How the Airbus A321XLR is changing the air map of the world – CNN
This is the most common question when talking about the A321XLR… will it really open up new routes? My thought is that it might eventually, but that won’t be the first thing it does. Read Ned’s debut article for CNN for more.
18 Airlines Using Apple AirTag Data to Find Lost Luggage – Condé Nast Traveler
AirTags are finally getting useful for lost luggage now that airlines are starting to work with Apple to track items. I’m an Android user, so I’ll just keep waiting…
This week’s episode of The Air Show is out, and we are talking about Boom. Did it fly supersonic? Yes. Well, it flew a test airplane supersonic. Did it do it without a sonic boom hitting the ground? Yep, “Boomless cruise,” but there’s a catch. Is there a chance this works commercially? Almost certainly not.
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Apple Podcasts
Listen on Amazon
Listen on Pocket Casts
4 comments on “Cranky on the Web: What the XLR Brings, A Boomless Boom, AirTags in Bags”
Great podcast!
Companies have been designing and building single seat super sonic jets for a long time. Not sure how much of an achievement (or milestone) this is even for a startup nearly 80 years after the X-1. Since it has very little in common with the anticipated Overture plane, could they have gotten faster to this milestone by buying (and perhaps modifying) an existing retired supersonic aircraft from another manufacturer?
I think it’s called reinventing the wheel.
I’m not an aerospace engingeer, but beyond some basic science/design concepts and maybe some materials, I’d question how much overlap there is between the airframes and even the engines for supersonic fighters and those required for a viable supersonic airliner.
Keep in mind that (within reason) the purchase price and $/hour operating costs for supersonic fighters aren’t really THAT important for military customers. Costs can be a few orders of magnitude higher, and lifespan (in terms of flight hours & flight cycles, not years) potentially order or two of magnitude lower for viable military aircraft than for viable commercial aircraft.
Another major element that I haven’t seen mentioned in discussions is the impact of greater airborne connectivity compared to 20 or 30 years ago. While no one loves long flights, many flights have internet connectivity (albeit with medicore bandwidth, which is continuing to improve). Even if airlines won’t let most pax do video or conference calls while airborne (which I’d argue should be allowed for those in the private suites or enclosed pods as an additional perk if bandwidth permits, but I digress), people can still chat, send/receive emails, communicate with business colleagues, collaborate on smaller files in the cloud, and get most work done that doesn’t require a voice conversation or large files. That wasn’t really the case when the Concorde was around (outside of $$$$$ AirFone, for those who remember that), and I’d argue that such connectivity significantly reduces the potential value of saving a few hours on of a transoceanic flight.
Some good points. I don’t know and haven’t researched what they tested during those two test flights. It seems odd that all this effort was made for just two short flights. Could that have been achieved differently?
I will note that the engine they used was a 1950s era (well, probably modernized since then GE engine developed for the military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J85
I’d love to fly supersonic once and still kick myself for not flying on Concorde while it was still in service. But I don’t think it would be a practical aircraft for me on the west coast going to Europe. It would mean flying subsonic to some east coast gateway on a domestic aircraft, making a connection, and then flying in a likely cramped uncomfortable aircraft without being able to get much sleep. Or I could fly in a lie flat seat non-stop from the west coast to Europe in probably the same amount of time.
CNN articles are now behind a pay wall.