Slashdot Mirror
New Supersonic Jet Test Less Than Successful
saberwolf writes "The BBC is reporting in this story that the first test of Japan's supersonic jet didn't go quite as planned when it crashed into the ground seconds after takeoff on its test rig. It looks like a successor to the world's only supersonic passenger jet, Concorde (built jointly by the British and French in the 1960s) is still some way off." Reuters has more pictures.
Please!
Nobody seems to understand that it was the rocket booster that failed, not the test jet. The test jet wouldnt' be activated until something like 18 miles above the ground.
The test jet didn't fail. It was a completely unrelated accident.
-- Daniel
I've often wondered about a "rescue" system for payloads, much like the escape rockets for the old Apollo rockets. Having this kind of a system in place could help save payloads from destruction during first and second stage failures.
Its too bad though. I hope that they continue testing. And I sure hope that model had lots of insurance.:(
I guess the poster has never heard of Airbus Industrie.... click here to know more.
BBC also has a short RealVideo clip of the crash, replete with one very freaked-out kangaroo fleeing the crash site.
"Luck is the residue of design" --Branch Rickey
Anyhoow, there's a massive accident database with 6350 airliner "write-offs" from 1945! I'd be interested to know if whoever made this sight has a little, er, "problem" with flying. Anyway to see whose planes were better when it comes to safety (which was the original point), go here the statistics page. It's a bit complicated, so I couldn't be bothered going through American and European models. BTW: think twice before boarding a Boeing S.307 Stratoliner.
You seem to be forgetting the Tupolev TU-144, dubbed Concordski in the west due to its uncanny resemblence to Concorde. Although faster than Corcorde, its crash at the Paris Air Show effectively put an end to its challenge to Concorde in the commercial marketplace. Nonetheless, it was used as a passenger carrying jet in the Soviet Union in 1977 and early 1978 until another crash put and end to its career. Concorde is, therefore, the only currently operating supersonic passenger jet.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
While the Slashdot crew is busy arguing whether it was the rocket or the jet that crashed, and who in the world would fly on such a beast, no one is taking into account that this was just a scale model!
The superjet, a 1:10 scale model of a plane that would be able to fly twice as fast as the Concorde, dived into the ground shortly after take-off (Reuters)
Were this a crash of a real jet, yes, it would news. The crash of a model, no.
Airbus: Europe (on par with Boeing for commercial airliners)
Dassault Aviation: France (the Falcon line of high-end business jets: especially successful in the US market)
Embraer: Brazil (shares with Bombardier the world market for regional jets)
Bombardier: Canada (shares with Embraer the world market for business jets)
ATR: Europe (turboprop regional transportation planes)
Tupolev: Russia (still makes commercial aircraft)
These are just for the commercial airliners. The list of non-US manufacturers of general aviation planes if much longer.
From my limited observations of the Reuters photos and BBC video clip, it appears that the booster rocket left the pad without the test glider. Immediately after leaving the launch rails, the booster tipped over, indicating that there was an unintentional mass imbalance (hence, gimballed boosters counteracting a non-existent payload) that threw the flight path out of whack. Can anyone tell whether the rocket flopped away from where the payload should have been, or in another direction. If it fell away from the payload, the payload must have become unattached.
the north coast of Cornwall (non-UK readers: the 'foot' that sticks out of the UK to the south-west.) You'd often hear the sonic boom from Concorde accelerating through (or decelerating back through) the sound barrier above the Bristol Channel. It sounded like a distant roll of thunder on a hot summer's day. (Of course it was always hot and sunny back then... </nostalgia >&
Nowadays, I live in South London, which happens to be on the flight path for Heathrow (along with most of the rest of south/west London...). The windows are double-glazed, which makes a nice Concorde test: when you can hear aircraft noise indoors, it's *always* either Concorde, or a low-flying police surveillance camera. (We live in a police state over hear, because guns are illegal. Gosh, how I wish I lived in the USA, so I could defend myself against the crushing power of the State! <
The reason the Concorde is so damn loud are the Rolls Royce Olympus engines. They're optimised for supersonic flight, which makes them horribly inefficient -- they have to burn a *lot* of fuel to provide reasonable thrust at low air speeds (and given the airframe's delta-wing profile, "low speed" is relative: I haven't the numbers, but she takes off and lands *very* fast. Most supersonic military aircraft for the last 20 years or so have had variable geometry flight surfaces (BAE Tornado, f'rinstance, or the US Tomcat. Or that fskcing GORGEOUS Russian aircraft with the twin air intakes below the fuselage... but I digress) - the wings are swept forward for low-speed operation, then back into a delta configuration for high speeds.
This is another reason the Concorde's so expensive to run, which was another factor in it's commerical (lack of) success. Now, what I'm wondering - and I'm slightly puzzled why there hasn't been a
Anyone able to enlighten me on this?
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
I've just seen an Australian news broadcast with interviews of the parties involved and they say that the model separated from the rocket at lift off.
The indication was that the model fell back onto the launch pad and the rocket then went out of control.
And the winner on the day was: Sir Isac Newton!
This test alone cost $7m. They presumably need to build another $80m model to proceed with the other tests, which are probably not penny candy either.
Besides, the video of it crashing is spectacular. That alone makes it newsworthy.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
My farther is the range operator at Woomera and was present for the recent test's. It was the rocket delivering the payload that failed rather then the payload itself.
If the rocket had managed to deliver the payload it would have been a huge step forward in the design of air craft as the model had been computer generated skipping the whole process of wind tunnel testing etc . . .
That would be the TU-144, dubbed 'Concordski' due to its amazing resemblance to Concorde. Not coincidental, as they stole early Concorde plans! However the Russians could never get the wing right, so it had to have those ridiculous rabbit ears to avoid stalls at low speed. The Paris Air Show crash which basically did for this plane commercially is believed to have been due to the pilot taking evasive action to avoid a French military jet and overstressing the airframe. Neat site about it here. Good site about Concorde here too.
"Information wants to be paid"
No. The "sonic" (also known as "trans-sonic") flight regime is the one in which there exist both subsonic and supersonic flows on different parts of the airframe. This is well-accepted terminology in aerodynamics. Interestingly, many current commercial jets fly at "sonic" speeds fairly regularly...they're just not awfully efficient at it.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Concorde cruises at 55,000 feet, +/- 5,000. It has to fly that high so that the air density is low enough to reduce friction heating to an acceptable level. Only once it's flying subsonic can it descend to lower levels.