It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supersonic airtravel

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by otlg27
Be very careful with all the talk about things like you can't do SST with fuel efficiency. Remember todays engine tech is *significantly* more efficient in terms of power to fuel than what was put into Concorde.


True, todays engine and airframe tech would potentially allow someone to come up with a viable Concorde replacement - but I stand by my opinion that it would still be significantly more expensive than a conventional aircraft. It would definately have a market - Concorde was making money from the early 1990s if you discount development costs.



Also be *very* careful in saying no one is working on replacements. I know of 3 projects (by way of a little birdie) in research/development for the SST market. 2 of them you can probably guess the manufacturers, the third you would be surprised..


Im still going to nod and smile at this, since there have been Concorde replacement/successors or beaters 'in development' since Concorde was first proposed. Boeings been talking about SST for 30 years now - still nothing to show! Seriously, when someone actually comes up with something solid and confirmed (eg announcement of prototype aircraft being built) then I will say theres a replacement in the works, but until then its all talk.



One interesting thing I can talk about due to public knowledge though is if you look at the Boeing Supercruiser (now off the drawing boards)


Ok, please dont take this as a flame question, Im genuinly interested
In what way is the Boeing Supercruiser off the drawing board? I havent heard anything concrete about it entering production, or even testing phases.




posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Boeing Super cruiser?
ummmm unles i'm mistaken isn't that old. Like 70's/80's old? I know it did some wind tunnel testing but I doubt Boeing is going to try and revive it.

A few days back I was discussing Super sonic passenger planes in another thread, so instead of me re typing all my info, I'll just post a link.

It disscesses Aerion's jet and the skunk works built SAI jet.

SSBJ



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I wonder if he means the 'Sonic Cruiser" concept that Boeing pushed before the 787?? It did not not cut it in terms of economics.

One other factor to consider when looking at SST's is cargo. They simply do not build them with that in mind. Ailines offset alot of cost with the capacity to carry cargo and all subsonic planes form the 777 to the A380 advertise this to the hilt.

I just do not see a huge cargo capacity due to the aerodynamic forms needed for supersonic flight.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Guys:

For clarification, when I said the sonic cruiser was off the drawing board, I meant it was cancelled, not in production.

However, the sonic cruiser was designed to operate in the high-drag transsonic region. My point was, if Boeing felt they could offer a reasonably economic plane in that category then a supersonic economic plane is *relatively* easy (don't anyone go putting words in my mouth
)

In short I was trying to put out that supersonic *could* be done with reasonable operating economies with todays technology, and that other factors are the make or break, not the efficiency/economy.

Osiris



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

otlg27
For clarification, when I said the sonic cruiser

Actually, you never had said sonic cruiser, you said super cruiser, which is a whole different plane.

and while yes, having a commercial supersonic airliner making money is possible with todays tech, it will only come of age when they make the BOOM down to boom.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Actually, you never had said sonic cruiser, you said super cruiser, which is a whole different plane.

ooops LOL.. my bad...


and while yes, having a commercial supersonic airliner making money is possible with todays tech, it will only come of age when they make the BOOM down to boom.


Actually there has been a lot of headway in that area (I'm just too lazy to google right now LOL)

Osiris



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Perhaps one of the reasons the Concord didnt succeed financial was because it didnt have the capacity to carry enough people to make the routes profitable.


The other reason was the second of four forces. Thrust, DRAG, Lift, Gravity. As you go transonic/supersonic, drag increases enormously thereby keeping the shareholders at Exxon-Mobil Very Happy Indeed.

Its physics. Not economics.

Now there must be some way around this (laser blast channels, plasma tubes, spacetime engineering), but for you and me, supersonic means Super Expensive. With the environmental concerns thrown in, forget it.

We are entering the Postsupersonic Age of Flight.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
As for environmentalists that are against supersonic flight governments around the world need to grow a spine and stand up to the hippys. Nearly 40 years has passed since the Concord first flew surely we now have the means of reducing nose levels.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Chakota
We are entering the Postsupersonic Age of Flight.

were allready in it. however it wont even last decade.

As for the environment...The future ones will go supersonic without after burners, so it wont be so fuel wastefull, and engines are always getting more efficient, and less noisy, so it's not going to ruin the environment.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
A major environmental concern was, is, and will be effects on atmospheric ozone. Of course, one or two planes is not going to make much difference, but if they were to become a fleet, the oxides of nitrogen and their effect on the ozone shield is a legitimate concern.

This is not to say that supersonic is not appropriate for combat or spacetravel. It just is not an efficient way of moving cattle around. We have the A380 for that



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
A major environmental concern was, is, and will be effects on atmospheric ozone. Of course, one or two planes is not going to make much difference, but if they were to become a fleet, the oxides of nitrogen and their effect on the ozone shield is a legitimate concern.

This is not to say that supersonic is not appropriate for combat or spacetravel. It just is not an efficient way of moving cattle around. We have the A380 for that





Odd.. a lot of the next gen supersonic work is being done with hydrogren as a possible source.. kinda defeats that arguement


Osiris



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Chakotay
A major environmental concern was, is, and will be effects on atmospheric ozone. Of course, one or two planes is not going to make much difference, but if they were to become a fleet, the oxides of nitrogen and their effect on the ozone shield is a legitimate concern.

This is not to say that supersonic is not appropriate for combat or spacetravel. It just is not an efficient way of moving cattle around. We have the A380 for that


huh? The ozone is no longer an issue, it has being healing for years.

I believe supersonic is a realm for everyone, not just military and space agencies. If you want to be hurded into a plane going 600 mph still in 20 years thats fine by me, but for me in 20 years nearly everything better be supersonic, if not hypersonic.

I like the A-380, and it definitely has its place, but we need more speed. Not to mention that most airliners have a small un-comfortable seat and you have to share armrest, and they expect you to sit there for hours...I dont think so. Change is Needed

[edit on 14-2-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   
from above

I was like 'Uhm, dude the Concorde was designed and built while you were still sucking on your mothers t*tties. There WAS no electronics or cameras capable of such a stunt '


and

Show me a camera build in the 1960s that had the reliability, durability, power and size that would have done the job. There were cameras around, but they were notoriously unreliable (on site television crews carried 2 or 3 spare cameras for each location) - not the sort of thing you want to commit to for a landing, and not many had the definition required to see the runway in less than idea conditions.

actually there was, in fact, more than 300 planes with cameras on board for landing/take off using them. i give you the boeing B52, it has cameras in the nose so blast curtains could be put over the cockpit windows so the pilots colud take off and land with out having to be blinded from the flash of atomic bombs.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join