|
Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount Administration Split On Europe Invasion Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan Pot, Kettle On Line Two... Allies Seize Paris The Natural Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff A New Beginning My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) Tim Blair James Lileks Bleats Virginia Postrel Kausfiles Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman) Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson) Samizdata Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle) Space Alan Boyle (MSNBC) Space Politics (Jeff Foust) Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey) NASA Watch NASA Space Flight Hobby Space A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold) Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore) Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust) Mars Blog The Flame Trench (Florida Today) Space Cynic Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing) COTS Watch (Michael Mealing) Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington) Selenian Boondocks Tales of the Heliosphere Out Of The Cradle Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar) True Anomaly Kevin Parkin The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster) Spacecraft (Chris Hall) Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher) Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche) Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer) Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers) Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement) Spacearium Saturn Follies JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell) Science
Nanobot (Howard Lovy) Lagniappe (Derek Lowe) Geek Press (Paul Hsieh) Gene Expression Carl Zimmer Redwood Dragon (Dave Trowbridge) Charles Murtaugh Turned Up To Eleven (Paul Orwin) Cowlix (Wes Cowley) Quark Soup (Dave Appell) Economics/Finance
Assymetrical Information (Jane Galt and Mindles H. Dreck) Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen et al) Man Without Qualities (Robert Musil) Knowledge Problem (Lynne Kiesling) Journoblogs The Ombudsgod Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett) Joanne Jacobs The Funny Pages
Cox & Forkum Day By Day Iowahawk Happy Fun Pundit Jim Treacher IMAO The Onion Amish Tech Support (Lawrence Simon) Scrapple Face (Scott Ott) Regular Reading
Quasipundit (Adragna & Vehrs) England's Sword (Iain Murray) Daily Pundit (Bill Quick) Pejman Pundit Daimnation! (Damian Penny) Aspara Girl Flit Z+ Blog (Andrew Zolli) Matt Welch Ken Layne The Kolkata Libertarian Midwest Conservative Journal Protein Wisdom (Jeff Goldstein et al) Dean's World (Dean Esmay) Yippee-Ki-Yay (Kevin McGehee) Vodka Pundit Richard Bennett Spleenville (Andrea Harris) Random Jottings (John Weidner) Natalie Solent On the Third Hand (Kathy Kinsley, Bellicose Woman) Patrick Ruffini Inappropriate Response (Moira Breen) Jerry Pournelle Other Worthy Weblogs
Ain't No Bad Dude (Brian Linse) Airstrip One A libertarian reads the papers Andrew Olmsted Anna Franco Review Ben Kepple's Daily Rant Bjorn Staerk Bitter Girl Catallaxy Files Dawson.com Dodgeblog Dropscan (Shiloh Bucher) End the War on Freedom Fevered Rants Fredrik Norman Heretical Ideas Ideas etc Insolvent Republic of Blogistan James Reuben Haney Libertarian Rant Matthew Edgar Mind over what matters Muslimpundit Page Fault Interrupt Photodude Privacy Digest Quare Rantburg Recovering Liberal Sand In The Gears(Anthony Woodlief) Sgt. Stryker The Blogs of War The Fly Bottle The Illuminated Donkey Unqualified Offerings What she really thinks Where HipHop & Libertarianism Meet Zem : blog Space Policy Links
Space Future The Space Review The Space Show Space Frontier Foundation Space Policy Digest BBS AWOL
USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste) Media Minder Unremitting Verse (Will Warren) World View (Brink Lindsay) The Last Page More Than Zero (Andrew Hofer) Pathetic Earthlings (Andrew Lloyd) Spaceship Summer (Derek Lyons) The New Space Age (Rob Wilson) Rocketman (Mark Oakley) Mazoo Site designed by Powered by Movable Type |
Show Me The Numbers! To paraphrase the Cuba Gooding character from "Jerry Maguire." I keep seeing these breathless articles in the popular media, and even the trade press, about reducing sonic boom, with its promise of practical commercial supersonic flight. The latest hype comes from Popular Science (via Clark Lindsey). Why do I call them hype? Two reasons. First, I have never, ever seen a single number in these articles indicating to what degree the boom is attenuated. Maybe it's just my suspicious nature, but I suspect that if we could see those numbers, we might be less impressed. Second, there is never any mention in these articles about the other problem that is holding back practical supersonic flight, which is all of the drag associated with the shock. Even if by some legerdemain with vehicle contours they can reduce the boom sufficiently to allow overflight of land, the operating costs will remain horrific and unaffordable to most, because of the tremendous amount of wave drag from the shock system and skin drag from the huge swept delta wings that all of these concepts continue to employ. That means that at best, it will remain another Concorde, though perhaps one that can fly coast to coast--an expensive ride only for the rich. I find this topic particularly frustrating because I've been aware for a number of years of a technology with the potential to effectively eliminate shock, with both the sonic boom and the tremendous drag associated with it, but there has never been any interest in pursuing it, from either NASA or industry. Anyway, I'll take this stuff seriously when I see some quantification of just how much they're reducing the overpressure, and some indication of understanding of the drag problem, instead of focusing entirely on the boom. [Update in the afternoon] Clark points out in comments that they do show some numbers in a slideshow. Color me unimpressed. There's never been any doubt that one can reduce boom through body shaping--the issue is whether you can get enough reduction to solve the problem. This graph shows a softer peak, from a little over 1.2 PSF to about 9 PSF. So they're reducing it by about thirty percent. Big whoop. Still gonna break windows. Is there any reason to think that they can do significantly better than this graph would indicate, particularly for a large transport? There's none provided in the article. In fact, they even admit in the caption here, "Designers of the modified F-5E weren't trying to eliminate the sonic boom, but prove that aircraft shaping can lessen this signature of supersonic flight." Big deal--we knew that. And as Clark notes, there remains no mention of the drag issue. Still looks like hype to me, similar to that over hypersonics. It may be beneficial for some military apps, but there's no reason to think that it will usher in a new era of commercial air transport, or even make supersonic bizjets practical, despite the pretty pictures. Posted by Rand Simberg at July 05, 2004 10:14 AMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/mt-diagnostics.cgi/2614 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.
Comments
Hi Rand, WRT numbers, there is a graph for the PopSci article in the slideshow - Rand, how similar is your proposed method to the systems used on the old Buccanneer attack plane the RN used to fly? Posted by Phil Fraering at July 5, 2004 03:34 PMI don't know anything about that aircraft, but no one to my knowledge has implemented shock-free technology in any operational (or even test) aircraft. Posted by Rand Simberg at July 5, 2004 04:19 PMThanks Rand. You've convinced me there are significant problems with their approach. It looks like they also need to have a mechanical system to alter the nose shape to maintain the suppression as they build up to the "sweet spot" and then later while slowing down. That would seem to add a lot to the cost and hurt reliability as well. It looks like they also need to have a mechanical system to alter the nose shape to maintain the suppression as they build up to the "sweet spot" and then later while slowing down. That would seem to add a lot to the cost and hurt reliability as well. That's going to be practical issue with any design, including one that incorporates the technology with which I'm familiar. There will always be an optimal configuration for cruise--off-design conditions are always the hardest part. That's why they have flaps... However, that having been said, true shock-free technology offers a path to much less dramatic modifications for take-off/landing (and eliminates the need for afterburners). Posted by Rand Simberg at July 5, 2004 06:34 PMRand, check out this link: http://www.vectorsite.net/avbucc.html Posted by Phil Fraering at July 5, 2004 10:30 PM(I forgot to mention: yes, it's a subsonic aircraft, generally, but you'll see what I mean when I say it has a similar system.) Posted by Phil Fraering at July 5, 2004 10:31 PMDrag or lift/drag ratio I thought the problem of supersonic cruise flight had already been solved by the old XB-70 bomber. Has any other supersonic aircraft, including the Concorde, ever used the principle of compression lift that was incorporated into the design of the XB-70? I read somewhere that because of compression lift the XB-70's lift to drag ratio was actually better at supersonic speeds than at subsonic speeds! Posted by Brad at July 6, 2004 02:32 AMPhil, that looks superficially like the concept, but it's just a blown control surface system, and has nothing to do with shock suppression. As for the Valkyrie having a better supersonic than subsonic L/D, it could be, but they both still sucked. Posted by Rand Simberg at July 6, 2004 05:41 AMsucky L/D ratios Hmmm, I'm surprised about that. But if the L/D of the XB-70 sucks, then the L/D of a B-52G must really suck considering both planes have similar gross weights and maximum ranges but the cruising speed of the B-52G is 3.7 times slower than the XB-70. Posted by Brad at July 8, 2004 01:15 AML/D is a function of many more things than simply gross weight and maximum range (e.g., compare the wetted area of the wings of the two aircraft). Posted by Rand Simberg at July 8, 2004 04:48 AMPost a comment |