F-ZeroOne Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Just like to comment that nothing comes close to the Concorde's Mach 2.23 supercruise capability. The F-22 may be the fastest *active* plane with supercruise, but the Concorde has it beat by far, as does the YF-23. Davids not joking here - in the 80s British Airways offered a Concorde to NATO for targeting purposes (a friend of mine thought this a little odd until I reminded him about supersonic Backfires). The only fighter that got close was an E.E. Lightning - not exactly a slow-poke aircraft itself - and even then the pilot described that particular aircraft as being quick, even for a Lightning. Theres still a Concorde lurking at Heathrow. Race ya home, F-22?
David Hingtgen Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Due to the fact that even the F-15 and F-16 can (barely) supercruise when light and clean, (as could the YF-17 and NF-5) the Air Force revised their definition of "effective" supercruise. Don't remember exactly what it was, but it was something along the lines of "Mach 1.2+ with an air-to-air load". Because going Mach 1.01 really isn't any better than the .9 to .95 that many others cruise at.
Ratchet Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Davids not joking here - in the 80s British Airways offered a Concorde to NATO for targeting purposes (a friend of mine thought this a little odd until I reminded him about supersonic Backfires). The only fighter that got close was an E.E. Lightning - not exactly a slow-poke aircraft itself - and even then the pilot described that particular aircraft as being quick, even for a Lightning. Theres still a Concorde lurking at Heathrow. Race ya home, F-22? But dude...the Concordes carry how much fuel? They're built for traveling long distance ferrying people.
Ratchet Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 (edited) Davids not joking here - in the 80s British Airways offered a Concorde to NATO for targeting purposes (a friend of mine thought this a little odd until I reminded him about supersonic Backfires). The only fighter that got close was an E.E. Lightning - not exactly a slow-poke aircraft itself - and even then the pilot described that particular aircraft as being quick, even for a Lightning. Theres still a Concorde lurking at Heathrow. Race ya home, F-22? The Raptor wins this one easy. While the Concorde is 5 miles away ahead of the Raptor at the start of the race, the Raptor pilot launches an AIM-9X. Edited October 6, 2007 by Ratchet
David Hingtgen Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 While the Concorde does have a large fuel fraction, it's simply far more optimized for high-speed cruise than any other plane out there. No plane has the fuel capacity to run afterburners for hours on end. (Nor can any engine withstand the stress of doing so). It's well known that it burns far more fuel per mile at Mach .95, than at Mach 2.0 It does not like flying "high subsonic" which is where most jets are most efficient. At top speed, the Concorde can outrun a LOT of planes. Not that many fighters go past M2.35
Ratchet Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 While the Concorde does have a large fuel fraction, it's simply far more optimized for high-speed cruise than any other plane out there. No plane has the fuel capacity to run afterburners for hours on end. (Nor can any engine withstand the stress of doing so). It's well known that it burns far more fuel per mile at Mach .95, than at Mach 2.0 It does not like flying "high subsonic" which is where most jets are most efficient. At top speed, the Concorde can outrun a LOT of planes. Not that many fighters go past M2.35 That's the only thing it's optimized for. That, cramp space, and noise pollution. Didn't the U.S. ban it from entering our airspace?
vermillion01 Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 Ah, but Concorde had another trick up its sleeve.... its was the amazing stretching airplane....
Akilae Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 No plane has the fuel capacity to run afterburners for hours on end. (Nor can any engine withstand the stress of doing so). err... SR-71?
Ratchet Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 (edited) err... SR-71? Doesn't NASA have a couple of X-planes that can beat the Concorde. MIG-31? Tupolev Tu-144? Edited October 7, 2007 by Ratchet
David Hingtgen Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 That's the only thing it's optimized for. That, cramp space, and noise pollution. Didn't the U.S. ban it from entering our airspace? Um, no. Too many NIMBY's protested against it overflying supersonically, despite the Concorde's boom being less intense than your average car backfiring. Opinions and fear triumphed over facts, as often happens. They also didn't like the noise the burners made on takeoff (never mind the far louder burners on any military plane at the many bases all across the US, taking off far more often) Also, the US was the ONLY scheduled place the Concorde flew to from the airline's home bases--where'd you think it flew? Calling the Concorde loud is like calling a Corvette loud. Yes, it is more than average--but certainly nothing to complain about, especially in comparison to its massive performance advantage over the "average".
Ratchet Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 Ah, but Concorde had another trick up its sleeve.... its was the amazing stretching airplane.... Eh?
David Hingtgen Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 SR-71---ok, technically it does fly for hours on burner. But its afterburners are completely unique, as are the engines. The burner itself acts like the engine---it has its own air supply and compression, every other afterburner out there just dumps fuel into the turbine's exhaust. An SR-71's burner at Mach 3 is basically the ramjet itself, with the turbine section practically idling along just to keep the accessories going with most of its air supply bypassed to the burner. Blackbird burners at speed are doing far, far more than what your typical burner does--they're not even really operating on exhaust. They operate as normal burners sub-sonically, but once the engine starts acting like a ramjet---they're the main component.
vermillion01 Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 (edited) The MIG 31 could fly faster than concorde, but i think the orginal point was that concorde was designed for sustained supersonic flight where most fighters are only capable of short bursts of supersonic flight. Even the SR-71 only used afterburners to 'push' it through the sound barriers, IIRC it still had to "cruise" without re-heats. There are a few planes that could overtake the Concorde, but none could actually outrun it... no other plane could travel those distances at supersonic speed. (ok i could be wrong on that last bit... SR-71 notwithstanding) Thankyou Dr hingten - beat me to it.. Edited October 7, 2007 by vermillion01
David Hingtgen Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 Ratchet---the Concorde stretches about a foot in length at Mach 2, due to how hot it gets. All planes stretch a bit when they're that warm/fast, but the Concorde does notably so due to its extreme length and shape. It's not so much on a 40ft jet as on a 200ft jet. Similar to how an SR-71 only achieves its "true" shape and the fuel tanks seal once it gets going hot and fast. PS--and a point is, that FEW planes can beat the Concorde. Yes, there are some out there--the fastest planes ever built. But the sheer fact that a PASSENGER plane can go faster than 90% of military combat interceptors can--is pretty remarkable. That'd be like if Ford made a family sedan that could out-race 90% of Indy or NASCAR.
vermillion01 Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 (edited) Eh? Concorde was well known for 'stretching' upto a foot during supersonic flight. IIRC this was discovered by a member of the cabin crew who after seeing a large gap in a bookshelf (?) thought that a passenger was still reading a book from the shelf when in fact it had already been returned. The gap dissapeared when the plane landed. (i remember that story from when i was a wee youngster) EDIT- Dr Hingten beats me to it again. Edited October 7, 2007 by vermillion01
David Hingtgen Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 Mod power---we get automatic priority in posting replies.
buddhafabio Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 wings on discovery and the guys my pop talked to while stationed at Kadena ab said sr 71 leaked like a cive . and wings had the airmen in rain protection under the plane
F-ZeroOne Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 A few additions to whats already been said - would an AIM-9X catch Concorde if it was launched 5 miles behind it and Concorde was already doing Mach 2 +...? Hmm... SR-71 - apparently, they never did work out how to seal the fuel tanks properly; no filler ever made could stand the heat at top speed. The problem was "solved" by the fact the aircrafts fuselage expanded due to the friction, thus sealing the tanks completely at full speed. IIRC, SR-71s had to top up their tanks after take-off from a tanker... Back to Concorde - the story I heard was that a flight engineer once left his hat (or dropped it) it just before a speed run; it fell into a gap and after the run was completed was found to have been squashed completely flat due to the expansion of the airframe. Theres another lovely story about a SR-71 crew who were tootling along at altitude when they were asked to make a course correction. They were a bit puzzled by this, as at their normal altitude and speed there shouldn't have been anything else up there. As they sat there in their little metal cocoon, clad in flight suits designed to protect them from a totally hostile environment, they were then passed by a Concorde, with 100-odd passengers in normal shirts looking back at them...
buddhafabio Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 (edited) notice the drip pans under the blackbird Edited October 7, 2007 by buddhafabio
VF-19 Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 notice the drip pans under the blackbird Pans? All I see are drip buckets...
Phyrox Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 Theres another lovely story about a SR-71 crew who were tootling along at altitude when they were asked to make a course correction. They were a bit puzzled by this, as at their normal altitude and speed there shouldn't have been anything else up there. As they sat there in their little metal cocoon, clad in flight suits designed to protect them from a totally hostile environment, they were then passed by a Concorde, with 100-odd passengers in normal shirts looking back at them... This I seriously doubt
F-ZeroOne Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 This I seriously doubt The story can be found in the book "Backroom Boys", by Francis Spufford, and according to the book was related by a SR-71 pilot to a Concorde captain, who then passed it on. I realise that doesn't count as a completely reliable source, but going by the information in the story, the SR-71 wasn't travelling at its highest altitude.
Akilae Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 Another interesting SR-71 tidbit I heard from somewhere: In order to refuel mid-air, the tanker has to be going at full throttle, and the SR-71 has to throttle back to near-stall speeds. Makes for hairy situations I gather.
Warmaker Posted October 7, 2007 Posted October 7, 2007 Pans? All I see are drip buckets... There are pans alright, at least 4 underneath the fuselage. No buckets under the Blackbird Just drip pans, whell covers, chocks, and a fire extinguisher.
buddhafabio Posted October 8, 2007 Posted October 8, 2007 (edited) Another interesting SR-71 tidbit I heard from somewhere: In order to refuel mid-air, the tanker has to be going at full throttle, and the SR-71 has to throttle back to near-stall speeds. Makes for hairy situations I gather. funny because the kc-135s were bought because the bombers were at stall out speed with the piston tankers at full throttle. Edited October 8, 2007 by buddhafabio
David Hingtgen Posted October 9, 2007 Posted October 9, 2007 "The F-16 is an evil, menacing scary sound" That's a new one. They sound very generic IMHO, having heard both GE and PW ones. Super Hornets have a pretty unique sound.
the white drew carey Posted October 9, 2007 Posted October 9, 2007 "The F-16 is an evil, menacing scary sound" That's a new one. They sound very generic IMHO, having heard both GE and PW ones. Super Hornets have a pretty unique sound. I bet that person said that just to get quoted.
kalvasflam Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 (edited) And so it begins.... http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/boei...1A9405123DC0%7D Let the penalty round commence.... any bets on whether there is an additional delay? This will kill ANA's idea of using the planes for the Olympics... I wonder how many people at Airbus are laughing their asses off right now. Edited October 10, 2007 by kalvasflam
Knight26 Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 From what I am hearing and reading it is mostly a problem with getting required parts from subcontractors, and some flight control software problems, but that is common with any fly by wire plane.
David Hingtgen Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 If there's another delay, it'll still be a year ahead of the A380 delay-wise. And it's still years and years ahead of the A350. Airbus isn't laughing. The 787 needs about 5 years of delays to fall behind the A350's service entry.
kalvasflam Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 Yeah, but unlike the A380, Boeing is banking on the 787 for a good part of their revenue in the next few years. This is much more of a make or break for Boeing than A380 was for Airbus. So, one more slip (if it happens) becomes a real big deal, remember, A380 has something like 170 orders vs 700+ orders for the 787. Any more delays, then there is cancellation risk and an opportunity for A350 to start taking bites out of the Boeing's shares.
David Hingtgen Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 IMHO A350 simply isn't a threat. The 787 has a tremendous order book because airlines want a more fuel-efficient plane as soon as possible---not 5 years from now. Even if the 787 was delayed by 2 years somehow, it'd still be in service well before the A350. Boeing may be depending on the 787, but Airbus is depending on the A350. (Both REALLY make their money from their small planes though---737 and A320 are still going strong) CO, NW, ANA, QF, etc are not going to cancel due to a 6-month delay, to order a different plane that'll arrive 60 months later. The only real questions (big order-wise) are American and United---American is utterly undecided, and the rumor was United might go for the A350 simply due to the 787 order book being so full that if you order now you won't get any until the A350's out. Early 787 customers won't give up their delivery slots for anything, but if you haven't ordered yet---it's going to be a long wait.
buddhafabio Posted October 10, 2007 Posted October 10, 2007 Bigger planes would help in the faa control problem.
Recommended Posts