PDA

View Full Version : anyone seen this?



georgeo76
06-15-2005, 06:57 PM
ON msn (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8229113/)

Tooz_69GIAP
06-15-2005, 07:38 PM
Very interesting

jarink
06-15-2005, 10:45 PM
It will suffer from (or have to overcome) the same problems the Concorde had.
Noise pollution
Tokyo-NYC will have to cross over US mainland. One way around noise problem would be to slow down before leaving cruise altitude or go way out over the ocean to lose altitude.
Fuel consumption/costs
Not sure if there's a way around this.
Lack of suitable airports with long enough runways.
Swing wings would be prohibitively expensive, so I'd bet on a delta configuration like the concorde. With some newer aerodynamic tricks (like canards) it might work.

LEXX_Luthor
06-15-2005, 10:57 PM
Depends. If it can fly high enough, the sonic boom may not be so bad. Other than that, the biggest Concorde noise problem was on takeoff -- I think. Not sure.

From NY to Japan you go over Canada and the Arctic Circle, and a bit over what used to be extreme eastern Soviet Union. I think airlines are trying to move to polar flights now. I really don't know.

Be interesting to see drag chutes on landing, or tailhooks on airliners. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

diomedes33
06-16-2005, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
Noise pollution
Tokyo-NYC will have to cross over US mainland. One way around noise problem would be to slow down before leaving cruise altitude or go way out over the ocean to lose altitude.


There was a lot of research done in the 60's and 70's on shaping the sonic boom so it goes up instead of down. If you see a plane that looks like a cross between an F-5 and a Guppy that's what they were doing with it.

Today they're working more on finding a way to break up the leading edges so the sonic boom becomes a series of really small ones. Articles I read describe it as rolling thunder.

I misplaced the links, but I could probably dig them up again if anyone is interested.

For the other two points. The Concord was a 60/70's design. With the use of new composite materials and manufacturing techniques, weight will be reduced considerably. Less weight will require less lift. With computers that they couldn't even dream of in the 60's, aerodynamic optimization is a great deal easier now. With less needed lift (lower induced drag) and less parasite drag, the airplane will need smaller engines and less fuel.

So these issues are still issues, but hopefully it won't be as big as they were for the Concord. IMHO, the deal breaker will be design costs and mantanence.

stubby
06-16-2005, 06:23 AM
military application of this new plane type could be profound. No need to station US bombers over seas. Put them all in Iowa and they could hit any target on the planet in under 8 hours.

LilHorse
06-16-2005, 07:52 AM
The flight capabilities and infrastructural logistics of such a fleet are not in doubt. Concorde proved that those things could be achieved.

The problem is it's a mistake to think that speed is more important than capacity in the airline business.

The way you make money with an airline is by putting lots and lots of butts in seats. Not by making the planes faster. So bigger airliners make more sense than faster airliners from a business standpoint. At some point in the equation most people are less concerned with how fast they can get to their destination than they are with how cheaply they can get there.