Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
User currently offlineSUDDEN From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4169 posts, RR: 5
Posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1297 times:

My question is if only Concorde is able of going Mach1?
Would, lets say, a 747 or 737 be able to do it if it had the engines for it, or would the structure of the A/C brake up?

If it would brake up, what is the difference between Concordes structure and other A/C's?

Thank you.

When in doubt, flat out!
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30410 posts, RR: 57
Reply 1, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1263 times:

It really isn't a structural issue as opposed to an aerodynamic one.

True there are some structural features to deal with the heat generated by supersonic flight. The big issue is that you want to try and get the airframe to fit inside the "cone of the shockwave". It is a lot less draggy on the airframe if you do that.

That is one of the reasons that supersonic aircraft in general have those really long pointy noses. An aircraft with a blunter nose can't get it's airframe within the shockwave so it would need much more power to exceed the speed of sound.

User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1251 times:

It is a question what a plane is designed to do. As mentioned, a blunt airliner would not fit the fuselage and wings behind the generated shockwave. It would also create a normal shockwave significantly in front of the nose, and not an oblique shock at the nose, which would result in far more energy being lost and hence drag. Furthermore, a subsonic airliner flying supersonically is not easily controllable. It is not designed to be controllable at supersonic speeds. The loads on the airframe would be higher, but for a short period of time it is survivable (eg the China Airlines 747SP, or the new Bombardier regional Jet, both of which survived supersonic flight for a short time - but as far as I can remember, the 747 suffered structural deformations). In general, a subsonic airliner accidentally going supersonic will be very hard to control, and it will quickly lose velocity due to the substantial increase in drag, and become subsonic again.

What is different about Concorde? The aerodynamic shape. The materials - it is far more heat-resistant. It is optimised for supersonic flight at the design stage.



User currently offlineSUDDEN From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4169 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1230 times:

Very interesting. Thanks alot.

When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineSUDDEN From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4169 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1226 times:

I have had the pleasure to see (on film) how it looks when a aircraft brakes the soundbarrier on low altitude over sea. That was really something!

When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

Isn't Concorde also made of the same Aluminum alloy 6076(?) as any other subsonic a/c proving the maximum possible speed of aluminum planes to be M2.00?

The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineSUDDEN From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4169 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1157 times:

I also learned from looking at Discovery this weekend, that if you would try to go supersonic with a plane like the 747 for ex. the shockwave would bouns of the nose and then hitting the wings, making the A/C crash.

When in doubt, flat out!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Supersonic.
No username? Sign up now!

Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Supersonic Wind Tunnel - Alternative? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 20:09:13 by Lehpron
Supersonic Wake Turbulence posted Wed Mar 8 2006 11:11:19 by Speedracer1407
Supersonic Aerodynamics Questions posted Thu Dec 1 2005 00:11:16 by FlyMKG
JT-8D For Supersonic Business Jet! posted Wed Nov 23 2005 14:14:21 by Vasi
Why Not Supersonic With GE90s? posted Mon Nov 15 2004 23:00:49 by TheBigOne
Supersonic Boom posted Mon Nov 24 2003 15:05:32 by F.pier
Supersonic Flight posted Sat Jun 7 2003 00:18:54 by Jhooper
Moscow-Havana Supersonic Service posted Fri Mar 7 2003 02:28:53 by Tu144d
Can A "normal" Airliner Go At Supersonic Speed posted Sat Nov 16 2002 13:39:57 by F.pier
Can Supersonic Fly-by Effect Another Aircraft? posted Wed Nov 13 2002 21:54:39 by Lehpron

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format