11/21/2023 0 Comments Subsonic speed gifThere is a narrow barely sub-sonic window of increased atmospheric efficency that small private executive jets can exploit, but it's been an on-going challenge to take advantage of that in larger commercial transports. The pie-in-the-sky folks are responding with various unmanned concepts that could theoretically be more transsonic than current manned systems, however honest evaluations of the additional remote piloting and communications infrastructure would put that back towards the dubious practicality category.Ĭommercial civilian usage is even more tenuous. What has happened is that there has in the military been a more honest evaluation of the true operational envelope of general military aviation being primarily sub-sonic for manueverability reasons. However the complexity and costs associated with that methodology have generally been impractical for commercial usage, and even marginally justifiable in military administration. Transsonic wings are far more tricky to develop, the frustrations of development and disasters of the first several decades led to the strong emphasis in the previous generation on swing-wings (F-14, F111, B-1A and B, first Boeing SST prototype, Tu-160, etc). Simply put, lower speed wings are generally designed to optimally suck up as much lifting atmosphere as possible, while supersonic and hypersonic wings are generally geared more towards deflecting the pressure wave and channeling air to the engines. Canard forward stabilizers become more common, as they're aerodynamically more effective than in the rear vortex or cavitation (?) shadow at those atmospheric profiles. When you move into the hyper-compressed pressure cone, the air pressure on the flight surfaces is radically different than in low-pressure lower-speed flight. The result was that the airspeed margin between super-sonic concussion and stall speeds became extremely narrow. This is because the wing was designed more for a single flight profile rather than mixed profile. Most of the B-47 variants were at risk in a high-speed high-altitude box. I'm by no means an expert in the area, most of these ramblings are anecdotal etc.įirst off is the B-47. I would appreciate it if you would share your knowledge with me. I'm sure there are people on this board easily smart enough to tell me if I'm right (and more likely where I'm totally wrong). Is this what's responsible for the structural issues on the aircraft's frame? If this is so (which it may well not be - it's only a guess) I would imagine that this would cause HUGE pressure differences across the front to the back of aircraft (principally the wing area) due to enormously sized vacuums being built up behind the aircraft because the atmospheric pressure cannot drive the air behind the aircraft quickly enough to fill the void left created by the aircraft's body and wings as it is travelling above Mach 1. My main question is, due to the fact the the speed of sound is basically the maximum speed vibrations can travel through air as sound, does this also mean that this is the maximum rate a pressure front can move through the air? I assume that the air the plane is flying into could be considered stationary, compared to the velocity it is being impacted by from the plane. They did not explain why this was however. They said that as soon as you went over Mach 1 the aircraft suffered massive structural problems. I was watching a documentary which detailed the diabolical problems faced by developers and test pilots who were the first to build and test aircraft which could go faster than Mach 1. Nor is it related to anything I am doing in my work or private life right now. This is no way related to anything I have, or am going to build or do with OFP.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |