Timeline for Did the XF-84H Thunderscreech really cause "900 sonic booms per minute"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 9, 2018 at 17:24 | comment | added | jwzumwalt | All aircraft have at least two sonic waves. While some people on the ground may perceive the sound as a single sonic “boom,” many sonic booms produced from NASA’s research flights are easily heard as distinct “double” booms, The Space Shuttle was notorious for its double boom. nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-016-DFRC.html | |
| Oct 7, 2015 at 7:54 | comment | added | Jon Story | I'm not saying that it's a quiet aircraft, or that supersonic prop tips make no difference - just that the '900 sonic booms per minute' makes no real sense as a number to quite. Also prop booms are nowhere near the volume level of a passing supersonic aircraft - because the props are quieter in general, and because they're only heading toward the listener at supersonic speed for a fraction of a second (unlike an aircraft passing which is building up the pressure wave for a moment or two) | |
| Oct 7, 2015 at 7:42 | comment | added | jwenting | @DavidRicherby the same is true for many high performance helicopters around takeoff. | |
| Oct 7, 2015 at 7:18 | comment | added | David Richerby | The prop tips were supersonic even when the plane was idling on the ground so it's not just about the plane moving past the observer. Also, the internet seems to think that the noise of the supersonic prop itself was a significant contribution to the overall noise of the plane. | |
| Oct 6, 2015 at 22:40 | history | answered | Jon Story | CC BY-SA 3.0 |