Posted on 06/19/2007 8:17:08 AM PDT by Freeport
Is it quiet enough that the FAA might consider changing the rule about overland supersonic flight? That political concern, more than cost or technology, is what has limited the potential of these jets thus far.
Why is this plane missing the ugly but essential pellican bill shape nose that reduces significantly sonic boom?
Last thing we need is another super sonic jet that basically can only fly a few flights into NYC.
Interesting design, but I’m not sure I’d want to paint my wings with a design that’s very similar to a large hydraulic leak.
Looks like a silver bullit.
But the killing question is this: is there anybody who will want it?
From the image, I can’t tell if the forward bodies shape conforms well enough.
Why doesn’t it have swept wings?
I was thinking the same thng... :-)
Are you talking about the Concorde's "droop" nose? That droop was for visibility during takeoff and landing. The nose was rotated to "straight" during flight.
I don’t understand how you “quiet” a sonic boom. An aircraft breaking the sound barrier seems to result in an unavoidable boom and window-rattling result on the ground.
No, not talking about the cocords drop nose so that it could see the runway during landing and takeoff... I’m talking about this:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/sonic_booms.html
JT8D-219s? Does P&W even still make those? Man, those old warhorse JT8Ds just won’t go away.
Although I wonder what they would use on them to handle the problems with air flowing into the engines at supersonic speeds, something JT8Ds obviously aren’t designed for.
}:-)4
That is sure one ugly F-5. But I always thought the F-5/T-38 was a nice-looking airplane, regardless of its strengths or weaknesses.
See post 12 and follow the link.
Based on what happened with B.A., it was apparently maintence and fuel costs.
The aircraft can be shaped in such a way that the boom is muffled and/or directed upward. NASA has done some successful tests. But I don't know whether this aircraft uses such shaping, or whether the plan is to sell it as supersonic over water and subsonic over land.
Regarding Concorde? High maintenance and fuel costs have caused the retirement of most 35-year-old jet transports.
But the limited usefulness of supersonic jets (i.e. their inability to travel supersonically over land) is a large reason why more efficient supersonic jets were not developed, the way that subsonic airliners have become much more efficient over the years.
No, but P&W still supports them. There are plenty available from retired MD-80's. They may have to compete with the USAF for them. The E-3 AWACS and E-8 Joint STARS may both be reengined with the JT8D-219 rather than the CFM-56.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.