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."
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
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.
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
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.
Is it just me or did it become trendy to call things beta?
Bored? Browse Slashdot with a +6 modifier for Troll comme
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.
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 and no. "Innovation" is a bit of a silly word in the engineering world. Engineering is mostly about "evolution" not "revolution". Occasionally, you see something like the SR-71, which break every existing mold, but such designs are few and far between. Consider something like the Boeing 787. It's claim to fame is a 20% increase in efficiency. To an aerospace engineer, that's huge. They'd trade their first-born for a 10% decrease in specific fuel consumption. To hit that 20%, a lot of innovations had to go into the design. But consider the big picture: is the 787, as a whole, really innovative? Not really.
Japan's aerospace industry in particular is very interested in technologies that even lay-people would see as "revolutionary". For example, if you research the field of hypersonic planes, a lot of that work is being done in Japan. In the United States, the focus is a bit different. Things have become not so much about "faster and higher", but "better, more efficient, and cheaper". Both are innovative in a way, but the former is more "sexy".
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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)
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.
Sometimes all in the same person!
OK, admittedly I Am an Aerospace Engineer (IAAE?).
Considering the big picture, the 787 *is*, as a whole, really innovative. Yes, really. Never before has a large civilian airplane been made with the technology that Boeing will be using to make the 787s: namely large integrated primary structures made from composite materials (not metals). Fuselage. Wing structures. Emppenage. Other secondary structures. Airbus is skeptical (publically) that Boeing, or anyone, can even make big planes that way. Mind you, 90% of that is politics and typical blustering of the chief competitor, but Airbus has never considered (again, publically) using composites to that extent.
General aviation doesn't count due to the size of the aircraft, low production numbers, the types of materials, and decidely low-tech manufacturing methods.
Regardless, your point is valid though. While I'd consider the 787 innovative, it's evolutionary and not revolutionary. For revolutionary, sadly, you need to look to the military programs -- or Burt Ratan (google Scaled Composites).
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.
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.
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
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
I'll assume you're American... so how's it going in Iraq?
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
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.
...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.
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...
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
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
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
Does it only count as a loss if Iraq invades and conquers the continental USA?
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.
But under EU regulations US cheese must be labelled "wallpaper paste".