger wing area, yes, although with difficulty in some cases.  This thing, not so much.  That design is aerodynamic and has very little lift unless at near-supersonic or above speeds with those stubby little wings.


----------



## qubit (May 31, 2017)

I'm not terribly impressed. Concord was designed in the 60s and could do mach 2, so any replacement should so at least that much, maybe mach 3. Interesting that it doesn't have a delta wing design, which would look way cooler and is usually the best shape for supersonic aircraft. Perhaps they designed them like this so that the aircraft would have a lower takeoff and landing speed.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 31, 2017)

qubit said:


> Perhaps they designed them like this so that the aircraft would have a lower takeoff and landing speed.


Except less lift (small wing area)= more speed needed for both landing and takeoff.  Low speed= instability with this design.


----------



## Gasaraki (May 31, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> @trump if you still have some cash left after being president, you want one....



He's making hand over fist as president. I don't see how he can't buy one.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 31, 2017)

Gasaraki said:


> He's making hand over fist as president. I don't see how he can't buy one.


 No salary for him.  Living on his savings and investments from the businesses.  so while he might still be makling money hand over fist, it's not in his capacity as president.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 31, 2017)

I seem to remember a fighter jet that looked like this... Either made by the Russians or the Koreans. I dont know the model name so I can only google image search it so im not sure if it actually exists or if its something that i saw in Ace Combat games


::EDIT::

Not the one im looking for but similar...

X-3 Stiletto







X-15 Rocket Plane


----------



## qubit (May 31, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> Except less lift (small wing area)= more speed needed for both landing and takeoff.  Low speed= instability with this design.


Yes, the wings do indeed look a little tiddly. That usually implies a faster aircraft, so I dunno what's going on with this design. I guess you'd have to ask them, lol.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 31, 2017)

FreedomEclipse said:


> I seem to remember a fighter jet that looked like this... Either made by the Russians or the Koreans. I dont know the model name so I can only google image search it so im not sure if it actually exists or if its something that i saw in Ace Combat games
> 
> 
> ::EDIT::
> ...



Are you sure you aren't thinking of the F-104, which I mentioned earlier?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 31, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> Are you sure you aren't thinking of the F-104, which I mentioned earlier?



nope, though the starfighter was the first thing that passed my mind when i clicked on the thread


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 31, 2017)

FreedomEclipse said:


> nope, though the starfighter was the first thing that passed my mind when i clicked on the thread


Hmmm, now you've got me curious.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 31, 2017)

I wonder if the drag by additional engine is worth the extra safety.


----------



## infrared (May 31, 2017)

Looks like a nice design. Although the wings are short they are quite broad, I doubt they'll have any problems with lift and no-power landings. I'm surprised they haven't gone for mach 2+ though, maybe they're trying to make it more economical to run. 

It'll be cool to have another supersonic passenger aircraft, concord was an incredible plane, I was gutted when they grounded them.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 31, 2017)

Fourstaff said:


> I wonder if the drag by additional engine is worth the extra safety.




a few parachutes would be cheaper.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 31, 2017)

infrared said:


> Looks like a nice design. Although the wings are short they are quite broad, I doubt they'll have any problems with lift and no-power landings. I'm surprised they haven't gone for mach 2+ though, maybe they're trying to make it more economical to run.
> 
> It'll be cool to have another supersonic passenger aircraft, concord was an incredible plane, I was gutted when they grounded them.



The Problem with the A52 is it can only carry 12 passengers. Its really just a glorified private jet that will get you and your entourage  halfway across the world faster. Price of a seat for commercial purposes will be phenomenal.


----------



## 64K (May 31, 2017)

I guess people who would want the convenience of really fast trans-atlantic flight would be willing to pay the bill but wasn't that one of the things that ended the Concorde? Financial problems due to the costs to run and it sat 92 to 128 passengers?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 31, 2017)

To break even Concorde needed 33 passengers though i often saw her fly with a lot less on board. The service was run no matter how many passengers were on board, for positioning purposes.

During the time that Concorde was out of service many of her passengers were lured away by other airlines and of course the world changed a lot after 9/11.

The overriding factor is the cost and supply of certified parts.


----------



## qubit (May 31, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Concorde


I think with need a flamefest debate over whether it's spelled Concorde or Concord.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 31, 2017)

*While totally off-topic, CONCORD is a Noun of different meanings:*

Con·cord1
[ˈkäNGkərd]
DEFINITION

a city in north central California, northeast of Oakland; pop. 121,160 (est. 2008).
a town in northeastern Massachusetts; pop. 17,450 (est. 2008). Battles here and at Lexington in April 1775 marked the start of the American Revolution.
the capital of New Hampshire, in the southern part of the state, on the Merrimack River; pop. 42,255 (est. 2008).
an industrial city in south central North Carolina, a textile center; pop. 66,311 (est. 2008).

Con·cord2
[ˈkäNGkərd]
NOUN
*Concords* (plural noun)

a variety of dessert grape developed at Concord, Massachusetts.


con·cord3
[ˈkäNGˌkôrd]
NOUN

formal
agreement or harmony between people or groups:
"a pact of peace and concord"
*synonyms:* agreement · harmony · accord · consensus ·
[more]
concurrence · unity

*antonyms:* discord

a treaty.
*synonyms:* agreement · harmony · accord · consensus ·
[more]
concurrence · unity

*antonyms:* discord



grammar
agreement between words in gender, number, case, person, or any other grammatical category that affects the forms of the words.
music
a chord that is pleasing or satisfactory in itself.

ORIGIN
Middle English: from Old French concorde, from Latin concordia, from concors ‘of one mind,’ from con- ‘together’ + cor, cord- ‘heart.’

*And Concorde is the plane (and car):*

Con·corde
[ˈkäNGˌkôrd]
DEFINITION

a supersonic airliner able to cruise at twice the speed of sound. Produced through Anglo-French cooperation, it made its maiden flight in 1969 and its last in 2003.


----------



## qubit (May 31, 2017)

@rtwjunkie I remember watching a program on the development of Concord(e) which covered this "issue". Perhaps all those different definitions are what's getting people's knickers in a twist?  While the "e" version is now the official one, I think there are still some rumblings about the spelling even after all this time, but don't quote me.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 31, 2017)

64K said:


> I guess people who would want the convenience of really fast trans-atlantic flight would be willing to pay the bill but wasn't that one of the things that ended the Concorde? Financial problems due to the costs to run and it sat 92 to 128 passengers?





CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> To break even Concorde needed 33 passengers though i often saw her fly with a lot less on board. The service was run no matter how many passengers were on board, for positioning purposes.
> 
> During the time that Concorde was out of service many of her passengers were lured away by other airlines and of course the world changed a lot after 9/11.
> 
> The overriding factor is the cost and supply of certified parts.



fair point.... So in essence this could still work if there are less overhead costs. though I still think the cost of a ticket will be beyond the reach of the average consumer though you'll probably get a few of them on every flight. All i can see are businesses that need to fly their staff out to board meetings halfway across the world as quickly as possible and money to them is  of no object so long as it doesnt border the same price as hiring a private jet.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 31, 2017)

qubit said:


> I think with need a flamefest debate over whether it's spelled Concorde or Concord.



It was a UK /French alliance and to make the project have a French tang an e was added.


----------



## RealNeil (May 31, 2017)

ne6togadno said:


> you'd be supriced what wing root extensions can achieve
> 
> 
> 
> normaly should be able to "land" even with only one engine running



You need speed _and_ wing surface to provide lift. (there is no arguing with physics)
With little surface area, you must compensate with power/thrust. (my bad for not spotting the third engine)
Without power when using stubby little wings, you're screwed.
I think that this is probably a moot point. There will be safeguards built-in and they'll most likely work.
It is a beautiful airframe.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 31, 2017)

RealNeil said:


> It is a beautiful airframe



Yes it is...despite my negative review of it's possible airworthiness, it is beautiful.


----------



## RealNeil (May 31, 2017)

FreedomEclipse said:


> X-15 Rocket Plane



The X-15 was indeed a rocket and not a plane. They were taken aloft by a B52 Bomber and launched in midair. (there was no takeoff from the ground)
They flew them at Edwards Air Force Base when I was a kid. We had some of the pilots come to our elementary school and talk about them.
They had to land them on Rodger's dry lake bed because it took miles of runway to stop them.
The sonic-boom when it flew was significant.




rtwjunkie said:


> Yes it is...despite my negative review of it's possible airworthiness, it is beautiful.



Odds are that there will be computer aided controls onboard. It will be much more refined than the Concorde was.


----------



## Formula350 (May 31, 2017)

RealNeil said:


> You need speed _and_ wing surface to provide lift. (there is no arguing with physics)


_*steps in from the shadows*_
You seem to have left out a few exceptions to that rule  Just sayin'! lol
In all seriousness, only one of them even kinda resembles this one's design, with the top-intake rear-outlet. 

This one's concept art shares the stubby wings, though. Doesn't seem to have made it beyond the drawing stage, though. heh
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=2611

In reality, no, I'm not suggesting they're using VTOL or STOL, it's just way too long for any of that (in a practical sense I mean). Doesn't weight play a roll in the whole lift situation? I assumed that was the reason behind all the "THIS PART AND THAT PART AND THESE ARE ALL CARBON FIBER!!!11" mentioning. 
_*slinks back into the shadows from whence he came*_


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (May 31, 2017)

I think there's warfare gear with more surface/control surfaces ratio wise and lacks uplift from the outer fuselage almost totally( a desing feature of the body that produces lift as if it being a wing, the f35 is one such)
Le: the problem is the same almost everywhere energy density of fuel.
Anyways, it's to adjective for my liking.


----------



## ne6togadno (Jun 1, 2017)

RealNeil said:


> You need speed _and_ wing surface to provide lift. (there is no arguing with physics)
> With little surface area, you must compensate with power/thrust. (my bad for not spotting the third engine)
> Without power when using stubby little wings, you're screwed.
> I think that this is probably a moot point. There will be safeguards built-in and they'll most likely work.
> It is a beautiful airframe.


wing root extentions 







rtwjunkie said:


> Normal plane with larger wing area, yes, although with difficulty in some cases.  This thing, not so much.  That design is aerodynamic and has very little lift unless at near-supersonic or above speeds with those stubby little wings.


it is safety regulation not design feature.
every commercial plane that fly over ocean should be able to safely reach airport and land with one engine down (some can do it with 2 down) or it cant get certificate to fly over sea. only one engine is applicable for 2 engine planes like 777 (i sould've refreshed memory before not after ).
also every plane that fly over sea mass has to be able to stay afloat for time bigger then time required for emergancy evacuation of passengers and crew in case of sea surface "landing".
as for the wing area check wing root extentions above.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Jun 2, 2017)

it could get way deeper for example(I think it could be an example) a fighter aircraft can is getting away with max take off weight /wing surface/ coefficients /what have you , as they are overpower and underpowerd fuel wise; summarizing I can force myself up considering controllable surfaces in relation to power.
2nd point would be natural take off speed of any aircraft.


----------



## JunkBear (Jun 2, 2017)

We Do have à Starfighter in my hometown. Its mounted on concrète stale like its taking off at high speed and high angle to reach the stars. After Starfighters were removed of circulation Canada bought one back from Germany and was installed there.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 2, 2017)

qubit said:


> @rtwjunkie I remember watching a program on the development of Concord(e) which covered this "issue". Perhaps all those different definitions are what's getting people's knickers in a twist?  While the "e" version is now the official one, I think there are still some rumblings about the spelling even after all this time, but don't quote me.



Nah, its a French plane, hence the 'e'.

Le Concorde.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 2, 2017)

qubit said:


> Yes, the wings do indeed look a little tiddly. That usually implies a faster aircraft, so I dunno what's going on with this design. I guess you'd have to ask them, lol.



They are streamlined for speed, not lift. Course the flapperons, flaps, ailerons, leading edge surfaces, empennage group aide in flight optimization through the entire envelope.

The X15 rocket looks like a design concept for the F16, F35 by the wings.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Sep 23, 2017)

NASA has revealed the latest tests on a radical supersonic plane that could revolutionise air travel.

The space agency is using a model of its Quiet Supersonic Technology (QueSST) Preliminary Design in windtunnel tests at NASA's Langley Research Center.

The space agency says it is ready to begin taking bids for construction of a demonstration plane in a project worth $390 million over five years, according to Bloomberg.







Earlier this year, in what was said to be a 'significant milestone' for supersonic passenger flight, NASA completed the preliminary design review of its low-boom X-plane.

The Quiet Supersonic Transport (QueSST) design aims to reduce the sonic boom that occurs as these aircraft move faster than the speed of sound, with hopes to bring it down to a soft 'thump' to allow for flights over land.

Experts from NASA and Lockheed Martin now say the QueSST design could meet these requirements, and say flight tests could begin as early as 2021. 


NASA plans to release the full request for proposals in August, following the recent draft request. 

Lockheed Martin partnered with NASA as lead contractor in February 2016.

Its scale model for the Low Boom Flight Demonstration (LBFD) experimental plane was put through the 8-by 6-foot supersonic wind tunnel at NASA's Glenn Research Center last month, and the space agency has now completed the preliminary design review.

The design will be finalized over the next few months, and will undergo a static inlet performance test and low-speed wind tunnel test.

NASA now plans to solicit proposals and award a contract to build the first piloted, single-engine craft.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 14, 2017)

Blake Scholl, founder of Boom Supersonic, has revealed that commercial flights on the full-sized, 55-seater aircraft which is 'better than Concorde', could begin running by 2025.

The full-size boom aircraft is expected to reach speeds of more than 1,687mph – 100mph faster than the infamous Concorde.  







The news comes just months after Mr Scholl revealed that a smaller version of the plane, called the XB-1 will be tested next year.  


He also said that Boom had already received 76 orders for its passenger plane from five unnamed airlines.

The Boom jet was created by top aviation experts with collective experience working at Nasa, SpaceX and Boeing.

Learning from the Concorde, they combined advanced aerodynamics, efficient engine technology and new composite materials to produce a 'safe and affordable' supersonic aircraft 2.6 times faster than current jetliners.

The prototype has been subjected to more than 1,000 simulated wind tunnel tests and features a tapered carbon fibre fuselage, and efficient turbofan jet engines. 


According to the simulations, Boom's design is quieter and 30 per cent more efficient than the Concorde.

It will be split into two single-seat rows, so everybody has a window and an aisle.

To reduce weight, the seats are of the standard domestic first-class variety, so no lay-down beds.

To cut flight time, Boom's plane will cruise at 60,000 feet, where passengers will be able to see the curvature of the earth, while going 2.6 times faster than other passenger planes.

Mr Scholl said about 500 routes fit the craft's market, including a five-hour trip from San Francisco to Tokyo and a six-hour flight from Los Angeles to Sydney.





Spoiler


----------



## yotano211 (Nov 15, 2017)

Does this Boom plane have enough range to fly from Los Angeles to Sydney, that is a 15 hour flight.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 15, 2017)

The guy said it did... so, yes?


----------



## Mr.Scott (Nov 15, 2017)

yotano211 said:


> Does this Boom plane have enough range to fly from Los Angeles to Sydney, that is a 15 hour flight.





> a six-hour flight from Los Angeles to Sydney.


----------



## yotano211 (Nov 15, 2017)

In a normal commercial plane its 15 hours.


----------



## craigo (Nov 15, 2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144

I love supersonic commercial aircraft!


----------



## RealNeil (Nov 15, 2017)

yotano211 said:


> In a normal commercial plane its 15 hours.



Yes, this is a lot faster  (2.6 times faster than other passenger planes)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 16, 2017)

Question is what runways can it operate off of.  Supersonic aircraft typically need more runway to land.

I'm surprised at the 76 orders.  Even if only half of them follow through, that's far more than Concorde ever had.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 16, 2017)

Concorde operated from "normal" commercial runways....anywhere you can land a 747 you can land Concorde. Only issues were a bumpy or undulating surface.


Take off and landing speeds were significantly higher with Concorde though because of the delta wing and its reduced lift at low speeds.


----------



## THE_EGG (Nov 16, 2017)

Daaamn should be good (and expensive). I nearly always feel a bit nauseous after about 11hrs in a plane which makes it unpleasant flying to destinations anywhere in Europe via Dubai or going to North America.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 19, 2017)

Aerion and Lockheed Martin have revealed they are joining forces in the race to create the world's first supersonic business jet.
The firms are working together to 'explore the feasibility of a joint development of the world's first supersonic business jet', the Aerion AS2.







In November 2015, Aerion announced a fleet order from fractional aircraft fleet operator Flexjet for 20 AS2 aircraft. 
Aerion expects the AS2's first flight in 2023 and certification in 2025. 

The latest announcement with Lockheed Martin further positions Aerion as the leader in the nascent sector of civil supersonic aviation.


----------



## cornemuse (Dec 19, 2017)

FreedomEclipse said:


> I seem to remember a fighter jet that looked like this... Either made by the Russians or the Koreans. I dont know the model name so I can only google image search it so im not sure if it actually exists or if its something that i saw in Ace Combat games
> 
> 
> ::EDIT::
> ...


 Prolly this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter

We had them in Thailand  late '60's, I worked on Ejection seats. I remember the wing leading edges were so sharp they had guards installed after landing. 

The germans loved them,  they were like flying Porsches to them, , , ,

-c-


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 21, 2018)

Richard Branson-backed Boom Supersonic expects a prototype of its passenger plane to make its first test flight by the end of this year.

The firm this week came a step closer to that goal after announcing a ‘milestone’ engine delivery for the two-seater, known as XB-1, or ‘Baby Boom’
CEO Blake Scholl tweeted: ‘Milestone coming up: XB-1 engines are on a truck and will arrive at @boomaero hangar within a week.’


----------



## RealNeil (Mar 21, 2018)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> View attachment 95029



It's a beautiful airframe.
With those stubby little wings, you really have to trust the thrust.


----------



## Folterknecht (Mar 22, 2018)

rtwjunkie said:


> Hmmmm .....  remarkably similar design to the F-104 Starfighter, which also looked good design-wise.  *Pilots called it the Widowmaker instead of the Starfighter*.



While that is true, the main problem wasn't with the plane. It was with idiots in politics and military leadership, that pushed the F-104 into rolls it wasn't designed for and adding more and more stuff to the plane, without making sure the original design could handle it (see also late models of the BF 109). Putting a race horse in front of a plow isn't the brightest idea, but you know how it goes - administration knows best ... .

An other problem at least in Germany and some other countries was the inadequate support structure surrounding the new airforce(s), be it pilot training/qualification or maintanance/supply and the training of it, operating procedures and so. Again the farming example from above applies, you don't put a race horse in the hand of a novice.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 17, 2018)

Reviving supersonic passenger flights to harm environment: study

Reason: they're repurposing engines designed for other aircraft rather than creating a new high efficiency engine for supersonic passenger aircraft.  USA wants to adjust pollution requirements to accommodate them while EU doesn't.

Unless the three companies pursuing supersonic commercial aircraft can get a commitment from GE, Rolls-Royce, or other engine manufacturer to create a new engine for this class of aircraft, they might never leave the tarmac.


Edit: I'm not entirely sure how they can even make an engine to meet the requirements.  They'd almost have to embed a turbo fan engine inside the body to get it off the ground and then switch to the smaller, external engines at altitude.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 17, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> USA wants to adjust pollution requirements to accommodate them while EU doesn't.


Pretty ironic  seeing as that's how US Avation restricted the Operational use of Concorde.

Now the EU has Higher Enviomental Standards than the US its inconvienient and the rules should be ajusted ( in American  favour)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 17, 2018)

dorsetknob said:


> Pretty ironic  seeing as that's how US Avation restricted the Operational use of Concorde.
> 
> Now the EU has Higher Enviomental Standards than the US its inconvienient and the rules should be ajusted ( in American  favour)


All countries have strict regulations on where aircraft can go supersonic.  London/New York was an ideal route because it's mostly over the Atlantic where there is no regulations.  The Concorde has flown over the Midwest USA several times but it isn't clear if it was permitted to go supersonic when it did.


Not really, USA is just more inclined to bend the rules to encourage economic activity than EU is.
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/nawtec05/nawtec05-48.pdf


> Philosophically, the U.S. EPA's approach is to balance the economics of the MWC and health benefits of the country. The European approach is to control pollution to the lowest value possible which is technologically achievable regardless of economic or other considerations.
> 
> This regulatory diversity reflects the traditions, the environmental and economic priorities, and the regulatory mind-set of each country and should not be viewed in terms like better or worse, or right or wrong.


These three aircraft could represent the next generation of air travel.  If regulations stop them from taking flight, supersonic commercial air travel could be dead for good.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 17, 2018)

FordGT90Concept said:


> USA is just more inclined to bend the rules to encourage economic activity than EU is.


And when the Shoe is on the other foot  ??   the US will do the kicking
Talk about a level equal playing field


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 18, 2019)

FAA moves to support growth of civil supersonic air industry
					

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said on Monday it is moving to rewrite testing rules to allow for the eventual return of civil supersonic air travel.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## freeagent (Jun 18, 2019)

It kind of looks like a modified Lear Jet, except the wings wont break apart


----------



## RealNeil (Jun 18, 2019)

It looks like this:


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 18, 2019)

If Elon gets the Bfr into shape it might make any high speed planes redundant commercially.

That would be a shame though.


----------

