NASA claims supersonic breakthrough

Cap'n Jack

Cap'n Jack

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
9,507
Location
Nebraska
Display Name
Cap'n Jack
Home Airfield
Lincoln
Designs by Lockheed & Boeing, except for the wind tunnel, I'm not sure where NASA comes in

NASA is claiming a breakthrough in the design of supersonic aircraft, with wind-tunnel tests proving it is possible to design configurations that combine low sonic boom with low cruise drag, characteristics once thought to be mutually exclusive.
The tests involved scale models of small supersonic airliners designed by Boeing and Lockheed Martin and aimed at entry into service about 2025. Although the measured shock wave signatures are at the high end of what would be publicly acceptable, they proved the design tools could produce a supersonic business jet capable of unrestricted overland flight, says Peter Coen, NASA’s Supersonic Fixed-Wing project manager.
Click to expand...

more here: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...A Claims Supersonic Breakthrough For Biz Jets
 
No pictures?

:needpics:

I remember enjoying hearing sonic booms in the Chicago area in the 1960s. I also enjoyed seeing the Blues perform at the Glenview Naval Air Station in their F-4 Phantoms. I guess I just like noise.
 
Stan- here's some pix:

Boeing offering
Boeing.jpg



Lockheed design:
LockheedMartin.jpg
 
It looks like Lockheed's is a high wing single engine. Big deal. I fly one of those myself. :D
 
Sonic boom or not, a supersonic civilian transport is a solution in search of a problem.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Sonic boom or not, a supersonic civilian transport is a solution in search of a problem.
Click to expand...

I agree. I am all in favor of research and design. Somebody has to have some innovation, but I'm not sure this will help.

Wasn't the Concord known as one of the most costly ways to fly? And Business Aviation got a bad rep already, when all the CEO's were using biz jets to ask for bail outs.

So, combine bad biz jet rep, with bad super sonic jet rep, how is this gonna 'fly'?
 
It really sucks that our economy has bottomed out so low that we no longer care about "innovation for the sake of innovation" but instead seek immediate fiscal relief from all funded research.

(Former staff member of AT&T Bell Laboratories and Baylor College of Medicine)
 
ajstoner21 said:
I agree. I am all in favor of research and design. Somebody has to have some innovation, but I'm not sure this will help.

Wasn't the Concord known as one of the most costly ways to fly? And Business Aviation got a bad rep already, when all the CEO's were using biz jets to ask for bail outs.

So, combine bad biz jet rep, with bad super sonic jet rep, how is this gonna 'fly'?
Click to expand...


Right, what part of the 'low drag' part of the equation did you miss? The Concorde was designed in the 60s, because of the results of second generation SS technology, for ever and ever shall supersonic technology be garbage and impossible, Amen"?

As for solution with no problem, I beg to differ having spent 24hrs in transit between Florida and Australia. Sub orbital hypersonic would be better, but I'll take Mach 2 cutting it down to 10 hrs, it'll be a lot cheaper.
 
Henning said:
Right, what part of the 'low drag' part of the equation did you miss? The Concorde was designed in the 60s, because of the results of second generation SS technology, for ever and ever shall supersonic technology be garbage and impossible, Amen"?

As for solution with no problem, I beg to differ having spent 24hrs in transit between Florida and Australia. Sub orbital hypersonic would be better, but I'll take Mach 2 cutting it down to 10 hrs, it'll be a lot cheaper.
Click to expand...

When you're right; you're right. On both counts.
 
Henning said:
Right, what part of the 'low drag' part of the equation did you miss? The Concorde was designed in the 60s, because of the results of second generation SS technology, for ever and ever shall supersonic technology be garbage and impossible, Amen"?
<SNIP>
Click to expand...
Low drag compared to what?
 
The demand seems more for an SSBJ than an air carrier aircraft, and the article suggests that is the target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top