News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]. Parent comment

Re:XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video] by hangonhn on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @12:00PM (#42854697)
No. I don't think that's correct. The Concorde used its afterburners during take off and to get through the transonic region, where the drag is very heavy. Once you've gone past that the drag drops. At that point the Concorde can turn off the after burners.

Source: https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-engine-re-heats

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video] by jdblair on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @12:09PM (#42854853)
That's right, the Concorde had engines capable of supercruise - long distance supersonic flight without afterburners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise#Aircraft_with_supe...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video] by mshook on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @01:05PM (#42855691)
This is correct, reheat / afterburner was used from Mach 0.9 something to 1.7, after which they'd were off. So yes, Concorde could supercruise.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video] by gpderetta on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @02:26PM (#42856777)
IIRC Concorde could super cruise a Mach 2 which is unmatched. It would also flight supersonic for most of its journey which is also presented unprecedented difficulties.

It was really an unique plane.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video] by rbanffy on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @12:14PM (#42854931)
Legend says the Tu-144 used afterburners the whole time while supersonic, but, then, it seems five units have engines without afterburners (RD-36-51's replacing the Kuznetsov NK-144 used in most of the fleet).

I wonder what was the noise level in those late models.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video] by ddalex on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @04:17PM (#42858143)
WHAT ?!?
[ Parent | on HN ]
[dead]
Re:XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video] by giarc on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @12:41PM (#42855362)
Not really, that's like saying "they relied on closing the doors to the aircraft to achieve supersonic flight". Both happened, but aren't related if I'm reading the comments correctly.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video] by ortusdux on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @12:56PM (#42855583)
"The Concorde used its afterburners during take off and to get through the transonic region,"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transonic

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video] by vpribish on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @01:09PM (#42855742)
haha, good analogy - but his name has "Troll" right in it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video] by anothertroll456 on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @05:39PM (#42859044)
That's a really dumb response. Yes, it relies on closing the doors to achieve supersonic flight too.

The Boom plane doesn't rely on afterburners at any point in the trajectory to achieve supersonic flight. So yes, you would be reading the comments incorrectly.

Gosh this website is full of ignorant people.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video] by ortusdux on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @07:04PM (#42859799)
"The Concorde relied on an afterburner to achieve supersonic flight..."

"The Concorde used its afterburners ... to get through the transonic region..."

Am I missing something, or is there no difference between these sentences?

[ Parent | on HN ]