Discussion
Beati Dogu said:
Boeing's 2707 would win the design runoff, but never got beyond 2 incomplete prototypes before the SST concept started falling apart & Congress pulled the plug in 1971.
2707 failed because it was too heavy and too expensive...The weight issue forced them to head down the lightweight materials route, but it has to withstand the high temps of Mach 3, so Titanium.
They had to develop new ways to work with the material, increasing development costs and time.
As Titanium was less available at that time and much more expensive than Aluminium the costs just kept on climbing.
Engines were under powered for the Mach 3 performance expected and couldn't super-cruise, making the economics of the plane unviable.
I always felt the US supersonic passenger aircraft suffered a bit from "I want a bigger one" syndrome. When the Anglo-French SST design was already pushing the boundaries of technology, deciding the US was going to go faster/further/bigger seemed like a way to set it up to fail from the start.
Flooble said:
I always felt the US supersonic passenger aircraft suffered a bit from "I want a bigger one" syndrome. When the Anglo-French SST design was already pushing the boundaries of technology, deciding the US was going to go faster/further/bigger seemed like a way to set it up to fail from the start.
AgreedThey wanted Mach 3 to beat Concorde which 'only' did Mach 2.2, thus ensuring they couldn't build it from aluminium alloy.
They wanted to carry more passengers than Concorde, which resulted in a much bigger and heavier aircraft which would have used more fuel and created more intense sonic booms
Sometimes bigger and faster is not better
Blue Origin have lost their federal court lawsuit to be part of NASA's Human Lander System contract. Bezos has already said they won't appeal it further. So it's back on and NASA can start paying & cooperating with SpaceX on it again.
"Not the decision we wanted, but we respect the court’s judgment, and wish full success for NASA and SpaceX on the contract."
- Jeff Bezos
https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1456311095761...
"Not the decision we wanted, but we respect the court’s judgment, and wish full success for NASA and SpaceX on the contract."
- Jeff Bezos
https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1456311095761...
MartG said:
Flooble said:
I always felt the US supersonic passenger aircraft suffered a bit from "I want a bigger one" syndrome. When the Anglo-French SST design was already pushing the boundaries of technology, deciding the US was going to go faster/further/bigger seemed like a way to set it up to fail from the start.
AgreedThey wanted Mach 3 to beat Concorde which 'only' did Mach 2.2, thus ensuring they couldn't build it from aluminium alloy.
They wanted to carry more passengers than Concorde, which resulted in a much bigger and heavier aircraft which would have used more fuel and created more intense sonic booms
Sometimes bigger and faster is not better
Not necessarily.
The technology behind Concorde was late 50s/early 60s in regards to structures and aerodynamics. The flight control system was semi-fly by wire, but analogue.
It will make far more use of composite materials and may have a heat protection system to allow higher Mach numbers to be achieved. Since the 1960s, an awful lot of work has gone into making supersonic aircraft that produce a much attenuated sonic bang.
Concorde used afterburning turbojets, which were not very fuel efficient, and woefully inefficient by modern standards. A new supersonic airliner design would use a turbofan of some sort.
On the outside it may look superficially like a Concorde, but internally it will be quite different.
The technology behind Concorde was late 50s/early 60s in regards to structures and aerodynamics. The flight control system was semi-fly by wire, but analogue.
It will make far more use of composite materials and may have a heat protection system to allow higher Mach numbers to be achieved. Since the 1960s, an awful lot of work has gone into making supersonic aircraft that produce a much attenuated sonic bang.
Concorde used afterburning turbojets, which were not very fuel efficient, and woefully inefficient by modern standards. A new supersonic airliner design would use a turbofan of some sort.
On the outside it may look superficially like a Concorde, but internally it will be quite different.
Was probably wearing a red vest under his flight suit...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/12/bl...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/12/bl...
frisbee said:
Was probably wearing a red vest under his flight suit...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/12/bl...
Yes, very sad to hear that. Killed in a light plane crash with one other person, Thomas Fischer - the pilot presumably. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/12/bl...
Glen De Vries is on the left in this photo:
frisbee said:
Was probably wearing a red vest under his flight suit...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/12/bl...
"You can't take it with you". So money on the Space flight was well spent.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/12/bl...
Beati Dogu said:
Yes, very sad to hear that. Killed in a light plane crash with one other person, Thomas Fischer - the pilot presumably.
Glen De Vries is on the left in this photo:
Just found out about this yesterday - very sad. Ironic too in that flying a small Cessna should be way less dangerous than riding a rocket.Glen De Vries is on the left in this photo:
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff