89
Trump targets speed-of-sound ban for airliners
(www.eenews.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
89 points (100.0% liked)
news
24094 readers
718 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Drawing attention to the rich by making them annoy people on a daily basis is the kind of failing empire shit you'd expect. Every single time you hear one of these among other people is a moment to use to agitate.
The point is that there won't be any audible "sonic boom" anymore, and afterburning engines won't be used, so the engine sound and fuel consumption will be less of an issue. Boom technologies flew a technology demonstrator, the XB-1, at supersonic speeds earlier this year without a sonic boom being audible at ground level. The aircraft flies at high altitude at low supersonic speeds (Mach 1.1-1.3 for the XB-1) and the sound waves from the sonic boom get diffracted back towards the horizontal by the warmer thicker air at lower altitudes, so there is no audible sonic boom at ground level. The phenomenon is called Mach cutoff. Flying at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburner to cruise or accelerate to supersonic speeds is called supercruise. The plan™ is to scale this technology up for larger aircraft, such as 50-100 seater passenger aircraft like the Boom Overture concept (does not exist yet outside of CGI rendering). Even low supersonic speeds would decrease in flight time significantly. Cruising at Mach 1.35 is 50% faster than cruising at Mach 0.9 for example.
Is this realistic and commercially viable? I don't know, it seems very expensive for a few luxury fast flights. But the technology is there, as long as the financial backing is there (the biggest obstacle to viability), it's technically possible. Supercuise and Mach cutoff solve two of the biggest issues commercial supersonic flight had previously with the Concorde. Comac in China wants to do something similar in the future. The question then becomes how much people are prepared to pay for 50% shorter flights, and how much the cost of supersonic flight has been reduced by improved technology.
My main questions center on how much extra fuel is required to provide all that additional energy? Idk enough about fluid mechanics to answer this on my own: how much more energy does it take to accelerate from mach 1.1 to mach 1.2 vs mach 0.9 to mach 1.1?
it's not acceleration, it's air friction vs plane geometry, supersonic airflow has different optimal characteristics both for engines and flight surfaces/wings (naive kinetic energy is just differences of speed squared though).
from new scientist
seems like they get shit of both worlds tbh with fuel economy (not zoomy enough to just cross distance fast with godawful fuel consumption/not optimized enough for flight at those speeds via engine regimes/geometry (that part might be fixable, but depends on how long it spends on subsonic climb/descend part of journey)
oh that makes so much sense thank you!