Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / The new Scramjet exceeds Mach 7.

Author
Message
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 10th Apr 2004 19:35 Edited at: 10th Apr 2004 19:36
Fastest thing ever flown. Now they are planning a Mach 10 flight.

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/x43_proves_scramjet.html?742004

Pincho.

UnderLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 10th Apr 2004 21:52
Thats pretty cool i wonder how the pilot will feel at mach 10 heh.

The search continues.

Current project - A space game
Neil19533
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Aug 2003
Location: England
Posted: 11th Apr 2004 23:15
What i wonder is if nasa have done that just think what the military can do.

Any spelling mistakes are totally In tensional.
ReD_eYe
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 11th Apr 2004 23:39
at least it gives gillette an excuse to bring out a few more razors...7 blades anyone?

In the beginning, the universe was created...
This made alot of people very angry and it has been widely regarded as a bad idea...
Visit http://redeye.dbspot.com
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 11th Apr 2004 23:42
....

You're just jealous cuz the voices don't talk to you!!!
TKF15H
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jul 2003
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posted: 12th Apr 2004 00:55
@Red_eye: lol. <--thousands of cuts

Can I see a demo now? [edit]Disregard, I saw the demo.
UnderLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 12th Apr 2004 05:17
Quote: "at least it gives gillette an excuse to bring out a few more razors...7 blades anyone?"


Yeah i can see it now.....

"Gillet (or however its spelled) Mach 7, 7 razors to get that up close and personal feeling" "WARNING : Do not use near the neck and or under chin may cause horrible bleeding at an uncontrolable rate, if you die its your own damn fault."

The search continues.

Current project - A space game
MicroMan
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Aug 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posted: 12th Apr 2004 05:21
Today Gilette charge €10 for five pitiful razors. Imagine the price for the 7-blade ones.

The shop keeper can retire on the profit.

-----
They SAID that given enough time a million monkeys with typewriters could recreate the collected works of William Shakespeare... Internet sure proved them wrong.
-----
MikeS
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 12th Apr 2004 05:28
Lol.

I thought this jet was kinda cool though. I just can't comprehend how fast something would be at Mach 7.

(2500th post)


A book? I hate book. Book is stupid.
(Formerly known as Yellow)
UnderLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 12th Apr 2004 06:33
ha thats nice. since 2002 you've posted 2500 times eh? thats alot of posting.

Eh think about this maybe they'll find a way to get us to the moon in like 3 hours sooner or later....i heard somthing about a "plasma" engine on some educational channel or something like that

to me it looked like one of those warp engines off of star trek but a little diffrent. wonder if that'll even come out.

The search continues.

Current project - A space game
Dave J
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Feb 2003
Location: Secret Military Pub, Down Under
Posted: 12th Apr 2004 11:14
The problem is that it can only stay at those speeds for a split second because it needs a huge amount of fuel to keep going, too much to be all that useful for things like flights to the moon.


"Computers are useless they can only give you answers."
Karlos
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Nov 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 12th Apr 2004 11:18
trouble is the scramjet only works around mach 6 or so - so accelerating something up to mach 6 for the scramjet to kick in will take quite a lot of work from a conventional engine.
Once scientists harness gravity and anti particles we'll get some proper engines

If it ain't broke - try harder.
XP Pro - Radeon 9000 Mobility- P4 3.0ish
Football management - http://www.devineqa.com/football/blog
AnDrEy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jan 2004
Location: In Da Club
Posted: 12th Apr 2004 14:10
They are proposing to make a ship in space that will fire loads of mini-nukes behind it accelerating it, in space there is no friction so it will just keep accelerating as long as it fires the nukes behind it- stopping will be a b1tch though

ReD_eYe
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 12th Apr 2004 14:37
surely it could just fire nukes in front of it?

In the beginning, the universe was created...
This made alot of people very angry and it has been widely regarded as a bad idea...
Visit http://redeye.dbspot.com
Wik
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st May 2003
Location: CT, United States
Posted: 13th Apr 2004 03:48
No, the explosion would propell it from behind.
Some kid in my school talked about this once.

We made fun of him


TheAbomb12
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Aug 2003
Location: Amist the blue skies...
Posted: 13th Apr 2004 11:04
I heard about this theory as well. It would be cool if there was some sort of material that could fully withstand a nuclear detonation. That way, you would have all the power of a nuke in a concentrated form.

There are other proposed "space engines"

My favorite is where magnetic fields "Pull" the ship forward

Amist the Blue Skies...
Neil19533
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Aug 2003
Location: England
Posted: 14th Apr 2004 11:22
alot of very expensive scentists done research on the idea and a big steel plate would do. and it actually did work.http://www.lascruces.com/~mrpbar/rocket.html

Any spelling mistakes are totally In tensional.
Shadow Robert
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 14th Apr 2004 15:19 Edited at: 14th Apr 2004 15:20
Quote: "I just can't comprehend how fast something would be at Mach 7."


7 * 330 meters per second per second ( 42,768,000 km/h )
which comes to ... 299,376,000 km/h or 224,532,000 mph

as it passes it would cause 7 sonic booms, which if it was travelling at 30,000ft (what airflights are at) would be enough to actually deafen someone.
the accelleration of a SCRAM Jet is in the region of 9.5G maintained for the entire flight until speed leveled off, which for Mach 7 would be around 11minutes (a human pilot could not sustain that long without browning out "funky chicken")

and in relation of speed, in a test flight if they sustained that speed the jet would fly around the world in approx. 9.2 seconds (give or take a few hundred miliseconds considering i'm not doing exact figures).

who the heck needs teleporters with speed like that eh


Athlon64 FX-51 | 1.5Gb DDR2 PC3400 | GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 56.60 | DirectX9.1 SDK | Audigy2 | Windows XP 64-Bit
TKF15H
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jul 2003
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posted: 14th Apr 2004 16:00
Quote: " Fastest thing ever flown."

NO!!! The fastest thing is the "invincible (?) pterodactyl"!!!

Does anyone have any info on how a scram jet works?
I only know how Turbo Fan Jets work.

Can I see a demo now? [edit]Disregard, I saw the demo.
ReD_eYe
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 14th Apr 2004 22:54
9.2 seconds? so if they make it so i could withstand the g's then i cpould go see the yanks in the time it takes to post a message on here

In the beginning, the universe was created...
This made alot of people very angry and it has been widely regarded as a bad idea...
Visit http://redeye.dbspot.com
Shadow Robert
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 15th Apr 2004 00:54
SCRAMJET stands for Single(?) Compression Ram Jet.
Effectively it works on the principle of no turbine fans, you get the jet fast enough for the air to be comming in so that you can turn on the afterburner; which pushes the air forward and literally just rams the air in.
the Compression comes from a number of specially designed compartments within the jet's design which compresses the air into smaller areas so that it can be ignighted, then it is recompressed for afterburning.

If you want i can find my book that explains exactly how each of the Jet forms work.
Personally I'm looking forward to Boeing's Ion Passenger Jet.
Over the past few years Ion Propulsion technology has come a long way in terms of power and application abilities.
Ion Jet's require no fuel in the traditional sense as they use pure electricity to Ionise the particles within a small event horizon which catalysts a plamsa gas output.
100% green for the environment, works on pure electricity, and would require only a fraction more power than what Jets currently use anyways.

With Zero fuel costs, no only would it make the jet safer *if* it crashed (as this is what ignites it into a fireball), but also it would mean you could do alot more with aircraft as generally only 5% of the entire 400t of a Jet's weight is the aircraft and passengers; the rest is reserved for pure fuel in the wings.
Crazy huh!


Athlon64 FX-51 | 1.5Gb DDR2 PC3400 | GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 56.60 | DirectX9.1 SDK | Audigy2 | Windows XP 64-Bit
TKF15H
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jul 2003
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posted: 15th Apr 2004 01:35 Edited at: 17th Apr 2004 16:30
I've seen something on Ion Jets. A small engine
(capable of spinning a cardboard wheel) can be made with some
wire and a transformer. I never thought some day it would be powerfull
enough to move a airplane. Something interesting though, is that if
someone were to get close enough to a running ion engine, he'd probably
get hit by a lightning bolt capable of making him look like Fried Chicken.
Unless ofcourse, they've found some way of isolating it.

Can I see a demo now? [edit]Disregard, I saw the demo.
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 16th Apr 2004 20:52
Ion engines won't work that well on earth because of the friction of the atmosphere, they do however work fantasticly well in space as with about 2 grams of gas for fuel they can accellorate for a very long time, with nothing to stop them.

~I see one problem with your reasoning: The fact is that is a chicken~
Andy Igoe
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 16th Apr 2004 21:10
There is a mathematically proven FTL drive for spaceships possible with todays technology and it isn't in any science fiction game, book or film that I have seen...

The principle is simple, build an absolutely huge metal disc, on one side attach your spaceship and on the other keep dropping nuclear bombs behind it.. There's a particular metal the disc needs to be if I recall, not sure what, but logistically the disc might cause a problem to build - ironically getting the nukes shouldn't be too hard now the cold war is over, and i'm sure Korea and Iran would build you some on the cheap.


God created the world in 7 days, but we're still waiting for the patch.
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 16th Apr 2004 22:51
Quote: "Personally I'm looking forward to Boeing's Ion Passenger Jet."


Heh. I was looming forward to their nice supersonic cruiser until they started with the 7E7 instead.

I'm now looking forward to that

"To do is to be" - Descartes
"To be is to do" - Voltaire
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra
zircher
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Dec 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Posted: 16th Apr 2004 23:12 Edited at: 16th Apr 2004 23:18
Mach 7 is around 5,000 mph not 224,532,000 mph. (failed your math save throw?)

Project Orion (nuclear bombs for propulsion) has been dead for decades and even if it was deployed, it would not be capable of FTL travel.

ICAN II looks better/more practical:
http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/images/ICAN-312.jpg
http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/gallery.html
http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/Papers/ICAN.pdf

It and variations on it are currently in vogue with hard sci-fi artists and game designers.
--
TAZ

Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 00:35 Edited at: 17th Apr 2004 00:35
math save throw...do you play D&D?

Once I dreamt that I fell into a lake full of the undead and demons. I screamed and hollered as my kitten jumped into it with me. None of my friends helped me.

I don't trust them anymore.
Shadow Robert
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 01:04
Mach 1 = 333m/sec/sec = 19,980m/sec = 1,198,800m/min = 71,928,000m/hr

71,928,000m/hr = 71,928km/hr = 47,473mph

Mach7 is 7x Mach 1 ... 7x 47,473mph = 332,331mph

the original math might've been off a little, but your still looking travel around the world in under 5 minutes, cause if i remember the world is only 1.2million miles round.
that said even that renewed calculation is stil considerably faster than 5,000mph and god knows where you came up with the figure.


Athlon64 FX-51 | 1.5Gb DDR2 PC3400 | GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 56.60 | DirectX9.1 SDK | Audigy2 | Windows XP 64-Bit
Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 01:17
I've invented a way of FTL travel, which is reallyvery simple and requies very little energy.

This is the principle:

Remeber old LP's? Imagine point X to be on the outer edge of the disc and point Y to be closer to the center. Now for one revolution of the disc X has to travel further than Y, and if they are travelling at the same speed, say 1 cm a second, it just wont work! So point X has to be travelling faster than point Y.

Now say the speed of light is 10 miles an second in a vacum, instead of an LP you have a stick 10 miles long that is fixed at one end (but able to swivel).

Point X is 10 miles away from the fixation, and point Y is one mile away. IN one revolution point X will have to travel 20 miles and point Y 2 miles as the point at which the stick is fixed will be the radius of the circle they travel around.

Say the revolution took 1 second, point Y is moving at 2 miles a second and point X at 20 miles a second - which in this example makes it twice the speed of light! And in a vacum, all it would take is a small push at point Y to get the stick started! and you could attache a rocket at point X which could detach and travel at 2 x the speed of light!!

~I see one problem with your reasoning: The fact is that is a chicken~
Pincho Paxton
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 01:23
Mach 1 is the speed of sound which is 761mph

Mach 7 is seven times Mach 1

Mach 7 = 5327mph

zircher
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Dec 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 01:43 Edited at: 17th Apr 2004 02:00
Raven, do you mean this quote from the original article?

Quote: "As icing on the cake that capped the mission's success, the flight resulted in the setting of a new aeronautical speed record. The X-43A reached a speed of over Mach 7, or about 5,000 mph, faster than any known aircraft powered by an airbreathing engine has ever flown."


The speed of sound varies with altitude. Pincho is on the money for Mach 7 at sea level.

Oh Raven, the Earth is around 24,000 miles in diameter at the equator. The distance to the moon is 239,000 miles. At 1.2 million miles you can go to the moon five times.

Mr X, I've been playing RPGs and war games longer than most of you folks have been alive. I think Raven may have fumbled and cut off his own head. [Arduin Grimoire rocks!]

Killswitch Sheela, E = MC2. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
--
TAZ

If anyone needs help on learning the difference between speed and velocity, please read this web page:
http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/~cdpgrad/speed.html

Killswitch
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Oct 2002
Location: School damnit!! Let me go!! PLEASE!!!
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 02:14
E=MC2 damn him for making that law!!! lol

~I see one problem with your reasoning: The fact is that is a chicken~
empty
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: 3 boats down from the candy
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 04:26
1 Mach (at 0°C) equals 332 m/s, that's 1195.2 km/h, therefore 7 Mach = 8366.4 km/h ~ 5197 mph.

Me, I'll sit and write this love song as I all too seldom do
build a little fire this midnight. It's good to be back home with you.
Zenincanin 14
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Apr 2004
Location: In The Cat Lair at Peter Criss\'s House.
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 04:32
This is interesting.
Proteus
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2002
Location: The Future
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 05:18 Edited at: 17th Apr 2004 05:18
The mach number is relative to the surrounding medium:

check this out, for air (considered a ideal gas) at 273K:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofSound.html

Currently coding: MAG
Recent coding: Video Capture Plug-in
I used to be Proteus 1935
Scraggle
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 09:59 Edited at: 17th Apr 2004 10:02
Warning! - Long post.

To summarize - SUCK, SQUEEZE, BANG, BLOW - that's all you really need to know.



No need for Raven to get out his books, I can tell you what you need to know. It is my job after all! (check my profile).

The 'SC' in scramjet does not, as he said, stand for 'single combustion' it actually stands for 'supersonic combustion' and as for his point about increasing the compression for the afterburner - NONSENSE! There is no afterburner on a scramjet. However, if there were an afterburner it would not be necessary to increase compression prior to ignition - it doesn't happen that way in a standard Gas Turbine (jet) engine.

Here is an explanation:

Standard 'Gas Turbine engine'

There are four types Turbo Jet, Turbo fan, Turbo prop and Turbo shaft but they all work on the same principle and that principle is much the same as the internal combustion engine in a car. Infact, the gas turbine engine is sometimes referred to as a single stroke internal combustion engine, which is what it is.

It works like this:

Air is brought into the engine at the intake where it meets the compressor. That increases its pressure and temperature while reducing its velocity. The reduction in velocity is essential because if the aircraft is travelling supersonic then the air must be slowed to subsonic speeds, otherwise a shock wave could be formed inside the engine - stalling it.
The compressor is basically a series of fans set inside a diverging cone. The fans are made of rotors and stators. The rotors turn which draws the air in at an enormous rate (easily enough to suck in a man if he stands to close - it has happened!) the air then hits the stators which are much like the rotors but they do not turn - their job is to maintain the straight airflow (front to back) so they face in the opposite direction to rotors. They also direst the airflow on to the next set of rotors.

The air then gets fed into the combustion chamber where it is met by a constant supply of fuel. unlike a car engine there is no ignition taking place after start up. A high energy spark is used to start the combustion process at engine start up but is no longer needed once the enigine is running because there is a constant supply of fuel and air - therefore constant combustion! Combustion reduces the pressure of the air whilst vastly increasing temperature and velocity.

After combustion the air goes through the tubine. Which much like the rotors in the compressor is a series of 'fans' but unlike the rotors they are not drawing the air through them but instead have the air forced through them which turns them.
The turbines are connected to the rotors by a central shaft. So the air coming out of the engine turns the rotors in the compressor which draws the air in! So you see, as long as fuels is fed to the combustion chamber the engine needs nothing else to keep it running.

The afterburner is the last thing the air passes through before leaving the engine. It is optinal to fit an engine with an afterburner as they are not really necessary.
All the afterburner is, is a series of fuel pipes and nozzels that sit in the airflow at the back of the engine because of that they get in the way of the airflow and reduce its efficiancy. However when in use they greatly increase thrust. The afterburner works simply by squirting fuel into the airflow. The air is still hot enough to ignite the fuel and so any unburnt oxygen left in the air is now ignited.
The downsides to the afterburner are: As I said above they reduce efficiancy when not in use and also they vastly increase fuel rate, so they are only used in two instances - 1) increased thrust for take off and 2) combat situations where a fast getaway 'could be handy'.

I said there were four types - they are:
1) Turbo Jet, which is as described above.

2) Turbo Fan - much like a turbo jet but its 'stage one' compressor has an vastly increased diameter which blows are in a bypass duct around the engine bypassing the internal workings completely. One reason for this is to aid cooling of the engine but it also (suprisingly) provides more thrust than the air going through the engine. The downside to the Turbo Fan is its increased diameter.

3) Turbo Shaft - Used in helicopters. The turbo shaft engine has a lot more turbine stages which removes the thrust completely. It does however, give a much greater torque to the central shaft which is then used to drive the helicopters rotor blades.

4) Turbo Prop - Like a turbo shaft but this time the power is used to drive a propeller at the front of the engine and it is this the powers the aircraft.

THE RAMJET

The ramjet does away with all the working parts of the engine. Instead it works by compressing the air simply by the internal shape of the engine.
The air is again slowed to subsonic speeds before combustion but this time it is done by the shape of the intake.
The ramjet can accelerate an aircraft to musch greater speeds than a standard jet engine and it is also much lighter. The downside to using ramjets is that they need the aircraft to be moving before they can work because they don't have the compressor to draw the air in.

Another name for a ramjet would be an air breathing rocket. It works on exactly the same principle as a rocket but where a rocket carries its own oxygen supply for combustion, a ramjet using the oxygen in the air.

THE SCRAMJET

The scram jet is basically a ramjet that allows the air to maintain its supersonic speeds. New designs in the internal shape of the engine prohibit the build up of shockwaves.

Finally (at last) as for dreams of flying to the moon at these speeds like some of the posts above suggest. Well, you really wouldn't want to travel there that slowly!

The X43A is the fastest air breathing aircraft to ever have flown - the space shuttle orbits the earth at a relative speed of Mach 25!



1001001 S.O.S.
ReD_eYe
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 11:53
google says mach 7 is 5328.44936 miles per hour
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=mach+7+in+miles+per+hour&btnG=Google+Search
i love google.

In the beginning, the universe was created...
This made alot of people very angry and it has been widely regarded as a bad idea...
Visit http://redeye.dbspot.com
empty
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: 3 boats down from the candy
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 15:13
@Scraggle
Very interesting.

Me, I'll sit and write this love song as I all too seldom do
build a little fire this midnight. It's good to be back home with you.
TKF15H
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jul 2003
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 15:30
Quote: "To summarize - SUCK, SQUEEZE, BANG, BLOW - that's all you really need to know."

LOL. Very good way to summarize it all. Thanks for the explanation, I couldn't find any good info in google.

Can I see a demo now? [edit]Disregard, I saw the demo.
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 15:50
next up its supersonic trains. they wanna build a glass tube through the atlantic that has trains being pulled along by vacuum compartments in the tunnel. To cope with the Gforces, the passenger seats are those egg-chairs (you kno what i mean right) that revolve slowly, about 2RPM. the want to make it from NY to Paris in 2-3 hours

http://www.tinnedhead.tk under re-construction.
Lord Ozzum
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2003
Location: Beyond the Realms of Death
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 16:55
Quote: "To summarize - SUCK, SQUEEZE, BANG, BLOW - that's all you really need to know."

yeah....that's not a bad idea
wait...not enough girls....

Once I dreamt that I fell into a lake full of the undead and demons. I screamed and hollered as my kitten jumped into it with me. None of my friends helped me.

I don't trust them anymore.
Scraggle
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 18:17
Quote: "as it passes it would cause 7 sonic booms, which if it was travelling at 30,000ft (what airflights are at) would be enough to actually deafen someone."


What a load of nonsense!

When an aircraft travels through the air it causes a build up of air pressure in front of it. A sonic boom is the noise heard as the aircraft enters supersonic speeds and leaves the shockwave behind it.
There will not be another boom at Mach 2 and certainly not 7!

As for deafening someone at mach 7 - behave! There is one shockwave at mach 1 it doesn't get loader as you travel faster.

It is possible to hear more than one sonic boom on occasion because the build up of air pressure happens on all parts of the aircraft. So there will always be several sonic booms but they are all released very close together and so are heard as one.

The space shuttle however is well known for having two sonic booms that is because it's shape forms two shockwaves - one at the front and one at the rear. When they are released there is a half second (approx) gap between them and so a double boom is heard as it enters the atmosphere.



1001001 S.O.S.
Teh Go0rfmeister
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 17th Apr 2004 18:30
wooo cus yo as down brudda!

http://www.tinnedhead.tk under re-construction.
Scraggle
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jul 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posted: 18th Apr 2004 23:03
Quote: "wooo cus yo as down brudda!"


Sorry! I didn't mean to sound rude. It's just that I see Raven on this forum so many times claiming to know everything about everything and while a lot of the time his info is quite informative it is very, very annoying when you realize that he is infact talking utter sh!te.



1001001 S.O.S.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-25 03:58:29
Your offset time is: 2024-11-25 03:58:29