Slashdot Mirror
Towards Silent Supersonic Planes
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.]"
If we could only do something about my neighbour's pounding stereo.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
The concorde was EXTREMELY expensive to operate, so even if it was allowed to travel supersonic anywhere it wanted, it still would have failed. airlines are cutting every cost possible in an effort to undercut each other, so the concorde's death was just waiting to happen.
Common, you can't tell me the first thing you didn't think of when reading this story was Street Fighter 2.
Would it be possible to direct the sound of the "boom" upward so that nobody on the surface hears it?
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
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
Oh, com'on, the Sonic Boom was one of Guile's best moves.
But seriously, while this could be very cool for frequent travelers, I still think that even regular airplanes are too loud. Especially if you live relatively near an airport. Are any airplane manufacturers working on quieter sub-sonic planes?
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
There was a smaller article like this in Popular Science a while back, and since I am very interested in planes and aerospace, it now is on my wall. I'll type it down for you guys, I'ts actually very interesting...
All Zoom, No Boom
Teaching an F-5E Tiger how to tiptoes.
There's nothing more dramatic than a supersonic jet streaking overhead; and nothing more annoying than the bone-rattling sonic boom it leaves behind. The boom really consists of two bangs caused by the N-wave in the planes wake, with rapid pressure rises corresponding to the nose and tail. Northrop-Grumman hopes that by tailoring a F-5E Tiger with a longer nose an modified tail, and tinkering wiht its body and wngs, the boom can be transformed into a smooth, inaudible hump. Engineers got the idea from research that goes back to the 1970's. Today's computers, which make it possible to model airflows up to 200 yards from a plane, were required to put the theories into practice. Tests being next august. --Written by Bill Sweetman.
I don't know exactly when it was published, but it shows that this is really no new idea. On an interesting side-note, my uncle worked for McDonald Douglas before they were bought out by Boeing, and actually was a systems engineer for the Coherent Readar systems for the F-5F. When I told him about this he thought it was one of the coolest things he'd ever heard.
~I was playing poker with tarot cards the other night. I got a full house and that same night five people died. True story.
People care more about the cost and security of air travel. It was never about the sound (although that didn't help), it's just down to the cost of fuel and limited range of the craft.
Where anyone on the ground would wear networked noise cancelling headphones.
I went to this year's National Association of Broadcasters conference in Las Vegas. One of the most bizarre things I saw was that, in the midst of all of the cameras and editing equipment, there was a small booth set up promoting the return of an SST. It's bizarre because they basically have nothing to do with broadcast technologies. It was just two guys sitting there in a booth in the south hall of the Las Vegas Convention Center this past week.
Anyone know what the heck these guys were doing in there? I mean, lots of people would love to see another SST, but this was just too bizarre and stuck out like a sore thumb.
Sure, the sonic boom wasn't too good, but that never stopped the US Air Force from flying their supersonic planes day in and day out over populated areas. I still remember periodic sonic booms over Tucson (from a nearby base) as well as over Seattle whenever Boeing was testing their latest SS jet fighter.
Let's face it, the main reason the Concorde wasn't allowed to fly over the US is because it wasn't US made.
youre describing a catch 22 now. until more research is done and the mode of transportation is more widely used, its going to be too expensive for people to want to use it. plus the whole sound issue on the side.
IMO this is another example of wasted fuel. supersonic flight is so incredibly wasteful. its proponents are the same people who would like to drive a H2 alone with no cargo. it just doesnt make economic sense.
Most supersonic aircraft require afterburners in order to go faster then sound, and afterburners are incredibly voracious consumers of fuel. I think that one of the other very important innovations is the "Supercruise" ability, seen on aircraft like the F-22 Raptor. This allows the aircraft to maintain supersonic speed for extended periods of time in a low power setting, and this in turn is just as vital for cheap, commercially viable flights. I hope that advances in sonic boom suppression will also work well with the necessary designs for supercruising, and that we may all be able to take advantage of such flights within the next 2-3 decades. If both aren't taken into account, and designers come up with plans that make for an either-or choice, it could mean supersonic planes will still be relegated to the relatively wealthy.
Geeks like us, and researchers looking to get more grant money, have been babbling about fusion, flying cars, a return to the moon, a trip to Mars, terraforming Mars, anti-gravity devices, transporters, replicators, eternal life, brain transplantation and human cloning for-fucking-ever. YOU KNOW WHAT? I AM FUCKING SICK OF READING ABOUT SPECULATIVE FLIMFLAM. I want to read, for once, a story like:
Flying cars being sold from reputable Web site for $20,000 RIGHT NOW
Holy shit: Man lands on Mars!
Fusion reactor perfected; lauded as "great success". Test reactor already tethered to power grid generating $BIGNUM megawatts; construction on fullscale reactor underway. AND...
Silent supersonic airliner makes first of new daily Transatlantic flights wearing $MAJOR_AIRLINE colours. Book tickets at $URL.
Stop wasting my fucking time until something is actually AVAILABLE NOW. God, I'm fucking sick of reading this kind of pie-in-the-sky bullshit! It's all over SlashDot and, to a lesser extent, all over the "mainstream" news media. Fuck this shit, I don't want to hear about how "at some point in the "near" future" we "may" have such-and-such. I want a fucking link to buy one on walmart.com.
Fucking Christ, are all research organisations just like us geeks-- starting projects but never finishing them?
Oh, and you over there at moller.com: STOP BABBLING ABOUT YOUR GOD-DAMNED FLYING CARS AND START SELLING THE FUCKING THINGS ALREADY!!! YOU'RE ALREADY 10 YEARS LATE, YOU FUCKWITS! And if the FAA won't let you sell them in the US, SELL THEM ELSEWHERE. RIGHT FUCKING NOW!
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
This is an interesting project that could improve the future of supersonic travel, but what is really needed (as with almost any technology just coming to the general market) is to bring the price down. There is certainly a market to speed up oversease flights (such as California to Japan) and a cheaper supersonic plane could really do a good business.
_____
Thank you.
To go off on someone for getting an airplane wrong.. and getting the airplane wrong yourself.
The plane in the top right is definitely an F-15 as is stated in the caption. The side-mounted air intakes are a little hard to see, but are obviously different from the bottom-mounted air intake of the F-16, however the giveaway is the tail. F-16s have a very differently shaped tail than the F-15, and it's an F-15 tail in the picture.
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.
Obviously whoever wrote the caption didn't see it, so it would only be courteous not to mention it.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
That plane is used for training purposes to be the agressor, it looks like one of the Navy OpFor planes from Palomar. The us military uses mocked up soviet equipment, or sometimes even real soviet equipment to train against.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
F-20 has a different (single) engine. That's a regular F-5E. I don't think they fly F-5A or C's any more. I didn't know US Air Force/Navy flew F-5 variants. I thought they were abandoned ages ago. F-5 was very popular with countries in Europe and third world because it was good enough for many things and quite cheap to buy and run. Many air forces have retired their F-5's but still a couple of display groups use them (Swiss and Turkish air forces display teams for example).
... the Sonic "Kapow!". Or the Sonic "Wham!". Or the Sonic "Oooh! That smarts!".
I've found that my posts don't format quite right w/o a sig.
The F16 has the air inlet below the body, clearly identifyable. The top right plane is definitely NOT a F-16. (Just perform a Google image search). Moreover, the F16 has only a single tail wing.
The bottom left photo is not a F-20. There were just 1 or 2 made, and they are owned by Northrop, not the Navy.
The F-5 in the lower left is owned by the Navy. The reason that it has the Red Star painted on it is that it's an agressor plane used by the Top Gun dogfighting school.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
yes, but if the concorde had been permitted to fly from LA to New York, then the maintence costs could have been spread across those flights. this could have made operation of the concorde "more affordable".
-- derby
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.
> is this the original holder of sd 56, or the guy who bought it for $115?
Crimony!!! Would my account go for that?
...and a matter of peronal taste, but I think the XB-70A Valkyrie was sweeter than either Concorde or the SR-71.
Most people find that the pressure is a lot less after they get a nosejob....
Here's an article on a new type of jet engine being developed, a pulse detonation engine or PDE. It promises to boost thrust considerably, while at the same time dramatically reducing fuel consumption.
It's most likely anticipation of PDE that's driving the innovation in reducing noise from supersonic flight. Supersonic flight will be commonplace when PDE gets off the ground.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
I think you are right that a combination of new technologies might lead to economical supersonic travel.
If we compare flying to taking the train on the basis of fuel economy then it is obvious that we should give up flying. Taking the train uses much less fuel per passenger mile. Taking a ship takes even less. Clearly, other things matter more than fuel economy. I can't afford to send an employee from New York to Los Angeles on the train.
Done right, a quick flight between London and Tokyo might well be more cost effective than a slower flight even if the airfare is more.
The other thing that made the Concorde expensive was that it held relatively few passengers. A very large plane flying at high altitude would certainly have different economics.
The reason the Concorde was an economic failure was not the sonic boom - it was a failure because of the enormous fuel consumption per passenger, as well as the enormous maintenance costs per passenger. This was true even though the airlines purchased the Concordes for $1 apiece, and there was no purchase cost to amortize.
... they were trying to drum up support from some newsies for a news short on TV, sort of free advertising. Playing the odds figuring so many reporters/broadcasters whatever were there, some one might have took an interest in it. My guess anyway, or someone back at SST headquarters sent them to the wrong show! Might have happened....
Of course, ya never know. I worked tradeshows for 15 years, I have seen some thoroughly weird stuff, and some incredible stuff that just disappeared, never heard of it again. One I remember though, it had to be that dean whassis his name with the segway, his earlier invention, the super wheelchair thing that could climb stairs, and was either voice activated or breath pulses activate, along with a normal joystick. Slickest thing ever, had a tiny cheap 10 foot backwall booth, just pipe and drape and a table, on a medical show, about the cheapest booth there and definetly the best tech on the show that I saw. Another time on a car show, lamborghini had a booth, this was before the explosion in giant SUVs, they had this incredible 4 wheel drive vehicle, with the v-12 engine in it that was in the countache, etc. Dang car was NICE, I mean, r-e-a-l nice, most plush and most rugged thing I ever saw for a passenger vehicle. Cheap old 20 foot of carpet, no booth, just the best vehicle in the show and a little sign on an easel said lamborghinni, that's it, they didn't need no blinken lights booth.
and don't get me going on booth babes.....
Can someone knowledgable please tell me if you only get one sonic boom when the plane first goes supersonic, or if you get a sonic boom everywhere it flies over while at more than Mach 1?
"Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
Boeing...Faster than the speed of Silence...
I call dibs!
The trouble is that it wasn't the noise that killed the Concorde. Some companies will blame 9-11, but that only moved up its retirement a bit. The concorde was a really high maintenance aircraft. The concorde was a wicked gas guzzler. That, and the stresses of supersonic flight meant the planes had to be serviced considerably more often with more frequent parts replacements. The only aircraft that spends more time in maintenance vs flight might be the Sea King choppers in the CAF. All of this adds up to make for tickets that cost in the thousands, and that's for the cheap seats.
Unless they can make the plane much more fuel efficient, and a little easier to maintain, the cost of keeping a supersonic fleet flying is going to make it rather impractical.
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/
something slower than jets, but much faster than an ocean liner, in short, bring back dirigibles, make em BIG, *real comfy*, full net and phone access, lounge, restuarant, etc, have sleeper berths, etc. 10 days or two weeks to cross is way too long, 16 hours or whatever cramped up is nuts, I'd like to see a few days in real comfort and cheap. They could follow the old idea of the clippers, travel using the tradewwinds, just supplement it with power perhaps. or whatever, no idea on jetstream action or anything across the pacific.. But seems like making a dirigible function and working and affordable is a lot better and easier than trying to make your loot over 100 passengers at a time going real fast at some humongous expense when you cannot readily solve the sonic boom thing, just slightly reduce it. What was it on the concorde, 1500 clams one way across the atlantic?
Girlfriend worked the concorde as a stewie coupla times, she said it was neat,she said you are so high up it's almost like night time in the daytime..
The added volume on the modified F-5E, however, allowed researchers to better distribute the air pressure build-up in front of a supersonic plane, which shapes how the pressure is later released in a sonic boom shockwave as the aircraft breaks the sound barrier.If it's already supersonic, how can it break the sound barrier?
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
"the Economist thinks it likely that Boeing will be out of the civil aviation business entirely in ten years time" Well, certinally they will, because we all know that they aren't selling any planes right now, and it'd be impossible for them to develop any new planes out of composite materials with quieter engines. Oh yeah, there's no way things coule possibly turn around for them.
>Torvalds Silent Supersonic Planes
;)
First thing that came to my mind was the cat silencer from Postal 2
Riiiight...
Top right - F-15
Center - Modified F-5
Bottom left - Standard F-5, painted in TigerShark livery.
The F-20 is just slightly different frm the F-5, as evidenced by the extra bulk around the tail root.
This particular F-15B from NASA has a different nose. More pointed than a line model. That is why you were confused.
Would you like fries with that?
I don't think the Concorde hindered SST development. Many of the base technologies (powerplant, thermal, materials) involved have advanced greatly on their own, mostly due to the military aviation world. Skipping the Concorde would have just killed the SST at that time; Lockheed, Boeing had already ended their efforts (which hand't been breakneck pace, more like a slugglish struggle) and ending the Concorde would have just confirmed what all the naysayers thought, that it was too soon for a decent SST. The Concorde wasn't perfect, but it was a great leap ahead that kept the SST concept fresh and current throughout the years.
.9 mach aircraft of the same capacity (you can't just double the speed for nothing).
Today I think a 2 mach SST would be much easier to create, albeit still more expensive than an
During the SR-71 development, Lockheed agreed to reimburse the cost of repairing windows broken due to the aircraft's sonic booms. To help people prepare for the sonic booms, they'd announce supersonic test flights ahead of time in the local paper. Once, they announced a flight but never actually made it. The complaints still streamed in though, from people wanting free windows replacements.
...Are cruise planes.
:)
/. reader with more physics knowledge tell me if this can/ cannot work?
There are lots of people that want to do New York- Paris in 1 hour, but most people I know aren't in that situation.
Maybe a blimp-like plane, that could transport transatlantic freight faster than a sea ship but at similar cost, or passengers on a leisurely voyage.
Fuel savings could make up for some of the extra costs. Better efficiency might appeal to the green crowd too.
Other advantages would include less jet-lag, and hopefully a more relaxing adventure.
And another one: terrorists aren't likely to send a blimp into a building at a stealthy 100kmh
Ok, can some
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
The F5 is still used in training as in the picture note it has Russian colors.
Pre F-15 and F-16 US military planes tended to be very fast but not very agile (ie F4, F14) like the Russian migs.
My guess is the F5 has similar characteristics to the Mig-21's.
Agreed... but the strive for efficiency in the F119-PW-100's development should translate to even greater benefits in commercial engines. It's not so much important that the F119 achieved some thing called "supercruise." It's that in trying to create an efficient high-output engine compared to other military engines, they gained more experienced and better technical expertise that should allow them to design better engines in general.
So no tech breakthroughs, as supercruise technically existed in the Concorde (and the British Electric Lightning, and the F-14D clean configuration...), but I think the F119's progress helped.
Air Force uses an F5 variant called the T-38. You see the Shuttle pilots flying these around, and they are used as the chase planes on landing.
Good aircraft. They are supersonic, nimble, stable, and are good for teaching multi-engine techniques.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Some of us don't care whether reported technology is immediately practical. We visit .\ for entertainment; for us "nerds," that often means science news that's cool or interesting, regardless of the technology's maturity. We don't visit .\ to learn about how to improve our lives, though sometimes we do learn such things. We visit it for fun.
A lot of intriguing stories are for our own mental enrichment; an external reward is not necessary. They're not time wasters (in the fundamental sense) for us when they grant to us what we desire.
If you only want to read about the big events that affect standards of living, I suggest CNN.
F-20 has a different (single) engine.
I thought Northrop abandoned the F-20 Tigershark?
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
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.
And in the larger sense, what is the fuel efficiency delta between the quietest plane verses the most fuel efficient design possible.
Unless that delta is quite small, I'd say it ain't going to happen.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
[Note: If someone can identify the third plane on the lower left corner of the picture, please tell me what it is.]
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
The reason it *failed* was because one leveled an apartment building when it crashed, and the other's seemed to have the same problems it had, maintenance/design-wise.
You may not realize this, but there are people, lots of people, who are both willing and able to pay $10,000 for a plane ticket, if only to get from London to New York in half the time. For some people (bankers, investors, musicians, models, movie stars, people of that nature), it actually makes damn good financial sense to pay that much extra for a ticket. When you make $10,000 for a 2 hour appearance, you can fit in 2 extra appearnces with that much time earning yourself an extra $10k.
Just because most people in the world can't buy a house that sells for $41 million dollars doesn't make it a failure in the real estate business. Someone out there can and will. It becomes a failure when one or two of the rooms cave in on the new owners, and no one wants to buy it from them.
No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
The 'boom' is a continuous shockwave that occurs as long as the vehicle is at supersonic velocities. This is why these planes have generally not been allowed to fly at supersonic speeds over occupied land.
Basically there would be a violent rumble on the ground over the entire length of the plane's flight corridor. The idea is to reduce or remove entirely the shockwave coming off the vehicle surfaces.
-
That third plane is also an F-5 Tiger. Look at the fairing between the tail fin and the fuselage as well as the cockpit design, both are exactly the same. You'll notice that the sonic boom is only changed below the plane, the top is not changed at all sinec nobody really cares about the boom above the plane.
While I agree that Boeing did some bad things during the 1990s I can't help but notice that they did build the 777 wide body during that time and that airliner has sold very well and has had a good amount of backlog at their factory. It completed very well against Airbus' widebody twinjet the A330 and to some extent to A340. If Boeing hadn't built the 777 then Airbus would have gotten alot more widebody twinjet orders than they did.
His. Stair. Rickle.
High. Larry. Us.
I laff.
Did anybody else notice the paint job on the
demonstrator. It has a black line down the
center with an N-shape in the middle. It has a
red line down the center with a similar but less
pointed N-shape in the middle. Clever. A before
and after view of the sonic-boom wave-front.
But only after using the afterburner to get there.
The reheats are turned back on, by the piano switches behind the thrust leavers, for around 10 minutes once the aircraft is clear of land, to push the aircraft through Mach1 and on to Mach1.7 where they are no longer required.
The F-22 can exceed M1 withuot any afterburner use at all.
The really interesting news along these lines is that Lockheed's Skunkworks is working on supersonic business jet. Its rumored that Warren Buffet is behind it.
For those that don't know, Bershire Hathaway owns Netjets, the largest purchaser of business jets.
That's why trucks over the last 20 years or so have that big airfoil over the cab, in front of the trailer.
But also, an aerodynamic shape is the antithesis of efficient storage and transport of boxes. Is the aerodynamic advantage at 60mph enough to offset the lessened cargo capacity? Doubtful, otherwise they would have done it.
...Moller hasn't been able to finalize and market their vaporware car. I'd hate to see most of the drivers around, including you, at the controls of one.
He is descibing the 7E7. Boeing's current commercial aircraft development project.
For what it is worth, as a former employee one of Boeing's engine suppliers I think that the american aerospace industry (well at least the aero part, maybe not the space part, but we will have to see how bush's mars thing pans out, I am sceptical) (how's that for an excesive parenthetical?) is in for very rough times soon...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
If Boeing's 7E7 project turns out to be substantially less successful that Airbus's 380 project, Boeing might not have the capital or the time to design a new cvil aviation platform--preferring instead to suck on the Pentagon's teat.
Airbus thinks that the airlines will continue to consolidate their hubs. If so, they'll ditch the aging 747 platform for A380.
Boeing thinks that airlines will add more nonstop routes between secondary cities-- e.g Detroit to Shanghai. If so, they'll probably buy more 7E7's, as unlike the older Boeing planes, the Dreamliner is substantially more fuel efficient that the Airbus offerings.
Aircraft are designed with the main goal of having a low drag and therefore high fuel efficiency.
:) I don't really now shit about planes anyway.
So if reducing the sonic boom would reduced drag it already would have been discovered and implemented long ago. Those planes with less noise would probably have a baaaad fluel efficiency.
Well, maybe not
Someone admits to making a mistake, and gets modded troll? Someone with points has a serious attitude problem.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
As the parent points out, the size and weight are large factors in the amount of noise.
Also, the Concorde was slated to be flying over large cities, like New York. A bit different than booming over a desert. Or a dessert for that matter.
Note that it *was* allowed to fly to the US, but it was not to fly supersonic over land. This suggests that while the not made in US issue may have been a factor, it was not the only one. ( I.E. there is a real issue made in US or not about flying supersonic over populated areas. ).
emt 377 emt 4
1. The plane's Olympus 593 engines were serious fuel guzzlers and made a tremendous amount of noise on takeoff, especially with the afterburner (known as reheat in Europe) running. Also, they definitely don't meet today's standards for jet engine exhaust emissions, either.
2. The plane's range limited itself to flying between New York City and London/Paris--and even then the plane require priority handling by air traffic control during its flight.
3. The plane's carrying capacity was too low for its size.
4. The plane--because it had to fly at Mach 2-plus--needed very careful design for heat-dissipation reasons.
I think for tomorrow's SST's, the technologies now available will do the following:
1. By carefully shaping the entire plane, this drastically reduces the pressure wave buildup that causes the sonic boom in the first place. By limiting the top speed to around Mach 1.7 when the plane flies at altitude the sonic boom may be barely audiable or not audiable at all.
2. The use of modern aerospace materials means the plane can be quite a bit lighter, which means you can consider larger passenger and/or cargo loads. Also, because the plane is limited to Mach 1.7 top speed there is less pressing need for heat-resistant external surfaces.
3. Jet engine technology improvements since the 1960's will allow for SST jet engines that are very quiet on takeoff and landing (meeting even the upcoming ICAO Stage IV noise standards), yet operate efficiently at supersonic cruise. Also, improved combustor designs will drastically reduce the exhaust emissions that plagued the Olympus 593 engine. Because the top speed is only Mach 1.7, it may be possible to apply the supercruise jet engine technology used on the F-22 Raptor's jet engines, which means less need for afterburner (reheat) operation and lower fuel burn.
In short, we are very close to developing a Mach 1.7 SST seating 200-250 passengers that could fly over 6,300 nautical miles, be very quiet on takeoff and landing, not be an environmental hazard from jet exhaust and have sonic boom that is almost non-existent. Imagine being able to fly from San Francisco to London at Mach 1.7--we may be talking about cutting nearly 40% the flight time compared to a Boeing 747! =)
If you go to the NASA page about the photo, it says " Following the two aircraft is an unmodified U.S. Navy F-5E used for baseline sonic boom measurements."
The Navy used to maintain several squadrons of F-5E's for use as aggressor aircraft in air combat training - think "Top Gun". Anyway, they've all been (IIRC) mothballed now, so when NASA called the Navy for a "stock" F-5E, for comparative purposes, the Navy probably just took that particular plane out of storage, got it flight-ready, and sent it on over - Warsaw Pact-paintjob and all...
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
That's either a T-18 or a T-38 if I'm not mistaken... anybody?
||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.
Check out the deposit agreement for the Moller Skycar:
D ep osit%20Agreement.pdf
http://www.moller.com/purchase/M400%20Skycar%20
Invest at least $10,000 in a car that doesn't have it's price set yet and may be cancelled at any time? I think not.
I'd say someone else will deliver the first flying car. Moller has been schilling its vaporware for decades.
When they were conceived, they were called "Freedom Fighter" because the idea was countries in Europe would buy them in huge quantities (they were cheap compared to other US-made aircrafts) and used against a Soviet invasion.
It is hypersonic but not that fast (won't do Mach 2). It can carry weapons but not that much. It's range is not that long unless you put wing-tip tanks and belly tanks but then you won't be able to carry much around. I think they were made against Mig-17 which was cheap and built all around the communist countries (or was it Mig-21 but that was a Mach 2 aircraft).
To my knowledge T-38 hasn't been replaced by anything else yet. British use Hawk instead of T-38 and they still build and sell it to other countries. It is a known fact that conversion from a trainer to a full-size fighter is quite trivial so a lot of poor countries buy it in bulk.
To be fair I no longer follow the aviation industry closely, I've stuck with old aircraft, I'm not interested with all these drones US and Israel producing. It ruins the idea of flying.
For some reason, I thought that they'd retired the F-5E from Fallon, but a quick lookup says you're right. Do they still fly them out of NAS Key West?
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
F-16 can make 9g, surely that's better than F-4's capability (8g). I don't know how agile F-5 is unfortunately. A quick google said +7.33 which is not bad. Apparently F-4's limit can be stretched and some pilots did 10g. Surely that would exceed the airframe limits but hey.. :-)
The speed of sound at 30,000 ft above sea level is about 678 MPH
So at top speed thats: 89% the speed of sound (damn near 90%)
And At cruising speed it's: 83%
Pretty Close.
I suppose all the crase is these new drones. It's just not the same. :(
It wasn't really because there were originally problems with flying over land - the American aerospace lobby were so threatened by the fact that the Brits/France had manged to do something that they'd been spending serious amounts of money on that managed to stir up US environmentalists to the point where they managed to *get* Concorde banned from flying over land!
There, that ought to put the cat amongst the pigeons!
more likely the air force; the navy has mostly transitioned to F-16s for dissimilar aircraft training. the airforce agressor camo looks a lot like the aircraft in the pic, though.
The article refers to Concorde as the only supersonic passenger aircraft. That is not the case; the russian Tupolev TU-144 ran a short lived passenger service in the late '70s.
:)
Of course it was even less efficient than the Concorde, but it did exist
http://www.themeparks.ie
In a very real sense, Concorde killed the UK aviation industry. Had all those talanted engineers concentrated on building a commercially viable airframe, they might have had a competitor to the 707 and 747 and retained all that talent at home instead of exporting it to Seattle when the Concorde program folded.
The joke among BA folks was that the only way they would ever get the FAA to approve supersonic flights over US territory was to paint "Boeing" on the side of the Concorde.
There exists a shape which can move supersonically without generating a shockwave. On the outside it is a smooth cylinder. Internally it is equipped with a carefully shaped intake coupled to an expansion nozzle that compresses the air as it passes through and expands it back to its original pressure without generating a discontinuity in pressue (i.e. a shockwave).
A sniper bullet was developed (in the 60s, IIRC) that uses this shape. The idea was to give the sniper a second chance if the first bullet misses. The supersonic shock of the passing bullet is generally what alerts the target. The muzzle noise is distant and can be silenced quite effectively.
The only problem with this shape is that it is symmetrical and therefore cannot produce any net lift. This would seem to make it impossible to build an airplane using this concept. In fact, it only means that a shock-free unpowered hypersonic glider is impossible. A powered airplane could theoretically use the engine's energy to offset the required asymmetry and have thrust, lift, supersonic motion and no shockwave all without violating the laws of aerodynamics. Actually designing such an aircraft is still a monumental task and there is no guarantee that a practical solution can be found - but in principle it should be possible.
Note that the methods described in the article are supposed to soften the shockwave as it propagates away from a conventionally-shaped aircraft while this is about odd shapes for canceling it at the source.
See this discussion for more details.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
U.S. Patent 5,934,607 - Shock suppression supersonic aircraft
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
This may not be correct as I heard it as a child when the Concords/SSTs first came out.
Do not supersonic vehicales help erode the OZONE?
Steve
what will Guile say then? poor guy only ever had 2 special moves and now you take one away...
Jet aircraft have done far more damage to the ozone layer than anything else.
Aviation is a very dirty business at times, and it is always unwise to get involved in international projects where the French are a major participant. The UK could have built the Concord (no "e") alone, it would most probably have been cheaper, because the costs of collaboration are invariably grossly underestimated by the politicians (Eurofighter being the classic example, at least no Frogs are involved). Had we done so, it would still be flying.
As to fly by wire, the proven track record of disaster to Airbus FBW aircraft (all except 300 and 310 series) proves the point, and if you do a proper analysis, it can be shown to save no weight, not reduce costs (in fact they increase) and it provides many subtle traps to catch out unwary pilots. An Airbus which suffers major systems failure near the ground, and enters the ultimate reversionary mode, with loss of most control surfaces, and impaired control of others, will, in the hands of all but a test pilot (and even then, there is some doubt), crash. Reversion to the last set of mechanical backups has not been demonstrated except at safe altitude. Yet, the A330 in particular suffers from frequent total electrical failure (far more than the failure rate used to justify certification), this takes out all the FBW system, and leaves the crew with very minimal control.
The sheer hypocrisy of Boeing then creating the 777 says it all. That aircraft is only allowed to fly because the certicication authority (FAA) was unable to prove that it is unsafe, previous generations had to be proved to be safe, but with over-complexity that is no longer possible.
People who do the sums correctly know that in installing FBW, you save the weight and maintenance of some wires, pulleys and rods (actually lightweight carbon fibre tubes nowadays), you add a lot of heavy and expensive avionics boxes. So far, it may about balance out, but when you then add the beefing up of the electrical system (failure in the case of the A330), bigger batteries, generators, heavier cables, a bigger ram air turbine or other emergency power supply, etc, the advantage is firmly to the mechanical controls. Then there is the reliability of the avoinics, at least one box will need to be replaced every week or two.
Right now, Airbus has passed Boeing, but not by a great margin, it could be a very long time before a decisive winner emerges. Boeing's biggest mistake was to buy the remnant of McDonnell-Douglas, with their horrendously unsafe DC10, rebadged but still unsafe, as MD11. That lot should simply have been scrapped.
BTW I think a typi
> No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
:-) Just started playing it again and I'm having a blast. I love the feeling of running the speedy bikes down that main drag in front of Ocean View.
I love this Vice City reference!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
A standard 747 holds 300 people...
Not so. A standard 747-400 (most recent model) holds 416 people in a three-class configuration. Charter 747s with all-economy seating can hold 500 or more.
All seats on Concorde are first class.
No, they were Concorde class; a step above first class.
I thought the sheer noise of the engines was the real problem.
Look at the picture again - I'd say the "NAVY" painted tword the back of the aircraft pegs it as being a Naval Aircraft.
I had a chance to visit the British Airways Concorde at the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field in Seattle, WA and I don't know if I'd call those seats first class other than there are only two seats on each side of the plane. To protect the seats they've covered each side of the interior over with curved pieces of plexi-glass and the remaing isle is very narrow. In looking at the seat size it looks smaller than a first class or even business class seat on a widebody jet but since I could only look at the seats and not try them out I can't do a real comparison. I guess it would be tolerable though given the much short travel time in flying on the Concorde.
The other thing that struck me about the Concorde was how small the interior is and the door is quite low going into the plane. I had to duck as I entered the plane to keep from hitting my head on the doorway.
i got my first exposure to a sonic boom while out to sea off the East Coast - every morning at..uhm..9:18am? it sounded like somebody was firing a double-barrel 12ga shotgun in a quick 1-2 BOOM-BOOM. no gentle, thunderlike rumble, definitely more like a gunshot than anything.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
The sheer hypocrisy of Boeing then creating the 777 says it all. That aircraft is only allowed to fly because the certicication authority (FAA) was unable to prove that it is unsafe, previous generations had to be proved to be safe, but with over-complexity that is no longer possible.
I guess since I'm not clued in, I don't really follow that statement. How does the FAA certifying the 777 mean that they are hypocrits? If the system is so complex that it can no longer be *proved" safe, wouldn't the next best logical arrangement be to prove that it's not unsafe? Regardless of the answer, how does that indicate that the FAA is being hypocritical?
Sorry in advance if I'm asking a question to which I missed and you've already answered. I'm simply not following the logic.
You are correct - the Concorde is pretty lousy at low altitudes aerodynamically - the wing design is for very high altitude supersonic travel.
At 50,000 feet the tip of the plane is hotter than boiling water. To reach these velocities the plane has to follow a particular profile of climbing and accellerating (if it goes too high too fast, it can't gain speed since engine performance drops, and if it climbs too slow it wastes excess fuel trying to push through the thicker air).
It also has a complex decelleration process - it starts probably 100-200 miles out. Granted, much of this is to extend the life of the plane/engines - you can't just idle the engines when they're red-hot (thereby lowering airflow and reducing cooling). Of course, a terrorist wouldn't care about the plane's maintenance schedule. However, if you tried a dive from 50,000 feet you'd probably just rip the wings off...
On the other hand, over US airspace you'd be pretty hard to intercept at Mach 2 - the X-22 is probably the only thing that could sustain that speed for any length of time. The Concorde isn't very maneuverable though, and would probably have trouble evading missles (in contrast with the U2 at ungodly altitudes - which as a fair shot against missles which are guided by fins, but probably not ones guided by thrusters).
I don't have much knowledge of aircraft certification, but I do have some knowlege of certification processes in other industries.
The difference is in where the burden lies. Apparently (taking the parent post at face value), in the past manufacturers had to prove to the FAA's satisfaction that a design was safe. Now, they just have to give the design to the FAA, and the assumption is that it will be certified unless the FAA proves that it is unsafe (therefore the burden of proof is on the government).
Obviously this is a lower standard - since those most able to find flaws in the design are the designers, who work for the manufacturer who wants their design approved.
Honestly, I cannot vouch for how the FAA certification process really works, but in most industries that are regulated the burden of proof is on the industry - to prove that they are operating within the regs. The regulatory agency merely audits their processes and looks for signs of things being out of order. Industry is supposed to police itself, while the govt polices the police. This has the benefit of shifting the safety costs to the industry - where they are ultimately reflected in the prices of goods (which makes sense - if planes cost a fortune to make safe it should be reflected in the cost of plane tickets, so that consumers can take a train if it makes more sense).
I'm always open to alternative systems if they actually work...
Yes, but up until recently BA was using planes built by Boeing, so Boeing had nothing against BA operating in the USA. The parent did not allege protectionism by the US Airlines - but by the plane vendor. In fact, airline competition means more planes sold.
Of course, with the advent of airbus things have changed...
Yes, having less people on the project would normally make it finish cheaper and faster, but the fact is by virtue of being a multinational project it was harder to cancel by the politicians. Had the UK gone at it alone, the most likely result would have been a government cancelation of the project like with TSR.2.
AFAIK the low altitude problem of the Airbus fly-by-wire system was corrected a long time ago. Fly-by-wire gives the passengers a smoother ride and makes it easier for a pilot to control the airplane in regular circumstances. Yes, because things are supposed to work well in regular circumstances and okay in extraordinary circumstances, not the opposite.
First, thanks.
;)
I understand and think your posting contains some logic. Great! That alone is rather rather these days!
But, if the design is so complex that it can not be proven safe, and people scream about the concept of having to prove it unsafe, what can you do? Is that the case to say it shouldn't be built? What other option is there?
Furthermore, if you're left with having to prove something is unsafe, you can't exactly expect the manufacturer to do a good job of that. After all, it's in their own best interest to prove it safe, not the inverse. Thusly, it makes since to make work, the original scheme. Just the same, if the original scheme is too complex to prove safe, we're back in a loop. So, to get out, I guess the only thing that makes sense is to shift it to the FAA? Who else? A third part hired by the manufacturer? Isn't that going to lead the same problems that run rampant in accounting and auditing companies (Anderson, etc)? I've seen that junk first hand and AFAIKT, Anderson just happen to be the one that got caught.
At any rate, after my ramblings...how does all that make the FAA hypocritical, regardless of process picked?
I think what the OP means is that Boeing started out (with what turned out to be FUD) saying that "Fly by wire is unsafe", and then built the Fly by Wire 777. That's the hypocrisy.
It is an incidental that the certification changed from a "prove it's safe" to a "prove it's not unsafe". If Boeing had kept to the same line, then they could probably also have got the FAA to apply the same rules, and hence it would have been impossible to certify the 777. But no commercial firm has the money to build something just to prove that it couldn't be done (even if some things end up that way).
"She's furniture with a pulse"
> Where's that in Vice City?
:-)
On the loading screen when Mitch Baker comes up, it's the sign that hangs beside him. Likely it's somewhere on his property, too!
> I got it from a sign my uncle's hunting club has up.
Cool, I guess it's one of those hunting signs, then? Likely the team for Vice City saw one or had one of their own and wanted to put it in the game?
Kinda coincidental you'd have a sig with it, playing the game, even though you got it from the real deal!
> I wouldn't advise breaking in, especially if you're a lawyer (they seem to have a passion again lawyers).
I don't blame 'em. Lawyers are scum! Except a few who read Slashdot.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I believe that the hypocracy was alleged to be on Boeing's part. Boeing had been saying that fly-by-wire was less safe than traditional mechanical controls (mostly because their existing aircraft where mechanical, while Airbus's were fly-by-wire).
Once it was apparent that this marketing technique wasn't working, Boeing came out with their own fly-by-wire aircraft.
That is the apparent hypocracy.
Has it been that long since they've painted it?
Is it just because that paint schemme is cool?
If it was more than or equally profitable as BA's and Air France's other operations then it would still be in service.
Smoother ride - no way! The cabin crew of a certain airline which used to fly Tristars and now has A330 junk HATE it because it "wags its tail".
FBW when examined closely has no advantages whatsoever. In normal flying, an autostabiliser, which can inject limited-authority control movements in series with the pilot's input, can be used to modify the handling characteristics to make the aircraft seem more, or less, stable than it really is. That is how most helicopters are made to be flyable. It requires much less in the way or hardware than FBW, and having limited control authority, is much safer and needs very little redundancy. Think of a yaw damper in each axis, to understand the concept. Cheap and simple, and safe, and it might as well be analogue in most cases.I agree with your assessment of the politics, in the UK we do some things very badly due to constant changes in policy. Not so sure about Concord though, many of th eworkers lived in the constituency of a certain Anthony Wedgewood Benn, so while Labour was in power and hee needed votes, it would have been quite safe. He was the only government minister, AFAIK, to hold office for some years without making a single decision, so he was never wrong.... I think that cancelling it would have been a decision, and would have cost him his seat.
The TSR-2 had two problems, one technical which could be solved, concerning the landing gear, the other that overall it worked too well and was too far ahead of its time. A bit like the Fairey Rotodyne (VTOL with short wings and twin turboprops for decent speed), long before tilt-wing and tilt-rotor concepts (rejected because it was supposedly too noisy for ciy-centre use, although in test flying from rooftops no complaints were received!), the Bristol Belvedere (early Chinook-like helicopter, really needed powered flying controls), and lots more. Sadly the long-obsolete piece of junk known as Eurofighter was the one that survived, and is only about 15 years late.
I think the Rafale, and the JAS39 Grippen, varios SAABs, and several others, prove the point about the efficiency of single-nation programes, where the appropriate government has the will. That is one thing the Frogs are extremenly good at, their sense of national pride is well developed. In the UK it is sadly lacking, our so-called leaders take great pleasure in presenting us as incapable of doing anything by ourselves.
The fact is that their budget should be immediately doubled, with more to follow if needed. Same for the British CAA, they try very hard to do a good job with far too few people. The competence is there in abundance, it is just overloaded.