Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A few lines down in your link you have this: "At about Mach 2, a typical wing design will cut its L/D ratio in half (e.g., Concorde managed a ratio of 7.14, whereas the subsonic Boeing 747 has an L/D ratio of 17)".

Sure, at trans-sonic speeds the coefficient of drag is horrible, but a supersonic commercial jet doesn't spend more than the minimum time necessary in that speed range.

What's more, improvements are possible even for the trans-sonic range. The planned Concorde B was projected to have dramatic fuel consumption improvement of 25% at Mach 1.2 [1]. This projection was made around 1980. In the 40 years since, computers have advanced a bit, so there's a chance the Boom guys know what they are talking about.

[1] http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html



>A few lines down in your link you have this: "At about Mach 2, a typical wing design will cut its L/D ratio in half (e.g., Concorde managed a ratio of 7.14, whereas the subsonic Boeing 747 has an L/D ratio of 17)".

That is literally proving my point. Thanks for agreeing with me?

>Sure, at trans-sonic speeds the coefficient of drag is horrible, but a supersonic commercial jet doesn't spend more than the minimum time necessary in that speed range.

And the wave drag is still bad even at supersonic speeds. The planes still have to spend a significant amount of time subsonic (take off, approach, landing, etc.) even if it's minimalized, it's still a significant amount.

>What's more, improvements are possible even for the trans-sonic range. The planned Concorde B was projected to have dramatic fuel consumption improvement of 25% at Mach 1.2 [1].

Still worse than subsonic at that time. Since then, subsonic, high bypass engine design has made that gap even wider.

So still, no, it's a matter of physics.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: