The race to build a successor to Concorde: Boeing, Gulfstream & NASA join forces.

Screw all the naysayers - I think it's doable, and at a profit too.

Well thought . One can not stick to past failures and get stuck . We moved from balloon flying to aircraft , didn't we ? High time we translated space flying into every day flying ! Good luck . boyz n galz there ! .

Once again the "Mail" shows it's excellent understanding of all things technical.

12000 miles at 2500 mph = 4 hours.............amazing

Beam me up, Scotty!

If the plane flies 4 times faster than a G650, and costs 25% more,($80M vs.$ 64M ) it should be feasible. Even after delays and cost increases push the price over $100M it will still make sense as a Business Jet, but probably not as an airliner. When money is not a limiting factor there is little that can't be accomplished. It would be great to see an American plane be the next SST.

It would be nice to see the US get back into the SST game. I remember an old Webster's Dictionary my parents bought (was sold in sections at the grocery store) back in '68. One of the pictures inside was an artist rendering of the Boeing SST in PanAm livery. That would've been so cool.

Just think back a few years when both the British and French Aviation Engineers said lets build a supersonic commercial passenger plane - three and a bit hours London to New York. Generally everyone said you are crazy. They did it and it is now part of history and aviation legend that the Concorde was, for its time, the most advanced and radical aircraft of its type. But is flew and flew brilliantly. The new generation engineers will develop a "New Concorde". Where's "Skunk Works Kelly Johnson" when you need him!!Can't be done - of cause it can!!

I crossed aboard the Concorde on 4 occasions; it was an incredible, wonderful experience. But I have to wonder, what with the reality of our global scarcity of resources, whether the necessary goverment participation will ever happen. Further, if costs will likely require multiple government backing, what dumb-ass bureaucratic nonesense, to say nothing of politics, will handicap the effort? Makes me sad.

It is unlikely to be commercially viable for the airlines. With current technology, very fast means long and skinny. A supersonic passenger jet that could carry enough passengers to make a profit would have to be longer than the A340-600 "Flying Pencil." Maybe too long to land on all but the longest runways.

How about Los Angeles to Sydney. Cuts almost 4000 miles, lower fuel costs, and practicaly doesn't fly over land with the sonic boom problem.

(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Sons of Concorde: new jets turn sonic boom into 'sonic plop'

Concorde's supersonic successors are determine to carve a path to commercial success – and one of the challenges is to overcome the 'sonic boom' which rolls in the jet's wake once it exceeds Mach 1 and causes even louder complaints from those living under the flight path. That goal is now within reach, with noise reduction technologies now softening the boom to a 'puff or plop' says an engineer associated with Gulfstream's X-54 supersonic challenger...

http://www.ausbt.com.au/sons-of-concorde-new-jets-turn-sonic-boom-into-sonic-plop

I thought business jets were evil.

What no reality TV show for the developement phase?? Producers can steal the "Sons of Concorde" title for the show... The lead engineers can compete against each other with rival CAD programs, super computers, etc, etc.
Sort of a Big Bang Theory meets Jesse James Garage hybrid.

12 seats?????? Thats even more ridiculous than the cramped cabin of the concorde....Those are going to be some pricey seats.At 2000 mph that's going to be burning a lot of fuel and it looks like it is going to be a beast to pilot...Where exactly is the cockpit?

Other than "hey look what we built", I don't see the purpose..
I am a aircraft freak. I like new technology.
But this thing does not appear practical.
If the aircraft can be designed to operate as a "normal" plane, flying a regualr route, then I am all for it.

What's the point of trying to duplicate an unsuccessful aircraft? I'm not saying I don't want it to be made, just that it is highly unlikely that it will work.

It'll never happen. There's a reason why the Concorde isn't flying nowadays. The advancement and success of aviation is not based on technology, but money.