1 posted on
11/21/2018 12:00:37 PM PST by
servo1969
To: servo1969
"This aircraft has the potential to transform aviation in the United States and around the world by making faster-than-sound air travel over land possible for everyone,How many passengers?
2 posted on
11/21/2018 12:03:09 PM PST by
1Old Pro
To: servo1969
The X-59, by contrast, emits a faint "thud" when reaching its apex speed of 940 mphI'm not sure I'd want "thud" associated with my supersonic aircraft.
3 posted on
11/21/2018 12:03:16 PM PST by
IYAS9YAS
(There are two kinds of people: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.)
To: servo1969
The wing looks like a cranked arrow design.
6 posted on
11/21/2018 12:14:00 PM PST by
Army Air Corps
(Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
To: servo1969
Looks like a deformed duck.......................
7 posted on
11/21/2018 12:18:58 PM PST by
Red Badger
(We are headed for a Civil War. It won't be nice like the last one....................)
To: servo1969
I’ve experienced a simulation of this acoustic difference in a demonstration audio booth that NASA has. While still simulated at this time, the difference between a conventional sonic boom and the “thud” projected for the low-boom demonstrator is significant. It really is just a dull thud that I don’t think would particularly bother anyone in more rural areas, where ambient noise levels are low, and would likely be inaudible in urban environments because of masking by higher ambient noise.
Now to see if the theory pans out in practice.
8 posted on
11/21/2018 12:19:43 PM PST by
noiseman
(The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.`)
To: servo1969
Oh how cute....
Here is a craft that can go faster than sound but doesn't make a sonic boom...
Probably built by Lockheed too...
12 posted on
11/21/2018 12:31:07 PM PST by
GraceG
("If I post an AWESOME MEME, STEAL IT! JUST RE-POST IT IN TWO PLACES PLEASE")
To: servo1969
There goes the view if you’re over the wing.
13 posted on
11/21/2018 12:35:54 PM PST by
onedoug
To: servo1969
High Fuel Burn is what killed the Concord. If this new aircraft does not have an economic fuel burn, it will fail.
16 posted on
11/21/2018 12:57:57 PM PST by
cpdiii
(Cane Cutter, Deckhand,Roughneck, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist: THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
To: servo1969
That’s Edwards AFB in the background.
17 posted on
11/21/2018 12:58:03 PM PST by
Steely Tom
([Seth Rich] == [the Democrat's John Dean])
To: servo1969
Is the pilot’s forward and side vision a bit, er, constrained?
Are those three pitot tubes also subject to failure?
To: servo1969
It's always good to see aerospace engineers are still copying nature's perfection.
To: servo1969
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
