So, having just read "Flying Concorde" by BC, it got me dreaming about how the old girl could be updated and returned to the air (yes, yes, I know it's not going to happen, before people pile in and give me 1000 reasons why it couldn't).
Better still, if we had a nice shiny new one from those sweet people in Toulouse, what features would we have? I have come up with the following over a coffee and a packet of HobNobs:
* Fly-by-wire (obviously) * 70% composite airframe * Carbon epoxy wing with coated metal leading edge for corrosion resistance * Aluminium and composites for fuselage / empennage / nacelles etc * Laminar Flow technology for wing * Low sonic boom (somehow!) * LCD cockpit blah blah * 250 pax / Mach 2.0+ / 8000ft runways * Ooh, and bigger windows
Didn't the original have laminar flow wings anyhoo ?
(edit; course it didn't. grey matter damage methinks )
nasa have been experimenting with a T38 or F5 with an altered nosecone shape, which if I remember correctly substantially reduced sonic boom in experiments
Last edited by Tyres O'Flaherty : 31st August 2008 at 18:24.
Fuselage width about 350 cm. This CAN be done: Tu-144 has 330 cm, L-2000 planned for 335 cm. 350 cm wide fuselage allows about 325 cm wide cabin, which means 5 abreast coach, and relatively comfortable (DC-9 has 313 cm for 5 abreast). And comfortable 4 abreast first class.
Total length 75...80 m. This fits into the 80x80 m box of airport design, unlike the 90+ m B2707, AST2, Boeing and MD HSCT, JAXA NEXST etc.
I think that 150...200 seat SST could be easier to fill than a 250+ seat one. Because the supersonic drag will cost.
Quote from Green-Dot: To eliminate the drooping nose section: -canard -elevons [Unquote]
Hi GD, Have to admit that aerodynamics is not my strong point, but my understanding is that the droop-snoot is necessary to provide pilot visibility at the high pitch attitudes (deck-angles) associated with approach speeds; the latter resulting from the lack of trailing-edge flaps. Presumably, your canard arrangement would enable them to be fitted?
In case the above is stating the obvious, I’m a bit perplexed by your reference to elevons. Surely, Concorde already has them (elevator-ailerons)? But if we fitted trailing-edge flaps, we would presumably droop the elevons when the flaps are extended, because of the small wingspan. I wonder if flaps would reduce the attitude sufficiently to achieve visibility. If we fitted leading-edge devices − particularly slats − to lower the approach speed, the pitch attitude would rise again.
On a very different tack, many of you will remember Barnes Wallis’s “Swallow”. This was a swing-wing design, which flew successfully in pilot-less form at about quarter-scale. I attended a fascinating lecture by him in 1968, in which he told the tale of how he had visited America − presumably in the late 1950s − and mentioned that he was working on a swing-wing design. Some years later, the F111 appeared (while the UK was developing TSR2). “What I hadn’t told them,” he smiled, “was that the whole point of having the swing-wing was to dispense with the need for a tailplane.” [He didn’t admit that the eponymous bird seems to have a rather large one.]
Can anyone confirm that “Swallow” was designed to be supersonic? And did any of the son-of-Concorde proposals use this configuration? With FBW having moved on a bit since Concorde’s (again, thanks not a little to those “sweet people” at Blagnac), presumably some of the 1960s difficulties could be resolved more easily. We’d miss that elegant delta though…
And did/do they not have tailplanes (tail-mounted horizontal stabilisers), like the B1A?
Editorial addition: [Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I am talking about a tail-less swing-wing configuration, as in Barnes Wallis's "Swallow".]
Last edited by Chris Scott : 2nd September 2008 at 00:02. Reason: Second sentence added
Have to admit that aerodynamics is not my strong point, but my understanding is that the droop-snoot is necessary to provide pilot visibility at the high pitch attitudes (deck-angles) associated with approach speeds; the latter resulting from the lack of trailing-edge flaps. Presumably, your canard arrangement would enable them to be fitted?
In case the above is stating the obvious, I’m a bit perplexed by your reference to elevons. Surely, Concorde already has them (elevator-ailerons)? But if we fitted trailing-edge flaps, we would presumably droop the elevons when the flaps are extended, because of the small wingspan. I wonder if flaps would reduce the attitude sufficiently to achieve visibility. If we fitted leading-edge devices − particularly slats − to lower the approach speed, the pitch attitude would rise again.
Before the Concorde ever saw light between the ground and its wheels there was a delta-winged aircraft flying for over 5 years which had: - a canard with flaps selectable for takeoff and landing; - elevons which functioned as ailerons, elevators, and when the canard landing flaps were selected these elevons functioned as flaps (flaperons). - no leading edge devices; - variable geometry wingtips (the size of a B-58 Hustler wing), not in the forward/aft sweep sense but 0 degrees (up), 30 degrees (half down) and 70 degrees (full down); - a MTOW of over 500.000lb; - a demonstrated cruising speed of Mach 3; - a projected range exceeding 6500 miles (without air refueling) but due to the limited program this was never demonstrated.
With the canard-flaps in combination with the elevons acting as flaps, the approach angle was minimized and if the project had continued beyond the prototype phase, the aim was to land it no differently than a conventional airliner with identical low pitch attitudes (deck-angles), approach, flare and landing speeds. This had actually been demonstrated during the prototype test flights with low landing weights. It therefore did not require a drooping nose as visibility over the fixed nose was good. It did have a moveable nose ramp and windshield (somewhat comparable to Concorde's visor). It was lowered for takeoff, approach and landing and raised to improve airflow at higher speeds.
The canard (flaps up) was trimable in cruise and together with the full down position of its wing tips (which, due to the reduced total projected wing area, moved the aerodynamic center of pressure forward to minimize drag), the aircraft cruised near 0 deg. AOA on its own shockwaves, known as compression lift. The moveable wingtips were mainly designed for improved stability at supersonic speeds but as a side-effect also contributed to trapping the supersonic shock waves between the lowered wingtips, the main wing and the wedge shaped fuselage/engine nacelle (which housed 6 turbojet engines). Due to the multiple oblique shock wave deflections (reduction in speed, increase in static pressure), this increased the pressure below the wing relative to the low pressure airflow over the very clean upper wing surface. Result: increased lift/reduced drag.
It demonstrated to be the most efficient aircraft to date regarding L/D ratio at cruising speed (except that of a glider). To put that in context, it cruised at mach 3 with a drag coefficient similar to concorde at mach 2. That is a 30% efficiency increase!
Only 2 were built: North American XB-70A Valkyrie This aircraft design was specifically fine-tuned for a M3 cruise speed. They accomplished / demonstrated this goal without any optimization.
Many patents came from this XB-70 design which until to this day can be found in virtually any aircraft design that came after it.
The Valkyrie's impact on aviation has far outstripped her recognition.
A slight drawback of the XB70 was that the compression (or shock) lift generated very big shock waves - this would not be a good selling point to any operator if used in a new design.
Similar Threads 
)
Linear Mode
