48
The return of supersonic flight hinges on the race to solve one big hurdle | CNN (www.cnn.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The skies of Oklahoma City roared for six months in 1964 as military aircraft intentionally rattled the population below with a daily barrage of thunderous sonic booms. It was a controversial test — the consequences of which have lingered to this day.

Two approaches in the works could revolutionize air travel by making future supersonic passenger planes compliant with the FAA’s new noise rules: Colorado-based company Boom Supersonic, which is specifically mentioned in the FAA proposal, plans to use physics to prevent sonic booms from ever reaching the ground, regardless of plane design. NASA, on the other hand, is flying an experimental plane called X-59 that is specifically designed to reduce the intensity of the boom.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Sure that was why there was never really a business case for Concorde, but …..

  • I would pay a little more to get there a little faster. Research is not only trying to quiet the boom but also trying to make it more economical.
  • I believe the company listed there is focusing on private jets. Someone who can afford a private jet might be more likely to pay a premium to get there faster
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    You might be able to make it less uneconomical, but air resistance is a bitch. You wanna go twice as fast, you need four times as much power, and now you need a heavier plane to carry all that fuel. Which uses more fuel because of how heavy it is. Diminishing returns kicked in before you even got airborne, and now you're just throwing thrust at the problem and you're throwing fuel at the thrust.

    Sure, there are some people who don't give a fuck, and would be willing to expend whatever in fuel and emissions to build a plane that will use as much fuel as a commercial liner that carries hundreds to get six people to Dubai a couple hours faster, but no sane government would allow that kind of plane to be built or even land on their territory because of how plainly awful that math is for everybody not richer than god.

    Right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago

    but air resistance is a bitch. You wanna go twice as fast, you need four times as much power

    Unless your supersonic aircraft is up a lot higher than your subsonic one. Coffin corner is a different beast when you can go above Mach 1.

    So perhaps this will work out as twice as fast for only 3 times the fuel. An acceptable tradeoff, perhaps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago*

    There are people who DGAF, and there are people who don't mind flying at a higher altitude, where the air is thinner and the resistance is less.

    Oh, about the fuel thing... I go fishing with my Uncle, he's got a little V8 inboard, probably spends $10 per day to go out and catch our licensed limits of fish. He's got a friend who won the lottery and bought a big 1200hp outboard open fisherman, he'll go blow $1000 in fuel in the same time to catch half as many fish, but he does get to go farther, faster.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago

    I haven't met a lot of private jet owners, but one in particular I absolutely know would buy a faster private jet if he could get one - and private jets are a lot like beach mansions - generally, the people who can afford one, can afford several.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent