Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation United States

America Creates a 770-Mile Corridor for Testing Supersonic Aircraft Up to Mach 3 (ainonline.com) 75

Posted by EditorDavid from the super-supersonic dept.
America's Federal Aviation Agency signed an agreement with the state of Kansas's department of transportation to establish a 770-nautical mile Kansas Supersonic Transportation Corridor for testing aircraft up to Mach 3, reports Aviation International News: The agreement would provide a critical testing site for the emerging group of supersonic aircraft as civil supersonic flight remains banned over land. Flight testing for models such as Aerion's AS2 and Boom's Overture is expected this decade, while NASA noise trials with the Lockheed Martin X-59 demonstrator are anticipated by 2024. "This year marks 73 years since Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier, and with this supersonic flight corridor Kansas will have a unique role in the next generation of supersonic transportation," said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) in the announcement of the agreement...

The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) lauded the establishment of the corridor, saying it will help in the "re-birth" of civil supersonic travel. "The Kansas Supersonic Transportation Corridor will assist in the assessment of sound mitigating structural and engine designs as well as state of the art atmospheric acoustic modeling that eliminates the sonic boom and shapes the noise signature of an aircraft traveling faster than the speed of sound to a very low volume rumble," said GAMA president and CEO Pete Bunce. "The validation of these technological breakthroughs through the use of sophisticated ground acoustic and telemetry sensors will provide the necessary data to assist global regulators and policymakers in modernizing supersonic flight policies."

NASA plans to use the Lockheed Martin X-59 demonstrator to test low-boom noise effects over various populations. "I'm really excited about quiet supersonic technology and its ability to be transformative for flight and our economy," said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine.

Aerion, meanwhile, plans to test "Boom Cruise" technology that is designed to keep the sonic boom from reaching the ground with plans to begin flight trials in 2025, while Boom is looking at low boom technologies for its commercial airliner Overture.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

America Creates a 770-Mile Corridor for Testing Supersonic Aircraft Up to Mach 3 More

America Creates a 770-Mile Corridor for Testing Supersonic Aircraft Up to Mach 3

Comments Filter:

  • Imagine the 24 hour rumble from constant traffic

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      That's the sound of freedom!

      It's a shame that nobody said "Imagine the 24 hour rumble" when they choose light rail track routes. But then those were easily sited in poor neighborhoods. So, no problem.

      • Yeah you think only poor neighborhoods are subject to zone terrorism?

        Every major metropolitan area has multiple international airports and is does not matter how rich or poor the surrounding neighborhoods are, it is a continual war over the zoning of the flight paths, its rich vs rich, rich vs poor, poor vs rich, and poor vs poor. Its every neighborhood against every other neighborhood and the fight is continuous. Its a war that cannot be won, only temporary superiority can be had.

        • And many of those airports were originally located in empty areas, only to have the people build out toward them.

          And, when efforts are made to build airports even further removed from population, the population fights them because they're too far away.

          That's kind of why Chicago Midway still exists... It's too convenient to too many people, compared to the alternatives.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
            Well here is a radical idea: when building a major airport allso build adiquate ( taken future groth somewhat into account) ubluc transit links, so it’s quick nd convenient to get to said airport, then people won’t mind a slight increse in distance

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              The taxi lobby doesn't like that.

            • Tokyo Narita airport has both the Narita Express and Skyliner express trains, on different routes departing from several of the busiest train stations in Tokyo and Yokohama. Both of these trains have very limited stops and reach reasonably high speeds. This is in addition to numerous bus services, also from busy and important transit hubs in the city. Regardless, it's still a 40+ minute journey no matter what method is chosen. It's still preferred for most people to fly to Haneda airport, which is much cl

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by PPH ( 736903 )

            That's kind of why Chicago Midway still exists

            I would have said LaGuardia. Shit airport but the rich folks won't let it close. It has no subway service. Because rich people don't ride subways.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fustakrakich ( 1673220 )

        But then those were easily sited in poor neighborhoods.

        Easier to enjoy the service that way.. You wouldn't want to need a 20 mile bus ride out to the train, would you?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PPH ( 736903 )

          You wouldn't want to need a 20 mile bus ride

          Limo service. We don't allow buses in my neighborhood.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Width of Kansas = 356 n miles (Score:3)

    by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday December 26, 2020 @02:56PM (#60867706)

    The width of Kansas is 356 nautical miles.

    So how do you fit a 770 nautical mile corridor into that?

  • At least Oklahoma City got an airport out of the deal...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • I remember when very young (Score:3)

    by jmccue ( 834797 ) on Saturday December 26, 2020 @03:17PM (#60867748) Homepage

    I remember when I was very young, we lived about 10 miles from a military airport. Once in a while there would be a notice in the local newspaper stating there would be a sonic boom test and the plane would fly over our town.

    On those days, the whole neighborhood would be out with their kids to see if we could see the plane. We would definitely hear the booms.

    Fun times with the other kids as we competed to see who would see it first.

    • Around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, my family lived between March AFB and Norton AFB. There were occasional sonic booms. As a kid, I loved them because they came from jet aircraft, and because Kill Russkies. Some time between 1984 and 1987 I was on temporary assignment in Germany and happened to be at work on a weekend trying to get some things finished. There was a terrible bang. I looked out the window and, though startled (California quake experience), was delighted to see what I believe wa

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jsrjsr ( 658966 )

      When I was young they didn't publish notices in newspapers of when we could hear the sound of freedom. It would just happen. We kids always thought it was cool. Don't remember any adults complaining either. A few years later there were no more booms.

  • Round two will fail (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Saturday December 26, 2020 @03:25PM (#60867768)

    Unless they can make supersonic travel fairs dirt cheap. It wasn’t noise that killed the Concorde; that mostly flew over ocean. But not enough people were willing to pay a premium for faster travel, even on a long flight.

    • It wasn't noise that killed the Concorde; that mostly flew over ocean.

      It was noise that forced it to fly only over the ocean, crippling its utilization.

      • But for that, there might have been a lucrative market from NY to CA

      • No, it was being invented outside of the US that forced it to fly over ocean. US fighter jets fly over residential areas all the time.

        • US Fighter jets fly subsonic over populated areas except for 'emergency' interceptions. I didn't see the F-15 (a few years ago) that left Oregon headed to the Seattle area to check out an aircraft approaching AF-1, but I sure heard it.
          OTOH I saw the Concord on approaches to SeaTac back when it was doing some flights to nowhere, it was beautiful, really was. ALSO: Definitely quieter than F-18's in flight.
          So I digress, the issue became the Concord was allowed to fly supersonic over the US, that made is usel

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by merlock ( 38053 )

            US Fighter jets fly subsonic over populated areas except for 'emergency' interceptions.

            Bullshit. USAF's major depot for F-15's is at Robins AFB in GA. The final phase of the functional test flight (FCF) is a supersonic run...flight path is almost directly over Warner Robins; on a good contrail day, it's almost directly over my house.

            • How loud a supersonic boom is it? As I mentioned the last time I got to hear one was on that intercept mission.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by merlock ( 38053 )

                How loud a supersonic boom is it?

                It's fairly loud; I've heard them while in a secure comm facility on the base. It rattles windows; some folks in the older houses have had their widows crack and even blow out. Also, it seems that on days with lower atmospheric pressure, it will set off car alarms.

    • It wasnâ(TM)t noise that killed the Concorde; that mostly flew over ocean.

      Why do you think they mostly flew over the ocean in the first place?
       
      (Narrator voice: Concorde entered service with a number of overland routes... That were, one by one, shut down due to noise.)

      • Why do you think they mostly flew over the ocean in the first place?

        There aren't many overland routes between New York and London, or Los Angeles and Sydney.

        The big sales pitch, as I seem to recall anyway (having been alive back then), was it would turn those terribly long intercontinental flights into an enjoyably brief trip.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          What killed Concorde was opportunity costs. When Concorde was grounded, the airlines made more profit transporting those passengers subsonically.

          The only way to fix that is to achieve some kind of economy of scale -- maybe. The Concorde consumed about the same amount of fuel as an Airbus A380 while seating 1/5 the passengers. Per passenger mile fuel costs were comparable to private business jets.

          But it is conceivable that Concorde could have been more profitable if it could offer routes with overland legs

          • The Concorde consumed about the same amount of fuel as an Airbus A380 while seating 1/5 the passengers. Per passenger mile fuel costs were comparable to private business jets.

            The Concorde was old. It was contemporary with the Boeing 747-100, a plane long gone by the time the Concodre retired. Perhaps if it had some mid life upgrades along the line of the 747 things may have been different.

            On the other hand the Concorde experiment ultimately returned a negative result.

            It was to the surprise of most people de

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          There aren't many overland routes between New York and London, or Los Angeles and Sydney.

          The big sales pitch, as I seem to recall anyway (having been alive back then), was it would turn those terribly long intercontinental flights into an enjoyably brief trip.

          You know when Concorde was announced, there wer 21 airlines interested in it? All the ones you can think of, they were interested.

          They only dropped their orders when they realized how much noise was made - but there are plenty of overland routes that m

          • Of course, Concorde was for a pre-9/11 world where you could basically go from the street to boarding in 15 minutes.
            You could never do that in europe, except in half third world countries like Greece. You always had security, and atm I would claim it is faster than 30 years ago.

        • There aren't many overland routes between New York and London, or Los Angeles and Sydney.

          What part of what I wrote did you find difficult to grasp? Concorde debuted with multiple overland routes, but they all shut down due to noise. That markedly limited the routes it could serve.

          And you might have notice the complete lack of Los Angeles to Sydney flights... Lack of range limited Concorde to the North Atlantic, or to overwater flights (primarily France to her South American possessions) with convenient

    • These guys claim to cut travel time for Australia-US from 15 to 9 hours [boomsupersonic.com]. That is something that could siphon away a good portion of the first class traffic.

      • I think that would run into the same issue. It's faster, but not fast enough. If it were 3 hours, or even 5, sure. But 9 is still the whole day and at that point I'd rather sleep in a comfortable first class seat than be stuck in a cramped supersonic jet.

    • It wasn’t noise that killed the Concorde; that mostly flew over ocean.

      That’s like saying, “I didn’t make that other car crash when I ran it off the road; the tree they ran into is what made them crash”, which is to say, you’ve missed the cause and effect. Noise complaints were exactly what forced Concorde to shut down their profitable overland routes and stick to stuff like their transatlantic flights, which proved to be unsustainable.

  • "The crops are booming this year!"

  • Do we really need supersonic flights ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Saturday December 26, 2020 @03:52PM (#60867816) Homepage

    The fuel per passenger mile is 3-4 times that for a subsonic aircraft -- do we want the environmental cost (CO2/energy) just so that a few people can get somewhere a bit more quickly ? I know that today's aircraft are more fuel efficient than in the Concorde era - but supersonic will always need more energy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Do we really need to fly? If you need to go to Europe (for example) you can take a ship. We could revive the ocean liner business. And an added benefit of that could be the adoption of clean energy propulsion options [wikipedia.org] not possible for air travel.

      But then try to use the "just don't fly" argument on people trying to board with their emotional support pigs and brace yourself for the outcry.

      • If you need to go

        Could you be a little more precise about that "need" verb? Do you "need" to shake hands with the people you're stealing from, as well as get their digital authorisations on the bank transfers? Do you need to imitate a lobster on a French beach, instead of a Louisiana beach? Do you need to see the back of the guy in front of you's head between you and the winning line, rather than seeing the game on TV with your buddies at the downtown sports bar?

        But then try to use the "just don't fly" arg

    • For Concorde. Not for those new planes. They claim it actually use less fuel than an A 380 per passenger and mile.

  • You're not in Kansas anymore!

  • With the amount of computing power available today (super computers, distributed, etc.) is this something that really requires real world testing? I understand that there is no substitute for the real thing but consider this - there may be multiple companies using this on a regular basis eventually. The impact to the environment as a whole (humans are not the only ones that will be affected by this) could be more than just an occasional nuisance.

    I understand the need I certainly wouldn't want to get on a pl

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
      Probably not, apart from regulations, the paper pushers move slow, so whuke all tests can probably be simulated the FAA would just fkatky deny the aircraft certification if it did not clock enugh real air miles

    • "With the amount of computing power available today (super computers, distributed, etc.) is this something that really requires real world testing?"

      Yes.

      "I understand that there is no substitute for the real thing"

      Now you know why is this something that really requires real world testing.

      "large corporations being such as they are, will abuse this if it is in any way cheaper than doing so otherwise (air tunnel test, computer simulation, etc.)."

      Be relieved. It is not. Large corporations will do all their sim

      • Large corporations will do all their simulations *then* fly the real thing.

        Because the other large corporations which buy significant amounts of aircraft will not consider buying an aircraft which has only been flown in a simulator before the Board of Directors fly on the "we've just signed a deal" publicity junket.

  • Post pandemic world might put very heavy toll on such fast planes. They might also place restriction on the speed of movement of goods and people.

    Cheap transportation is an essential requirement for the domination of Chinese in manufacturing. Governments have started seeing Chinese goods as a national security threat. The pandemic will give them a handy reason to increase the cost of transportation making Chinese products non competitive without running into WTO rules.

    Difficult to see a future where sup

    • Post pandemic world might put very heavy toll on such fast planes. They might also place restriction on the speed of movement of goods and people.

      This started speculative and turned into wildly speculative very fast.

    • This would be more relevant if significant amounts of (Scary country name) exports went by airfreight.

      Hint : the $5 package you got airmailed from Shenzhou is not as important as the 30 tonne shipping container of washing machines that was container #236 of 1267 coming off the ship at the railhead.

  • for getting the fuck out of Kansas as quickly as possible

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Not really a problem. If you live in Kansas, you already live with thunderstorms. High altitude sonic booms are minor by comparison.

  • ...I thought this was kind of pointless, because there's nothing in Kansas that's so compelling that you'd want to get there at Mach 3. But then I realized you can use this to get _through_ Kansas at Mach 3.
  • Perfect place for Jetpack Guy to test his new gear.

  • I only experienced sustained sonic booms once.

    When I was a kid I lived about 3 miles inland from the ocean. One summer there was a two day period when it was pretty much sonic booms throughout the day. They were extraordinarily loud, like weird thunderclaps going on throughout the sunny day. I never did see any aircraft.

    I assumed the military was doing some training of some kind, or maybe some base got some new aircraft and decided to check it all out.

    Even though I was a kid, I vividly remember the booms

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      They were extraordinarily loud, like weird thunderclaps going on throughout the sunny day.

      Probably training. Or some sort of emergency like unknown aircraft violating some airspace and the air force scrambles jets. Was it 9/11/01 by any chance?

      We used to get high altitude supersonic flyovers all them time, being under an XB-70 flight path. They sound sort of like a neighbor slamming their front door. No really a big deal, but then there are some people who are triggered by very little things. Crazy old people screaming at every kid that drives by with fart cans.

  • I dont think that word means what you think it means, A signed document and a handshake for the press doesn't create anything

  • No Sense of Priorities (Score:3)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Sunday December 27, 2020 @01:17PM (#60869900) Homepage
    Public transportation failed during Covid, and they want to waste money on something that only a few rich people will use? I have another idea, spend the money and effort to putting personal vehicle chargers in cites for ebikes, scooters, and the like.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close