Concorde Alternative

This is not in doubt, but the Concorde did 'supercruise' in that it maintained mach 2 cruise in dry thrust by only using the afterburners for acceleration and then switching them off.

Imagine how much fuel would be needed to keep the burners lit on four Olympus engines for three hours, simply not feasible.

[edit on 27-9-2005 by waynos]

out of intrest im wondering if the B-1 could supercruise? I know its equiped with burners and that it can break into mach but how does it use its burning during mach flight if at all.

[edit on 27-9-2005 by Canada_EH]

Interesting question, I would guess that it does supercruise for the same reason I gave in my post above, the amount of fuel required to keep afterburners lit for any length of time is phenomenal. I think the B-1 cruises at around mach 1.6 doesn't it, or is that max speed? Maybe it only uses its supersonic performance for quick dash speeds and always cruises subsonically in order to keep the RCS returns down?

As you can tell, I'm only speculating.

Originally posted by waynos
Interesting question, I would guess that it does supercruise for the same reason I gave in my post above, the amount of fuel required to keep afterburners lit for any length of time is phenomenal. I think the B-1 cruises at around mach 1.6 doesn't it, or is that max speed? Maybe it only uses its supersonic performance for quick dash speeds and always cruises subsonically in order to keep the RCS returns down?

As you can tell, I'm only speculating.

Ok i looked up the info on the B-1B. they say it cruises at 1.2 mach seems slow to me. but from what you said waynos about the sub cruise for stealth it makes sence. I had a video a couple years ago that did say that it even usally flew with it wings un swept do to wanting to keep stealth. oh when u mention 1.6 for max speed that would make more sence then 1.2.

Originally posted by carcharodon
The Concorde achieved Supersonic speed through the use of afterburners, lie any regular fighter plane.

Correct. The noise problem with the concorde was not the sonic boom! I have been figuring it and it don't work. The plane is over the ocean most of the time, so its not a problem. But the Concorde had to remain subsonic over land, and had to cut the afterburners a few seconds after takeoff (I mean RIGHT when the wheel leave the pavement). So noise was a problem I think.

Simply to said, the only Concorde alternative now is world without Concorde.

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Originally posted by carcharodon
The Concorde achieved Supersonic speed through the use of afterburners, lie any regular fighter plane.

Correct. The noise problem with the concorde was not the sonic boom! I have been figuring it and it don't work. The plane is over the ocean most of the time, so its not a problem. But the Concorde had to remain subsonic over land, and had to cut the afterburners a few seconds after takeoff (I mean RIGHT when the wheel leave the pavement). So noise was a problem I think.

I don't know if you already know this, its not clear from your post, but don't forget that a sonic boom is not a continuous noise, it is a single and sudden bang as the sound barrier is exceeded, this is why Concorde could only accelerate to supersonic over the sea, and is why the US objections of sonic booms shattering all the windows in New York when Concorde approached were false hype.

i'm assuming that rules like that about noise also apply to military planes as well too. If thats the case I dont think they are as tight of rules cause they dont sound very quite when in the test range and that over land. Soooo if there was another "concorde" maybe there is a way of a landing that is over less lived in land.