Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 15 August 1972
Page: 182

Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Will the Minister state (a) the take off, landing and sideline noise levels as measured in accordance with the United States Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulation part 36 (FAA/FAR 36) in Effective Preceived Noise Decibles for the (I) Boeing 747 (late model) (II) Boeing 707-320 (III) DC-10 (IV) Lockheed Tristar (V) Concorde preproduction model and (VI) Concorde production model (projections), (b) the noise certification standards to operate after 1975 under FAA/FAR 36 for (1) subsonic aircraft and (ID the Concorde, and those that would apply to a subsonic aircraft of similar weight to the Concorde, (c) whether modifications have been foreshadowed for aircraft which exceed these standards to bring them below the proposed limits and (d) whether the aerodynamics of supersonic flight prevent the use of high bypass ratio turbofan engines, with their low noise potential, because of the need to reduce drag, and thus, that the prospects of substantial reduction in the Concorde's noise levels are remote.

Sir Reginald Swartz - The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answers to the honourable member's question:

(a)   It is understood that the Boeing 707-320 and Concorde preproduction model aircraft have

Aircraft type


Take-ofi proach


(i)   Boeing 747-200B (latest type)..

(ii)   Douglas DC-10-10

(iii)   Lockheed 101 1 Tristar . . fivl Concorde (Production

Model Projections) . .

The noise figures quoted have been rounded off to the nearest EPNdB and in the case of the Concorde, since the figures are projected, one may expect small variations up or down.

(b)   (i) There are no known plans to change the present FAA/FAR 36 noise certification standards which, incidentally, only apply to subsonic transport category aircraft. Consequently it is anticipated at this time that the present FAA/ FAR 36 standards will still be applicable after 1975.

(ii)   At this stage there is no noise certification standards for supersonic transports and I cannot anticipate whether such standards would be developed by 1975, and if so, what they would be.

If the current FAA/FAR 36 noise standards are still applicable in 1975, the noise limits that would apply to a newly certificated four engine subsonic aircraft of similar weight to the Concorde would be:

Take-off - 104.7 EPNdB Side-line - 106.6 EPNdB Approach - 106.6 EPNdB assuming an all-up-weight of 376,000 lb.

(c)   Considerable research and development work is in hand in the USA to investigate the feasibility of modifications to reduce noise in existing aircraft which now produce noise in excess of the FAA/FAR 36 noise limits. Insufficient work has been done at this time to indicate whether satisfactory modifications, both from the noise reduction and economic standpoints, can be developed.

(d)   At the present stage of technical development long range supersonic transport aircraft are only economically viable when employing comparatively slender forms for wings, body and engine nacelles which characteristically Tequire proportionally higher thrust levels for take-off. Furthermore, the requirements for supersonic flight also require proportionately greater installed thrust than in the subsonic aircraft. The need to provide high thrust in small frontal area leads to the use of reheat for take-off, and transonic acceleration, and to relatively high jet efflux velocities, and makes large diameter high by-pass ratio turbofan engines quite inappropriate at this time. The prospects, therefore of substantial reduction in the Concorde's noise levels by using high by-pass ration turbofan engines instead of the existing pure turbojet engines is indeed remote.

Suggest corrections