Post by pj747 on Nov 19th, 2011 at 3:58pm
[quote author=CoolP link=1321136482/30#43 date=1321716238
I'm sorry, Peter, I can't follow you on those 'NASA talks' you mention. I can't relate the passenger size of a plane to the actual supersonic boom appearance and/or avoidance. Please explain that in more detail if you like. Me is interested. :)[/quote]
NASA's design for a quiet supersonic transport entails an aircraft that is designed around reducing the sonic boom footprint, requires a very special airframe. Therefore, its going to be small, and have little room for passengers:
I read in aviation week that NASA's design may reduce sonic booms, but the whole ideas of having an SST requires low sonic booms, because airlines are going to want to use their planes over-land too, and it can't be done. If there had been demand for an SST, we'd have a third-generation SST by now, like we have a third-generation 747. But there isn't demand. They've had concepts over the years, ideas, plans, they've all gone with the wind. Fact is, as cool as supersonic flight is, there isn't demand for SST's to spend the millions of research, development, and buying those sort of planes. Look at this site: http://heritageconcorde.com/?page_id=3103 There were 18 airlines who had orders for the Concorde, and only two decided to use them. The 2707 was cancelled because the U.S government saw it wasn't going to be economical for both airlines, and the government's subsidies, to make an SST. Don't say the technology isn't there, we haven't surpassed a 1967 record set by the SR-71 for fastest airplane in sustained level flight. We know how to build these things, but nobody has needed to, and that why we haven't.
I'm sorry, Peter, I can't follow you on those 'NASA talks' you mention. I can't relate the passenger size of a plane to the actual supersonic boom appearance and/or avoidance. Please explain that in more detail if you like. Me is interested. :)[/quote]
NASA's design for a quiet supersonic transport entails an aircraft that is designed around reducing the sonic boom footprint, requires a very special airframe. Therefore, its going to be small, and have little room for passengers:
I read in aviation week that NASA's design may reduce sonic booms, but the whole ideas of having an SST requires low sonic booms, because airlines are going to want to use their planes over-land too, and it can't be done. If there had been demand for an SST, we'd have a third-generation SST by now, like we have a third-generation 747. But there isn't demand. They've had concepts over the years, ideas, plans, they've all gone with the wind. Fact is, as cool as supersonic flight is, there isn't demand for SST's to spend the millions of research, development, and buying those sort of planes. Look at this site: http://heritageconcorde.com/?page_id=3103 There were 18 airlines who had orders for the Concorde, and only two decided to use them. The 2707 was cancelled because the U.S government saw it wasn't going to be economical for both airlines, and the government's subsidies, to make an SST. Don't say the technology isn't there, we haven't surpassed a 1967 record set by the SR-71 for fastest airplane in sustained level flight. We know how to build these things, but nobody has needed to, and that why we haven't.