avatar_kitbasher

Aircraft the US should have bought from Europe

Started by kitbasher, July 25, 2014, 11:07:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hobbes

Wasn't the main "noise" problem the sonic boom which made it unsuitable for overland routes?

kitnut617

The majority of the engine noise comes from the rear, so whether the engines are on the top or bottom of the wing wouldn't make any difference.  Our old house where we lived in Calgary was in-line with the north-south runway (now runways as there are two) but a good 15 miles south and you could hear every jet take off when the wind was coming from the north, and it didn't matter if it was an old 737-200 or a modern bypass fan engine that was taking off.
If I'm not building models, I'm out riding my dirtbike

rickshaw

Quote from: Flyer on July 27, 2014, 07:39:51 AM
Quote from: Hobbes on July 27, 2014, 07:32:43 AM
Wasn't the main "noise" problem the sonic boom which made it unsuitable for overland routes?
Most likely, so as Kit said changing engines wouldn't change the noise <_< I was thinking having the engines on top of the wing may have reduced take off and pre/post supersonic flight noise. But being a delta some high angle of attack flight is required so having the engines above the wing would cause some problems in that area I presume.

The problem was that it used big, NOISY turbojets which were pushing air out the back at supersonic speeds.  The only way to reduce that sort of noise is with some clever baffling and slowing it down, which reduces propulsive efficiency.  The Concorde's secret was that it was an extremely low drag design but it still needed all the power it could get to achieve supersonic flight and reducing that thrust to make meaningful reductions in noise would have meant it couldn't have gotten above Mach 1 as easily as it did.   You'd need to replace the engines with some very big, powerful turbofans and they weren't available until 20+ years later and even then, you'd still have similar problems because of the velocity of the airflow.   Putting the engines on top of the wing would have perhaps reduced noise to the front and below the flightpath but would have done nothing to the noise to the rear hemisphere.
How to reduce carbon emissions - Tip #1 - Walk to the Bar for drinks.

Diamondback

I could see SAC maybe having a use for the Vulcan as a long-range Wild Weasel, send them in first to help clear a path for the following BUFFs going after SAMs, GCI and fighter facilities. Maybe load a few with AAM's as strategic escorts in case anybody makes it up to play...

jcf

According to period observations tha Concorde was no noisier than most existing transport
jets, and quieter than some, when in the approach and takeoff phases. Which is the kind of
noise easily mitigated by approach and departure corridors/rules. The issue of supersonic
flight over the transcontinental US was not an issue of engine noise, it was the overpressure
produced by the sonic boom. There was a great deal misinformation and some simple
misunderstandings in the period, some of which continues to today.

PR19_Kit

From personal observation on the ground at Heathrow and Fairford a Concorde on take-off was probably the loudest sound I've ever heard. With the reheat on those four Olympuses (Olympii?) were incredibly loud, even louder than a four ship Tornado GR1 take-off observed from the threshold caravan at RAF Lossiemouth. The peak loudness didn't last long however as the Concorde accelerated like crazy and they pulled the reheat out quite early on during the climb out.

And yes, a Concorde was even louder than a the Rotodyne.  ;D
Kit's Rule 1 ) Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage
Kit's Rule 2) The backstory can always be changed to suit the model

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Mossie

Concorde B would have removed the reheat.  Airframe improvements, plus some tinkering with the engine and extra sound proofing would have given more power with much less noise.  Any further Concordes ordered after the original 17 that flew would have received these upgrades.
http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html
I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

PR19_Kit

Quote from: Mossie on July 28, 2014, 08:35:02 AM
Concorde B would have removed the reheat.  Airframe improvements, plus some tinkering with the engine and extra sound proofing would have given more power with much less noise.  Any further Concordes ordered after the original 17 that flew would have received these upgrades.
http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html

Well yes, but now we're entering into the world of full size Whiffery, and as Concorde B never got further than a paper exercise the US couldn't have bought it.
Kit's Rule 1 ) Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage
Kit's Rule 2) The backstory can always be changed to suit the model

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Diamondback

Um, having seen the seat sizes aboard the one that got stuffed and mounted here in Seattle... why would anyone WANT to buy a Concorde? You practically need a shoehorn to get into a seat, even more so than the cheek-and-a-half-wide seats in use today... did they design the passenger cabin for midgets or something?

At least the Boeing SST would've used REAL, full-size seats...

:D LOL

The Wooksta!

Given the size of the Americans I've seen, they'd still be too small...

;D
"It's basically a cure -  for not being an axe-wielding homicidal maniac. The potential market's enormous!"

"Visit Scarfolk today!"
https://scarfolk.blogspot.com/

"Dance, dance, dance, dance, dance to the radio!"

The Plan:
www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic

Diamondback


PR19_Kit

A Concorde isn't that much smaller inside than a 707, or any other narrow body. Anyway you'd only be in there for 3.5 hrs at most.
Kit's Rule 1 ) Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage
Kit's Rule 2) The backstory can always be changed to suit the model

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

rickshaw

Quote from: Diamondback on July 28, 2014, 11:38:23 AM
Um, having seen the seat sizes aboard the one that got stuffed and mounted here in Seattle... why would anyone WANT to buy a Concorde? You practically need a shoehorn to get into a seat, even more so than the cheek-and-a-half-wide seats in use today... did they design the passenger cabin for midgets or something?

At least the Boeing SST would've used REAL, full-size seats...

:D LOL

Americans were a lot smaller then than they are now.  Everybody was.  Have you checked out the average size of your grand parents?  Lots smaller than your generation is, now....  ;)
How to reduce carbon emissions - Tip #1 - Walk to the Bar for drinks.

Scooterman

Quote from: The Wooksta! on July 28, 2014, 12:21:10 PM
Given the size of the Americans I've seen, they'd still be too small...

;D
I resemble that remark!   ;D

Diamondback

So? It's a proven fact that as species evolve over time they get bigger. Are you saying that time should have frozen in 1965 and nobody should ever be bigger than 5'6 and 125#?

As people change, that means things built for them need to change accordingly. But with the combination of both growing size AND shrinking seats... and for the record I'll have you know that the size difference between myself and my grandfather is that I'm 6" shorter--there's a little proportional mismatch, as my torso (particularly ribcage) is very close to what his was. Comparative to most of the family even going back to his generation and a couple before I'm the runt of the litter...