Jay481985 Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 I remember some vehicle of recent did break the speed of sound on land a few years back. And no the speed of sound is dependant on airpressure, density, even humidity. The denser the material the faster the speed of sound travels. That is why you can hear things much further in water as it is denser than air. Also air I believe maximum spl is 189 db while water is around 250 db. Sound travels faster in steel than wood (going back to 4th grade final in the science part) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEC Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9710/15/brits.land.speed/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjith Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 I spent a few mins on my run thinking about the consequences of the Quite Spike technology, it really is amazing. If GD does sell the rights to the likes of Boeing, Airbus and so on for commercial applications then that would mean supersonic flights would slowly replace all aircraft pretty much. The rebirth of the Concordes perhaps or the creation of a Super Concorde? I've seen the concorde at airports, while take off and while landing... to me its still one of the most visually stunning aircraft of our times especially considering the fact that it started its service in 1976. Even if Gulfstream starts using the technology solely on its aircraft, theres a LOT of money to be made consider the number of people around the world who'd dish out the bills to get them around faster. Will there be a detailed publication of some sort regarding this technology, how it functions, how it was designed and etc? That would be a fabulous read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 I spent a few mins on my run thinking about the consequences of the Quite Spike technology, it really is amazing. If GD does sell the rights to the likes of Boeing, Airbus and so on for commercial applications then that would mean supersonic flights would slowly replace all aircraft pretty much. The rebirth of the Concordes perhaps or the creation of a Super Concorde? I've seen the concorde at airports, while take off and while landing... to me its still one of the most visually stunning aircraft of our times especially considering the fact that it started its service in 1976. Even if Gulfstream starts using the technology solely on its aircraft, theres a LOT of money to be made consider the number of people around the world who'd dish out the bills to get them around faster. Will there be a detailed publication of some sort regarding this technology, how it functions, how it was designed and etc? That would be a fabulous read. Two things strike me. The nose is very long which makes landing hard to see when the wheels touch. The concorde actually had its nose tilt downwards top aid landing. The second one that I think makes supersonic a bit of a gamble is due to the rising fuel cost. Even though this year has been a jumpstart to what airtravel was before 9/11, the almost double cost of fuel (jet fuel in this instance) is negating any gains in the airplane industry. Going supersonic means an exponential amount more of fuel. If afterburners are required to sustain supersonic speeds then expect it to no guzzle fuel but really waste fuel. (Most military crafts cannot sustain supersonic speeds without afterburners which means limited range, the f22 can sustain mach 1.4 without afterburners. The airplane industry is looking for more economical planes at this point, hence why the boeing 777 is selling better than the airbus in which Boeing became very close to closing shop. Now its the reverse as airbus admits that the 777 was better than they though and airbus is having lots of problems with their new planes the 380 superjet and others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Adams Posted July 24, 2006 Author Share Posted July 24, 2006 Jay.....please don't take this the wrong way.....I'm sure you're a very smart fella.....however, please remind yourself that there's a reason you have over 5000 posts and this last one of yours is a good example of "filler". You've completely mixed apples and grapes and oranges and peaches by rattling off stuff you've read or someone said. First, this technology, while commercial aircraft manufacturers COULD use it, is really aimed at biz jets due to the present constraints that the aerodynamic area rule places on the size of the aircraft. There's no way in hell you'll ever see a 500 passenger supersonic aircraft like we know it. However, a 12 to 15 passenger biz jet is viable. Certainly, ramjet technology has been around for many years. However, new propulsion technology does allow sustained supercruise w/o afterburner. As for fuel....do you really think the guy who pays $50mil for a G550 with an operating cost of around $2800/hour gives a flip about fuel costs?? They don't - trust me. And just where, as a college student, do you get such inside information about Airbus' or Boeing's issues or what the aviation industry's focus is??? The 777 and the A380 are two different aircraft aimed at two different markets. Must you opine on everything??? And if you must opine could you at least make it sound less like fact and more like personal opinion. Sheesh........ Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjith Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Good point on the ramjet, but for some reason it never got as popular as I thought it would become. Because the ramjet doesn't require the aircraft to have a compressor or a turbine, the aircraft should theoretically be lighter and hence faster. But nevertheless it still requires a normal engine to the aircraft up to supersonic speeds for the ramjet to kick in because it doesn't work under half the speed of sound. I wonder if ramjet will be implemented into commercial aircraft. The only aircraft that uses a ramjet i know if the SR-71's pratt and whitney engine (although only at high speeds). I've already read, but very little, about the Pulse Detonation Wave Engine - and it sounds like it would be extremely efficient but once again only at extremely high speeds. Is it possible to have an aircraft with an advanced engine use the quiet spike technology? Seems quite possible, in my day dreams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Jay.....please don't take this the wrong way.....I'm sure you're a very smart fella.....however, please remind yourself that there's a reason you have over 5000 posts and this last one of yours is a good example of "filler". You've completely mixed apples and grapes and oranges and peaches by rattling off stuff you've read or someone said. First, this technology, while commercial aircraft manufacturers COULD use it, is really aimed at biz jets due to the present constraints that the aerodynamic area rule places on the size of the aircraft. There's no way in hell you'll ever see a 500 passenger supersonic aircraft like we know it. However, a 12 to 15 passenger biz jet is viable. I know that there is no commerical viability with 500 passenger crafts. The concorde was as long as a 747 yet carried 110 passengers max. Heck some of the cockpit area was taken by the rear wheels. I meant commercial 12-15 person jet. It is a commercial jet as it usually is run by a charter company or is company owned. These are not personal aircrafts. And I know gulfstream caters to the under 50 passenger aircrafts. Certainly, ramjet technology has been around for many years. However, new propulsion technology does allow sustained supercruise w/o afterburner. This was a question. I wanted to know if it can sustain supercruise without afterburners. As for fuel....do you really think the guy who pays $50mil for a G550 with an operating cost of around $2800/hour gives a flip about fuel costs?? They don't - trust me. Well if it is a charter type company that purchases it, I am sure they will consider it. Since they are a business, you cannot spend more on fuel than you are charging your customer to have a personal craft that the rich love to have. And just where, as a college student, do you get such inside information about Airbus' or Boeing's issues or what the aviation industry's focus is??? The 777 and the A380 are two different aircraft aimed at two different markets. Must you opine on everything??? And if you must opine could you at least make it sound less like fact and more like personal opinion. Sheesh........ I've read this article on magazines and such. It was stated as a fact that an airbus higher up admitted that the 777 Boeing was better than they though. And it is again fact that the Airbus 380 is having delays and issues with the building and delivering their product on the delivery date. but i do admit that I rather see boeing beat airbus as its an american company. Tom Tom in no way was I making fun of the idea that your company would fail. I just wanted to know some more ideas. I think you took it too personal as I bet you have strong feeling about the company that you work for. I was more asking for questions. And again gulfstream does not compete directly with airbus nor boeing so I was just stating what is happening with the jumbo jet market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.