Re: Tiny SST (was: SST development)

From:         Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes)
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington
Date:         12 Oct 96 02:36:02 
References:   1 2 3 4
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1996.1924@ohare.chicago.com>,
Terrell D. Drinkard <drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> wrote:
>In article <airliners.1996.1893@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
>Don Stokes <Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
>>
>>Question: would a small SST, say 20 seats plus crew, say the size of a
>>(shudder) metroliner, travelling at Mach 2 at 55,000+ ft, produce enough
>>of a sonic boom at ground level to prevent overflying populated areas?
>
>In a word, yes.

Dang!  8-)

>There are several caveats to that statement.  One, no weird configurations
>(there are some data that suggest that the skewed wing configurations can
>be designed to fly very quietly).  Two, no advancement in wing technology
>from four years ago.

Does this imply that there has been such an advancement in wing
technology?  (He says in the light of the fact Boeing and others are
toying with SST concepts again -- I never thought I'd see a photo of a
TU144 with Boeing and MDD logos on it..)

There's some interesting work on sonic boom reduction going on at Dryden,
using SR71s as testbeds, with other aircraft as instrument platforms at
various distances away from the test aircraft, to determine how the
various parts of the sonic boom change as they propagate away from the
aircraft.  See http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/DTRS/1996/HTML/H-DRC-95-32/index.html
and related links.

--
Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386