Slashdot Mirror
Japan Plans Test of 'New Concorde'
Steve Nixon writes "Japan's space agency plans to launch an arrow-shaped airplane at twice the speed of sound high over the Australian outback as early as next month in a crucial test of the country's push to develop a supersonic successor to the retired Concorde."
"The Concorde first flew in 1969 and became a symbol of French and European industrial acumen." ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
Actually the Concorde was a Franco-British project, not a Franco-European one (whatever that means).
"The development project was negotiated as an international treaty between Britain and France
Surely such a rare collaboration between the cheese-munchers and the Perfide Anglais deserves to be recognised... 8-)
Soviets had the first Supersonic aircraft; Tupolev TU-144
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-144
Concorde was NOT the first supersonic passenger aircraft.
Read the WHOLE fine article. This is an experiment to test aerodynamics. If successful, they intend to test something with a jet engine. This one is by no means the intended passenger carrying configuration.
The issue isn't one of running out of oil, but one of production decreasing. Nobody has said that oil is running out, in fact we'll probably never extract all the fossil fuel from the ground. The world's economy depends on the assumption that there will be more fuel tomorrow than there is today. This assumption cannot hold forever, and there are some indications that worldwide petroleum production is close to peak. In fact, oil production in the US, UK and other nations has already peaked. This, coupled with huge increases in Chinese fuel consumption, have led to the current increase in oil prices. I am not an environmentalist, but I realize that serious steps must be taken to mitigate the economic and geopolitical consequences.
With all that in mind, I have a hard time justifying a supersonic commercial airplane, especially when our airlines are already struggling to operate. For example, Delta airline's stock price has fallen from over $75 per share in 1999 to $1.41. Granted, 9/11 did affect air travel, but the number of airline passengers has since surpassed 9/11 levels. Fuel prices are currently gutting the airlines. How would such an aircraft help an airline continue to move people and goods by returning a profit?
To quote from an experienced airline pilot:
"If the depressurization is catastrophic, i.e., a structural failure, like a hatch or cargo door, the flight crew is totally surprised and a little bit shocky. The Captain and co-pilot experience strange physiological events and are thinking, "What the heck is going on?" At an altitude of 34,000 feet, the next thought had better be, "Oh s***t, I need to get on oxygen right now!" If they do not, then it is lights out.
2. Altitude chambers are realistic training devices, but the students are expecting the event and are anxious to see how long they can maintain useful consciousness. Most young pilots can maintain 20-30 seconds. In a real event, lung pressure is sharply reduced as the pilots gasp in surprise. While the brain is in denial, the clock is running, and unconsciousness is only a few seconds away.
3. Since the beginning of high altitude airline operations (60 years or so), crew oxygen bottle valves have been mistakenly turned off, or rather, failed to be turned on when that bottle is replaced for normal maintenance or refill. Part two of this scenario- the pilots fail to find the closed valve during preflight. Then, when the crew tries to use their quick donning masks... oops!"
PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
The designers of Concorde looked at Mach 3 flight but were constrained by the materials available at the time. The only material up to Mach 3 were various titanium alloys of which neither Britain nor France had much experience, so they chose aluminium alloys. Aluminium has a much lower tolerance to high temperatures, so they had to reduce the maximum speed to keep frictional heating low.
I wonder if the same applies today? Titanium was used on the SR71, but that was a plane notorious for leaking fuel when sitting on the ground - not the most inspiring sight for wannabe passengers!
The FAA does, unless the mask can be placed on the pilots face, sealed, and supplying oxygen within 5 seconds.
However, wearing a mask is required if either pilot leaves the cockpit (for a bio-break) above approximately 25,000 MSL.
The rules are here:
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_12 1-333.html
Never say never.
Someone posted a story from one of the SR-71 test pilots just a few days ago to my local EAA chapter's mail list. The pilot was recanting a test in the early days of the test program, when the engine stall was still a major problem. His engine stall on a maneuver, and the result hard yaw put him into a spin.
To make a long story short, the wind forces shredded the airplane from around him and he landed with his ejection seat intact from an initial altitude of 78,000 ft. He gave a lot of credit to his altitude suit for saving his life. His co-pilot died with a broken neck before reaching the ground.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Like when the Concorde lost part of it's rudder at Mach 2 over the Atlantic and no one knew until a few minutes before landing?
Drag (the force that pulls badly-fastened cargo doors off of 747s) is reduced at Supersonic speed. The Concorde wasn't lost during supersonic flight, and a supersonic passenger aircraft has never been lost in revenue service because of structural failure.
The Concorde went down shortly after takeoff because a piece of metal on the runway pierced a fuel tank and started a catastrophic fire. In other words, the accident happened when most aircraft accidents happen: during takeoff or landing, the two most dangerous parts of any flight, no matter the aircraft's type, purpose, or cruising speed.
None of the giants of supersonic flight (MiG-25, SR-71, A-12, Concorde) were ever lost due to structural failure during supersonic flight - so your post about "no hope of survival" when a supersonic plane breaks up makes little sense to me. There's little hope of survival in anything that happens to come apart at over 20,000 feet.
I must admit that after reading your post, it was tempting to advise you to have a rectocraniotomy, but I think Slashdot needs more info and less flaming. I hope my simple presentation of facts will enlighten you.
My "2" key is a bit sticky and does not work. I didn't see the missing 2 until I posted it. It's bad form to reply to my own post, I know some smarty pants would correct it. If you can PROVE Global Warning beyond a doubt just as the laws of physics are, then do so, otherwise shut up about it. When we have a planet that is 4 BILLION years old and we have a record of perhaps 1-5 Million years, that is NOT significant. Ice Core samples, volcanic rocks, etc give some readings but you only see data published to support GW, never does anyone tout results that disprove it since that would cut off thier research funds. It is a self-perpetuating lie. Here is a quote from the Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA who have been running experiments from 1978 to present refining thier techniques and publishing peer reviewed papers on the data and analysis. "The new global trend from Dec 1978 to July 2005 is +0.123 C/decade, or +0.035 C/decade warmer than v5.1. This particular error is within the published margin of error for LT of +/- 0.05 C/decade (Christy et al. 2003)." Also look at this chart: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/land_o_ C.all
You'll see that the raw data and you can see there is very little to indicate a warming. The data goes up and down, with overall a tiny positive trend but not significant.
In case you live in the UK here is something about warming there:
Tony Blair appears convinced by the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis but atmospheric CO2 levels do not fit changes in the CET [Central England Temperature] at all well. For example, from 1695 to 1733, the annual mean temperature rose from 7.25 C to 10.47 C at a time when there was negligible change in atmospheric CO2 - the running mean did not return to such readings until the 1990s. On the other hand, annual mean temperatures fell from 10.62 C in 1949 to 8.47 C by 1963, a period when atmospheric CO2 levels were measurably rising. Greenhouse does not appear to be exerting a strong influence on the CET.
Hey, as long as you're willing to take out a bank loan to fly then I guess that's your problem. Concorde cost 1,000 per person per hour to fly--then France and Britian took about half of that in the shorts. The program was never meant to be profitable, it was a demonstration of technology, ability, and the economic superiority of the west.
It will never be profitable to fly a supersonic airliner. It's barely profitable to fly a giant sky bus, and the aircraft manufactuers realize this. They're building even bigger planes to take advantage of economy of scale and the increased efficiency of ginormous engines--and they're aimed specifically at the pacific routes.
The only way supersonic travel will ever be profitable is in the Gulfstream V size class. Get one of those to go Mach 2, and people/businesses that can afford $25,000/hour will eat it up like mad.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
airspeed is inversely proportional to the amount of fuel you burn
/\
Um, no, it's a curve. At slow speeds the fuel use per distance is less than at the optimum speed and then it decreases again from there. It's like this:
Anyway, my point is that the designers are stuck in a mindset of using only turbofan engines. Pulsejet engines in particular promises to be much more fuel efficient at high speeds per mile travelled and passenger carried. Technology has gone from props to jets in a quick amount of time and then from turbojets to... turbofans (a relatively minor inprovement) in a long amount of time.
It flew to Athens, over Athens, past Athens, turned toward the sea and entered a holding pattern for an hour, then ran out of gas.
0 ,-5219231,00.html
The fire was a brush fire ignited by the crash. Planes and their contents are surprisingly flammable, even without excess fuel.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,128
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix