Re: Concorde's Engines

Date:         05 Jun 99 02:09:32 
From:         James Matthew Weber <jmweber@goodnet.com>
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

At 12:59 AM 6/4/99 +0000, you wrote:
>Bill Herman made the following astute observation regarding Concorde in a
>recent posting:
>
>> (SNIP) I thought the F-22 was considered
>>to be a great technological achievement because of its ability to fly
>beyond
>>Mach 1 at military power (no afterburner).  It's hard to believe that a
>>plane designed 20+ years prior to the F-22 already had that capability.
>
>which raises the obvious question of why the Brits never contemplated using
>it as a look down missile launching platform.
>
>Could it be that at THAT speed and given the state of late '60's
>electronics, there was a real possibility that Concorde would simply shoot
>itself down  ;)

Two points. The achievement with the F22 (and some F14 have the ability
as well) is to be both supersonic with afterburners off, and remain a
highly maneuverable weapons platform. The peak drag on most aircraft is
in high transonic to low supersonic regime, so cruising there is the
most difficult. Concorde has a reputation for being relative un
maneuverable in this regime. In fact the flight plans require that the
acceleration from M.9 to M1.,7 be pretty much straight line. Any degree
of maneuverability at mach 1+ requires surprising high G loads. For
instance a 10 degree bank at Mach 2 will give you a turning rate of
about .3 degrees per second.  A weapons platform with the
maneuverability of Concorde would be the proverbial sitting duck.

James Matthew Weber   (623) 587 7514 .  Fax  (480) 638 1316