Agreed, bro. I have absolutely marveled at how aggressively area rule has been ignored for DECADES. The A-8. The F-4. The F16. The F18. Even the F22 and F35.
Thanks for this video. Studying for my airline exams and just covered this chapter. This video sums up the main chunk of what was explained to me over pages and pages of useless paragraphs. Thank you !!
I remember being about 12, living at the beach in Rhode Island, hearing the Concorde’s twin booms every day at about 6am. I seriously don’t know what the problem is, it wasn’t that loud and sounded like quick thunder for 1 second. It’s not like it was cracking windows or lasted any longer than a car door slam. Also if you didn’t know what to listen for, you’d probably not notice.
That's awesome to hear. I didn't know it wasn't that bad. They are also trying to lessen the noise of the jet takeoff, the Concorde was loud as shit with afterburners on takeoff as I understand
The carrier deck footage shows only pressure waves, not sonic shock waves (water vapour instantaneously condenses in very low pressure air). A sonic shock wave is always produced slightly in front of, never behind, an aircraft.
Yes the water vapor cone is not the shockwave. However, they occur at several places along the airframe. The strongest shockwaves occur at the leading and trailing edge of the aircraft. See my supersonic flight explained video for more detail.
actually the regulation is no supersonic flight over populated areas ... deserts are fine and there is an exclusion zone of several miles outside populated areas ... that is how Mythbusters was able to do a supersonic show in the desert it was outside and well away from all populated areas same with military test flights and training ... they do these in secure non-populated areas
1:47 Last I heard in articles and textbooks was engine go brrr and all the noise gets pent up in almost a tangible wall of energy ahead of the craft when it travels at transonic speed, only to break up and scatter as the craft goes through it. When the noise goes from forwards to sidewards, someone on the ground might hear it as a boom.
Concorde used to hold over my house every day, soooo loud. When I was a kid they tested sonic booms on the public by flying over Cornwall beaches. People thought the cliff had fallen down
How reliable will supersonic engines be? As far as I recall, the Concorde had 4 engines and modern non-superonic engines have extensive experience flying across oceans. Current jets even have a history of gliding to islands when they had issues. A small supersonic jet with two engines may not have the same glide characteristics of a slower jet.
Great concerns. You're right it would have probably have to have 3 engines at least or prove that the engines are incredibly robust bro get ETOPS. Probably why the AS2 concept has 3 engines.
The Bombardier Global 8000 and Cessna Citation X aren’t legal to exceed the speed of sound, but both so in testing. So if you are rich you might get your pilot to nudge you over Mach 1 during an overwater flight.
You should do a compressibility flow series-not too intense. But something that goes of Yeager and the bell plane, couple of the older papers of ballistics and how they used schlieran photography to get Mach angles. Maybe the look at inlets to engines and show the difference between a circle, half circle, rectangular etc inlets.
The size of the surface only aplyes inside the shockcone. The side of the sr71 is clearly outside of the shockcone. The reason for that is to reduce radar signature and have nothing to do with supersonic flight. The leading edge of the wing dont have to be sharp, if its outside the shockcone. Most modern aircraft is made that way, but some older aircraft like the F5 have literaly razor sharp leading edges. For the N wave, the cross section based the crosssection geometri dont make any difftance, but the 3d volume does, and so does the speed (unlike the leading edge boom) Its really a matter of how fast the crossection fills up the space where the air use to be. Its not that the cross section need to be uniform, its rather that it need to ramp uniformly. Having the aircraft ramp up and then down. For a classic delta wing the wing pretty much replaces the cross section of the fuselage. But this is not the only... or maybe even the best solution. Having the wing center section and being trapeziod wing can give the aircraft a smooth up and down ramp with the mid section of the airframe being totaly uniform like a tradirional aircraft. This provides more interior volume with out having a larget sonic boom, of cause, this is really only viable for rather large aircrafts.
There's a misconception about airflow around subsonic and supersonic aircraft. In both speed regimes, the air flows out of the way of the plane right before the plane arrives rather than as soon as the plane arrives. The difference is that the sound waves caused by plane compressing the air in front of it as it rams into that air can't get out of the way at supersonic speeds unlike at subsonic speeds, this pile up is what causes the "bow" shockwave. A pointy nose insures that this buildup is as little as possible to reduce wave drag. A round object will cause air to flow out of it's way sooner than a sharp object because it has to make a bigger change in direction due to its blunt nature. At supersonic speeds, this will create a "detached" shockwave where the shockwave forms as soon as the air starts to change direction, which again happens further ahead of a blunt object than a sharp object.
I start to discuss the area rule at 5:45 the area rule aims to keep the cross sectional area consistent throughout the airplane because wave drag is the same magnitude as long as the cross sectional area is the same. So as the wingspan increases in size the fuselage decreases in size.
Simply put it id a trade off.,,, body frontal area for wing area. First practically used on the Convair F102 delta Dart . Later converted to the F106, look them up and it will be easy to understand.
It’s taking the penetrated space from the cockpit area and re-distributing it along the wing’s leading edge by shrinking the space behind the cockpit as the wings expand out so the wing doesn’t have to “re-penetrate” the air causing more drag. It’s so cool!
good video Austin. I don't know how a large area ruled airliner would work as you can see by your examples ,quite a tuck in at waist and that would mean a lot of loss of revenue. It maybe feasible for the Billionaire club but commercial I don't know. Anyone else?
You're correct it's going to take a super big plane to make enough room for the waisting to fit rows to people. In the meantime it probably will just be for the wealthy until it becomes a proven business plan. But here's to hoping.
@@terryjackson9055 yeah who would've thought 100 years ago flying across the sea at 650 mph would be something you could do just for fun. Who knows where we'll be in another 50-100 years.
You didn't indicate just how much less the shock wave will be...Is it expected to be 50% less or 25% less or ????? You did a good job explaining the principles but just how much better will it be ???
The problem with supersonic transport is not only the sonic boom but also the very narrow cabin with little headroom. In order to minimize the area rule area the cabin must be smaller. This is further hampered by the need for a very long and pointed nose that isn't going to carry any passengers. So, in the end you get a fast, fuel hungry plane with very few paying passengers making the flight too expensive for most people. The Concorde was subsidized and without the subsidy it would have been even more expensive to fly on it. This resulted in a plane that only the wealthy could fly but only after having a good deal of the cost covered by little people paying taxes. This will be the case in any future SST -- the little people will defray much of the cost so that the only people that can afford to fly it will pay less because the little people paid the rest.
@@AviationAustin -- I think it more likely that supersonic private jets will be the ones that succeed -- as I already mentioned the economics don't pan out for commercial, but a billionaire laying out $80M for a Gulfstream G700 or similar money for a Global 7500/8000 would not have a problem shelling out, say, $120M for a supersonic private jet. I'll bet that segment makes money but not the airlines...
This is my second of your presentations. I'm likin' it! Going through the catalog in a 'play all' mode. (Wish there was a way to see them from the date entered). I enjoy your passion for this industry and your presence in front of camera (so young) will serve you well, IMO. Hey - did I hear "God's speed." as your sign off? Cool. God Bless. By the way - you've seen / subscribed to Destin SmarterEveryDay? did you note, at the very end of each of his episodes, I think going back to the very early episodes, is a bible chapter/verse. He has covered it in a Q&A but is otherwise silent about it. Neat guy, trademark hat. Dad and NASA nerd! PhD!! Oh yeah - and about 10M subs at YT? So - I gotta' go - going to put you back on 'play all' and go give the dogs a bath in the outdoor tub. Well done young man!
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoy the content enough to watch all of it. Yes, Destin is an awesome guy! Love his content. Yes I like Godspeed as it has history rooted in NASA and space travel. It's also not too in your face either. Neil Degrase Tyson has a great monologue defending the use of it as well as other christian influences in science.
it must be remembered that when the supersonic boom legislation was introduced, it was a reaction to the flights of Concorde, over mainland USA. And one of the prime motives of the legislation wasn't just to stop noise from sonic booms upsetting people, it was to put a block on the commercial flights on the Concorde aircraft itself. Why would the US legislators want to do this? Because Concorde was a British and French designed and built aircraft - NOT AN AMERICAN ONE. Therefore the legislation was brought in, in part, to stop a non USA made plane from operating in over the US mainland. To try to stop COMPETITION against American designed and built aircraft. So the FAA, I would guess, would only ever be willing to rescind the anti-sonic boom legislation, if a new supersonic aircraft were to be designed and built in the USA.
Well Boeing was building a competitor to the Concorde, so maybe it was political, but the restriction also contributed to Boeing to prematurely abandon the project.
The real reason the U.S. did not like supersonic passenger planes was that they could not build something like the concord, at the time this was flying it was the only plane able to reach that speed, so they put a ban on aircraft that could, the fact that many countries were not worried shows that it was really a sour grapes thing, after all, they had fighter aircraft that created the boom, and that did not worry them at all. To build an aircraft able to do this as yet is still something that is very costly, and it seems that only if its used to kill is it viable as far as the U.S. is concerned, after all ever space launch has created a sonic boom. I think we need to see just how far this goes, but I doubt w will see supersonic passenger planes again for a long time, that is untill a more cost effective fuel is found.
The other half of the equation besides a quite fuselage is efficient super-Cruse engines. I don’t see the commercial market paying for their development, the US government is committed to subsonic bombers for the foreseeable future, no one else is building modern bombers so no fancy supersonic engines there. Maybe the next US air superiority fighter will need a decent long range supersonic engine that could be modified for a small SST but otherwise I don’t see where the engines are coming from. And yes I do know about Boom’s announcement, 4 years to build an entire man rated supersonic engines from a startup. The Cool-aid is next to the etherium tokens.
Interesting that the MIG-25 doesn't seem to have these design characteristics. And it was very close to the operational envelope of the SR-71. VERY CLOSE. Then again, the Russians didn't care about sonic boom over land when trying to intercept the SR-71.
Even if they manage to reduce the supersonic boom dramatically, I doubt we will get supersonic travel within the continental US anytime soon. Too many NIMBY opposition groups. I'm old enough to remember when the Concorde made regular flights to DFW airport in the 1970s. Since it was banned from flying supersonic while over the states, it became little more than a publicity stunt for Braniff and British Airways. Granted, the Concorde was a very loud aircraft even in subsonic mode, so those bans made perfect sense at the time. However, regardless of how quiet this new jet is, there will be somebody who lodges a complaint about spooked cattle or reduced property values to a key congressman or senator, who will readily quash the program.
Concorde flew at altitude of 12000m (20000feet), For both fuel consumtion and higher speed, making a flight pattern of say, 60000 feet would drastically lower the boom sound on land, increase the speed, decrease the friction, decrease the fuel consumption, thus, increase efficiency It is possible with even electric engines to taxi at 93000+ feet as Nasa demonstrated at Helios aircraft. I can demonstrate this with fuel consumption, speed, etc in KSP with Realism Overhaul and Real Solar System mods. Why they're not coming up with the same idea. Plus, Concorde's efficiency and profits are always calculated by miles/tonnes of fuel, but it should be calculated as miles per tonnes of fuel per hour. You could make 210 trips over the Atlantic, instead of 40 with subsonics.
Future supersonic airliners? I don' t think so. The sonic boom is not the only problem with supersonic flight. There's also increased fuel consumption compared to subsonic airliners (the concorde burned more than 4 times as much fuel per passenger as a 747 over the same distance). Considering that fuel prices keep going through the roof, that is definitely a bad thing. And then there is the engine noise, or more accurately the jet noise. This kind of noise increases exponentially with exhaust speed. To fly say at mach 2, the exhaust speed needs to be higher than mach 2, and that means the exhaust creates A LOT of noise.
@@tomcoon9038Doubtful! In my design, if 2 people can occupy the same space, the x section is way too large. Facilities be damned, this is a budget flight. Your lucky to get a 4 inch foam mattress. LOL
This man needs to have sonic booms disturb his home a few times a day for a few months ! Then he would not take such a cavalier attitude. Never mind sonic booms ? He should just live a few miles away from a USARBase ! Boy would his attitude change !!!!!!!!
Supersonic flight for civilians will happen....50 + years ago. It will happen again as soon as the money awarded by the federal gov't is burned up and, after new contracts are granted, the construction of prototypes will be done by scaling up the X vehicles' designs. So, because a company like Lockheed is involved, I'd say in about 7 to 15 years. Unless the free market drives the innovation faster, in which case it could happen faster. Oh wait, safety regulations require testing on a scale that we should all really appreciate, but it's potential and actual liability (lawyers, thank you) that really pushes safety based innovation. So, between Boeing and Lockheed and Gen Dyn or other conglomerates, so long as ticket prices and fuel consumption remain attractive to the market, well, .....still at least 7 years. Of course, 7 years from the conclusion of the proof of concept re: 66 decibel sonic whispers😉
ppl need to stop whining about the noise and allow supersonic flight over land...and we need to kick the ecomentalist crap to the curb and put time efficiency first as time is the one thing you cant get more of...with todays materials like advanced composites and cmc's along with new engine tech we could do mach 4...look at the rta hyperburner and these adaptive cycle engines...we should be pushing the boundaries of speed range and altitude instead of worrying about noise on takeoff or sonic booms...and as for the fuel...there are trillions of barrels worth in the US alone...it can be done...and be affordable for normal ppl too...
Does your comment count as a secod? If not, I'll be second. Great video! I didn't know about the normal shockwaves and about their contribution to sonic booms. That makes a lot more sense why we see that bottle shaped design.
You have disregarded one important fact. Sonic boom is greatly a function of gross weight. The more you weigh the bigger the boom. While this demonstrator is truly a marvel for business aviation I doubt it will scale up well.
I have not seen weight as a factor in the strength of the Boom? Do you know where you saw that? I can't seem to find anything relating weight to shockwaves.
@@claycollins8973 It does. The Boeing Company studies confirmed this a long time ago. It is one of the reasons the American SST was never built. It would not be allowed on domestic routes. It is what sank Concord. It was not economical and the associated boom was too loud and had a large footprint. As far as weight, please go and review sonic boon propagation with regard to gross weight.
@@claycollins8973 Go to an airport on a rainy day and watch airplanes on approach. Every aircraft generates wingtip vortex's, The bigger the airplane the bigger and more long lived the vortex. If you accept that then think of how much air has to be displaced for a large heavy SST. Physics does not change. All that displaced air has to go somewhere and if you are supersonic and large and heavy its gonna be a big leading edge and trailing edge shockwave. Have you ever heard a sonic boom? There used to be no Mach restrictions. Guess what people don't like them and they are now restricted. Most of those were from small military jets anyway. Nothing big and heavy.
QueSST stands for Quiet Supersonic Technology, not "test" (I'm a NASA employee supporting this project)
Thanks for the correction. I was just going off of memory.
I wish I was with you! What fun to make history. I had my day and I am grateful to see a glimmer of whats coming.
@@AviationAustin when you said the SR-71 was the fastest jet ever made I had to dislike your video. Propaganda.
Really what's faster?
It looks very exciting for sure.
Agreed, bro. I have absolutely marveled at how aggressively area rule has been ignored for DECADES. The A-8. The F-4. The F16. The F18. Even the F22 and F35.
There's more emphasis on stealth than drag reduction these days for sure.
Area rule? More like area suggestion...
Nice video. Wasn't bored at all. Keep up the good work and may you be successful in your future endeavors.
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks for this video. Studying for my airline exams and just covered this chapter. This video sums up the main chunk of what was explained to me over pages and pages of useless paragraphs. Thank you !!
Glad I could be of help!
I remember being about 12, living at the beach in Rhode Island, hearing the Concorde’s twin booms every day at about 6am.
I seriously don’t know what the problem is, it wasn’t that loud and sounded like quick thunder for 1 second. It’s not like it was cracking windows or lasted any longer than a car door slam. Also if you didn’t know what to listen for, you’d probably not notice.
Hopefully we'll see the day when they come back.
That's awesome to hear. I didn't know it wasn't that bad. They are also trying to lessen the noise of the jet takeoff, the Concorde was loud as shit with afterburners on takeoff as I understand
Supposedly it was pretty bad when you where directly under the plane.
The carrier deck footage shows only pressure waves, not sonic shock waves (water vapour instantaneously condenses in very low pressure air). A sonic shock wave is always produced slightly in front of, never behind, an aircraft.
Yes the water vapor cone is not the shockwave. However, they occur at several places along the airframe. The strongest shockwaves occur at the leading and trailing edge of the aircraft. See my supersonic flight explained video for more detail.
SR71 isn't a plane, it's a lifestyle
😂 That belongs on a shirt.
Great explanation on how supersonic travel can work from an engineering/science POV, looking into Aerion ALTU
You're welcome. I'm glad you found it helpful!
actually the regulation is no supersonic flight over populated areas ... deserts are fine and there is an exclusion zone of several miles outside populated areas ... that is how Mythbusters was able to do a supersonic show in the desert it was outside and well away from all populated areas same with military test flights and training ... they do these in secure non-populated areas
Alternate definition ETOPS… Engines turn or people swim
😂😂😂Too accurate
1976/77/78.
F111 sonic boom.
Still remember it/them.
Brilliant
Randomly found your channel from a post on Reddit, well packaged info keep it up
Thank you I'm glad you found it useful!
Which post?
1:47 Last I heard in articles and textbooks was engine go brrr and all the noise gets pent up in almost a tangible wall of energy ahead of the craft when it travels at transonic speed, only to break up and scatter as the craft goes through it. When the noise goes from forwards to sidewards, someone on the ground might hear it as a boom.
great video, very clear and i learned a lot. thanks
Concorde used to hold over my house every day, soooo loud. When I was a kid they tested sonic booms on the public by flying over Cornwall beaches. People thought the cliff had fallen down
The US learned a lot with the X-15....used the technology for the SR-71 / A-12 .....The P&W J-58 turbo-ram jet engine !
This is an amazing video. Thank you! I have subscribed.
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it!
great video austin! i learned a lot
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it
How reliable will supersonic engines be? As far as I recall, the Concorde had 4 engines and modern non-superonic engines have extensive experience flying across oceans. Current jets even have a history of gliding to islands when they had issues. A small supersonic jet with two engines may not have the same glide characteristics of a slower jet.
Great concerns. You're right it would have probably have to have 3 engines at least or prove that the engines are incredibly robust bro get ETOPS. Probably why the AS2 concept has 3 engines.
Excellent stuff
Thank you!
The Bombardier Global 8000 and Cessna Citation X aren’t legal to exceed the speed of sound, but both so in testing. So if you are rich you might get your pilot to nudge you over Mach 1 during an overwater flight.
Is that Anderson’s CFD book in the background there?!?!?!? -man of culture
You should do a compressibility flow series-not too intense. But something that goes of Yeager and the bell plane, couple of the older papers of ballistics and how they used schlieran photography to get Mach angles. Maybe the look at inlets to engines and show the difference between a circle, half circle, rectangular etc inlets.
Then get into hypersonics and show how the vehicles in the M>5 become blunt.
That's a great suggestion! Thank you I will add that to video list!
What about The airbus hypersonic passenger scram jet.
Elon Musk: I'd say by 2023 we should have 1000 supersonic Teslas taking people to Mars
Seems reasonable.
The size of the surface only aplyes inside the shockcone. The side of the sr71 is clearly outside of the shockcone. The reason for that is to reduce radar signature and have nothing to do with supersonic flight.
The leading edge of the wing dont have to be sharp, if its outside the shockcone.
Most modern aircraft is made that way, but some older aircraft like the F5 have literaly razor sharp leading edges.
For the N wave, the cross section based the crosssection geometri dont make any difftance, but the 3d volume does, and so does the speed (unlike the leading edge boom)
Its really a matter of how fast the crossection fills up the space where the air use to be. Its not that the cross section need to be uniform, its rather that it need to ramp uniformly. Having the aircraft ramp up and then down.
For a classic delta wing the wing pretty much replaces the cross section of the fuselage. But this is not the only... or maybe even the best solution. Having the wing center section and being trapeziod wing can give the aircraft a smooth up and down ramp with the mid section of the airframe being totaly uniform like a tradirional aircraft. This provides more interior volume with out having a larget sonic boom, of cause, this is really only viable for rather large aircrafts.
THANK YOU MAN.
You are welcome
Those speech bubbles made me LOL :-)
I'm glad someone enjoys my humor! Haha
@@AviationAustin :-)
There's a misconception about airflow around subsonic and supersonic aircraft. In both speed regimes, the air flows out of the way of the plane right before the plane arrives rather than as soon as the plane arrives. The difference is that the sound waves caused by plane compressing the air in front of it as it rams into that air can't get out of the way at supersonic speeds unlike at subsonic speeds, this pile up is what causes the "bow" shockwave. A pointy nose insures that this buildup is as little as possible to reduce wave drag. A round object will cause air to flow out of it's way sooner than a sharp object because it has to make a bigger change in direction due to its blunt nature. At supersonic speeds, this will create a "detached" shockwave where the shockwave forms as soon as the air starts to change direction, which again happens further ahead of a blunt object than a sharp object.
Could you explain in more detail how the area rule reduces wave drag
I start to discuss the area rule at 5:45 the area rule aims to keep the cross sectional area consistent throughout the airplane because wave drag is the same magnitude as long as the cross sectional area is the same. So as the wingspan increases in size the fuselage decreases in size.
Simply put it id a trade off.,,, body frontal area for wing area. First practically used on the Convair F102 delta Dart . Later converted to the F106, look them up and it will be easy to understand.
It’s taking the penetrated space from the cockpit area and re-distributing it along the wing’s leading edge by shrinking the space behind the cockpit as the wings expand out so the wing doesn’t have to “re-penetrate” the air causing more drag. It’s so cool!
good video Austin. I don't know how a large area ruled airliner would work as you can see by your examples ,quite a tuck in at waist and that would mean a lot of loss of revenue. It maybe feasible for the Billionaire club but commercial I don't know. Anyone else?
You're correct it's going to take a super big plane to make enough room for the waisting to fit rows to people. In the meantime it probably will just be for the wealthy until it becomes a proven business plan. But here's to hoping.
@@AviationAustin I wouldn't waste a lot of time on it though. Who knows?
@@terryjackson9055 yeah who would've thought 100 years ago flying across the sea at 650 mph would be something you could do just for fun. Who knows where we'll be in another 50-100 years.
thin people will sit in th emiddle americans and germans in front and behind@@AviationAustin
You didn't indicate just how much less the shock wave will be...Is it expected to be 50% less or 25% less or ????? You did a good job explaining the principles but just how much better will it be ???
Well that's the billion dollar question. We'll have to wait and see the specific results of the QUESST program.
they say like a car door closing across the street.@@AviationAustin
The problem with supersonic transport is not only the sonic boom but also the very narrow cabin with little headroom. In order to minimize the area rule area the cabin must be smaller. This is further hampered by the need for a very long and pointed nose that isn't going to carry any passengers. So, in the end you get a fast, fuel hungry plane with very few paying passengers making the flight too expensive for most people. The Concorde was subsidized and without the subsidy it would have been even more expensive to fly on it. This resulted in a plane that only the wealthy could fly but only after having a good deal of the cost covered by little people paying taxes. This will be the case in any future SST -- the little people will defray much of the cost so that the only people that can afford to fly it will pay less because the little people paid the rest.
Great point. It's certainly going to be a challenge and much richer clientele.
@@AviationAustin -- I think it more likely that supersonic private jets will be the ones that succeed -- as I already mentioned the economics don't pan out for commercial, but a billionaire laying out $80M for a Gulfstream G700 or similar money for a Global 7500/8000 would not have a problem shelling out, say, $120M for a supersonic private jet. I'll bet that segment makes money but not the airlines...
I think they will focus on the business traveler segment for sure. Maybe some day it can become more viable for the common folk.
Love the speech bubbles 😂
Glad you like my sense of humor. Lol
This is my second of your presentations. I'm likin' it! Going through the catalog in a 'play all' mode. (Wish there was a way to see them from the date entered). I enjoy your passion for this industry and your presence in front of camera (so young) will serve you well, IMO.
Hey - did I hear "God's speed." as your sign off? Cool. God Bless. By the way - you've seen / subscribed to Destin SmarterEveryDay? did you note, at the very end of each of his episodes, I think going back to the very early episodes, is a bible chapter/verse. He has covered it in a Q&A but is otherwise silent about it. Neat guy, trademark hat. Dad and NASA nerd! PhD!! Oh yeah - and about 10M subs at YT?
So - I gotta' go - going to put you back on 'play all' and go give the dogs a bath in the outdoor tub. Well done young man!
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoy the content enough to watch all of it. Yes, Destin is an awesome guy! Love his content. Yes I like Godspeed as it has history rooted in NASA and space travel. It's also not too in your face either. Neil Degrase Tyson has a great monologue defending the use of it as well as other christian influences in science.
@@AviationAustin I'll try to remember to add that one!
Soo time to test it in ksp i guess
f117 decreasing fuselage, interesting.
If sonic booms overland are illegal, you need to come to Missouri!!
Technically it's over populated areas.
the “crack” of a whip is a good example
I was thinking. Why not design a craft that looks like this 🛸 .
Well you've seen the B-2 right? That basically looks like a UFO from some angles.
it must be remembered that when the supersonic boom legislation was introduced, it was a reaction to the flights of Concorde, over mainland USA. And one of the prime motives of the legislation wasn't just to stop noise from sonic booms upsetting people, it was to put a block on the commercial flights on the Concorde aircraft itself. Why would the US legislators want to do this? Because Concorde was a British and French designed and built aircraft - NOT AN AMERICAN ONE. Therefore the legislation was brought in, in part, to stop a non USA made plane from operating in over the US mainland. To try to stop COMPETITION against American designed and built aircraft. So the FAA, I would guess, would only ever be willing to rescind the anti-sonic boom legislation, if a new supersonic aircraft were to be designed and built in the USA.
Well Boeing was building a competitor to the Concorde, so maybe it was political, but the restriction also contributed to Boeing to prematurely abandon the project.
The real reason the U.S. did not like supersonic passenger planes was that they could not build something like the concord, at the time this was flying it was the only plane able to reach that speed, so they put a ban on aircraft that could, the fact that many countries were not worried shows that it was really a sour grapes thing, after all, they had fighter aircraft that created the boom, and that did not worry them at all.
To build an aircraft able to do this as yet is still something that is very costly, and it seems that only if its used to kill is it viable as far as the U.S. is concerned, after all ever space launch has created a sonic boom.
I think we need to see just how far this goes, but I doubt w will see supersonic passenger planes again for a long time, that is untill a more cost effective fuel is found.
So you're saying it's not economically viable, but you're also saying that Americans killed it because they couldn't do it? That makes no sense. 🤔
The other half of the equation besides a quite fuselage is efficient super-Cruse engines. I don’t see the commercial market paying for their development, the US government is committed to subsonic bombers for the foreseeable future, no one else is building modern bombers so no fancy supersonic engines there. Maybe the next US air superiority fighter will need a decent long range supersonic engine that could be modified for a small SST but otherwise I don’t see where the engines are coming from.
And yes I do know about Boom’s announcement, 4 years to build an entire man rated supersonic engines from a startup. The Cool-aid is next to the etherium tokens.
Interesting that the MIG-25 doesn't seem to have these design characteristics. And it was very close to the operational envelope of the SR-71. VERY CLOSE. Then again, the Russians didn't care about sonic boom over land when trying to intercept the SR-71.
The SR-71 is the second fastest aircraft. Not the first.yes the A-12 300 mph faster
Well that depends. Are you saying aircraft or jet? Because I said jet. Technically the A-12 is the fastest jet. But they're nearly identical.
to avoid these challenges plz refer to #tictac #ufo engineers don't any of those nkf issues.
Nice vid
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it
Even if they manage to reduce the supersonic boom dramatically, I doubt we will get supersonic travel within the continental US anytime soon. Too many NIMBY opposition groups. I'm old enough to remember when the Concorde made regular flights to DFW airport in the 1970s. Since it was banned from flying supersonic while over the states, it became little more than a publicity stunt for Braniff and British Airways. Granted, the Concorde was a very loud aircraft even in subsonic mode, so those bans made perfect sense at the time. However, regardless of how quiet this new jet is, there will be somebody who lodges a complaint about spooked cattle or reduced property values to a key congressman or senator, who will readily quash the program.
Concorde flew at altitude of 12000m (20000feet), For both fuel consumtion and higher speed, making a flight pattern of say, 60000 feet would drastically lower the boom sound on land, increase the speed, decrease the friction, decrease the fuel consumption, thus, increase efficiency
It is possible with even electric engines to taxi at 93000+ feet as Nasa demonstrated at Helios aircraft.
I can demonstrate this with fuel consumption, speed, etc in KSP with Realism Overhaul and Real Solar System mods.
Why they're not coming up with the same idea.
Plus, Concorde's efficiency and profits are always calculated by miles/tonnes of fuel, but it should be calculated as miles per tonnes of fuel per hour. You could make 210 trips over the Atlantic, instead of 40 with subsonics.
Subbed
Welcome sir!
Future supersonic airliners? I don' t think so. The sonic boom is not the only problem with supersonic flight. There's also increased fuel consumption compared to subsonic airliners (the concorde burned more than 4 times as much fuel per passenger as a 747 over the same distance). Considering that fuel prices keep going through the roof, that is definitely a bad thing.
And then there is the engine noise, or more accurately the jet noise. This kind of noise increases exponentially with exhaust speed. To fly say at mach 2, the exhaust speed needs to be higher than mach 2, and that means the exhaust creates A LOT of noise.
Jet noise (vt); the sound of freedom
Boom Overture!!!!!!!
Your comments on the sharpness of the leading edge are way wrong....Look at F104 wings, and the delta wing sharp edge
it helps it form vortex lift....
The area rule means you take out the seats and install beds. Passenger entry is by crawling over the beds....... Simples!
Which therefore invites application to the mile high club! I like it! :)
@@tomcoon9038Doubtful! In my design, if 2 people can occupy the same space, the x section is way too large. Facilities be damned, this is a budget flight. Your lucky to get a 4 inch foam mattress. LOL
That would be funny. Not sure it would happen unless it's a private jet
@@AviationAustin I could go further with my evil plan, but I might get on someone's watch list. LOL
Or they'll just steal your idea 😂
The area rule explains how to control wave drag, not supersonic boom.
If You're My Age, You Heard Sonic Booms All The Time As A Child & The Air Raid Siren Every Saturday At Noon. Thank You. (Comment #158)
So this what Freddy doing nowadays
Freddy??? From iCarly?
This man needs to have sonic booms disturb his home a few times a day for a few months !
Then he would not take such a cavalier attitude.
Never mind sonic booms ? He should just live a few miles away from a USARBase !
Boy would his attitude change !!!!!!!!
😂 I've lived near air bases almost my entire life!
B1
Trying to eliminate the sonic boom is like trying to eliminate men going bald it simply cant be done !
You haven't heard of Rogaine?
@@AviationAustin Can`t say i have. Enlighten me please! 😁😁😁
It stops you from going bald lol
@@AviationAustin Well i still have a full head of hair at 40 but if i do start going bald i`ll be sure to check it out thanks! 😂
Supersonic flight for civilians will happen....50 + years ago. It will happen again as soon as the money awarded by the federal gov't is burned up and, after new contracts are granted, the construction of prototypes will be done by scaling up the X vehicles' designs.
So, because a company like Lockheed is involved, I'd say in about 7 to 15 years. Unless the free market drives the innovation faster, in which case it could happen faster. Oh wait, safety regulations require testing on a scale that we should all really appreciate, but it's potential and actual liability (lawyers, thank you) that really pushes safety based innovation.
So, between Boeing and Lockheed and Gen Dyn or other conglomerates, so long as ticket prices and fuel consumption remain attractive to the market, well, .....still at least 7 years. Of course, 7 years from the conclusion of the proof of concept re: 66 decibel sonic whispers😉
ppl need to stop whining about the noise and allow supersonic flight over land...and we need to kick the ecomentalist crap to the curb and put time efficiency first as time is the one thing you cant get more of...with todays materials like advanced composites and cmc's along with new engine tech we could do mach 4...look at the rta hyperburner and these adaptive cycle engines...we should be pushing the boundaries of speed range and altitude instead of worrying about noise on takeoff or sonic booms...and as for the fuel...there are trillions of barrels worth in the US alone...it can be done...and be affordable for normal ppl too...
First, again.
Now all we need is a second! 🤣
Does your comment count as a secod? If not, I'll be second. Great video! I didn't know about the normal shockwaves and about their contribution to sonic booms. That makes a lot more sense why we see that bottle shaped design.
@@johnathanclayton2887 I'll count you as second! 😂 Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed the video
You have disregarded one important fact. Sonic boom is greatly a function of gross weight. The more you weigh the bigger the boom. While this demonstrator is truly a marvel for business aviation I doubt it will scale up well.
I have not seen weight as a factor in the strength of the Boom? Do you know where you saw that? I can't seem to find anything relating weight to shockwaves.
You can't find anything on it because it doesn't exist. Weight or mass has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the "boom"
@@claycollins8973 It does. The Boeing Company studies confirmed this a long time ago. It is one of the reasons the American SST was never built. It would not be allowed on domestic routes. It is what sank Concord. It was not economical and the associated boom was too loud and had a large footprint. As far as weight, please go and review sonic boon propagation with regard to gross weight.
@@mikedooly7288 no, the mass of an object has nothing to do with the size of a sonic boom. Please provide a link that says otherwise
@@claycollins8973 Go to an airport on a rainy day and watch airplanes on approach. Every aircraft generates wingtip vortex's, The bigger the airplane the bigger and more long lived the vortex. If you accept that then think of how much air has to be displaced for a large heavy SST. Physics does not change. All that displaced air has to go somewhere and if you are supersonic and large and heavy its gonna be a big leading edge and trailing edge shockwave. Have you ever heard a sonic boom? There used to be no Mach restrictions. Guess what people don't like them and they are now restricted. Most of those were from small military jets anyway. Nothing big and heavy.
ผลิตต่อไป,,,🌍🌎🌏🌐🌐🌐🗺🗺🗺