Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
girlwhowaspluggedout writes:
"Spike Aerospace has revealed how the Spike S-512, which is planned to be the first supersonic business jet, will be able to fly from New York to London in half the time that the flight requires now. The plane, which is expected to carry 12-18 passengers, will enjoy the reduced drag and lower weight that come with an advanced engine and no windows:" Read more below.
The new supersonic jet will feature a revolutionary windowless passenger cabin so no more glaring sun and no more shades to pull down or push up. Instead, the interior walls will be covered with a thin display screens embedded into the wall. Cameras surrounding the entire aircraft will construct breathtaking panoramic views displayed on the cabin screens. Passengers will be able to dim the screens to catch some sleep or change it to one of the many scenic images stored in the system.
Without windows, the S-512 is expected to reach speeds between Mach 1.6 and 1.8.
Dr Darren Ansell, an expert in space and aerospace engineering at the University of Central Lancashire, told BBC News what passengers in a plane without windows can expect to experience:
There will be no natural light it will all be simulated so it will be a bit like being in a tube. And how would it work from a safety perspective? If there was an accident how would you know which way the plane was facing, and where you had landed, when the cameras have failed?"
You just know that some imaginative hacker is going to have a field day with this..."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TheRaven on Saturday February 22 2014, @06:50AM
That's not so bad for the London-New York route - even if you can't fly supersonic for the couple of hundred miles over the UK or the last bit of the approach, you still can for 90% of the distance over sea. The same is true for US west coast to Australia, Japan, and costal parts of China. The flights that had problems were the US coast-to-coast flights and ones from Europe to the Far East, as these are all over land, in high demand, and long. Suborbital flights might be possible on those routes, as they're not sufficiently low to cause noise problems for most of the trip.
The real issue for supersonic flight has always been economics, and a private jet might have better luck there. Flying on Concorde gave you a seat that was about the size of an economy seat on most airlines and got you from London to New York in about 3 hours, but for the same price (often quite a bit less) you could fly first class in another airline and the trip would take around 7-8 hours. But you need to be at the airport an hour or so before departure anyway, and you probably have another hour of travelling at each end on top of the flight, so you've got 3-4 hours of non-flight time, meaning that your total trip is going from about 10-11 hours to 6-7, and you spend three of those in significantly less comfort than you would if you took the slower trip. You're also limited by scheduled flight times, so you may actually get to your destination earlier if you take another flight.
With a private jet, there's no need for advanced check-in, airport security is much faster, and you can fly from whichever airstrip is closest and has a runway that can handle you (or get a helicopter from there to a larger one), so the time savings can be quite considerable. When you're the sort of person whose company thinks a private jet is a good investment, saving a few hours of travel time may actually be worth the expenditure (or, perhaps more accurately, in an accounting bucket were value is poorly defined) and this looks like it's no less comfortable than competing aircraft in the same space.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Interesting) by nobbis on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:33AM
Agreed, I flew on Concorde once, but only because I got a special deal. It was fun as a one off, but even if I had the money I don't think it would make sense to travel on it regularly
Will the lack of windows will also strengthen the airframe ? If there is an accident, I don't think a lack of windows will matter, there will probably be gaping holes in the fuselage to see out of.
It's easy to look up when your mind's in the gutter
(Score: 2, Informative) by andrew on Saturday February 22 2014, @06:09PM
It would strengthen the airframe. Like you say, it wouldn't matter in a crash but there are advantages. Without cut out portions for the windows a solid continuous fuselage could be designed to be stronger with less weight. This weight savings could be significant to efficiency, flight characteristics, and flight tolerances.
The other thing to keep in mind is when planes go this fast they stretch and expand. The Concorde would stretch 6-10 inches during flight. These high speeds had such an effect on the airframe of the SR-71 Blackbird that it was designed so body panels fit together loosely on the ground, so much so that it would actually leak fuel. The aircraft would take off and then a short high speed trip to get everything sealed up properly before refueling in flight and going on it's mission.
It's likely there are a lot of benefits and we will see more plans like this in the future.