Gulfstream 650 Competition

Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap.

I just lost another response. That really sucks.

Maybe I'll try again later.

Necessity is the mother of brevity is the soul of wit.

It is sometimes difficult to eloquently pontificate expeditiously.

"Crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. I just lost another response. That really sucks."

May I suggest you do what I do and compose, correct and get all your posts ready using Microsoft Word, or whatever word processor you prefer and then just cut and past the entire post into the CR4 editor, That way you will never run out of time again and can post thousands of words at a go and believe me I have posted over 1,500 words at a time in some threads. One point worth mentioning is that depending on the web browser you are using and operating system you may not be able to use the right click pop up menu to do the pasting as some browsers default to using the CR4 editor functions when you right click. If this happens just use the good old fashion [ctrl][v] buttons simultaneously to paste your post.

You will, however, have to do things like bullet points, paragraph numbering, smiley faces and insert any images using the CR4 editor but that will only take a fraction of the time available unless you intend to do a Tolstoy impersonation with illustrations.

By the way, the clock starts running when you download the initial thread, not when you start the editor up so you can gain yourself valuable time by clicking the reload button immediately prior to firing up the CR4 editor.

Anyway, I've been using the cut and paste method since I started with CR4 and it's worked fine for me over the last 6½ years and yes you can use most of the symbols like β, Ω, μ, et cetera and they will transfer across without problems.

Happy waffling on ad infinitum,

masu

Thanks. If I were more disciplined, I probably would do that.

But, most of my responses are brief and usually, I find no need to take the extra steps. It has never made sense to me anyway, and at times when a particularly witty, intelligent, thoughtful, revolutionary bit of wisdom pops into my head, my first instinct is to begin typing before the thought is lost forever in the fog of my brain.

Fortunately,(for the forum, at least) the times when a particularly witty, intelligent, thoughtful, revolutionary bit of wisdom pops into my head are few, so the Oh $hit moments are far enough apart that I forget anyway.

And, if I remember before I try to post a windy response, or a particularly witty, intelligent, thoughtful, revolutionary bit of wisdom I just highlight it and hit ctrl "C" to copy it to the clipboard.

Cool design, but like the Concord, it too, will be limited to subsonic fight over land. I don't see how a corporation could justify the upfront cost let alone the maintenance over the life span of the aircraft. I do see the AD's flying off the press faster than speed of the aircraft.

"Cool design, but like the Concord, it too, will be limited to subsonic fight over land."

That's probably true for Europe and most of North America, but in Australia at least there are or were approved supersonic corridors that were put in place way back when Concorde was going to be the flagship of the Qantas fleet. Anyway the worry about the supersonic shock wave was totally disproved when Concorde did visit Australia back in the early 70s and flew at supersonic speeds for substantial distances over land with the only reports coming in stating that it was just like any other aircraft at cruising altitude, or in other words you could see the con trails but not hear or see the aircraft.

Remember most supersonic aircraft are military aircraft and most of them only use short bursts of supersonic speed usually at low altitude so there is little chance of them being detected by radar and even if they are such a fast moving target would be nigh on impossible to hit. Just have a look at this video of the Top 10 Low Pass Flybys of All Time all of which but number 10 are at near supersonic but still subsonic speeds. The last one on the other hand I think you will see is a completely different kettle of fish altogether, but as you can see the shockwave dissipates very rapidly with distance from the aircraft, in fact it's the good old inverse square law at work again. Double the distance from the object travelling at supersonic speeds and you reduce the pressure differential across the shock wave by a factor of four or stated mathematically ¹/s².

So, getting away from the fun bit and back to the commercial aircraft cruising at FL600 plus or roughly 60,000 feet and the effect is diminished to the point that it's probably just discernable by somebody with good hearing which is exactly what was reported by people that were under Concorde's overland supersonic flight paths in Australia some 4 decades ago.

One other point is that the US were flying the SR-71 Blackbird over belligerent countries like numerous middle eastern countries, China, USSR, North Korea, et cetera for decades and while they were detected every so often and fired at over 1,500 times unsuccessfully the S-71 Blackbird cruses at Mk 3 and nobody could hear it when it flew over them taking high resolution pictures as it went.

That means the whole hullabaloo about supersonic airliners causing sonic booms when they were cruising over land is a load of baloney because the need to fly at altitudes so high that they are too far away for most people to even hear the sonic boom let alone it cause any damage. The whole thing about not letting commercial aircraft fly at supersonic speeds over land was an anti-Concorde publicity campaign whipped up during the 1970s by people making wild accusations that ware not based on actual fact and were as usual taken up by the media and published without checking if they were indeed true.

So, if level heads prevailed and the people that make the decisions are properly informed of the facts like those in Australia back in the early 70s there's no reason that such a craft couldn't cruise at supersonic speeds over land at the sort of cruising altitudes (FL600 or 60,000 feet plus) needed for such speeds without guzzling fuel that quickly that you would run out in minutes not hours.

I understand you folks there in Australia have an out-back that is sparely populated if at all, but here in the States, there's not that much open space around here for an aircraft to fly supersonic over land. It be would be like "street drag racing" stop light to stop light. You no sooner pour the coals to it, then you'd have to slow down again.

I grew up in the early '60s when it was almost an everyday occurrence to hear aircraft breaking the sound barrier, window rattling and everything that went with it. And these were not low flying aircraft. And we're not talking about the SR71 at mach 3+. And traveling at mach 3+ people were looking to far behind the plane to see it when they heard the "BOOM" As far as FL600, we'll have to wait and see what flight level it's certified for. This is still slated for Business/ Corporation clientele.

I don't think it so much property damage as it was, people got tired of having the shit scared out of them every time a pilot got the urge to go faster, that got supersonic flight banned for overland flights here in the States.

Living in Tennessee for 5 years only a few years ago, I quite often heard supersonic bangs. On several occasions I looked up to see contrails of small aircraft doing turns at perhaps 40,000 ft., on one occasion 2 together. Probably ANG F-16's from Nashville. So overland supersonic flight may be banned in the USA, but I don't think the military care too much about that. It never upset me, being an aircraft fan from way back, but there's always some old dear hanging her bloomers on the line, who may object.

"It be would be like "street drag racing" stop light to stop light. You no sooner pour the coals to it, then you'd have to slow down again."

Your thinking along the lines of the old air traffic control system with specific routes in the sky that aircraft fly between. However, worldwide ATC is moving to the open sky policy where aircraft no longer fly along specific corridors between specific waypoints but rather directly from their departure point via a great circle path to their destination.

The reason for the change is the ability to navigate directly from A to B using a combination of Inertial Navigation Systems and Global Positioning Systems. The INS systems have been around for a long time but until the advent of GPS there was no independent technology to confirm that the INS was working correctly so airlines had to stick to the old jet routes with radio beacon waypoints to confirm their position. However now with two totally independent systems that work with totally different technology they can confirm that the they are keeping to the direct route flight path and along with more powerful ground based computer aided secondary radar systems that get data from the aircraft as well as the primary radar reflection means that aircraft can maintain separation minimums while flying direct routes.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if the corporate world think their time is so precious that they need to travel at supersonic speeds and whether the astronomical costs of flying at such speeds is economically viable.