Jump to content

[Real aviation] XB-1 supersonic rollout (I can easily imagine an FSLab's Overture!)


Ramón Cutanda

Recommended Posts

  • Ramón Cutanda changed the title to [Real aviation] XB-1 supersonic rollout (I can easily imagine an FSLab's Overture!)
Konstantin

Still no supersonic passenger airplane that can carry 100+ passengers - and this more than 50 years after Concorde...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Vimal Anandharaman

Well yea, no one can afford to spend crazy amounts of money on a plane nobody might want to use. Obviously people would have built a far superior supersonic transport by now if they had both the manpower and money the concorde team had ( what was it? almost 1.3 billion pounds i think). 

It's not easy to make a plane that is both fast and also economically and environmentally viable. I am quite impressed at this team and their dedication to building supersonic jets and I hope they succeed in bringing one out. 

Link to post
  • 7 months later...
Fraser Gale
4 hours ago, Michele Benedetti said:

I guess there's some big news today... :ph34r:

eh?  Care to tell us then...?

Link to post
Michele Benedetti
11 hours ago, Fraser Gale said:

eh?  Care to tell us then...?

I'm referring to the news that United bought 15 of these aircrafts, with an option of 35...to me this changes this situation into a whole new perspective

Link to post
Fraser Gale
2 hours ago, Michele Benedetti said:

I'm referring to the news that United bought 15 of these aircrafts, with an option of 35...to me this changes this situation into a whole new perspective

Yes, apologies I wasn’t thinking about that news when I read your post and for some reason didn’t catch on till I thought about it later. 
 

I still think there could be problems but if it turns out to be correct then great.   Of course if it is being built in America the sonic boom will be permitted over the USA now won’t it....?!  They’ll say it’s much less than Concorde’s etc but I think when they scale up from their current size, which they would have to do for airlines to make money long term, the boom could still be an issue.  
I’m surprised at UA committing to it to be honest. 

I also assume it will be the FAA certification process.......well.....!  
 

All conjecture and personal opinion on my part. 
 

Still not as fast as Concorde by the way.  M1.7 top speed so I guess they only want to just be outside the maximum transonic drag region. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Michele Benedetti
21 hours ago, Fraser Gale said:

Yes, apologies I wasn’t thinking about that news when I read your post and for some reason didn’t catch on till I thought about it later. 
 

I still think there could be problems but if it turns out to be correct then great.   Of course if it is being built in America the sonic boom will be permitted over the USA now won’t it....?!  They’ll say it’s much less than Concorde’s etc but I think when they scale up from their current size, which they would have to do for airlines to make money long term, the boom could still be an issue.  
I’m surprised at UA committing to it to be honest. 

I also assume it will be the FAA certification process.......well.....!  
 

All conjecture and personal opinion on my part. 
 

Still not as fast as Concorde by the way.  M1.7 top speed so I guess they only want to just be outside the maximum transonic drag region. 

I agree with every single word...probably they'll find a way through rules and laws to permit it...but still, maybe finally we could have another SST which for me is always good news! :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Whilst Boom appears to have a very similar shape to Concorde I see no evidence the nose can be lowered. Surely this is essential for the crew to have a clear view of the runway.

No mention of reheats. Presumably required for take-off and again when going through Mach 1 but whereas Concorde’s were switched off at Mach 1.7 how long would Boom’s be required for?

Still 215mph slower than Concorde and with fewer pax. Sixty years on and they still can’t beat British and French brains. Still, if it can use liquified horse dung for fuel I suppose that’s an improvement. That last bit is in jest. :D

Link to post
Fraser Gale

I assume they plan to use synthetic vision @Ray Proudfoot hence no need for the nose - saves a lot of weight. This was thought about for Concorde but in the tech of the day would have been a camera and a screen which wouldn’t have been brilliant.  Today it will be a 4K monitor and a computer and I assume will be readily certified in the US, for a US build... The FAA made it known they would not certify Concorde in the states unless it had a full, direct vision capability hence triplex developing the visor glass but I think attitudes might be different this time!

If Concorde B had been built (next one off the line was meant to be one) reheat would have been deleted and again would have saved a lot of fuel and some weight so no surprise there are no plans for reheat here.  Takeoff requirement was to be satisfied by the addition of a leading edge slat arrangement, increasing low speed lift and lowering takeoff (Vlof) speed as well as reducing incidence in low speed flight.  In other words lower pitch attitude, less drag, less fuel, more payload etc.

Whether any of this applies to Boom we shall have to wait and see but other than the shape I would expect most things to have advanced - other than the speed :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ray Proudfoot

Thanks @Fraser Gale. The possible lack of reheats on Boom and no droop nose will make it appear more like a conventional aircraft albeit one with a delta wing.

What made Concorde unique was having both of those which put it into a club all of its own. Would there be the same appeal in flight sim for a Boom model? Doubt it. But we’re talking a long way off if ever.

I’m sure the FAA will have a more relaxed attitude to giving it approval.

Link to post
Fraser Gale

There is always someone who wants to fly the latest tech in flight sim land but I lean towards the vintage “steam gauge” era anyway, the Airbus being as modern as I go and not that often so I don’t think I’ll be flying boom in the sim. 
 

The opinion of others I’ve spoken who know far more about it than I, is that had Boeing built a supersonic airliner instead of their wooden mock-up, there would have been a supersonic corridor across the USA in the 1970s and not a total ban on supersonic passenger flight...maybe we should ban Boom and see how they like it...:D just a joke there by the way!

Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...