Query.....

The Crewroom for non-FS related stuff, fun and general chat.

Moderators: Guru's, The Ministry

Post Reply
User avatar
forthbridge
Concorde
Concorde
Posts: 1595
Joined: 29 Aug 2007, 13:26
Location: Stirlingshire, UK

Query.....

Post by forthbridge »

Hi all

Another FB bizarre question...!

Reading up on Concorde, 'radiation dose' spring up (based on altitude) a few times. Not something I've researched much, but apparently it is an issue. Given passenger A/C are 'enclosed' (well relatively) how come fighter jocks aren't as green as the hulk? do they have seperate procedures to deal with any issues?
Jim
Image

User avatar
DaveB
The Ministry
Posts: 30457
Joined: 17 Jun 2004, 20:46
Location: Pelsall, West Mids, UK
Contact:

Re: Query.....

Post by DaveB »

Hi Jim..

I'd have thought Concorde went higher and faster for prolonged periods.. much longer periods and much faster than our fighter jocks. Perhaps that's why they don't glow in the dark.. or perhaps they do :o

ATB

DaveB :tab:
ImageImage
Old sailors never die.. they just smell that way!

SkippyBing
Concorde
Concorde
Posts: 1460
Joined: 30 Aug 2006, 18:21

Re: Query.....

Post by SkippyBing »

I think Concorde was ~60 000' for 2+ hours a flight whereas most fighters don't regularly go that high. Hell Tornado can't.
The U-2 which can had the pilot in a pressure suit, ditto the SR-71 which coupled with other features of the airframe (RAM paint is full of iron) presumably helped keep the dosage down to sensible levels.
Image

User avatar
forthbridge
Concorde
Concorde
Posts: 1595
Joined: 29 Aug 2007, 13:26
Location: Stirlingshire, UK

Re: Query.....

Post by forthbridge »

Aha.... interesting - I've just had another thought - is glass more 'protective' against rad than alloys (specifically those not designed to be anti-rad?) for instance would rad be more significant through a window as opposed to through the roof? :think:
I think with Cocorde, the fact it was up high (and aloft in total) for less than a subsonic equivalent, the pax got less clicks per trip than the lower and slower A/C..
Jim
Image

cjw50310
Viscount
Viscount
Posts: 125
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 23:55
Location: Des Moines, IA

Re: Query.....

Post by cjw50310 »

forthbridge wrote:Aha.... interesting - I've just had another thought - is glass more 'protective' against rad than alloys (specifically those not designed to be anti-rad?) for instance would rad be more significant through a window as opposed to through the roof?
That would be part of it, but merely because the glass would be thicker than the metals used for the skin. That being said, it's probably a wash where aircraft are concerned, since there would typically be more layers of metal bits than there would glass. It would also be dependent on the type of radiation. As x-rays, which would tend to be the source at altitude, are more energetic, they will go farther into a material than other forms.

Chris
When all else fails, manipulate the data.

User avatar
TSR2
The Ministry
Posts: 16761
Joined: 17 Jun 2004, 14:32
Location: North Tyneside, UK
Contact:

Re: Query.....

Post by TSR2 »

I'm pretty sure that the radiation that concorde passengers experienced due to altitude actually work out the same as those on a conventional airliner on the same route, reason being although concorde was much higher, it was there for less time, so 2 hours @ 60000ft was about the same as 5 hours at 40000 ;-)
Ben.:tunes:

ImageImageImage

Post Reply