01 May 2025, 16:50 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight  Posted: 25 Mar 2024, 17:02 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 11/20/16
Posts: 7060
Post Likes: +9310
Location: Austin, TX area
Aircraft: OPA
|
|
|
Dad has talked about racing Eastern in the CV880. Fuel was cheap then. MMO .88
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, 17:09 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19922
Post Likes: +25000
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 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. The winds die down significantly at FL600. Here is FL390 (top) versus FL600 (bottom) now over the Paris to JFK route: Attachment: fl390-fl600-winds.png As you can see, the winds are essentially a non factor for a supersonic aircraft, but for the subsonics in the 30s, it is a huge factor. Mike C.
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 26 Mar 2024, 09:51 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/07/18
Posts: 208
Post Likes: +151
Location: Woburn, MA
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 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. The winds die down significantly at FL600. Here is FL390 (top) versus FL600 (bottom) now over the Paris to JFK route: Attachment: fl390-fl600-winds.png As you can see, the winds are essentially a non factor for a supersonic aircraft, but for the subsonics in the 30s, it is a huge factor. Mike C.
Good point. Though Seattle-Tokyo is 4,144nm so that particular route is still a no-go with IFR mins unless it's super efficient at some lower speed/altitude combination. For other routes, a nice thing about a 3-hr max journey nowadays is that the weather at the destination will have an really good forecast.
I just looked up the range of Concorde and it is listed as 3,900 nm. That's 350 nm less than what Boom is trying to do, so realistically they could fly the same routes. I know the biggest technical limit to expanded Concorde use was due to sonic boom, but in the 80s/90s was there a desire to get Concorde on a domestic (e.g. JFK-LAX) route for faster transcontinental?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 26 Mar 2024, 10:07 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/22/17
Posts: 963
Post Likes: +1713
Location: Nova Scotia
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I can't stand to watch videos that jump around every 1/10 of a second. If you have something to show me - SHOW ME, don't over-dramatize it with jumpy screen shots which tells me nothing. Nobody UNDER 40 looks at the world that way...
Dan Fify.  Edit. Added the under 40 part
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 26 Mar 2024, 16:35 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/28/10
Posts: 1169
Post Likes: +297
Location: Columbus, OH
Aircraft: AA5B
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A reusable rocket can make that flight in a hour or so.....but the cost is much higher.  Or we can just take a hypersonic scramjet powered vehicle and not worry about exoatmospheric flight. Can stay down in the 60,000 ft range.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 26 Mar 2024, 22:13 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/06/08
Posts: 5117
Post Likes: +2954
Aircraft: B55 P2
|
|
Its an interesting question at what average speed a rocket is more efficient than a scramjet. Hypersonic flight is extremely inefficient, with L/D ratios in the ~4:1 area, and somewhere above about Mach 5 the stagnation temperature is hither than any structural material can tolerate long term. A suborbital rocket is a lot simpler. Scramjets and hypersonic flight are fantastic - I really want them to be the answer, but I'm not sure they are Username Protected wrote: A reusable rocket can make that flight in a hour or so.....but the cost is much higher. Or we can just take a hypersonic scramjet powered vehicle and not worry about exoatmospheric flight. Can stay down in the 60,000 ft range.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 26 Mar 2024, 23:06 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 2813
Post Likes: +2766
Company: Retired
Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: the biggest technical limit to expanded Concorde use was due to sonic boom, but in the 80s/90s was there a desire to get Concorde on a domestic (e.g. JFK-LAX) route for faster transcontinental? It wasn't just the sonic boom, Concorde was also very loud on takeoff, measured at 119.4 dB. That killed any possibility of adding routes to more airports.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 27 Mar 2024, 00:26 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/20/16
Posts: 7060
Post Likes: +9310
Location: Austin, TX area
Aircraft: OPA
|
|
|
The only thing I ever heard that matched Concorde in volume was a British Vulcan.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 27 Mar 2024, 07:32 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/02/11
Posts: 1781
Post Likes: +2238
Location: N Alabama
Aircraft: 1968 B55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I just looked up the range of Concorde and it is listed as 3,900 nm. That's 350 nm less than what Boom is trying to do, so realistically they could fly the same routes. Concorde would make tech stops at Shannon when needed; from what I recall in Bannister's book, they were sometimes constrained by CG and fuel burn when going westward.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 27 Mar 2024, 08:25 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/28/10
Posts: 1169
Post Likes: +297
Location: Columbus, OH
Aircraft: AA5B
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Its an interesting question at what average speed a rocket is more efficient than a scramjet. Hypersonic flight is extremely inefficient, with L/D ratios in the ~4:1 area, and somewhere above about Mach 5 the stagnation temperature is hither than any structural material can tolerate long term. A suborbital rocket is a lot simpler. Scramjets and hypersonic flight are fantastic - I really want them to be the answer, but I'm not sure they are Quote: Or we can just take a hypersonic scramjet powered vehicle and not worry about exoatmospheric flight. Can stay down in the 60,000 ft range. Keep in mind that despite the low L/D, with a scramjet, one does not need to carry all that oxidizer, so depending on the mission/flight profile, a scramjet powered vehicle maybe more efficient as a function of range and/or endurance.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 27 Mar 2024, 10:42 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/08/12
Posts: 1215
Post Likes: +1595
Location: Ukiah, California
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I just looked up the range of Concorde and it is listed as 3,900 nm. That's 350 nm less than what Boom is trying to do, so realistically they could fly the same routes. Concorde would make tech stops at Shannon when needed; from what I recall in Bannister's book, they were sometimes constrained by CG and fuel burn when going westward.
There was also a super-fancy around the world tour (something like $30k/person) that had them departing out of LAX at one point going west. I was on a commercial flight from Long Beach to SFO when the Captain came on telling us to look out the right side, then the left as the Concorde was climbing out below us crossing from right to left. That was a very cool sight to be sure.
Dan
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: XB-1 Takes Flight Posted: 10 Apr 2024, 01:42 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/17/14
Posts: 5846
Post Likes: +2623
Location: KJYO
Aircraft: C-182, GA-7
|
|
|
Mike - May your business grow until you need a G-V or G550 and another pilot so you can tell us about Mach 0.925 and FL510 as well as how nice it is to take a nap in the back.
|
|
| 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 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
