Japan Plans Test of 'New Concorde' 424
Steve Nixon writes "Japan's space agency plans to launch an arrow-shaped airplane at twice the speed of sound high over the Australian outback as early as next month in a crucial test of the country's push to develop a supersonic successor to the retired Concorde."
Hmmm (from TFA) (Score:2, Funny)
I, for one, think it would be infinitly cooler to fly in a rocketship than in a crummy supersonic jet.
Seen it already (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:5, Funny)
This is Japan we're talking about (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is Japan we're talking about (Score:2)
Running on Bistromathics? [wikipedia.org]
Re:This is Japan we're talking about (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:5, Insightful)
The plane that crashed in Greece flew on autopilot until it ran out of gas.
Had the autopilot detected the loss of cabin pressure and immediately dropped to the lowest safe altitude (10,000 if there aren't any mountains to run into, for instance), the pilots would have regained consciousness and 150+ people wouldn't have died (not to mention the loss of a very expensive piece of equipment).
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:5, Insightful)
What you need to be asking is why didnt the cockpit oxygen systems work? You have 15 - 30 seconds to put an oxygen mask on at 35,000ft so how was it that neither Pilot or Flight Officer managed to get their (independant) mask on and descend the aircraft?
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:5, Informative)
"If the depressurization is catastrophic, i.e., a structural failure, like a hatch or cargo door, the flight crew is totally surprised and a little bit shocky. The Captain and co-pilot experience strange physiological events and are thinking, "What the heck is going on?" At an altitude of 34,000 feet, the next thought had better be, "Oh s***t, I need to get on oxygen right now!" If they do not, then it is lights out.
2. Altitude chambers are realistic training devices, but the students are expecting the event and are anxious to see how long they can maintain useful consciousness. Most young pilots can maintain 20-30 seconds. In a real event, lung pressure is sharply reduced as the pilots gasp in surprise. While the brain is in denial, the clock is running, and unconsciousness is only a few seconds away.
3. Since the beginning of high altitude airline operations (60 years or so), crew oxygen bottle valves have been mistakenly turned off, or rather, failed to be turned on when that bottle is replaced for normal maintenance or refill. Part two of this scenario- the pilots fail to find the closed valve during preflight. Then, when the crew tries to use their quick donning masks... oops!"
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:4, Informative)
The FAA does, unless the mask can be placed on the pilots face, sealed, and supplying oxygen within 5 seconds.
However, wearing a mask is required if either pilot leaves the cockpit (for a bio-break) above approximately 25,000 MSL.
The rules are here:
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_12 1-333.html [flightsimaviation.com]
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some speculation [pprune.org] would indicate that there may have been problems with the oxygen supply to the two pilots.
If this was inoperative, then they may well have passed out whilst trying to figure out what was wrong or even trying to get to a secondary source [e.g. portable bottles held in the cabin].
There was an incident on board an aircraft in 1989 over the English Channel [I've lost the link to the official report]. The aircraft cabin altitude rose; the captain passed out; the first officer took control; the
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:5, Interesting)
The technology is there, but they decided that it's safer not to implement it that way. Sensors do alert the pilot if the cabin pressure exceeds safe levels, but the plane never takes control away from the pilot.
Consider the facts:
All things considered, the existing system was deemed the safest. We may never know the full details of the recent crash in Greece, but we can be sure that there was more to the story than just that.
That being said, I would also point out that there is some merit to your argument. There have been enough crashes like the one in Greece to warrant further investigation--yes, it has happened multiple times that jets have depressurized and flown on autopilot until they run out of fuel. And in some of these cases, fighter jets have intercepted these craft in the air and found things like frosted over windows and a fully unconscious crew. Spooky.
The technology exists (though, admittedly not in the older 737s). Modern civilian aircraft can navigate between any two points on their earth avoiding terrain and reporting their location and status to ATC, all without pilot intervention. If the airport and aircraft are properly equipped (most aren't), they can even land unassisted by the pilot. But while we tend to tolerate some degree of human error in almost everything, if some undamaged computer or mechanical component fails to perform adequately, inquiries and lawsuits always follow.
The equipment to do all this is frighteningly expensive, but available. It's reliable, but not foolproof. But then again, the same goes for a human pilot.
So is it worth it? I don't know.
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:3, Interesting)
So I don't think there is "ample" time, though maybe sufficient time under normal to optimal conditions (both pilots in their seat, everything goes according to plan, etc).
I agree the technology exists while the profi
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:4, Informative)
The fire was a brush fire ignited by the crash. Planes and their contents are surprisingly flammable, even without excess fuel.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,128
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Tomahawk missile can fly several hundred miles at very low altitude, avoiding terrain all the while, and hit a target within a few feet of error margin. Current production units cost under $600,000 per missile (and you don't need the rest of the missile), which might be less than the life insurance of one passenger.
Another alternative comes from Predator UAV technology, which I believe allows a g
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:2)
It entered a holding pattern after passing the intended destination airport, but left that holding pattern a few minutes before crashing, presumably when switched off by the still-conscious male flight attendant, who had a small craft pilots license.
I agree turning ON the autopilot would be bad, but if the plane is already on autopilot, as this was, it would have save the lives of these people. As it was they stayed at alt
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh no, I've heard of them.
But since we all know the airline industry makes such major changes with a cost-benefit analysis, they're going to do the math on how many planes are likely to have at-altitude decompression, how many people will die, and work out the total cost of the upgrades.
If the upgrades cost more than the insurance payout, no changes will get made. That's a simple f
This is the next step (Score:5, Insightful)
My choice would be a spaceplane of sorts that takes parabolic trajectories. I've been hearing about plans of a craft of this type that would get you from NY to Tokyo in 45 minutes.
Burt Rutan WHERE ARE YOU?!
Sign me up.
Re:This is the next step (Score:4, Insightful)
The Concorde, having come into existence decades before the explosion of the Internet and stuff like videoconferencing, was rolled out at a time when business and government folks (the only ones for whom it could ever be anything but a luxury) had a much greater need for a supersonic jetliner, and yet only sixteen were ever built. The entire project would almost certainly have been a complete and dismal failure had there not been massive subsidies from the French and British governments keeping the thing in the air.
There in the end, the Concorde was having a hard time filling seats - yes, the crash in 2000 and Sep. 11 played into this, but my guess is that the demand was already dropping, and these events just exacerbated the situation.
This Japanese supersonic jetliner is about as necessary as the Bugati Veyron or a jet turbine powered motorcycle.
Re:This is the next step (Score:5, Insightful)
To the point that you'd pay a significant surcharge to already be at your destination, asleep in your hotel room.
The high fuel consumption difficulty mentioned in TFA is what kept Concorde off of the Pacific routes; if that is resolved as the Japanese intend, I see a nice market for this plane.
Re:This is the next step (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is the next step (Score:5, Insightful)
That's simply bullshit. There is NOTHING magical about being supersonic. In fact, drag (and thus stress on the airframe) actually dips DOWN quite a bit just through the sound barrier. This is why you see few if any planes that just barely break mach 1. If it has enough thrust to go supersonic at all, it'll get to at least mach 1.7 or so. Mach 2 is NOT rocket science. This is not the shuttle re-entering at Mach 30.
Re:This is the next step (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think I can think of a *single* incident in which an aircraft has broken up during supersonic flight, excepting the early, fatally flawed attempts in the 1940s. There is counter-evidence as well. The SR-71s would sometimes stall an engine at Mach 3, resulting in a hard yaw to the side. That never broke the wings off any of 'em. Plane crashes basically happen only during takeoff and landing. Cruise flight is *incredibly* safe. You're up above the birds, the majority of the weather, etc. Besides that, losing your wings or half of the fuselage at 500mph is no LESS fatal than at 1500.
Re:This is the next step (Score:3, Informative)
Someone posted a story from one of the SR-71 test pilots just a few days ago to my local EAA chapter's mail list. The pilot was recanting a test in the early days of the test program, when the engine stall was still a major problem. His engine stall on a maneuver, and the result hard yaw put him into a spin.
To make a long story short, the wind forces shredded the airplane from around him and he landed with his ejection seat intact from an initial altitude of 78,000 ft. He gave a lot of cre
The Story (Score:3, Interesting)
Bill Weaver : SR-71 BREAKUP
Among professional aviators, there's a well-worn saying: Flying is simply hours of boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror. And yet, I don't recall too many periods of boredom during my 30-year career with Lockheed, most of which was spent as a test pilot. By far, the most memorable flight occurred on Jan. 25, 1966. Jim Zwayer, a Lockheed flight test reconnaissance and navigation systems specialis
Re:This is the next step (Score:5, Informative)
Like when the Concorde lost part of it's rudder at Mach 2 over the Atlantic and no one knew until a few minutes before landing?
Drag (the force that pulls badly-fastened cargo doors off of 747s) is reduced at Supersonic speed. The Concorde wasn't lost during supersonic flight, and a supersonic passenger aircraft has never been lost in revenue service because of structural failure.
The Concorde went down shortly after takeoff because a piece of metal on the runway pierced a fuel tank and started a catastrophic fire. In other words, the accident happened when most aircraft accidents happen: during takeoff or landing, the two most dangerous parts of any flight, no matter the aircraft's type, purpose, or cruising speed.
None of the giants of supersonic flight (MiG-25, SR-71, A-12, Concorde) were ever lost due to structural failure during supersonic flight - so your post about "no hope of survival" when a supersonic plane breaks up makes little sense to me. There's little hope of survival in anything that happens to come apart at over 20,000 feet.
I must admit that after reading your post, it was tempting to advise you to have a rectocraniotomy, but I think Slashdot needs more info and less flaming. I hope my simple presentation of facts will enlighten you.
Re:This is the next step (Score:3, Interesting)
Mostly because of a bad business model (Score:2)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The original concorde had a failed business model (granted, noise regulation around some American airports didn't help).
What has fundamentally changed since then, that is likely to make this more successful? I think on the contrary when new "regular" flights such as 787 (or the new Airbus) are somewhat faster and have much better communications (internet, etc), it will make the value proposition for a super-fast, super-expensive flight even more questionable.
Tor
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I dont understand your comment about the 787 or A350 being 'faster', as they are both subsonic. There will always be a market for supersonic flights, whether its serviced by a major airline or a private aircraft.
Re:This is the next step (Score:2)
I liked how the article put a slight negative spin on Concorde and this latest Japanese plane. Many Americans wish they were producing such a plane and are quite bitter than the UK and France have beat them to it in many areas of aviation (first with supersonic passenger jet, first to produce a horizontal take off fighter).
The important thing is will this plane generate much more damaging pollution? we shouldn't waste fuel
Only 10 million? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, their last one crashed into the desert in a fireball...so perhaps a little extra money could have been put to good use.
Re:Only 10 million? (Score:2)
I don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
The article did a good job writing up all the past failures of this Japanese program, but one thing that was conspicuously absent was a rationale for why Japan is doing this at all. Considering the fiscal failure of the Concorde, I would expect any article on this topic to include what the "next generation" plans to do differently other than just niftier technology.
Two reasons: (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Large bodies of water. You can't fly the concord at full speed over the continental united states (pretty much squashing SST in America). But you can do it over the vastness of the pacific. If you shorten that route, business men and women will beat a path to your door, check book in hand. So would international parcel carriers.
Re:Two reasons: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Atlantic is a very large body of water as well. Yet businesspeople did not beat a path to the old Concorde's doorstep looking for high-speed transatlantic flights. Why will the Pacific market be any different?
As for cargo, the original Concorde only had room enough for 100 or so passengers. That doesn't translate into a whole lot of cargo space. Considering the fact that cargo usually doesn't need to travel as quickly as people (even the most perishable cargo can last a few hours with proper packin
Re:Two reasons: (Score:2)
Parcel carriers need cargo space and low cost - neither of which this gives.
Plus, the air transit time is a small part of the total delievry time.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
And besides, it's cool.
Sometimes you have to look beyond simply making a profit.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be silly. There are PLENTY of foreign companies that sell to the US DoD. They usually have a presence in the American commercial market, but they do not need to be American companies.
For example, see British-based Rolls Royce - the largest customer for their defense division is now the pentagon:
http://economist [economist.com]
Re:I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, if it never turned a profit, or even broke even, I think "fiscal failure" is a pretty appropriate term. I agree with you in the sense that sometimes fiscal failures are necessary to develop and refine technology, as with the Concorde. But that doesn't change the fact that the venture didn't turn a profit. It also doesn't change the fact that the venture may have had successes in a non-financial sense (i.e. advancement of technology, boost of national prestige, etc.)
Perhaps, instead of fiscal fai
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2, Insightful)
there's a need for it (Score:5, Interesting)
what we need is a Concorde-replacement, not more bureaucracy and political bickering.
Re:there's a need for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, did they really make you eat 2 movies? Does it hurt?
Re:there's a need for it (Score:2)
they were already gonna spend that kind of money on a private jet, so why on a Concorde-successor that will save them twice the time, so they can get to twice the number of investors within a day/week ?
Not really very impressive. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd have thought we'd be capable of at least twice that by now.
It is capable of more than twice "that" (Score:2)
For certain definitions of that. :)
From aerospaceweb.org [aerospaceweb.org]:Re:Not really very impressive. (Score:5, Funny)
I just wrote that because I thought passengers-per-Mach was an amusing metric.
Re:Not really very impressive. (Score:2)
Re:Not really very impressive. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not really very impressive. (Score:2)
Re:Not really very impressive. (Score:2)
Re:Not really very impressive. (Score:4, Informative)
The designers of Concorde looked at Mach 3 flight but were constrained by the materials available at the time. The only material up to Mach 3 were various titanium alloys of which neither Britain nor France had much experience, so they chose aluminium alloys. Aluminium has a much lower tolerance to high temperatures, so they had to reduce the maximum speed to keep frictional heating low.
I wonder if the same applies today? Titanium was used on the SR71, but that was a plane notorious for leaking fuel when sitting on the ground - not the most inspiring sight for wannabe passengers!
But how much fuel does it use? (Score:5, Interesting)
How much energy does it take to break the sound barrier? I'm curious because I know that relatively cheap oil (< $200 per barrel) will end in a few decades [lifeaftertheoilcrash.net], and there don't yet seem to be any renewable jet fuels. After it becomes too expensive to extract oil from the ground, how are airlines going to keep their birds in the air?
Re:But how much fuel does it use? (Score:3)
Re:But how much fuel does it use? (Score:2)
Re:But how much fuel does it use? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:But how much fuel does it use? (Score:2)
Re:But how much fuel does it use? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But how much fuel does it use? (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in high school the military had brought over one of their choppers. The pilot told us one of the "cool" things about the jet turbine engine was that it could run on almost anything in a pinch, including alcohol, diesel, and gasoline.
That being the case, I don't see why you couldn't use biodiesel or methanol/ethanol to fuel a jet engine. There might be issues with the power curve for some models, but that likely just means changing the design parameters for future aircraft.
Re:But how much fuel does it use? (Score:2)
Re:But how much fuel does it use? (Score:2)
Get rid of your car if you can use public transit instead. I found an extra $12k in my pocket per year (insurance, parking, lease, etc.). That makes for a pretty good vacation even if flights quadrouple in price.
Finally. (Score:2, Insightful)
The techonology is already there, they just need to optimise it. This is a great collaboration of the two frontiers of technology, Europe and Japan.
This will probably get modded down by those American Boeing supporters, who have made nothing but new versions of 40 year old aircraft.
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE
Re:What? (Score:2)
I severely doubt it's anything more. A revoluionnary design would be far more hyped than this.
Our technical peak was the 60's? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Our technical peak was the 60's? (Score:4, Funny)
I believe the drop in development seems to be curiously related to the drop in the use of slide-rulers and the subsequent usage of electronic calculators.
Quick, someone smart research this and back me up.
Re:Our technical peak was the 60's? (Score:2)
Eugene Cernan was the last human on the moon, in December of 1972.
Re:Our technical peak was the 60's? (Score:2)
The "Comm" War will fix it (Score:2)
Re:Our technical peak was the 60's? (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems like it is possible to push ahead on certain technologies by throwing massive amounts of money at it, but unless the economy and society are ready for that technology, then it is going to fall flat on its face.
If some pressing ne
Price to fly (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see too many people using this service, unless somehow they can keep the ticket prices reasonable. And even that isn't very likely, considering the plane is strapped to a rocket.
Re:The US market is /not/ competetive (Score:2)
Very curious. (Score:3, Insightful)
Supersonic security lines? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey. That one actually seemed plausible. Oh well...
OK, seriously. Yes it's all well and good to go Mach 2 but this sounds like another pork barrel (rice basket?) project on the part of the Chinese. Aircraft speed is increasingly becoming less relevant to total travel time. Traveling to Asia will always take the better part of a day. There will always be an hour's drive to the airport, a two hour security buffer time, then 1 hour of customs on the other side. It gets even worse when you consider that Japan might not be your final destination.
8 hours is optimistic because the developers don't seem to have a plan for getting rid of the sonic boom, which means the airliner will have to fly overwater instead of over Canada. That might make supersonic flight to Asia only possible from the West Coast, not the East Coast.
When enough processes have been revamped to make traveling to Japan like going to New York for a day then maybe a supersonic transport might be worthwhile.
Re:Supersonic security lines? (Score:2)
I'd also give ~30 minutes to an hour for loading and taxying to the runway.
Rail/subways have proven to be a target for terrorists as well, so I imagine that even if we switched to a high speed fuel efficient railway system for long distance travel(advantage: take your family vehicle with you for a
Spot the disgruntled Brit (Score:2, Informative)
Actually the Concorde was a Franco-British project, not a Franco-European one (whatever that means).
"The development project was negotiated as an international treaty between Britain and France
Surely such a rare collaboration between the cheese-munchers and the Perfide Anglais deserves to be recognised... 8-)
Old Concept (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress killed it because of money problems.
Over 25 years later, we see the Japanese using the same technology as a commercial airliner. There is nothing really new here, only the implementation has changed.
Nonetheless, it's a good idea.
Re:Old Concept (Score:4, Insightful)
According to Wikipedia:
However, in reality, NASA found itself with a rapidly plunging budget. Rather than trying to adapt their long-term future to their dire financial situation, they attempted to save as many of the individual projects as possible. The mission to Mars was rapidly dismissed, but the Space Station and Shuttle conserved. Eventually only one of them could be saved, so it stood to reason that a low-cost Shuttle system would be the better option, because without it a large station would never be affordable.
A number of designs were proposed, but many of them were complex and varied widely in their systems. An attempt to re-simplify was made in the form of the "DC-3" by one of the few people left in NASA with the political importance to accomplish it, Maxime Faget, who had designed the Mercury capsule, among other vehicles. The DC-3 was a small craft with a 20,000-pound (9 tonne) (or less) payload, a four-man capacity, and limited maneuverability. At a minimum, the DC-3 provided a baseline "workable" (but not significantly advanced) system by which other systems could be compared for price/performance compromises.
The defining moment for NASA was when they, in desperation to see their only remaining project saved, went to the Air Force for its blessing. NASA asked that the USAF place all of their future launches on the Shuttle instead of their current expendable launchers (like the Titan II), in return for which they would no longer have to continue spending money upgrading those designs -- the Shuttle would provide more than enough capability.
The Air Force reluctantly agreed, but only after demanding a large increase in capability to allow for launching their projected spy satellites (mirrors are heavy).
The original space shuttle was just that -- a shuttlecraft not designed to carry heavy cargo into orbit.
At the end of the Apollo era, the politicians had collectively decided to give in to the "spend the money on earth" socialist types and were cutting the budget of a program that had succeeded both politically and technically. NASA had plans to build space stations, go to Mars and also to develop new vehicles to ferry cargo and another for crew. The "DC-3" space shuttle was that.
Instead, to preserve any of it's plans, NASA had to fold in the triumvirate of new spacecraft into one, and that to accomodate the Air Force.
This, in turn, led to the "compromise" design that has plagued the Shuttle since it's inception. fourteen people have died as a result of these compromises, which are namely:
1. Solid rocket boosters. The SS is the only man-rated vehicle of any nation to use SRB's as a primary boost source.
2. Side-carried "payload" -- namely the Shuttle itself. The original DC-3 design was a top-payload vehicle much like every other manned spaceraft. However, the size of the compromiwe vehicle would have required a booster larger than the Saturn V in order to achieve LEO. This, obviously was not enable, so the side-payload "piggyback" design was created using engines on the payload itself as a source of thrust for the vehicle.
Thus, we have what we have, and it is a flying compromise built by the lwest bidder by a company no longer in business for itself (Boeing acquired North American Rockwell.)
Time for a new shuttle, and one that goes back to the original vision.
RTWFA (Score:3, Informative)
Mark Twain's view on it (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps our CEOs and salesmen would actually work better if they had slower travel and had to organise their lives and companies in a more structured way. Perhaps they'd have to delegate more? Find local representatives they could trust? Learn to use video conferencing properly? Even make better business decisions.
Yes, I do know this is heresy on slashdot. And you know what? I don't care. Not now I know that Linus uses potty words and my last illusion is broken.
Re:Mark Twain's view on it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mark Twain's view on it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mark Twain's view on it (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I'd like to take a zeppelin to somewhere far away, like australia ( I'm in DC ). It'd be a two week trip each way, probably. I'd relax, and see the country, and ocean. My god, would it be beautiful.
Everybody's in too much of a damn hurry. I commute by bike, or on foot ( an hour walk, about ), and people are always shocked that I'm willing to take the time. I tell them it's good for the mind, for the soul. They shake their heads in disbelief.
I can work on my back porch (well balcony) (Score:3, Interesting)
Supersonic speed is S-L-O-W compared to light speed.
What keeps me commuting every damn day is that my manager INSISTS on my showing up at the office.
Ugh (Score:2, Funny)
Damn that horrible buzzword. Damn it to hell!
X-Prize (Score:2)
Anyone else notice the price tag (US$10 Mil)?
Revised headline should read:
Japanese Company Fails Bid to Win X-Prize; Japanese Government Picks up Research Tab
USSR did it earlier (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-144 [wikipedia.org]
Concorde was NOT the first supersonic passenger aircraft.
Going faster or going smarter? (Score:3, Interesting)
Point-to-point travel is the future - we may not realize it, but there's a lot of economic activity that goes on in places that aren't well served by the airlines. That's why Southwest is eating everyone's lunch. I'd think it would save more time in the long run to develop "free flight" systems so that air taxis and passenger services could fly people from smaller airports. Now that avionics manufacturers are really getting onto ease of use, flying a plane could become not that much harder than driving a car.
Potentially, "free flight" could be as disruptive as the Internet.
I would support this ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... if they incorporated research into sonic boom supression/elimination like this [nasa.gov], or this [nasa.gov].
I think finding a way to supress the sonic boom so that it can fly over any country is critical to the success of any future supersonic plane.
Re:Don't kill the Kangaroo(s) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Looks like ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Looks like ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's All About Jet-A (Score:4, Insightful)
The one constant about flight that you can depend on is that airspeed is inversely proportional to the amount of fuel you burn -- the faster you go, the more fuel you're burning for less increases in speed. This is why airliners almost *NEVER* fly at their maximum cruise speed...they fly at the airspeed that will get them to their destination using the least amount of expensive Jet-A.
Efficiency increases in the development of jet engines has mostly stalled and now the airline manufacturers are focusing on materials to improve efficiency (i.e. the Boeing 7E7 long-range aircraft).
The free market will decide the type of planes people will travel on. This is why Concorde is no longer flying. As beautiful as she was, she was a government project funded by European tax payers developed only for the purpose of showing European ingenuity and technological innovation. I would have loved to have flown in Concorde, but the airplane never recouped the billions spent developing/maintaining her. The project was a net loss -- big time.
Perhaps there is some future in Scramjet/Ramjet engines, but in today's market with high fuel prices it's all about fuel consumption per passenger per mile.
Re:It's All About Jet-A (Score:3, Informative)
Um, no, it's a curve. At slow speeds the fuel use per distance is less than at the optimum speed and then it decreases again from there. It's like this:
Anyway, my point is that the designers are stuck in a mindset of using only turbofan engines. Pulsejet engines in particular promises to be much more fuel efficient at high speeds per mile travelled and passenger carried. Technology has gone from props to jets in a quick amount
Re:Arrow shaped, hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Nope, they are just going to wing it. According to the article, there aren't even any engineers on the project. Only anime artists who are concerned with making the shape "as arrow as possible".