NEODARK Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 Or QSST for short, to be deployed by 2013? According to its manufacturer Supersonic Aerospace International, “QSST was designed to meet, or exceed, all current and anticipated FAA aircraft certification sound and environmental standards. QSST’s sonic signature is less than 1/100th that of the Concorde - or a sound level between the interior of a car at 70 miles per hour and normal talking levels.” So no loud "BOOM" when traveling faster than the speed of sound. Ah cool stuff, anyone else have more insight into this development? http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/3422
SuperKungFu Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 yea i remember reading about it, NASA tested it with it with an odd looking F-5. Boeing's original idea was to go with the super sonic transport since the concorde was going out of service...but i guess it was put on hold for the 787, probably because they couldnt solve the sonic boom issue. hopefully this will help that plane. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
britgliderpilot Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 Be wary of anything like this . . . . . I note that this mentions flying at supersonic speeds without afterburner - well, Concorde did as well, so that point's straight out of the window . . . . I do recall an article in which a cleverly modified NASA F-5 variant significantly reduced the noise created by it's sonic boom, this would appear to be the next step. Make the VG intakes right and the shockwaves do all the airflow deceleration/compression for you, you can just install a normal engine and it works fine. Olympus was originally a subsonic engine . . . . . When will someone design a working supercritical gas turbine, I wonder? Anyway, the point is that with clever tech you can actually reduce the sonic boom, yes. Whether it's commercially viable at the moment is a completely different question . . . . . http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
britgliderpilot Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 yea i remember reading about it, NASA tested it with it with an odd looking F-5. Boeing's original idea was to go with the super sonic transport since the concorde was going out of service...but i guess it was put on hold for the 787, probably because they couldnt solve the sonic boom issue. hopefully this will help that plane. Wasn't the Sonic Cruiser Mach 0.9? Transonic, basically . . . . engineering-wise it was a rubbish idea, you got the worst of all possible worlds. Just sounded nice on the marketing :P http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
Pilotasso Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 That triple tirangular tail is going to mess up the drag completely...IMHO of course. .
ARM505 Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 In this day and age of fuel economy, I think they're going to have to work long and hard to make any QSST (at least a civilian alternative) an economically viable option. Current civil transport aircraft are pretty thrifty with fuel in the cruise, and with engines like the GenX on the way, it's only going to get better. Supersonic aircraft (especially those made to be quiet I would think) would probably need some aerodynamic compromises, which means you're no longer designing just for efficiency anymore.
Recommended Posts