2 ms·

The podcast .NET Rocks has several "geek out" episodes, which go into depth about tech. About two years ago they did one on supersonic flight, and I remember a

by lev99 8y ago

The podcast .NET Rocks has several "geek out" episodes, which go into depth about tech. About two years ago they did one on supersonic flight, and I remember a lot of details about quiet sonic bombs there. Well worth a listen if someone wants to learn more about supersonic travel. Actually, all of the geek outs are fantastic. [Episode summary] > Concorde is gone, what will replace it? Time for a Geek Out! Richard talks about the aeronautical evolution that led to supersonic airliners, Concorde being the big one that flew from 1976 to 2003. What went wrong? Why did it stop flying? Besides the technological challenges, it all comes down to the sonic boom and laws that make it illegal to fly a civilian aircraft above the speed of sound. Richard talks about how technology has advanced enough now that aircraft can mitigate their sonic boom with specific shapes and flying capabilities. However, in the end, supersonics only get you there faster, typically for more money. Would you pay for to go faster? http://www.dotnetrocks.com/?show=1286 http://www.dotnetrocks.com/?show=1286

RCampbell 8y ago
The place where we ended up in that show is that airlines find that time and again, customers will pay for more luxury rather than time... a regular subsonic flight JFK-LHR is a bit over 7 hours, Concorde cut that to 3:15. But does that matter? People like the idea of getting there faster, but when it comes to actually spending money on it, most wouldn't do it. A one-way trip on Concorde was about $5000, and for that money, you got an old-school business-class seat (they never updated the interior of Concorde), no overhead bins, no internet access, no entertainment system of any kind. For that same money, you get the all-encompassing cocoon of the modern business-class pod on a 787. It may take twice as long, but you don't care because you're comfortable. Meantime, we're getting closer to manned hypersonic flight, Mach 5+ with combined cycle engines. Considering the development time necessary for a new airliner, especially with experimental technology like new supersonic engines, I think the LockMarts and Boeings of the world are waiting for more of that technology to mature. It would suck to develop a brand new Mach 2 airliner just in time for someone else to build a Mach 5 airliner. Also, the Mach 5 designs using ramjets would fly high enough (>80,000 feet) that sonic booms are really not an issue. The SR-71 at Mach 3 and 80,000 feet was virtually inaudible. Much of the experimentation going on around shaping sonic booms is proving contemporary fluid dynamic models that show that you can "customize" your N-Wave and make the kind of boom you want to make. Interesting times!

by lev99 8y ago

RCampbell 8y ago

The place where we ended up in that show is that airlines find that time and again, customers will pay for more luxury rather than time... a regular subsonic flight JFK-LHR is a bit over 7 hours, Concorde cut that to 3:15. But does that matter? People like the idea of getting there faster, but when it comes to actually spending money on it, most wouldn't do it. A one-way trip on Concorde was about $5000, and for that money, you got an old-school business-class seat (they never updated the interior of Concorde), no overhead bins, no internet access, no entertainment system of any kind. For that same money, you get the all-encompassing cocoon of the modern business-class pod on a 787. It may take twice as long, but you don't care because you're comfortable. Meantime, we're getting closer to manned hypersonic flight, Mach 5+ with combined cycle engines. Considering the development time necessary for a new airliner, especially with experimental technology like new supersonic engines, I think the LockMarts and Boeings of the world are waiting for more of that technology to mature. It would suck to develop a brand new Mach 2 airliner just in time for someone else to build a Mach 5 airliner. Also, the Mach 5 designs using ramjets would fly high enough (>80,000 feet) that sonic booms are really not an issue. The SR-71 at Mach 3 and 80,000 feet was virtually inaudible. Much of the experimentation going on around shaping sonic booms is proving contemporary fluid dynamic models that show that you can "customize" your N-Wave and make the kind of boom you want to make. Interesting times!