Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Towards Silent Supersonic Planes

Posted by timothy on from the wish-they'd-work-more-on-trains dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "There is no longer a single commercial supersonic airplane since the retirement of the Concorde last year. And even during its years of glory, the Concorde was not a commercial success, mainly because it was not allowed to cruise at supersonic speed over land. Why? Because of the sonic 'boom' which arises when you break the sound barrier. Now, a joint program between NASA, the military and the aerospace industry wants to remove, or at least reduce, this sonic boom, by changing the shape of supersonic planes. It seems to work. After a 'nose job' on a Northrop Grumman F-5E, about a third of the pressure released when breaking the sound barrier has already been suppressed. This overview contains more details. It also includes a photograph of the modified Northrop Grumman F-5Ea aircraft flying off the wing of the F-15B research testbed aircraft. [Note: Previous results were reported here by Slashdot in last September.]"

5 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Finally... by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They've only been promising a solution to the Sonic Boom problem for, what, 30 years now?

    Not only did the Concorde jump the gun by a few decades, I think it's hindered any development into the field of Commercial Supersonic Transport by being an noisy fuel-hog... Though it was one of the most beautiful planes ever built, right up there with the SR-71...

    --
    "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

    - Seneca
  2. Doesn't matter in the long run... by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Takes 2 hours to get through the bloody airport and into the plane anyway.

    Besides, whats the best we can do commercially? Mach 2 or 3 in the 'near' term (15-30 years). Big deal. Given the cost/benifit ratio I'm going to wager that we will be doing sub-orbital before we have air-breathing mach-3 flight.
    Why? The amount of development required to develop 'quiet' and 'fuel efficient' supersonic craft vs. the level of technology already in existance for boosted flight. Leave the atmosphere and sound isn't an issue, and saves a lot of fuel as well; although spending an hour weightless is bound to upset a few tummies.

    Either way, I am desperate to see some faster travel. 8 hours to Chicago from London 57 years after breaking the sound barrier and 35 years after landing on the moon is a sad commentary on the human condition at present.

  3. Re:Let's face it. by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As well as the Shuttle for Areas near Cape Canaveral...

    But alas, no. The Concorde has a much higher 'figure of merit' (FM), and creates a much larger boom than a fighter. The size of the boom relates to the weight and length of the aircraft, and since the Concorde is much heavier than the relatively small Fighters...

    The Concorde has an FM of 1.4, wheras most fighters have less than a 1... Translation: Concorde leaves a much bigger boom.

    --
    "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

    - Seneca
  4. Re:had nothing to do with the concorde's success.. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
    You are correct. The concorde used two times more fuel than a 747 and only could hold a little more than 100 people. The market for $10,000 one way tickets is small. The fact that the plane produced a sonic boom had nothing to do with it's failure.

    The concorde was a major money maker for BA, less so for Air France. The fuel costs were expensive but not unprofitably so. A standard 747 holds 300 people, most in cattle class. All seats on Concorde are first class.

    The reason the plane failed economically was part due to the oil price shock hitting when Concorde entered service. A much bigger factor was Boeing lobbying to have Concorde banned from the main US airports, a piece of protectionism the US govt. went along with.

    The Concorde consoirtium had the last laugh, these days it is known as Airbus and the Economist thinks it likely that Boeing will be out of the civil aviation business entirely in ten years time. In response to the US protectionism the EU underwrote development of Airbus. Boeing tried to respond with the idiotic 'fly by wire is dangerous FUD' and the rest is la historie. Boeing's current survival strategy is renting some very overpriced fuel tankers to the pentagon that meet far fewer of the original criteria set than the Airbus bid and cost about twice as much. But don't call that protectionism, its free enterprise.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  5. Wrong by ishmaelflood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Concorde operation was profitable once they were purchased for a pound, or whatever it was. The fuel capacity of concorde was 96 tonnes and it carried around 100 passenger, each of whom paid about $10000 for return trip.

    Fuel costs about $400 per tonne plus taxes.

    You do the maths.