Talk:SAI Quiet Supersonic Transport

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Copyright vio?

Enormous sections of this article are copied verbatim from this article: [1] I'm pretty sure this constitutes some sort of copyright violation. Perhaps someone should clean it up? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QSST also means Qualified Subchapter S Trust

I saw this in the IRS instructions for filling out form 2553, S Corp Election by a small business.

Suggest creating a disambiguation page. 70.132.25.230 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are only for actual articles, not for definitions or explanations. A DAB page would only be necessary in this case if/when there is an article on "Qualified Subchapter S Trust" itself, or a section in another article which is long/important enough to link to. - BillCJ (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More text

Multiple shock wave issue

Stronger shock waves travels faster than a weak shock wave, and the aircraft has to generate a continuum of shockwaves in order to prevent the collapse into one big wave before the shock waves reach the ground. The shock waves are created at the peak of the nose, the cannard, the leading edge of the wings, the wing, the engine inlet. Note how the belly of the fuselage tries to compensate for any irregularities.

Weaker shock than concorde

The QSST has a lower mass and as such a weaker shock.

Aerodynamic Stability

With such heavy engines thus far in the back it is almost impossible to get the center of mass right. Even if the wings are far in at the aft, large control surfaces are needed to compensate for the fuselage (essentially a balloon with no mass) sticking out in the front.

Structural stability

The engines are lifted by the wings, but the whole aircraft would be prone to bending oscillations with the mass distributed so far away from the center of mass. The V control surfaces are a great way to stiffen an aircraft with swept back wings, but as visible in the picture are not swept back themselves and as such have a high drag.

Rest in Peace supersonic transport -- Arnero (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

proposed deletion is premature

this was notable development effort - the article should stay for historical reference as it contains enough information and citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awatral (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

numbers in SI

This article would greatly benefit from giving the numbers in SI units. Outside the USA, feet and miles are gibberish. 96.22.242.49 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation

When was the project cancelled? There is no mention of it in the article text, no citations, nothing beyond a single "was" and a poorly capitalised infobox.Therealpirateblue (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given their CEO wrote an article in Professional Pilot magazine just this month (March 2014) and stated that he was 'very optimistic that 2014 will finally be an important year on the road to SSBJ success', I think it is safe to say that the project is NOT cancelled. 86.31.229.138 (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes to reflect the above, but I then realised that this page refers to the QSST. The QSST has been cancelled and has been replaced by the QSST-X, which is meant to be larger (about the size of a Boeing 737) than the original QSST was supposed to be. I'm not sure if a new article should be made for the QSST-X or whether the QSST-X should be considered an adaptation of the QSST and a continuation of the original project and included in this article. 86.31.229.138 (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for figuring that out. Yeah, I don't think it's worth creating another article for QSST-X. As long as the goals are still the same, I think this article should cover both. But that requires some overall changes to the article. -- intgr [talk] 10:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no one this was clear until I read the talk page. This article needs a major cleanup.FrodoBaggins (blackhat999) (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates since 2014? There was also this article in 2013 - https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sai-resurrects-qsst-x-as-all-first-class-supersonic-airliner-seeks-387005/ - but nothing else major comes up since then... Tom W (talk)