Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban
by baldfat on Monday June 13, 2016 @10:55AM
(#11894328)
I actually would think that could be done "safely". No sarcasm. I am expecting that if fusion ever becomes a reality we will go with electric motors which will certainly always be sub-sonic.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban
by snovv_crash on Monday June 13, 2016 @11:14AM
(#11894504)
If you vary the inlet and outlet geometry of a ducted fan you can have your fan running at subsonic, while the plane moves supersonic.
You could also heat the airstream after the compressor.
> electric motors which will certainly always be sub-sonic
Why is that?
Electric motors have a top speed which is governed by the forces generated by induction. At higher speeds they spend more and more torque countering those forces. Contrast this with turbines, where a higher inlet speed translates into a higher output speed - the amount of energy a turbine uses to keep itself spinning is constant rather than proportional to airspeed. This is why electric motors would have issues flying at high speeds.
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban
by sliverstorm on Monday June 13, 2016 @11:39AM
(#11894721)
Can you not simply use overdrive gearing to keep motor speed down?
... or spin the motor with another motor. It could be motors all the way down . . .
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban
by marcosdumay on Monday June 13, 2016 @04:47PM
(#11897485)
What may still be simpler than the fusion reactor some posts up.
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban
by marcosdumay on Monday June 13, 2016 @04:46PM
(#11897478)
For a plane, make that a neutron-less kind of fusion.
After fusion becomes commercially viable, and the entire world concerts, we'll still be about as far as neutron-less fusion as we are from fusion right now.