Boom!

SkyDog58 said:
Think it will be as much of a commercial and financial success as Concorde?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It’s a lot further from the leading edge than Concorde in terms of technology. It also isn’t a high end jobs program for two states.

Now the real question is can they attract the capital to move past the demonstration stage? If they can will an established manufacturer move into the niche with bigger muscles?
 
Mach 2 on non afterburning engines???
 
It’s interesting. Based at my home airport so they do press events and stuff from time to time.
 
I wanna see how those long legs fold up and fit inside that airframe. This rendering (CGI?) looks like quite the engineering marvel!

3A681E1E00000578-3938764-image-a-12_1479229984874.jpg
 
Nothing like a sonic boom at 6am to get started in the morning.

Last time I heard one was in 1992 when a space shuttle was landing at Cape Canaveral.

Boom.....boom...!!!
 
Zeldman said:
Nothing like a sonic boom at 6am to get started in the morning.

Last time I heard one was in 1992 when a space shuttle was landing at Cape Canaveral.

Boom.....boom...!!!
Click to expand...

Apparently these guys have designed the aircraft to produce a muffled boom. Not nearly as loud as a normal fighter / Concorde / Space Shuttle type. We shall see.

I've heard the Shuttle also. Think there were a couple booms. Not too bad though since I was about 100 miles north of the Cape. Heard F-15s go supersonic over the house before that we're extremely loud and rattle windows.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
The F-22 does > Mach 1 on non-afterburning engines. They call it "super cruise". I don't know how much faster than Mach 1 it flies in super cruise.
Click to expand...

Yeah the F-35 does as well but I've never heard of an aircraft this large that will be able to go supersonic in level flight without afterburners. Plenty can sustain it without burner but they need it to get through the drag of transonic.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
The F-22 does > Mach 1 on non-afterburning engines. They call it "super cruise". I don't know how much faster than Mach 1 it flies in super cruise.
Click to expand...
I’ve read that the 22 is around 1.5 in supercruise. No idea how accurate that is.
 
Concorde user burner to accelerate but cruised at ~2M without. Supercruise these days is more a matter if IR suppression than efficiency.
Boom and all the other quiet supersonic platforms have regulatory hurdles far greater than the technology hurdle.

Nauga,
and the LBFD
 
Velocity173 said:
I've heard the Shuttle also. Think there were a couple booms. Not too bad though since I was about 100 miles north of the Cape. Heard F-15s go supersonic over the house before that we're extremely loud and rattle windows.
Click to expand...

There was definitely two separate booms, probably about half a second apart. And yes, it rattled everything. Car alarms were going off in the parking lot, dogs were barking. It was right about 6am and it woke up just about everyone. And of course the usual calls to the airport to complain about the noise....

As a kid in the early 60s I remember lots of sonic booms. It was pretty much a normal thing. Always good for interrupting class for a few minutes.
 
Zeldman said:
There was definitely two separate booms, probably about half a second apart.
Click to expand...
There's a pressure wave off the leading edge of a supersonic body, and another off the trailing edge. The 'booms' you hear are these waves passing over you. With shaping you can tailor the pressure waves to be diffuse and less abrupt, 'softening' the boom, or to focus, and really rattle the snot out of stuff. Sometimes either one of these can also happen naturally (or by accident), breaking dishes and windows and careers.

Nauga,
lowering the boom
 
A little off this topic, but isn’t it true that the SR-71 can fly coast to coast in 45 minutes?
 
Ryanb said:
A little off this topic, but isn’t it true that the SR-71 can fly coast to coast in 45 minutes?
Click to expand...
No. The SR-71 cannot fly coast-to-coast in 45 minutes. It’s been grounded for a number of years now.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Check it out:

records.php

L.A. to D.C., 2404 miles in just under 1 hour, 8 minutes. Average speed pf 2124.51 mph
Click to expand...
Amazing! I remember hearing something about it’s incredible speed and performance on a documentary awhile back. Thanks!
 
nauga said:
If lent started 15+ years ago and hadn't ended yet, maybe.

Nauga,
and his three-state turning radius
Click to expand...
Maybe they need lots of penance....
 
wilkersk said:
I wanna see how those long legs fold up and fit inside that airframe. This rendering (CGI?) looks like quite the engineering marvel!

3A681E1E00000578-3938764-image-a-12_1479229984874.jpg
Click to expand...

A paperclip on the runway would ruin your whole day, I bet.
 
Sac Arrow said:
A paperclip on the runway would ruin your whole day, I bet.
Click to expand...

Next door neighbor on base was a jet engine mechanic on T38s. Told me a straight pin infested into the engine would trash it. I think they didn't fly into known icing conditions either.
 
mscard88 said:
Next door neighbor on base was a jet engine mechanic on T38s. Told me a straight pin infested into the engine would trash it. I think they didn't fly into known icing conditions either.
Click to expand...

There is a T-38 on a stick in front of the airport here. After looking at the wings I would think there is no room for ice.
 
Zeldman said:
There is a T-38 on a stick in front of the airport here. After looking at the wings I would think there is no room for ice.
Click to expand...

I think it's more the engines on T38s can't take the ice than the wing. Maybe one of dem military pilots will clear it up for us. Seems I recall when I was at Columbus they wouldn't fly in icing conditions.
 
Last edited:
I don't know of any tactical airplane that's capable of or approved for flight in known Ice.

Nauga,
Over or around, never through
 
nauga said:
I don't know of any tactical airplane that's capable of or approved for flight in known Ice.

Nauga,
Over or around, never through
Click to expand...

I remember with the Hornets, we had a waiver for them to go 350 KIAS below 10,000 ft to reduce icing accumulations. We were to expedite their climb / descent during forecasted icing to minimize exposure as well. As I recall it's almost an emergency type situation for them. Something about shedding ice from the LEX getting ingested in the engines???
 
Last edited:
We can't fly into known icing but at the altitudes we normally fly in the Eagle, all the ice slips off anyway. Not enough moisture up there to keep it on the jet.

T-38 is def not ok for ice. It's barely ok in the rain.
 
EvilEagle said:
GlennAB1 said:
T-38's have engine anti-ice but no wing or stabilizer ice protection, that is why they cannot fly into known icing conditions.
Click to expand...
T-38 is def not ok for ice. It's barely ok in the rain.
Click to expand...

When I was at Columbus, as I mentioned, my neighbor was a engine mechanic on T38s and he told me a straight in ingested would tear up the engine. Seems ice would as well. I know we had a weather ship go up every morning to check out the MOAs for weather, etc. So T38s definitely have a limitation for icing conditions then?
 
mscard88 said:
OK, but it's for the airframe and not the engine? I'm just curious. Thanks.
Click to expand...
The restriction doesn't make a distinction between the two, and in practice there isn't a difference. A chunk of ice off the wing and down an inlet is going to ruin your day just as bad as ice that remains on the wing.

Nauga,
with a bang *and* a whimper
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top