27 Apr 2024, 22:26 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 24 Mar 2024, 15:04 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/10/17 Posts: 1701 Post Likes: +1165 Company: Skyhaven Airport Inc
Aircraft: various mid century
|
|
Yes I have heard that about Virgin. They have been out of service too long anyway. But the design is proven and could be built again with lower risk.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 24 Mar 2024, 15:54 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23623 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Not sure supersonic is all that practical domestically unless it can go a lot higher, otherwise it will still be in the Mach .78 lane. FL450+ has it's own physiological issues to consider too. Like the Concorde, they aim for flying at FL600 or so when supersonic. Once you get above FL400, it really doesn't matter too much. You are in outer space. At FL450, 85% of the atmosphere is below you. At FL600, it is 93%. Walking out an airlock on the space station would only be 7% worse in some fashion. Quote: Non aviators are always shocked when I tell them airliners were often faster in the '60s-'70s than now. The planes are not slower today, the airlines fly them slower to save fuel. I'm tooling along in my simple straight wing Citation at FL410 and M0.70, and the airliners are all doing M0.74 to M0.78 generally. I was behind a Southwest 737 at FL390 and he was doing 435 KTAS and I was doing 405 KTAS. I can live with that difference to be able to land on a 3000 ft runway and fly my plane single pilot. I wasn't at max power, either. A 10% reduction in fuel flow is only about a 3% reduction in speed, so I back it off to save fuel, just like the airlines are doing. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 24 Mar 2024, 16:28 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/20/16 Posts: 6478 Post Likes: +7959 Location: Austin, TX area
Aircraft: OPA
|
|
I understand it’s for fuel economy. That doesn’t change the fact that airliners used to cruise faster than mmo on a 737 or A320. Ive been in the cockpit at .84-.85.
So, at FL600, or Concorde for that matter, what happens to the pax if pressurization is suddenly lost? TUC = 3-4 seconds.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 24 Mar 2024, 17:14 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/06/08 Posts: 4702 Post Likes: +2705
Aircraft: B55 P2
|
|
Probably bad for the passengers - but I'd fly on one anyway. Username Protected wrote: I understand it’s for fuel economy. That doesn’t change the fact that airliners used to cruise faster than mmo on a 737 or A320. Ive been in the cockpit at .84-.85.
So, at FL600, or Concorde for that matter, what happens to the pax if pressurization is suddenly lost? TUC = 3-4 seconds.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 24 Mar 2024, 17:25 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/20/16 Posts: 6478 Post Likes: +7959 Location: Austin, TX area
Aircraft: OPA
|
|
So would I (if I could afford it). I just anticipate some interesting certification issues.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 24 Mar 2024, 21:50 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/10/07 Posts: 30849 Post Likes: +10796 Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: When flying over land, Overture can fly significantly faster than subsonic commercial jets—about Mach 0.94, without breaking the sound barrier. This is about 20% faster than subsonic flight. That would imply that other commercial jets aren't capable of flying faster than .78 Mach. I have heard that today's airliners typically cruise slower than airliners did in the past but I didn't think that was to avoid sonic booms. How fast can airliners and high end business jets cruise today?
_________________ -lance
It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 25 Mar 2024, 11:54 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/21/21 Posts: 185 Post Likes: +160
Aircraft: Bonanza A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: When flying over land, Overture can fly significantly faster than subsonic commercial jets—about Mach 0.94, without breaking the sound barrier. This is about 20% faster than subsonic flight. That would imply that other commercial jets aren't capable of flying faster than .78 Mach. I have heard that today's airliners typically cruise slower than airliners did in the past but I didn't think that was to avoid sonic booms. How fast can airliners and high end business jets cruise today?
Pretty fast
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 25 Mar 2024, 12:04 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/03/08 Posts: 14584 Post Likes: +22973 Location: Peachtree City GA / Stoke-On-Trent UK
Aircraft: A33
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Not sure supersonic is all that practical domestically unless it can go a lot higher, otherwise it will still be in the Mach .78 lane. FL450+ has it's own physiological issues to consider too.
Non aviators are always shocked when I tell them airliners were often faster in the '60s-'70s than now. exactly. The trend is to fly slower and save fuel, not to go faster. Really flight time has very little to do with overall travel time. To travel faster they need to cut down the multi-hour pushback&wait routine, and the wait-for-a-gate nonsense after landing. The current crop of airliners are plenty fast, it is poor execution that results on slow travel.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 25 Mar 2024, 12:56 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/07/18 Posts: 90 Post Likes: +50 Location: Woburn, MA
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Faster only really works on high-cost, long haul service. We're talking about trans oceanic, trans continental, nonstop flights. Throw a single connection in and you've blown most of the advantage. Concord was a niche airplane. Boom will be a niche airplane for the same reason: Cost. It's expensive to go fast. The majority of the flying public doesn't want to pay for comfortable let alone fast. I can drive to Chicago in the same five hours that it takes to airline there and the flight portion of that is 45 minutes. Find a way to trim a fifteen hour flight to six or seven and now we're talking, but how many of us fly legs that long? And the Boom plane is expected to only be able to do ~4,000nm, so that takes the ultra-long haul option off the table. That can maybe do Seattle-Tokyo, but probably not with a headwind. I'm sure a few routes will work for this type of service. But I find I wish my Boston-Paris flights were ~2 hours longer so I could get a little more sleep and be less of a zombie. Maybe if it was only 3 hours then I would love it, but I have a feeling that option won't be available on Concur
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 25 Mar 2024, 15:26 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/28/17 Posts: 6704 Post Likes: +8044 Location: N. California
Aircraft: C-182
|
|
I was in a hurry to get from Anchorage to LAX at the end of my line to catch a flight home. I pushed the throttles up from .84 to .86. I saved 15 minutes, and burned an extra 10,000 pounds of fuel. Double the speed, quadruple the drag. Going fast is expensive. For our small planes reducing drag to get more speed is more effective than a bigger engine. The best way to save trip time is don't diddle daddle around the airport before flight.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|