Japanese Supersonic Airplane

[catbirdseat]

It's pretty cool that they are working on this, but it would be more cool if we were working on it. Yes, we supposedly have a military version called Aurora, but I doubt it solves any of the problems that led to the demise of the Concord.

 

Story

 

I'm curious as to the reasons why they would use a rocket to test the aerodynamics of the air frame rather than use the jet engines they've already developed. Is it because they don't want to risk losing the air frame and the engines in the same crash?

[archenemy]

Yes, we supposedly have a military version called Aurora, but I doubt it solves any of the problems that led to the demise of the Concord.

 

You mean bankruptcy?

[fenderfour]

because rockets are relatively cheap when compared to a jet engine.

[olyclimber]

I thought it was Gravity that forced down the Concorde.

[archenemy]

because rockets are relatively cheap when compared to a jet engine.

Except when they fall off too soon.

[fenderfour]

Especially when they fall off too soon and crash the whole damn thing.

[Dr_Crash]

Wasn't an American plane (or rather debris from a ...) that provoked the demise of the Concorde? Talk about anti-competitive practices from Boeing...

 

drC

[catbirdseat]

That event was just the coffin nail. The Concorde was too expensive to operate and too noisy.

 

Boeing was working on an SST in the 1970s. It was going to have a swing wing, like the F-111 and the B-1b Lancer, to make it more efficient at subsonic speeds. As it was told to me, they couldn't figure out how to keep the weight down. That may be more feasible with today's composite technology.

[MCash]

I really like Boeing's idea, the Sonic Cruiser for a higher speed aircraft (nonsupersonic). Too bad they axed it.

 

[archenemy]

Yeah, but they got a nice photo-shop job out of it.

 

Plus, it would have only travelled 10% faster than existing commercial aircraft. Cool, but not as nifty as Mach 2.

[cj001f]

I really like Boeing's idea, the Sonic Cruiser for a higher speed aircraft (nonsupersonic). Too bad they axed it.

Funny I was just talking with an engineer who was on that project tonite. His thought was it's a project that will some day be reborn, when customers willing to pay for it.

[archenemy]

If they figure out how to mitigate the sonic boom on a faster craft first, the sonic cruiser will become obsolete before its birth.

[AlpineK]

That event was just the coffin nail. The Concorde was too expensive to operate and too noisy.

 

Boeing was working on an SST in the 1970s. It was going to have a swing wing, like the F-111 and the B-1b Lancer, to make it more efficient at subsonic speeds. As it was told to me, they couldn't figure out how to keep the weight down. That may be more feasible with today's composite technology.

 

In the prototypes when they folded back the wings the wings would start to melt from the heat of the engines.

 

The original SST was just a big waste of money. What killed the project is congress denied Boeing money to build it. Super sonic planes are for the military. Just look at the concord; they only built a handfull of the planes, and they could hardly turn a profit without government funding.

 

You're getting in the deep end of the pool there Catturd. I've known one of the engineers on the project for over 40 years.

[archenemy]

You're not even forty years old, are you?

[AlpineK]

Sadly I'm over 40.

[Guiran]

I'm curious as to the reasons why they would use a rocket to test the aerodynamics of the air frame rather than use the jet engines they've already developed. Is it because they don't want to risk losing the air frame and the engines in the same crash?

 

Scramjets and ramjets don't work at speeds below Mach 1. So there's this little problem with getting off the ground.

[JoshK]

Air traffic these days is about CHEAP, and secondarly (very secondarily) speed, comfort, etc...this is why the 787 is going to wipe the floor with the "look at the big toy we built" piece of bloated airbus crap. Similarly, supersonic just plain costs too much. As the concord proved, the market of people that need to fly thousands of miles very quickly and are willing to pay an assload for it is too small.

[catbirdseat]

That event was just the coffin nail. The Concorde was too expensive to operate and too noisy.

 

Boeing was working on an SST in the 1970s. It was going to have a swing wing, like the F-111 and the B-1b Lancer, to make it more efficient at subsonic speeds. As it was told to me, they couldn't figure out how to keep the weight down. That may be more feasible with today's composite technology.

 

In the prototypes when they folded back the wings the wings would start to melt from the heat of the engines.

 

The original SST was just a big waste of money. What killed the project is congress denied Boeing money to build it. Super sonic planes are for the military. Just look at the concord; they only built a handfull of the planes, and they could hardly turn a profit without government funding.

 

You're getting in the deep end of the pool there Catturd. I've known one of the engineers on the project for over 40 years.

Where did I claim an opinion that an economic supersonic transport could be built? Certainly, jet engine technology has advanced a great deal in 40 years, but supersonic flight remains very expensive. And the environmental issues are still there with NOx pollution of the stratosphere.

[AlpineK]

You implied that use of fancy pants hightech materials could make the plane feasible/economic.

 

No matter what you do, when you go supersonic you're talking about using a boat load of fuel and you have to make a narrow plane...thus you can't fit many passengers in it.

 

Josh is right people want to fly cheap. Hell most of your time flying is spent sitting in the airport.

[fenderfour]

YOu would need very efficient engines to make a supersonic aircraft feasible for a profitable service. No matter what, you need a lot of power and therefore a lot of fuel. The Gen X engines being developed for the 787 are some of the most efficietn ever, but they do not porduce enough thrust to go supersonic.

 

There has been a lot of research done to mitigate the sonic boom utilizing special flight surfaces that produce turbulence to break up the airflow. It's pretty neat stuff. While they haven't been able to completely eliminate the boom, they have made it a lot quieter. With a few more years of reseach, they can probably get it down to levels that would allow flight over populated areas.

 

A full composite structure can save about 20% of airframe weight while making the whole structure stronger, less prone to corrosion and more fatigue resistant.

 

A significant amount of weight is added for a grounding system of the internal systems. In a metal airplane, all of the systems are grounded to the airframe locally. This is not possible on a composite aircraft so a seperate common grounding grid is required.

 

The increased cost of flying this plane would be driven back to the passengers. The passengers, in turn would expect a higher level of service, which means more weight on the plane, more non-revenue generating weight means higher ticket cost, etc...

 

In short, not any time soon.

[mec]

the higher level of service the passengers would expect is the speed. they would be paying to get somewhere faster. That in itself is worth alot, even if there were no TVs in the back of every seat.

[catbirdseat]

I have no idea how much you have to bring the cost down. One could certainly do much better than Concorde. Supersonic would forever remain for the privileged wealthy, who can and would pay a premium for speed.