Slashdot Mirror
France and Japan Planning New Supersonic Jet
jonerik writes "According to this article from the Associated Press, Japan and France are cooperating on research to produce a supersonic passenger plane that would be able to carry 300 passengers (three times as many as the Concorde) and fly from New York City to Tokyo in a mere six hours. Current plans are for the plane to be able to cruise at mach 2.4 while reducing the noise and high fuel consumption associated with the Concorde during its years of service. Although Japan had previously done extensive research towards building a 250-person mach 1.6 passenger jet, the agreement with France - announced at the annual Paris Air Show on Tuesday - represents a interesting shift in technological alliances given the Japanese aviation industry's longstanding ties to the United States. 'To research closely in this area with the Europeans does represent something new,' said Yoshio Watanabe, an official with The Society of Japanese Aerospace Companies, which is heading the new initiative on the Japanese side."
Fingers crossed no headroom, and especially legroom is sacrified.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
represents a interesting shift in technological alliances given the Japanese aviation industry's longstanding ties to the United States
Does it really or are they just trying to benefit from France's experiences with the concorde for this project?
Nowhere in the article does it say it'll change it's alliance for anything else.
Sig? What's this sig thing I hear people talking about?
yes, I know it is a joke, but who doesn't like wing walking?
I thought the problem was the sonic booms, not the engine noise. A little difficult to fly from New York to Tokyo in six hours if you've gotta go around South America, isn't it?
could be in operation by 2015
I'm betting that by 2015 there'll be a technology to make even faster yets which will hold up to 1000 people.
Is it just me, or it really seems that large scale technological advances are going TOO slow?
"Although Japan had previously done extensive research towards building a 250-person mach 1.6 passenger jet, the agreement with France - announced at the annual Paris Air Show on Tuesday - represents a interesting shift in technological alliances given the Japanese aviation industry's longstanding ties to the United States."
The U.S. aviation industry has no desire to build these aircraft. The FAA prohibits supersoinc flight over US Soil @ any altitude without prior special approval.
I don't think US carries have ever been that interested in supersonic aircraft. One of the biggest hurdles is the prohibition against going supersonic over land which would drasictally limit the number of possible routes. I would make sense for Japan to do such research in that much of thier flying time would be over water anyway. I will be interesting to see if this actually catches on though. Boeing was working with the Russians for a while and nothing panned out there. Nor did anything pan out on the mach .98 plane they were designing.
Madre de Dios! Es El Pollo Diablo! -- Captain Blondebeard
dime sized sushi!!! yay!
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
Little bag of peanuts: Extra
Want a pillow? Should have thought to bring one
Brought a pillow? Sorry, you have to check that.
Please remove all your clothes at the security check. Bend over.
First-class passengers, none of the above apply to you. Please walk the red carpet to your private cabin and enjoy some champagne from your gold-edged crystal. Foot-rub, sir?
Main cabin passengers, where do you think you're going, buster? Get in line! Wait yer turn! You think we want to carry scum like you? Food service? HA! Should have bought a sandwich before you got on board. We only serve food in coach on flights of 6 hours, 1 minute or longer, and this flight is 6 hours even. Sucker.
The plane will carry 300 Japanese passengers or 150 American passengers.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Maybe ther are trying to give Godzilla a run for his money?
I mean, I wonder if anyone here actually took the Concorde?
Bored? Browse Slashdot with a +6 modifier for Troll comme
"Japan has successfully tested an engine that can theoretically reach speeds of up to mach 5.5, or more than five times the speed of sound, the ministry said."
How does one successfully test an engine theoretically? "Well, according to my calculations, it won't fail and send 300 passengers to a fiery death . . . oh shit, I forgot to carry the 1 . . . and that decimal is wrong . . . what's the coefficient of kinetic friction again?"
With so many ppl on
They've got to be kidding.
Forgive my complete lack of aircraft knowledge but does the aircraft industry in the US do much innovation on airplane designs? Current models look kind of dated. Or maybe I'm just expecting them to come out with some crazy space plane with lasers.
The big question is, can it outfly Rodan? The Concorde of the past got around this by being designed to look just like Rodan, and thus discourage predatory attacks.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The $1.8 Million investment should indicate that this is just a study, and that it's probably a lot of hype for whatever reason at the most famous air show in the world.
Seeing Japan and France in the news together also makes me wonder if this is meant to assuage some of the bust up over the iter reactor.
At any rate, I'm a bit surprised that the article emphasizes that this is France and Japan, and not Airbus and Japan - as this implies that France is doing this outside of Airbus. Interesting none the less, and I'm sure time will tell.
With these new supersonic aircrafts, takeout delivery of real Japanese sushi to anywhere in the world becomes a reality. No longer will you have to eat the local slush!
Is it just me or did it become trendy to call things beta?
Bored? Browse Slashdot with a +6 modifier for Troll comme
I've made the trip to and from Japan twice and each time it was more than 11 hours of flight time. My last trip was 13 hours to get there and 11 to get back. This is a very difficult trip even with having exit-row seating on a B777. I don't plan on making such a trip again any time soon for that and other reasons... but if it were 3x the speed of sound, I'd probably want to hop another flight. To get there in 6 or less would be so much nicer.
How interesting. You Yanks didn't seem to mind during the Revolutionary War.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Nonsense; the average American weighs far more than that. Some of them are over 500kilos! ;)
Me (Blog)
I failed to link something: this
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Still:
If it's fast and fuel/cost/environmentally efficient, I say bring it on. It'll probably be a lot easier to implement than suborbital flight.
Yes, the Americans were oh so quick to come to help. They also found it convenient to arm Britain in a selfless act that included taking virtually every drop of money the Brits had earned since Elizabeth I's day.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well if you consider that a japanese sumo fighter rarely has a weight smaller than 130 kg (285 lb) , then your asumption can be incorrect in some cases. I live in japan , and yes, and average japanese is smaller/thinner/(maybe healthier) than an average person from the USA, but if you take in account the 60kg that you can take as baggage in a flight, the difference in the proportion is smaller. And if you know the pain in the A## ( literally ) that is a trans-pacific flight , then you understand why they are doing this.
"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." -- Linus
The internet/voip and other communication mediums have obsoleted the necessity for face to face contact and the costs associated with business travel. This is why (at least in the US) airlines are going bankrupt every single year. Only southwest manages to survive, but that's because they are like the walmart of the skies.
What does this have to do with the story? Did a frenchman bite you when you were young or something? The western world treats you like a troll and ignores you.
You know, the Americans eat more cheese than the French. And without France you might well still be a British colony. Damn uppity colonials ;)
Me (Blog)
France's bid to build ITER is the backed by the EU, so we're talking 450 "mega-people" and 10+ "giga-dollars" of GDP.
And it is in fact the EU that has promised to build the project on its own anyway if it doesn't go through internationally.
The whole world treats the US as damage and goes around it.
Erm, that was Europe, the largest economy in the world, not France. And what IS this sudden anti-French thing? They have a dubious colonial history like every other large developed nation. What IS the problem? Is it the Iraq invasion? Because, erm, only two countries in the EU participated in that, and one of them since withdrew, the other is under pressure from its people to do so.
Me (Blog)
Comparing this to Concorde is very silly. It's a bit like comparing the Sputnik launcher to a modern sattilite launcher. Concorde and Sputnik were cold war silliness. The modern launcher and hopefully this new aircraft, are economical, otherwise nobody would be building them
Me (Blog)
That sounds like an awful little money for such a project. I'm really not sure if they actually are planning to build working planes.
On the other hand, this makes some sense. The French not only participated in Concorde, but have been making supersonic fighter jets for a long time. It appears France is only country who can still build supersonic jets with 100% ingenious technology. And it's a major member of the European consortium (Airbus).
There have long been a frustration in the Japanese aerospace industry that the Americans banned them from pursuing cutting edge aerospace technology after the WWII. It is a commonly held view that the US didn't want Japan to acquire know-how in that area so that she can independently develop and compete in the military aircraft field. (Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, and Subaru used to make airplanes. Look where they went.) So, the US kept supplying technology to Japan while not allowing ingenious know-how to accumulate.
A famous incidence was when the Japanese were planning a new fighter/attack plane. Those in the uniform wanted to go ingenious design (they always want to go domestic even when the equipment is prohibitively expensive), but because of the pressure from the States, it became a joint project between Japan and the US based on F-16 design. The result Mitsubishi F-2 is mediocre at best.
I would imagine there is a genuine fear that aerospace industry gets monopolised by Americans in the near future among other countries. So, a supersonic passenger plane appears to be a good excusable exercise to develop and accumulate the technology, especially when Americans are not seriously doing it.
Why not for air if it works for sea ?
k val.htm
i tation
http://www.stratmag.com/issueJan-15/page03.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sh
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Supercav
You suspicious people!
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"A plane flies for 35 years and has one accident, what do you want them to learn exactly, not to try it again??
The Concorde project started in the 50's, you think it just might be a little bit possible that airplane design is different today than it was 50 years ago? Or you think maybe we haven't learned anything in the last 50 years?
Are you just assuming they are strapping rockets and fuel tanks onto a plane and sending it on its merry way? Isn't the risk of an accident 50 years down the road worth the benefits of technological improvement during that time?
Sometimes all in the same person!
$1.8 million a year for 3 years. Yeah, I'm sure this will be a mediocre new flight sim for Microsoft.
Excuse me, this is Slashdot. Could you please restate those figures in mebipeople and gibidollars?
For more information, click here.
So where is there mention of EU in the article? I see France France France, but no EU. So what are you talking about?
Considering that you're referring to us as "Yanks"
Totally off-topic post, but in some parts of the world (at least Australia to my knowledge) the term "yank" or "yankee" refers to any American.
Yawn...
Supersonic jets in the past used real jets, not turbofans, afterburners if you like. Basically just burning raw jet fuel and using the hot gas to accelerate the plane. Fast, but VERY inefficient. Normal jets get theri efficiency from their turbofan engines.
Now these days It is possible in theory. The FA-22 has engines that can go supersonic on turbofan, but I don't know that they'd pull Mach 2 (I dunno how fast they can go on TF before they need to go burner). Also just because they can make a small fighter do it does not mean they can make a large passenger jet.
If the jet is a real jet engine it'll be fairly noisy and not very efficient as compared to the new Boeing and Airbus offerings.
So it really depends on what kind of implementation they can get. If they make a jet that's all turbofan, and can do efficient subsonic flight then ya, might be a winner. If it's just a new Concorde I'mm betting costs will be prohibitive, and noise a major problem.
Across country ... overnight ... by train -- Norfolk & Waypal!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Where the hell is my hypersonic flight to tokyo?
Oh, another 10 or 15 years yet?
Well, I guess I'll just have to suffer on with my flying car... er, personal robotic assistant... er, fusion-generator in my basement... eh, forget it. I'll be in the lounge room watching Astro-Boy reruns.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
does that theoretical energy of yours include what it takes to remain at 100KM altitude for a few hours...?
Folks, we're currently experiencing some Godzilla-related turbulence...
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Sorry to be pedantic and all, but it's just "Concorde", not "The Concorde"; like it's an idea more than a thing.
I've made the trip to and from Japan twice and each time it was more than 11 hours of flight time. My last trip was 13 hours to get there and 11 to get back.
I personally wouldn't mind Tokyo-Vancouver-NYC flights or Tokyo-Seattle-NYC flights - since I frequently fly from Seattle to Paris or Seattle to Milan and used to fly from Vancouver to Auckland or Sydney.
The only problem is which airport will take this? If they put it in Boeing Field here in Seattle, where Southwest Airlines is moving (since SeaTac is too crowded), the sonic booms will be too much. Even SeaTac might be problematic, and the last commercial supersonic airflight ended at Boeing Field, so one can never tell.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Dude,
Don't feed the trolls.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Heh. And if it hadn't been for the Russians, the Germans would have won anyway, conquered continental Europe, consolidated all of its resources, and the Americans would have been powerless to stop them. Yet, Americans don't defer to the Russians very easily...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I disagree. The Internet and VoIP have increased the need to see people face to face. The reason's simple: these technologies accelerate the pace of business and other things that require flying. And while you can conduct business (and entertainment, and even leisure, to a certain extent) remotely, it's much to your advantage to see people face-to-face. That's why, incidentally, central business districts have little to fear from cheaper office rents in suburbia and farmland.
Remember how computing and the internet were supposed to herald the "paperless office"? Remember how demand for paper products instead exploded in the '90s? It's the same thing.
Please, for the love of God, no more car analogies.
Concorde had the safest flight record of any commericial plane. The more ironic thing is that concorde crashed because a piece fell of a different plane, and the debris was lieing on the runway, punctured the tire which ripped into the underside of the wing causing a massive fuel leak which got ignited by the engines and therefore crashed and blew up.
Remember more people die per year on Britains roads alone than the total number of air crashes per year. It is by far the safest method of travel.
Automation - The Car Company Tycoon Game
How about some undersea tracks from Calif. to Japan. But some bullet trains on there - now that would be cool.
So where is there mention of EU in the article? I see France France France, but no EU. So what are you talking about?
Maybe this has something to do with the fact that, although some grand-grandparent poster was trolling about ITER, the actual project was about a supersonic jet plane, which has nothing to do with either fusion power, hentai porn or cheese.
Sorry, meant EU at the time of the war. (Think Cyprus or somewhere was also involved).
Me (Blog)
SST's get re-studied every decade or so. Boeing and Douglas (remember them) last took their turn in the 80's, courtesy NASA funds. Gulfstream and one of the Russian design houses got far down the road toward a supersonic bizjet in the 90s. Now it is Japan's turn. They all run into the same laws of physics, and the same laws of economics. Until there's a breakthrough in engines, structures, fuels, or aerodynamics (or perhaps all four), don't look for an SST anytime in the next decade or two. An SST could be built today, even without breakthroughs, but it wouldn't make anybody any money. The laws of physics guarantee that the planes are exotic (skin temperature hot enough to boil water), thirsty (inefficient supersonic wing lift), and noisy (sonic boom = flight routes over land very restricted). These factors all add up to expensive tickets, and the market studies (including the one called Concorde) all show that the market isn't there. And that's not even beginning to take environmental concerns into account, such as high-altitude ozone depletion and of course greenhouse gas emissions.
These long jumps are the place for supersonic travel. With the hours of overhead of travel, reducing NYC/Paris from 6h to 2h makes very little of difference: you're still taking a whole day each way. At 600MPH, though, that overhead plus 15h travel winds up taking two days each way. For a trip that's usually a week, which means 4d travel / 7d total = 57%, down to 29%. Which means less time traveling than visiting, rather than the disproportionate reverse. With those proportions, a weekend trip anywhere in the world starts to be worth taking.
--
make install -not war
If any of the large powers (UK, US, USSR) had stayed out of it, Germany would likely have won, or at least taken a LOT longer to beat.
Me (Blog)
Then why wasn't ITER built in Spain as originally planned? Oh, that's right, petty intra-european politics. Perpetrated by who? You'll never guess.
Seems there isn't much EUnity, even in "Old Europe".
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Does it run linux?
Wait, are you saying Godzilla has money? This is huge!
1. provide web-based services to Godzilla, Mothra, et al.
2. ???
3. Profit!
There's strong evidence for genetic and hormonal factors in those particular attributes. The Americans would probably live longer, if they ate a vaguely healthy diet, yep.
Me (Blog)
The parent was off-topic; they were talking about an international fusion project.
Me (Blog)
Of course, American states NEVER compete to get a prestigious federal lab... Also, France has one of the world's largest, most innovative and best run civil nuclear programmes, and general public acceptance of nuclear power.
Me (Blog)
El Cabri: France's bid to build ITER is the backed by the EU
rsynnott: Erm, that was Europe...
Abject, unmitigated bullshit.
Only after the debate became protracted did "France" morph into "EU". This became "EU" vs. Japan only after France figured it needed more pull. The early press releases were all about "France" and the "fench technology minister". France expected this built on French soil by the French nuclear industry.
Now go read the MSNBC article about the new jet development. Not one cotten picking mention of "EU". Big, bold letters: "France", period.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Wedid this in the 60's. Cool experiment,but as you say completely impractical. Nothing to see here,move along....
The EU was the one that would be negotiating at the international level from the start. The French bid first disputed a primary within the EU against a Spanish proposal for who would host ITER if awarded to the EU. After the Spanish retracted their bid the French project officially became the EU proposition.
Seriously, do these people even think for a second before flushing billions of taxpayer money down the toilet?
People regularly take flights with several layovers rather than the much shorter direct flight in order to save a few hundred dollars. Other than a few rich millionares who want to fly from Tokyo to New York to do some shopping on the weekend, the average person isn't really that worried about long airline flights.
You want to make airline flight better for the consumer? How about spending orders of magnitude less money in order to design ergonomic seats that don't give you leg cramps, or trays that don't spill your food when the person in front of you leans back?
The supersonic jetliner is 1960s space-age dream bullshit. Yes, we CAN build supersonic passenger jet planes. But we don't have the technology to make it economical. Most airlines are barely profitable and need huge government subsidies using the super-economy Boeing and Airbus jets.
So you can get from Tokyo to New York in 6 hours instead of 12. But you are still going to have to get to the airport 3 hours early in Tokyo, and wait 3 hours getting you luggage and clearing customs in New York. Those things can be fixed for a fraction of the cost of building a supersonic jet liner, and those thing will benifit everyone, not just the super-rich.
...on this thing in 2015? What will fuel prices be then? Look at the general state of the airline industry now, then general planetary fuel demands and projected demands. Just china alone is planning on adding 2000 airliners, and over 200 million cars during this upcoming decade, and no telling how many more ships. That's just one nation. *It's the fuel* that needs to be addressed and to have some advanced R&D, they already know how to build supersonic airplanes, most first and second world nations already own bunches of them. You civvie them up, supersize, done, an airliner.
They may build this thing but it will be beyond even "ludicrous speed" Concorde ticket prices is my best guess on it.
Didn't the UK, Italy, Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands and Poland all send troops?
Without the USSR, it's very likely that Germany would have won. Without the US, it's possible that Germany would have won, but more likely that Germany would ave taken a lot longer to beat. Japan is another story, but then again, Japan had no designs on continental Europe.
In any case, your point is well taken. That's precisely why the "we saved your asses" attitude is so stupid. The Russians can say the exact same thing to us ("we saved your asses by decimating Hitler's land forces"). The dick-waving is really kind of silly.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Teleportation is cheaper. ;)
That's just plain wrong. Last year, 2004, saw the greatest number of passenger miles flown in history. The terrorist attacks of 2001 hurt the entire industry, but that only sped up the inevitable. The simple fact is Southwest and similar carriers are eating everyone else's lunch - the large incumbent carriers are saddled with inefficient systems and expensive union contracts, so they just can't compete.
I remember in the 80's and early 90's when they would regularly fly in and out of Dulles airport. I lived between DC and Baltimore and you could hear those things coming for minutes before they got there and minutes after they left. It was very distinctive.
The only thing louder is/was when military fighter craft were patrolling right on and after 9/11.
The Concorde was *loud*.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
This "new" partnership is a simple extension of that and probably will extend further as time goes on.
PS Grammar trolls should ignore the "ain't nothing"... I know.
Couldn't stand the weather
It's funny you should say that. When my sister went to Japan on a business she related how her colleagues ran from place to place and were generally thinner and in much better cardio-vascular shape than their American counterparts. In fact, she said, they might live longer if not for the (large) amount they drank and the (small) amount they slept.
Now the practical energy is a different question, of course...
in both countries - gonna be cramped - only pillows on the floor for seats and paper bulkheads... ;-)
Oh well, what the hell...
I hope the project is successful, however, if it doesn't get buy-in from the beginning it could suffer the same fate as Concorde. Although Concorde was a technical marvel, the U.S. did everything it could to scuttle the project, for example, its flight certificate was delayed by the FAA until it was sure the project was busted. The premise of Concorde was fast trans-atlantic flight, but its first scheduled route was Heathrow to Bahrain because countries followed the U.S. and refused flight certificates. By the time the U.S. did grant a heavily restricted certification the lack of orders had made continued manufacture untenable. It's quite ironic that the U.S. refused certification on environmental grounds.
t
I'm sure there will be the usual Concorde counter-arguments posted here, some of them are true. It's true that it was a fuel hog and it's true that it was noisy. But if 500 were built instead of just 16 supersonic flight would have become much cheaper. With only 16 all parts were custom built and very expensive. Heck the Concorde has more in common with the SR-71 than a 737. It boggles the mind to think that it cruised faster than an F-18's top speed.
My father worked on the project from the beginning, for those interested here's a link to a couple of photos he took when Concorde 002 made its maiden flight-
http://latte.com/gallery/Concorde-002-First-Fligh
And what IS this sudden anti-French thing?
Oh French bashing is the thing nowadays, didn't you know. A couple of hundred years worth of friendship really doesn't mean anything anymore. The fact that France was the United States' very first European ally - nope, not relevant. French assistance against England in their war of independence (anyone hear of Yorktown?) completely forgotten now. Many Americans don't remember that their "Statue of Liberty" was a gift from France because of this great friendship.
Now we are left to hear tales of French "cowardice" and the fact that France was apparently "rescued singlehandedly" by the US in not one but two world wars, which unfortunately underlines the lack of adecuate historical education in the US nowadays.
Heck I figure in another twenty years or so the US will declare war on France, damned terrorists that they are. Oh wait, I forget. The US doesn't even BOTHER to declare war nowadays since that would require getting their elected representatives (of which at least some might be intelligent) to agree unanimously. No, now they just do whatever they feel like it without a formal declaration of war. And how easy it is to poison the mind of a people until they are splitting the world into absolutes: "you are either with us, or against us..."
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Looks like you've been watching Fox News. Only three countries participated in the invasion: USA, England and Australia. Lots of other countries sent peace-keeping forces (police and military) later, but only those three took part in the invasion.
BTW, most of the "oil for food" money went to the USA. Look it up; the documents are actually in the public domain.
Here's to hoping that this time around they don't make supersonic travel a $5000 luxury like the Concord. Perhaps if supersonic travel is made affordable it might catch on this time around.
The whole world treats the US as damage and goes around it.
US treats the ROW(1) as damage and goes around it...
Sounds more true to me.
(1) ROW: Rest Of World
Dan Goldin killed the son of SST program at NASA when Boeing declined to build one. There were three outstanding problems.
1. Sonic Boom severely restricts the number of feasible routes. Even with the most boom friendly design, the plane has to fly less than Mach 1.4 to avoid serious overpressures on land.
2. A supersonic aircraft needs to fly at around 50,000 feet where it outputs gases which severely deplete the ozone layer. It puts harmful exhaust gases exactly where they do the most damage. This environmental problem has not been solved.
3. When the son of SST program was killed, profitable airlines were running $0.07 to $0.10 per seat/mile. At son of SST never came close to this. With the increase in the price of fuel (and lower labor and finance costs), the economic disadvantages to Mach 2+ would be even more dramatic.
the us is doing this type of research as well, and are much further advanced than the japanese.
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/hyfly.html
In further news today, the US has made a press release:
"China you have our blessing, invade those bastards, it's not like the surrender queens are going to defend them."
Clearly you live in a fantasy land and have never a) had any relatives, b) had any friends, and c) done any work in a team of more than 3 people.
;-)
Either that, or the post is a troll....
-- Brendan Hills
Japan is great at building really cool, really expensive, and totally economically useless stuff with government support. Exhibit A: Kansai Airport. I'm sure the same can be said of France, or just about any country with money, but Japan leads the pack in the ridiculous-yet-cool-public-spending department.
I believe the FAA regulations involve creating the sonic boom. It would be hard to operate in controlled airspace (about 18,000 feet to 60,000 feet) at a supersonic speed due to conflicting traffic, boom or not, but above 60,000, it may be okay, provided that it could be done without the boom.
I had to do a paper (upper level undergraduate) about the costs and benefist of supersonic aircraft. From what I remember, the costs of constructing a supersonic aircraft were about 3.3 times the cost of a subsonic aircraft with the same load and range capabilities. When you consider the finance charges and risk involved, it may not be financially feasible for many carriers to invest in supersonic travel if the costs are 3.3 times as high.
More people travel take more individual trips on Britains roads than take than there are flights , so I don't see that you can compare the two so easily.
Really, building this thing is not about the market. They'll build a few. The flights will sell out for the short term, then the novelty will wear off.
Really it's the same reason the Chinese are scratching at space, the Europeans are scanning Saturn, and the US is poking about Mars. The act of doing these things advances your society's science and technology.
It was my understanding that southwest treats its employees *much* better than walmart does...
[o]_O
Yeah, I know, the cause wasn't a problem with the Concorde itself, it was an accident involving another aircraft. The concern I have is the sheer number of people on board, and the severity of any crash. It's like driving 45mph vs. 75mph. Any accident at 75mph will have more severe consequences than a similar accident at 45mph. Heaven forbid that a school bus go off the road at 75mph.
I thought we were the revolting colonials.
This seem almost like an echo of the Renault/Nissan
deal. They do seem to be talking to one another.
That'd be 180 Canadian passengers.
Can we PLEASE use standard units already?!?
Shades of Grayden
I've seen alot of comments about the FAA not allowing Mach travel over the land.
Doesn't anybody think that with enough effort, that the regulations could be changed, especially if some company manages a 'quiet' mach+ plane?
And lets face it. As long as you're only flying within the states, we could save more time just streamlining the 'security checkpoint' system.
Flying anymore just isn't worth it for me anymore unless I'm traveling at least half of the continental USA.
I don't read AC A human right
It's NOT a law of physics that an object moving through a fluid faster than the speed of sound must generate a shock wave. The Navier-Stokes do have solutions at supersonic speed that do not involve a discontinuity in pressure (shock wave).
A supersonic bullet not generating a sonic boom was designed in the 60s so if a sniper misses the target on the first attempt the target will not get a warning (the noise of a bullet is supersonic boom. Muzzle noise is far away and supposedly masked by a silencer). The bullet has a cylindrical shape with completely straight outer edge and internally it has a carefully designed inlet coupled to a carefully designed expansion nozzle.
It doesn't generate any aerodynamic lift. Generating lift would require breaking the symmetry and that, of course, would break the careful arrangement that eliminates the shockwave. An airplane must generate lift and there it would seem that this effect cannot be used. However, an airplane also has an engine. If the engine's energy is added to the equasions there can be solutions that generate lift and still have no pressure discontinuities. These mathematical solutions are proven to exist, but haven't been found, yet. If they are found, there is no guarantee that thay can be made into a practical airplane - but there's NO law of physics saying it's impossible!
Note that the shockwave CAN be reduced by orders of magnitude by careful design down to the point where it's probably not a problem. Here I am talking about totally eliminating it in the mathematical sense.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
mmmmmm, definitely NOT the same cheese though. The only orange one we have is actually old Dutch gouda (I think) and is quite evil ;-)
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Isn't anyone bothered or surprised by the fact that the loss of supersonic flight [ala concorde] represented a backwards step in progress?
They had the concorde for such a long time and after its retirement nothing newer, faster and better was ready.
I can't think of another example of backward progress.
But under EU regulations US cheese must be labelled "wallpaper paste".
And why is it that between Japan and France, it's France's record in WW2 that gets criticised? It seems backwards to me...
(I am from Japan, btw)
To keep this on topic, I will say that I will look forward to when I can fly to Japan in a few hours instead of half a day.
I disagree. It was clear when the crash happened in 2000 that Concorde had problems. When compounded with the fact that it was just not making money and sucked environmentally, the writing was just on the wall in the post 9/11 air-travel industry. Given that, I think there's still potential room in the industry for supersonic air-travel if someone can get the details right. (As usual, the devil really is in the details.)
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
And when you're not allowed to land in the USA, you're just as doomed as Concorde was.
It won't attract the bullshit-oriented USA airlines (they're bankrupt anyways, so they won't be able to afford it - and there is no way the US government will allow them to buy even just one after all the billions they poured in the ailing airlines after 9/11) so all it will do is fly the Paris_Tokyo route if it's ever built.
You Westerners are strange that way.
Nice... let's take the attitudes of a smallish fraction of a cultural group and make sweeping generalizations about all "westerners". For someone who's attempting to make fun of people who're entrenched in their cultural beliefs, you could stand to shed a bit of bias yourself.
Maybe if he relaxed at "ye old inn to supp upon oxen" and meditated a bit on whether we share _anything_ with France he would realize how utterly stupid the "Freedom Fries" movement was at multiple levels. Or he's just pig ignorant.
I've gotten pretty irritated at "Old Europe" bashing. It is so typical of an immature bully attitude in the U.S. Precisely because it is "old" Europe, if we had a bit of civilization and historical awareness, what could France alone with it's misadventures in Vietnam and Algeria have taught us _not_ to do? The U.S. is acting like a stupid bratty child in front of an adult who understands from their own youth that being an asshole doesn't turn out well and it's embarrassing to be a part of.
Anyway, as long as a flying Citreon that serves raw fish isn't the end product, I'm excited that this collaboration could produce a utterly cool plane.
Oh yes, Japan and France, go to it! Never mind the laws of Physics! All those equations with squares, cubes and quad powers in them-- ignore them. All the experience with the Concorde, The Blackbird, the Valkrie, the B-58-- just ignore how expensive it is to build and maintain an airplane made out of Titanium. Also ignore how much fuel it takes to push a big plane through the air at that speed, with the air resistance going up as the fourth power of the speed. And how you're carrying most of the fuel halfway around the world, at air-mail rates. And doing so over an Artic route, with not a chance at a safe landing or a prompt rescue. That's JUST what the US air industry needs, having you go off on some hopeless quest.
How interesting. You Yanks didn't seem to mind during the Revolutionary War.
....
I'm supposing you mean we didn't mind a cozy relationship with France circa late 18th century/early 19th century.
Touche [no pun]
However, that was partly around the time they were cool, actually able to fight wars, as they were lead by this rather short, yet effective, Corsican
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
NASA's done some research on reducing sonic booms, but large aircraft can make a lot of other noise. I've lived within the final approach pattern of both a major American Air Force base and Heathrow. The loudest thing the Air Force base put up were fully loaded water-injected KC-135''s. They were plenty loud on take off, louder than C-5's and B-52's and C-141's. Loud enough to obliterate any phone call.
Concorde's leaving Heathrow were an order of magnitude louder.
I'm all for affordable SST's, but the next one really needs to be quieter.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Did anyone else read "Yoshio Watanabe" as "Yoshio Wannabe"?!? :)
...assuming they don't throw their arms up and surrender to the stewardesses... then it will only carry 60.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Yes!
But, at that time we were Overpaid, Oversexed and Over there!
Fun Factiod: 33% of all babies born in France after 1945 have dual citizenship despite have two French parents.
Smile.
It is my understanding that the concord did not fail because of technology, but because of fuel costs.
Airlines just found it too expensive to operate.
I am guessing since two groups of smart people want to start this up that they have an idea around this problem so that a new generation of supersonic passenger jets don't sit on the ground.
I actually talked to an airline pilot who flew in both North America and in Japan, and he indicated that the same model planes are actually configured differently between Japan airlines and North American airlines, to fit more people in, since in general, they do take up less space.
Whether Japanese people are generally genetically more slight in build (sumo wrestlers excluded), or Americans generally have more overweight people, it is interesting nonetheless. (Or maybe the Japanese are just being more efficient at the expense of comfort.)
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Which is pithy and worth a chuckle. Too bad it's not true.
Display some adaptability.
"Like it's predecessor, it won't be allowed to land in the USA for some kind of bullshit reason, thanks to the "Not Invented Here" syndrome that's so popular with yankees." Nevermind, this new plane will land in Japan (or China ?), americans are not the only ones on earth. For the cost : Concorde didn't cost France money, it showed profit at the end of its story. For the fuel : the article says the new plane will be better... Have you read the text ? At least, we go forward.
Actually it WAS a problem with the Concorde. Apparently there were 9 or so other incidences of debris causing damages to the undercarriage including another impact on the fuel tanks, fortunately in that case the tank didn't rupture. One of the motives for the retirement of the Concorde was the cost of correcting this vulnerability.
Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
Before everyone gets in a huff over the shift of aviation dominance from the US, consider what France and Japan have actually agreed to: not much. It's a start, and it may or may not pan out. I'd venture to guess that there's a pretty good reason why Boeing isn't pursuing supersonic aircraft. If that reason changes, you can be sure that they'll jump on board for a crack at some supersonic profits.
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
If we were to bash on any country for their WW2 record, it should be Italy. They lost to France (until ze Germans came in), they lost in Africa (until ze Germans came in), they lost in Greece (until ze Germans came in). Italy didn't win anything in WW2 until they switched sides...
get your facts right first. they didn't go to war for peaceful reasons but because they had their share of attacks and they didn't want more than necessary. and they knew it wa s a waste of money. they don't have 17% unemployment, just 10, and it's also because the calculation is different than in the US: unemployed people stay registered as such much longer than in other countries, and they don't have 10% of very poor people like america do. also I don't understand how you can talk about them providing weapons to dictators, yes it's true , but no more than US or UK. who is supporting a fundamentalist muslim dictatorship in seudi arabia ? who killed a democratically elected president to replace him with a dictator in chile ? who put in charge a bunch of crazy fundamentalist in afghanistan ? etc. etc. nobody's nice, nobody's innocent, so let's talk of something else.
I think that you are confusing accuracy with precision. In any case, both the US and Russia "saved your asses," even if it's to a different degree. In other words, it doesn't matter if it's a Russian or an American saying it since even by your own admission it's still true, and so it's accurate. The satement may not be precise enough (since the statement doesn't elaborate that both USA and Russia "saved your asses"), but it is accurate nonetheless so long as either one or both (Russia, US) say it. It's stupid and lacking in precision, but accurate.
One more problem with supersonic jetliners is terrorism. If the emir's warriors got hold of an M2+ plane, it would be virtually impossible to stop, unlike subsonic planes, as fighter jets couldn't catch it in time. And when it hits...
Fighter jets would not be able to catch a conventional jet plane in time either. They didn't even catch up to a Cessna 172 until it was nearly to the center of the ADIZ around D.C.
A single Concorde impacting at top speed (1.1M at low altitude or twice of those B767s) would have probably gone right through BOTH the north and south towers of WTC!
Which, as it turns out, would have been better for everybody, because at least the towers would still be standing.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The internet/voip and other communication mediums have obsoleted the necessity for face to face contact and the costs associated with business travel.
Uh, huh. Why is it that most of the jobs on Dice.com rquire 25% to 100% travel? And why do very few companies allow you to telecommute?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The spin of the Earth is definitely a factor, however, the Earth is not just going to spin under you. You still have the atmosphere to deal with. In some locations, it runs counter to the rotation of the Earth, and in other locations, it runs with (and faster than) the rotation of the Earth. At very few place and for very short lengths of time, does any part of the atmosphere move with the rest of the planet.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
You're assuming that the descent would occur over the US. For transatlantic that would probably be true, but for great circle between Asia and US East coast, the descent could be done over northern Canada (assuming the Canadians didn't object).
We are the 198 proof..
The problem really comes down to the fact that companies are unwilling to pay for R&D. Bell Labs used to pour billions into R&D and this made them one of the largest contributors to innovation in the 20th century. Companies that pour huge amounts of money into R&D reap huge long term profits. However, short term profits and short term cash reserves are sacrificed in order to do this. Publicly held companies are at the mercy of us, the public, who demand consistent short term profit and as such, can not really be blamed for cutting R&D budgets. Certainly a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. But is a bird in the hand better than a hundred in the bush? A thousand? A million? At some point, your expected return from firing randomly into that bush is higher than one bird.
Unless we as Americans wake up to the necessity of R&D and thinking in the long term, we are going to end up with no innovation and eventually no jobs. Greed is going to make us go broke.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Actually, they DID correct this vulnerability.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I was aware that one of the fixes was as simple as better tires, which were already available BEFORE the accident, even recommended in light of the earlier instances, but not done due to the greater costs. The plane in question did not have the reinforced tires, but there still remained the question of the vulnerability of the fuel tanks to debris punctures.
Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
As America, The Book says about the French in warefare: 16-1 pre Napoleon, 1-8 post.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Comment intéressant! Vous grenouilles n'avez pas eu un tel ressentiment contre l'impérialisme renvoyé de nous yankees pendant la deuxième guerre mondiale, non?
[For the French-impaired, something like: "How interesting! And you frogs didn't resent Yankee imperialism so much during the Second World War, did you?"
and Range Aussi Ta Pere= Fuck your father as well= once popular French Rap group "RATP," whose initials are the same as the French National Rail company RATP...]
got karma to burn frogs.....keep it coming surrender monkeys.
Can someone tell me why I was modded redundant when I can't find a single other comment (above mine) that corrects this error? It also hasn't been corrected in the story. I took that survey of /.'s the other day and I responded that the moderation was in important part of /. Prove me right.
Read my blog: HansMast.com
poor old mods
Read up on it a bit more. The Japanese were pretty much sucked into attacking it, and there are many red flags to say that the Yanks (hi from Oz) knew it was coming at many levels and yet chose to let it happen. Somebody needed a red shirt to wave.
Not to say that Japan were angels during WW2 or anything, which would be a grossly stupid statement, just that it ain't anywhere near as simple as you make it out to be.
Forex, American-owned companies were still operating in Axis countries - and producing war materials for them, including munitions and vehicles - right up to the end. Some of the Allied anti-industry bombing was... dreadfully specific. American corporations operated in the USSR right through the Cold War, too.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Oh, dear. The "Roosevelt knew it was coming and deliberately did nothing" conspiracy argument. I'm afraid it's nowhere near as paranoid as you make it out to be. I suggest you try reading a serious history, like Gordon Prange's At Dawn We Slept, rather than conspiracy-theory nonsense.
Or read this exchange from the New York Review of Books Letters column, between Gore Vidal (a novelist who dabbles in conspiracy theory) and David Kahn (a serious historian who wrote, among other things, one of the definitive histories of cryptography):
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14238
You could argue that the Japanese were "pushed" into a confrontation with the US, because the US cut off their supply of American oil in July, 1941, in response to Japanese troops moving into French Indochina. But only if you think that continued Japanese military expansion in China and Southeast Asia was somehow inevitable -- or justified.
The Japanese government could have their halted their expansion, of course; but they decided to continue. In order to do so, they needed access to oil, rubber, and other critical military supplies, so they planned to conquer Indonesia and Malaysia. In order to prevent the US from interfering in this expansion, they planned a series of attacks and invasions to knock out the US presence in the western Pacific and take out the US navy.
The Japanese were certainly not suckered into attacking Pearl Harbor; they carefully planned it, based in part on the earlier success of the British carrier aircraft in attacking the Italian naval base at Taranto in the Mediterranean (something the US ignored). Japanese military leaders started debating and planning war with the US in mid-1941; they had made the decision for war by the fall.
The US expected that a Japanese attack would most likely come in the Philippines; in part, they simply didn't think the Japanese capable of something as audacious and difficult as a long-range, carrier-based attack on Hawaii.
(Leaving aside all this, may I point out that if you are "suckering" someone into attacking you, you do this in order to ambush them when they make the attack, not let them go ahead and destroy most of your fleet?)
-- Keysh (Peter Erwin)