Mach 5 + ~300 passengers = ZERO EMISSION!

[halik]

Only $250,000 for coach seat, one way

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Any reason why the USA is no longer leading when it comes to things like these?

things like made up fake-never-going-to-exist things like these?

:roll: Gee, and all this time I thought that the Space Shuttle and countless other rockets ran on hydrogen. Little did I know that this is impossible.

Good thing we scrapped the X-plane projects...Hollywood was having more and more trouble faking the results, plus they were still demanding more money to keep the moon landing set secret.

i meant this plane in particular genius. also when did the USA ever lead in super sonic passenger airplane tech?

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Hydrogen is not a fuel.. It's a way to store energy

fuel is stored energy

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Any reason why the USA is no longer leading when it comes to things like these?

things like made up fake-never-going-to-exist things like these?

:roll: Gee, and all this time I thought that the Space Shuttle and countless other rockets ran on hydrogen. Little did I know that this is impossible.

Good thing we scrapped the X-plane projects...Hollywood was having more and more trouble faking the results, plus they were still demanding more money to keep the moon landing set secret.

i meant this plane in particular genius. also when did the USA ever lead in super sonic passenger airplane tech?

supersonic passenger aircraft, no, supersonic aircraft, sure.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Any reason why the USA is no longer leading when it comes to things like these?

things like made up fake-never-going-to-exist things like these?

:roll: Gee, and all this time I thought that the Space Shuttle and countless other rockets ran on hydrogen. Little did I know that this is impossible.

Good thing we scrapped the X-plane projects...Hollywood was having more and more trouble faking the results, plus they were still demanding more money to keep the moon landing set secret.

i meant this plane in particular genius. also when did the USA ever lead in super sonic passenger airplane tech?

supersonic passenger aircraft, no, supersonic aircraft, sure.

and this thread is about a ____________________?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Any reason why the USA is no longer leading when it comes to things like these?

things like made up fake-never-going-to-exist things like these?

:roll: Gee, and all this time I thought that the Space Shuttle and countless other rockets ran on hydrogen. Little did I know that this is impossible.

Good thing we scrapped the X-plane projects...Hollywood was having more and more trouble faking the results, plus they were still demanding more money to keep the moon landing set secret.

i meant this plane in particular genius. also when did the USA ever lead in super sonic passenger airplane tech?

supersonic passenger aircraft, no, supersonic aircraft, sure.

and this thread is about a ____________________?

How specific do you have to be?

If the US makes the best 4-passenger 6-cylinder passenger car in the world, chances are they won't be horribly out of their depth making the best 5-passenger 4-cylinder passenger car in the world. While there are certainly differences between military and civilian supersonic tech, a LOT of it transfers. Otherwise every single time they painted their plane a different color or added an extra row of seats they'd have to start from scratch.

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Any reason why the USA is no longer leading when it comes to things like these?

things like made up fake-never-going-to-exist things like these?

:roll: Gee, and all this time I thought that the Space Shuttle and countless other rockets ran on hydrogen. Little did I know that this is impossible.

Good thing we scrapped the X-plane projects...Hollywood was having more and more trouble faking the results, plus they were still demanding more money to keep the moon landing set secret.

i meant this plane in particular genius. also when did the USA ever lead in super sonic passenger airplane tech?

supersonic passenger aircraft, no, supersonic aircraft, sure.

this engine uses hydrogen as the combustible heat source in the combination turbojet/ramjet/scramjet engine.

The engine is basically the same thing as is found in the SR-71, just using a different fuel.

Normal jet fuel does not burn fast enough to use in a scramjet (you get no power if combustion happens after the fuel/air mixture has already exited the engine), and this hydrogren compound might burn faster.

 

[MegaVovaN]

thats 1.52 km/s
faster than most bullets

 

[JulesMaximus]

You naysayers do realize that it currently takes about 22 hours to fly from London to Sydney right? Reducing that to 4 hours is cutting that by almost 6. I'm all for cutting travel time by freaking mindblowingly enormous chunks. :thumbsup:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Journer
looks like a giant flying penis

Admit it, everything looks like a penis to you.

 

[Anubis]

cough *hindenburg* cough

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Anubis
cough *hindenburg* cough

There's a big difference though. This plane uses Hydrogen as Liquid a Fuel. The Hindenburg used Hydrogen as a Gas for its' lighter than Air capability.

 

[MegaVovaN]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Anubis
cough *hindenburg* cough

There's a big difference though. This plane uses Hydrogen as Liquid a Fuel. The Hindenburg used Hydrogen as a Gas for its' lighter than Air capability.

This babe goes faster than Hindenburg :laugh:

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Anubis
cough *hindenburg* cough

There's a big difference though. This plane uses Hydrogen as Liquid a Fuel. The Hindenburg used Hydrogen as a Gas for its' lighter than Air capability.

your sarcasm meter is broken

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Anubis
cough *hindenburg* cough

There's a big difference though. This plane uses Hydrogen as Liquid a Fuel. The Hindenburg used Hydrogen as a Gas for its' lighter than Air capability.

your sarcasm meter is broken

damn, reads label, Made in China Distributed by Walmart. Figures.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Anubis
cough *hindenburg* cough

There's a big difference though. This plane uses Hydrogen as Liquid a Fuel. The Hindenburg used Hydrogen as a Gas for its' lighter than Air capability.

also, iirc it was the shell of the Hindenburg that made it go up in flames...er..go down...

 

[soydios]

it doesn't run on fuel cells, thus the combustion temperatures still create NOx

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: soydios
it doesn't run on fuel cells, thus the combustion temperatures still create NOx

Can you elaborate a bit more on this please?

 

[Flammable]

its going to be called..CONCORDE 2

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: soydios
it doesn't run on fuel cells, thus the combustion temperatures still create NOx

Can you elaborate a bit more on this please?

NOx is created when nitrogen and oxygen are both present in high temperature environments, such as a car engine, or this jet. If you're not running exactly stoichiometric, you either have an excess of oxygen or an excess of fuel. If it's too much fuel, you're just wasting the stuff. If it's too much oxygen, you're creating NOx, which certainly counts as an "emission". In cars we have a catalytic converter to reduce the NOx that is created, but this simply isn't going to happen with a jet.

Note that this isn't any different than current jet engines, but presumably at a higher altitude and more NOx would be created per passenger-mile.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Any reason why the USA is no longer leading when it comes to things like these?

you mean large SSTs? no one can figure out how to make money on them.

That's why the Boeing 2707 was scrapped.

it did give us the seattle supersonics.