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.

Comments

I wasn't the jet that crashed!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I wasn't the jet that crashed!

[Christopher Thomas]

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.

It could have been either the jet or the rocket that caused the failure, as both would need to use their control surfaces to keep the flight stable. Set a fin or a flap the wrong way, and you go spiralling into the ground. Which looks a lot like what happened.

Why publicize the first test?

[Brento]

If people were around shooting photos the first time one of my programs were run, the carnage would make this look like child's play. Why would you want to publicize your first tests of anything?!?

Old and Modern

[mickwd]

Used to work at Heathrow in London.

Concorde still draws crowds of admirers, and it still looks the most futuristic passenger plane in "common" commercial use, even 30+ years after it came into service.

What else is there this old that still looks as good......?

Hmmm...

[Psiren]

I wonder what it sounds like to hear 100 Japanese rocket scientists screaming "Doh!" at the same time...

Video of the crash

[mlas]

BBC also has a short RealVideo clip of the crash, replete with one very freaked-out kangaroo fleeing the crash site.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Sonic boom: how were they going to eliminate it?

[dpbsmith]

The BBC article mentions that "Developers, who include Mitsubishi and Nissan, hope that the new supersonic plane will have noise levels similar to the Boeing 747. That would mean that it would be able to operate far more widely than Concorde, which is notoriously noisy." This was also mentioned in previous news stories about the planned aircraft.

Nothing I've seen, however, explains how they were planning to deal with the sonic boom.

Or are they just referring to the noise level when in subsonic operation? In which case, like the Concorde, it could only go supersonic over water... but then how could it "operate far more widely" than the Concorde?

NMD

[craw]

In related news, Pentagon officials at a hastily called press conference announced a successful test of the National Missile Defense system. The scheduling of this test was not publicized in advance due to concerns about terrorism. An anonymous DoD source stated that, "Ahhh, that was our test. We finally got it to work. No wait, in fact we have had many successful secret tests. Yeah, that's the ticket!"

Not the only supersonic passenger jet

[Tet]

It looks like a successor to the world's only supersonic passenger jet, Concorde

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.

Not a Jet, just a model!

[jonbrewer]

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.

Premature separation?

[thebigmacd]

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.

Re:Sonic boom: how were they going to eliminate it

[Cally]

The BBC article mentions that
"Developers, who include Mitsubishi and Nissan, hope that the new
supersonic plane will have noise levels similar to the Boeing
747. That would mean that it would be able to operate far more widely
than Concorde, which is notoriously noisy." This was also mentioned in
previous news stories about the planned aircraft.

Nothing I've seen, however, explains how they were planning to deal
with the sonic boom.

Or are they just referring to the noise level when in subsonic
operation? In which case, like the Concorde, it could only go
supersonic over water... but then how could it "operate far more
widely" than the Concorde?

As a kid I often stayed at my Grandfather's place on
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 &gt& .) This location was at least fifteen miles *horizontally* from the point the boom originated; I don't know the height they'd do this, but the point is sonic booms from something big enough to carry passengers carry a *long* way.

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! < /troll > ) I usually pop outside to watch it pass overhead if I have the time, 'cos I grew up somewhere where aircraft were either contrails, or Tornados, Jaguars and A10s practicing low-level flying: these split the sky open and were gone usually within 10 seconds, rarely long enough to get much of a look. The difference in noise level is very noticeable compared to the usual commerical widebody heavies flying at the same altitude (?5000 feet?). It's also noticeable how long and slim Concorde appears compared to a 747 at the same altitude; it appears to be perhaps 60% of the size, and the fuselage is barely discernable; on a modern stretched 747, you can easily distinguish upper and mid and lower-deck rows of windows.)

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 /. story on this - what will happen to the competing next-generation passenger aircraft planned by Airbus and Boeing, pre-9/11? IIRC Airbus had settled on a 'superjumbo' carrying 700+ passengers, and Boeing had taken the brave - nay, reckless! - decision to go for a "super Concorde", a high-volume production, wide-body, supersonic passenger aircraft, carrying 250-400 passengers (compared to the original 60's version, with a maximum of ~110 passengers and crew.)

Anyone able to enlighten me on this?