From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Terrell D. Drinkard) Organization: The Boeing Company Date: 21 Oct 96 02:29:17 References: 1 2 3 4
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1996.2079@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Don Stokes <Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz> wrote: >In article <email@example.com>, >Terrell D. Drinkard <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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..) It implies that I haven't kept up with supersonic airfoil and shockwave technology for the last four years. I assume that there is continued research and development in the field, but I'm hoping that I'd have heard if someone had figured out how to fly the airplane that fast, keep a relatively conventional configuration (keeps us out of some of the more innovative failure modes), and yet quiet enough not to disturb grazing bovines or sleeping shift workers. -- Terry email@example.com "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense."