• catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    Seems like it. No mention of the fuel efficiency either, which leads me to assume it’s significantly worse than existing flights.

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      It probably is, the whole reason supersonic passenger flight looked feasible for a bit was that turbine technology hadn’t caught up so slower jets weren’t that much less efficient than supersonic jets.

      But fuel concerns aside, it’s kinda silly to compare a billion dollar fighter jet built with 60s technology to a 747-sized aircraft built for passenger flight with modern technology. Just wildly different environments, purposes, and resources.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        Based on the renderings (as there are no actual photos of this thing, other than the blurry-ass pic of what appears to be a rocket taking off vertically) it’s nowhere near the size of a 747. It actually looks rather like an elongated SR-71, which makes me very skeptical that it can actually hit Mach 6.5 because ramjet engines have a hard limit due to something called “physics”. That fact, plus the rocket-like takeoff, are why I think this is more like the X-15 and can’t sustain its top speed for long.