PDA

View Full Version : airship's supersonic "executive jet" project - input welcome...


airship
5th Feb 2014, 13:36
Some background info...

airship is not on "1st name terms" with any of the World's 1,426 billionaires (142 US citizens, 110 Russians, 122 Chinese + rest of the World) representing US$ 5.4 trillions of disposable wealth in 2013 according to wikipedia here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billionaire).

However, have had previous "face-to-face" contacts with some multi-millionaires (notably 1 "hands-on" multiple-yacht owner who piloted his own Beechcraft 200 King Air throughout Europe in the early to late '2000s). Currently dealing with several superyacht-owners "at arm's length" through their managers. One of these has an A-380 as part of his private jet fleet, another merely has an older B747 variant in addition to others.

Whatever, all previous efforts to satisfy this growing market of billionaires and their thirst for faster air travel appear not to have come to any fruition, despite many years of R&D by some well-known names.

Onwards to the project...

Like Boeing, instead of attempting to "redesign the wheel" when they found themselves confronted by the A-380, they merely adapted the existing design of the older B747. This strategy allowed a double-bonus that the new variant/s wouldn't need to be re-certified as a "completely new airplane".

Which got me thinking "out of the box" yet again, my hunches leading me to believe that there were already (military) airplanes flying which could be adapted to the role of "supersonic executive jet" with relatively minor modifications. And narrowing my choice of candidates down to just 2:

1) The Russian TUPOLEV TU-160 and variants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/%D0%AD%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81_%D0%A2%D1%83-160_02_%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE_3.jpg/800px-%D0%AD%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81_%D0%A2%D1%83-160_02_%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE_3.jpg
http://www.avionslegendaires.net/wp-content/uploads/images/avion_militaire/Gtu160-2.jpg

2) The US Rockwell B1 and variants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer):

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x290/qst1/640px-B-1B_over_the_pacific_ocean.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/First_B-1%2C_Palmdale.jpg

It's quite remakable how both these airplanes resemble each other. One is surely a copy of the other, but like the "chicken and the egg", which came first...?!

Get rid of the huge weapons payload capacity and the internal bomb-bays first. Add a B747-like extended "Big-top" to the superstructure, converting all this available space to carrying passengers (obviously pressurised) and I reckon airship's supersonic "executive jet" would be able to easily accommodate 8-10 passengers seated very comfortably + 1 double-bedroom (with restricted height) for the billionaire owner; fly at supersonic speeds and at heights over-land that merely lead air-traffic controllers to assume that this was just "another military flight"; with a trans-continental range at supersonic speed (not that such billionaires couldn't afford their own private fleet of IFR tankers if truly required)...

Whilst both the Boeing and Tupolev (depending on variants - the B1B has quite a disappointing max. speed of merely Mach 1.25...?!) have the potential, I've already decided that the Tupolev has the best possibilities for adaption. Add a few portholes here, replace existing heavy aluminium structures with carbon-fibre equivalents, why not look into replacing the older engines with newer more fuel-efficient ones, and HEY PRESTO?! The billionaires will have their new toys at a fraction of the price of any "brand-new supersonic executive" developed from scratch...?!

A "lick of paint here, a bit of body-filler there" (to hide the ex. USSR insignias) and airship may well have found a way to pay for his retirement and pension. :ok:

vulcanised
5th Feb 2014, 14:24
A Wokka would make a change.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Feb 2014, 15:27
Military supersonic aeroplanes are designed to a lower safety standard that are civil, innit.

Engine failure at M2 in a Blackbird - high chance of being fatal, despite the crew having bang seats, full harness belts, and pressure suits.

Engine failure at M2 in Concorde... None event, despite the pax being in shirt sleeved comfort, not even strapped in, and quaffing champers and fois gras.

awblain
5th Feb 2014, 16:28
Isn't that an accusation that can also be leveled at Concorde?

Involving a period of near certain death if a particular chain of events takes place on departure, and huge running costs?

Tu.114
5th Feb 2014, 16:51
If You add a hump to the B1/Tu-160 in order to gain some space for passengers, would that not require further extensive modification to maintain the area ruling intact? If so, the result would likely lose much of the originals elegance and turn into some kind of supersonic Quasimodo.

The thought of arriving in style with a heavy (if that word can be used in this context - maybe rather "large") airship... now this has some class. A LZ129 Mk. 2 built from carbon fibre instead of aluminium and thus light enough to use helium as lifting gas might not be able to replace a fast transport, but if you think of it more like a super-size yacht than an aircraft, it surely would find a buyer or two.

Well, one can dream...

beaufort1
5th Feb 2014, 17:01
I know of a few billionaires and they have a predilection for inhabiting small islands where they can't land their jets and have to employ helicopters to actually get to their destination. I would have thought a jet with VTOL capability would be a sure fire winner. ;)

G-CPTN
5th Feb 2014, 17:18
I would have thought a jet with VTOL capability would be a sure fire winner. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Harrier? :cool:

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Feb 2014, 17:20
Isn't that an accusation that can also be leveled at Concorde?

Involving a period of near certain death if a particular chain of events takes place on departure, and huge running costs?

No and No.

The 'chain of events' included many outside the design parameters of the aeroplane, such as taking off overweight, taking off downwind, overfilled fuel tanks so no air gap to absorb shocks from shredding tyres etc, main bogie parts missing, shutting down of a power-producing engine at rotation (which would also have provided hydraulic power to raise the gear). So mostly avoidable.

Running costs were higher than a subsonic. Not high enough to prevent BA from making many millions a year profit on the aeroplane for a couple of decades, however.

Capetonian
5th Feb 2014, 17:33
What might make a change is perhaps that you get off your dismal steed (going by many of your other recent responses to other threads here), now and then, and instead contributing something useful, whether comic, profane or otherwise. Instead of coming across as mainly a sad, demonic has-been with nothing of consequence to add...
Houses ...... glass ......... people ........

awblain
5th Feb 2014, 17:38
I take your point, Shaggy - Concorde had a much better record of working and not crashing than the Tu144, but in the light of what happened at Paris, and the long gap between V1 and V2 that I believe occurred twice a day at Heathrow and in Paris, perhaps the world's uber billionaires might be more prepared to take a direct flight to the antipodes in their VIP 787s and A350s rather than hop there repeatedly at higher speed?

In times of cheap oil, Concorde would probably have done better, but then again… more numbers and more flying may have lead to more accidents, and with cache and reputation as the sales points, that might not have been good for business.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Feb 2014, 18:03
Concorde was probably the safest airliner ever. That's why it was so expensive - 14 years of development between signing the Anglo-French contract in 1962 (and SST work had commenced even before that) and commercial service in 1976.

27 years of service, one accident. But it was a complex and high performance aeroplane with 1970s systems, so it was intolerant of sloppy operation. There's no way the BA fleet should have been grounded after the Paris accident. Politics, I'm afraid. The French held an ace card in form of Airbus being the design authority, of course.

awblain
5th Feb 2014, 18:17
27 years, yes, but how many total flights? 400 aircraft years, with a few hundred flights per aircraft per year?

It's a very impressive machine (especially for the 1960s), but that's not a per flight accident rate that looks good today, even giving another factor of 10 for bad choices on the day to line up the holes more easily.

How does it compare with a Global whatever?

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Feb 2014, 18:32
that's not a per flight accident rate that looks good today

With an original fleet size of 14 aeroplanes, before Paris it had 100% safe record. After Paris, a loss rate of 1 in 14 looks awful. That's statistics for you.

To be fair to the aeroplane, I'd go as far as to say only the way BA operated it should be considered. A 7 aeroplane BA fleet with a 100% good safety record in 27 years of operations. Pretty good for what's essentially a 1960s design of such exceptional performance.

Concorde did M2 for 4.5 hours in perfect pax comfort. Compare that to Mil aeroplanes. And imagine what we could do today with modern avionics, engines, and structures (composites).

Oh, and nothing man-made has ever looked as beautiful. :ok:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/IMG_6702resized-1.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/GZK6NK/media/IMG_6702resized-1.jpg.html)

dead_pan
5th Feb 2014, 18:32
Did I read somewhere that some of these space tourism vehicles such as the Virgin jobber were being considered for use for intercontinental transport - a kind of exo-atmospheric bizjet? I also recall some years back US bizjet maker had teamed with a Russian mil airframer (Sukhoi?) to put the bones of a design together for a supersonic bizjet.

I know of a few billionaires and they have a predilection for inhabiting small islands where they can't land their jets

I thought it was operating supersonic jets off postage stamp sized strips was old hat? Steam (or rail gun) catapult, arrestor wire - et voila!

dead_pan
5th Feb 2014, 18:35
And imagine what we could do today with modern avionics, engines, and structures

How hard would it be to simply re-manufacture Concorde, a tried and tested design? I'm sure the plans are around gathering dust in a filing cabinet somewhere in Filton.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Feb 2014, 18:43
Although a modern 'Concorde' would be almost identical in shape to the original (they got it right!) it really needs to be bigger than the 100 seats it offered (albeit at a very generous seat pitch!).

However, in view of environmental considerations and the ongoing sonic boom problem limiting routes, I wonder if supersonic airliners are the way to go in future? HOTOL, anyone?

Russell Gulch
5th Feb 2014, 18:55
Lovely photo, SSD. As they say, if it look's right it'll fly right. And it did both in spades. How much area-ruling was used, do you know?

HOTOL might one day make a reappearance in a different format, I think.

Russ.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Feb 2014, 19:02
On Concorde, area rule rules! It was essential to minimise wave drag.

The nose begins as a needle pitot / static system and gradually opens out to full fuselage diameter.

The wings start just behind the front door as mere ridges in the fuselage side and gradually open out to full span.

The fin rises a bit more abruptly from the cabin roof, but where it does the cabin is 'waisted' to compensate.

It is absolutely stunningly beautiful. And not a stylist's line anywhere on it. It's pure 'form following function', which is why it hasn't dated.

awblain
5th Feb 2014, 19:50
HOTOL is now Skylon.

But if Concorde was a bit loud, expensive and nerve wracking on its wheels at 200 knots, wait until you see a Skylon leave the ground.

awblain
5th Feb 2014, 20:56
Stick the passengers in the fairing, they'll get a better view.

Sallyann1234
5th Feb 2014, 21:02
Oh, and nothing man-made has ever looked as beautiful.

It still takes my breath away. Designed by engineers, and surpassing anything designed by artists.

dead_pan
5th Feb 2014, 21:24
The Valkyrie - didn't it crash too?

Here's Sukhoi's offering:

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/9868/sukhois21ssbj8gk.jpg

G-CPTN
5th Feb 2014, 22:50
Wasn't Concorde given to Air France and British Airways at heavily discounted cost because no airline wanted to carry the true purchase price?

CONCORDE SST :ORDERS (http://www.concordesst.com/history/orders.html)

tartare
6th Feb 2014, 03:53
When I saw Concorde from front on at ChCh as it lined up to take off, it struck me how it actually looked like a large jet fighter.
Then one realises, of course it does, rules of aerodynamics...
Personally I'd go for the B-1 option, modified with sleeper section just behind the cockpit.
Imagine arriving at Davos in that bad boy!
"You can take your global warming and shove it up your jacksie..."

Captain Dart
6th Feb 2014, 06:13
A stunning XB70 shot, courtesy of the originator of the 'Valkyrie' thread:

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/originals/02/ec/f2/02ecf2b9d77433602bb6b11516ae0b7a.jpg

One XB70 crashed because a 'hot shot' fighter jock ran into it.

Remake this puppy, install a modern 'fly by wire' system and modern engines, and Robert's your father's brother! You could fit a few 'executives' in the forward fuselage.

Solid Rust Twotter
6th Feb 2014, 07:34
You could fit a few 'executives' in the forward fuselage.


Bah!


Strap 'em to a pallet and stack 'em in the bomb bay.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
6th Feb 2014, 08:40
Wasn't Concorde given to Air France and British Airways at heavily discounted cost because no airline wanted to carry the true purchase price?

The true purchase price would have been a very, very big number; the entire programme costs divided by 14!

There were hundreds of options on Concorde until the world changed. The Arabs stopped giving oil away, supersonic overland flight was banned, the US wouldn't let an SST into the 'States (wonder why?), but most of all, the 747 changed the industry from one of 'more speed' to one of 'lower seat cost'.

So all the options were dropped. The two (then) state airlines were told to take 7 aeroplanes each and operate them.

That meant the British and French taxpayers picked up most of the bill for Conc development. BA & AF were state owned, so it really wouldn't have made much difference if the airlines had been charged the real price - the taxpayer would still have paid.

airship
6th Feb 2014, 14:11
Many thanks to henry_crun and deap_pan for their photos and general affirmation of what I originally wrote: ...all previous efforts to satisfy this growing market of billionaires and their thirst for faster air travel appear not to have come to any fruition, despite many years of R&D by some well-known names.

To be frank, I had not considered a "resuscitation" of the Anglo-French Concorde, believing it to be "too big" for the intended purpose, and certainly too troublesome in the sense of all the history and emotions surrounding this airplane...

However, it's perhaps not "overly-big" for the intended purpose (more later). Interestingly, and contrary to popular belief, the Concorde was not that expensive an aircraft. This wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde) reports that the overall program development costs for the 20 (of which just 14 entered into airline service) amounted to £1.3 billion at the end of the program in 1977. Suggesting that the unit cost per aircraft was merely £23 million in 1977, which must be an error, as dividing $1.3 billion by 20 aircraft, I get £65 million each (£121 million equivalent in 2014 £ according to the wikipedia content).

If you could today build a new Concorde in 2014 for just £121 million, then that is worth some consideration, in comparison to what your latest generation DASSAULT FALCON 7X, GULFSTREAM G650 or BOEING BBJ (or larger and slower subsonic) jets cost today. But let's face it: the venerable Spitfires of WWII rolled off the production lines in their thousands and cost about £5,000 each back then (someone else can do the equivalent present value...); if the factories and assembly-lines and equipment for series production for either the Spitfire or the more recent Concorde were still available, then I'm sure that many private aviators would have opted for a Spitfire instead of their Cessna or Piper...?!

The Concorde is not all that bigger physically, considering it's 100+ passenger capacity and trans-Atlantic range:

CONCORDE: Dim. Length 61.7m X Wingspan 25.6m x Height 12.2m / MTOW weight 187,000kg / Max. speed Mach 2.04 - 2,179KPH / Range 3,900NM - 7222KM / Max. ceiling 60,000ft. - 18,300m / Runway length @MTOW = 3,600m.

TU-160: Dim. Length 54.10m X Wingspan 35.6m (55.7m extended) x Height 13.1m / MTOW weight 275,000kg / Max. speed Mach 2.05 - 2,220KPH / Range 7,643NM - 12,300KM / Max. ceiling 40,000ft. - 15,000m / Runway length @MTOW = not available.

B1B-Lancer: Dim. Length 44.5m X Wingspan 24.0m (41.8m extended) x Height 10.4m / MTOW weight 216,000kg / Max. speed Mach 1.25 - 1,3400KPH / Range 6,478NM - 11,900KM / Max. ceiling 60,000ft. - 18,000m / Runway length @MTOW = not available.

Additionally, the Concorde is not "overly-big". In fact, reducing the passenger capacity to 12-36 persons should allow for greatly-increased range when used as intended (ie. supersonic "executive jet"), with the possibility of several additional / private sleeping cabins for wives and concubines...!

Do you think there are many remaining alive who originally designed and / or built the original Concordes? Would they come out of retirement and be willing to work on a new project?

airship cannot reveal the source or at this time confirm any "letters of intent", but I've been made to understand that if I were able to supply a suitable "Mach 2.0 +" executive jet at an acceptable price, within a time-frame of 2-3 years, then "they'd" be willing to order (subject to contract) about 20 initially. Apparently HRH also said in passing, "if he (airship) can accomplish this, then I'll speak to the extended family...but I must always have the best and most recent at my personal disposal."

FYI. Sonic-booms: Current aspiring customers don't consider this a major problem. From the ME / Gulf, their flights to Europe would mostly have the aircraft flying over areas over which they have adequate control, then over the Mediterranean sea. Flying eastwards, again, mostly oceans (or discretionary approval from the countries being over-flown). Flying further westwards, after Europe, say USA, again mostly ocean - "and why would Arabs wish to travel so swiftly to any destinations where they're generally despised and made to feel unwelcome anyway?"

Shaggy Sheep Driver
6th Feb 2014, 14:57
Your £1.3B (are you sure it wasn't a lot more than that? UK billions are a lot bigger than US billions) should be divided by 14, not 20. The 6 prototypes were not 'Concordes', merely development machines leading to the 14 production aeroplanes.

Reducing Concorde's pax numbers probably wouldn't have much of an effect on range. Only 5% of its all-up weight was payload (pax and their luggage). 95% was aeroplane and fuel. You can see how critical weight was during development!

airship
6th Feb 2014, 15:06
OK, SSD, I understand your point. So, how much would it cost to have an EC-135 tanker loitering off Gibraltar say for 3-4 hours? And how much to equip a "new-generation" Concorde with suitable IFR capability?!

PS. henry_crun, at no point was I suggesting a "full-blown" reincarnation of BAE and Concorde R&D or manufacturing facilities. I was thinking along similar, but much more modest lines. Perhaps bringing some "key-personnel" out of a boring retirement with adequate rewards. Why not set-up the new factory in U.A.E. for example, close to the initial market? Allowing many to get away from the cold wintry climates they currently endure to spend a few months or years sharing their expertise and knowledge in a hot (but air-conditioned environment), suitably recompensed and genererously-housed (maid / driver / gardener included)...?! ;)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
6th Feb 2014, 15:08
£1.3B (UK billion - million X million) divided by 14 is about £93,000,000,000. each. That sounds more likley as a true cost per aeroplane!

I think better range would come from modern engines and weight saving through composites.

In flight refueling isn't great for high end to end speeds.

fitliker
6th Feb 2014, 15:17
Without talking too much on a public forum.
The B-1 would not make a very suitable civilian conversion, anyone familiar with the "normal operations" off Diego Garcia could confirm that. Hint they wear out the tires of the CFR vehicles and have to replace them more often than your average council garbage truck.
How ever the Concorde could be converted to a military version with greater efficiency of purpose than a military plane could be converted to a civilian plane. I was told it would only take three shifts to convert a Concorde to a long range weapon. It may just have been the beer talking as none of the guys talking about it ever flew it or built it.

Pelikal
6th Feb 2014, 15:44
Forgive the thread drift. Sallyann1234 wrote:

Designed by engineers, and surpassing anything designed by artists.I have no idea how to comprehend that remark. Good 'ole Leonardo would design a purpose-built machine to flog you personally if he heard you say that.:{

cockney steve
6th Feb 2014, 16:09
Having looked atSSD's picture , I am surprised at how high it sat off the ground.....I knew the legs "looked" tall and spindly, but seeing Ground Crew with the wings a good six feet over their heads...... Why so high off the ground?
Is it anything to do with the angle of Rotation at T/O (to prevent tail-strike? or angle of landing-flare ? just curious. Answers anyone?

Shaggy Sheep Driver
6th Feb 2014, 16:36
Exactly that, CS. The tall u/c and nose droop were because the aeroplane is pitched up to high AoA at take off and landing speeds, a consequence of the high speed wing design using vortex lift at low speeds.

tdracer
6th Feb 2014, 17:38
Regarding the 'true' costs of the Concord, to put things a little more in perspective, a 747-100/200 in that time frame went for about $25 million. Or, about a tenth what they go for today. I don't recall what the dollar/pound exchange was back then, but figure a modern day price for those Concordes of well over a billion dollars. I'm also rather skeptical of 1.3 billion pounds for the total program costs. There are many ways to book keep a program of that magnitude, often times R&D gets charged of as just that, even if the R&D is specifically aimed at a particular project.

BTW, the XB-70 is one of my all time favorite aircraft and an amazing demonstration of early 1960s design. I did however have it's own issues - during one test flight at ~Mach 3, part of the inlet splitter broke off and was ingested with bits going into all six engines. The three engines on one side failed, all three engines on the other side suffered FOD damage but continued to run allowing a safe return and landing.:sad:

Dr Jekyll
6th Feb 2014, 17:39
In flight refueling isn't great for high end to end speeds.

I take it air to air refuelling at Mach 2 would be a little tricky then.

Pity.

Incidentally by assuming the billion referred to was a million million you overstate the cost by a factor of 1000. The development cost of Concorde was around £1,300,000,000, so allowing for inflation the same sort of ballpark as the development of the A380.

dead_pan
6th Feb 2014, 18:21
Personally I'd go for the B-1 option, modified with sleeper section just behind the cockpit.

Sheesh, you make it sound as glamorous as an HGV cab...

airship quotes its max range at 6478nm/11900km, presumably at subsonic cruise not mach 1+?

How about something smaller like an F111 or Su-24? Must be plenty of those in various boneyards in the US and Russia.

MG23
6th Feb 2014, 18:29
Did I read somewhere that some of these space tourism vehicles such as the Virgin jobber were being considered for use for intercontinental transport - a kind of exo-atmospheric bizjet?

I read that somewhere, but it doesn't really make sense to me. In order to follow a ballistic trajectory across the Atlantic, you need a substantial fraction of orbital velocity; I don't believe any of the existing suborbital tourist jobbies can get close. And for London to Sydney, you're pretty much at orbital velocity.

Then you have to deal with the passengers being subjected to several gs for the start and end of the flight, and no gs in the middle. What was it Arthur C Clarke said about ballistic suborbital transports? Something like 'for half the flight you can't get to the toilet, and the other half it's out of order'.

MG23
6th Feb 2014, 18:34
How ever the Concorde could be converted to a military version with greater efficiency of purpose than a military plane could be converted to a civilian plane. I was told it would only take three shifts to convert a Concorde to a long range weapon. It may just have been the beer talking as none of the guys talking about it ever flew it or built it.

There are period illustrations of an RAF Concorde carrying nuclear missiles; Blue Steel, maybe? No idea how practical it would have really been, but clearly someone thought it was interesting enough to be worth drawing.

tdracer
6th Feb 2014, 19:17
There are period illustrations of an RAF Concorde carrying nuclear missiles

There was a serious proposal to do something like that with 747 Freighters about 30 years ago - basically to use it as a cruise missile carrier. The idea was to take a basic 747 Freighter, add a bulkhead to keep the upper deck pressurized, and have a side door that was operable in flight. There would be cruise missile rotary launchers that would rotate around the main deck - each one would spit a dozen cruise missiles out the door, then rotate out of the way for the next one. IIRC, they figured they could get between 12 and 16 rotary launchers, so 144 to 192 missiles per 747.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif
With each bomber kicking out 150 or so cruise missiles, a relatively small fleet could easily overwhelm the air defenses from standoff range.

Obviously, never got past the concept stage. I think perhaps some USAF higher ups just couldn't deal with the idea that their coveted bomber fleet would be made up of big ole 747s. :E

Lonewolf_50
6th Feb 2014, 19:58
Henry, I particularly like the picture you gave us in this post (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/533433-airships-supersonic-executive-jet-project-input-welcome-2.html#post8303177).

Lovely, hope it comes to fruition some day.

cattletruck
7th Feb 2014, 01:24
I wish I could do a thought dump of a modern corporate jet I imagined in a vivid dream once. It sported a beautifully shaped delta wing, high swept back T-tail and integrated engines with Vulcan style air intakes - it was pure sleek.

I hear the Tupolev is for sale for a few million as a static exhibit, and for many millions more as a flying exhibit :eek:.

Here are a few favourte pics I took of F-BTSD when she visited many years ago. :ok:

http://arthurguru.users.sourceforge.net/extra/concorde_a.jpg

http://arthurguru.users.sourceforge.net/extra/concorde_b.jpg

http://arthurguru.users.sourceforge.net/extra/concorde_c.jpg

http://arthurguru.users.sourceforge.net/extra/concorde_d.jpg

http://arthurguru.users.sourceforge.net/extra/concorde_e.jpg

cornish-stormrider
7th Feb 2014, 03:58
too many words, not enough airplane pron.
still, where we are going, we dont need words........

Concorde or the Valk?????
Valk was quicker but not as pretty - but i'm game for anything that droops its wingtips and surfs it's own shockwave (yes, i am aware that is probably not accurate - check my posting time!)

MG23
7th Feb 2014, 04:52
There was a serious proposal to do something like that with 747 Freighters about 30 years ago - basically to use it as a cruise missile carrier.

Wow. I'd never even heard of that idea before, but here are some pictures and a link to the patent:

Flying Boomers, Part 2 » The Unwanted Blog (http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11470)

airship
7th Feb 2014, 15:38
Before going any further, could we please all agree to what a billion should refer to here?! The accepted "standard" billion, regularly referred to in the media corresponds to 1,000 million (1,000,000,000 or 1,000 x 1,000,000). I realise that the now dysfunct "UK" description of "billion = 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 = 1 trillion", along with guineas, shillings plus ha'pennies has fallen into dis-use. So could everyone agree forthwith that 1 billion in any money today = 1,000 million...?! :rolleyes:

There are not yet any trillionaires on the planet (thank goodness?!).

cattletruck, keep dreaming-on...?! But this time, concentrate on the Concorde: instead of 2 engines under each wing, why not 1 more modern and efficient engine under each wing; and a "twin-tail" arrangement with a less-powerful "standard" tubofan mounted in between and dedicated to subsonic usage...?!

Damn. It's already Friday and the weekend in the Gulf. So not much hope for a response from the sheikh before next week now. Nevertheless, surprised by the lack of any serious contributions (involving quotations, specs. etc.) from all the major players. But I know the feeling - they employ us saying "the sky is the limit", then give you the project they want you to really work on - update the LADA 4x4...?! :{

Dak Man
7th Feb 2014, 16:11
Think I'd go with a geared turbofan as a power source where the geared fan can be de coupled and featherd hence turning the gas generator into more of a pure jet for high Mach Number ops.

awblain
7th Feb 2014, 16:19
"Feathered" won't allow a 3m fan to survive at supersonic speeds.
It would have to be removed and stowed.

The US is investigating new multi-cycle engines for sub/supersonic use.
Potentially they could be useful for such a machine.

Dak Man
7th Feb 2014, 16:27
Don't think you'd need a 3M fan, I'd have lots of little ones (say 4) for redundancy. When I said featherd I really meant stowed in some way as to minimise drag.

TURIN
7th Feb 2014, 16:36
Here you go...

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqytacQuAUGkSRd0VKWgp-JnEqbeLeracXn8IF9IwgZAaQQOUMSg

Dak Man
7th Feb 2014, 16:59
I was thinking more along the lines of a cascade of fan blades that centrifuges when spun, de-couple it and the fan blades retract into a central cone arrangement - challenging but probably "doable"

Shaggy Sheep Driver
7th Feb 2014, 17:18
I don't think there's ever been a successful aeroplane that carries around the weight and drag of engines which are shut down for some of the time, and not used for all phases of flight. Never mind one as marginal on weight as an SST.

Concorde even did without an APU when the designers worked out the cost of carting one around the place at M2!

Dak Man
7th Feb 2014, 17:25
My back of a fag packet offering is not a shut down engine, it's an engine that can run as a fan and a jet, 2 for the price (weight) of one......

TURIN
7th Feb 2014, 18:29
I was thinking more along the lines of a cascade of fan blades that centrifuges when spun, de-couple it and the fan blades retract into a central cone arrangement - challenging but probably "doable"

That would require a spinner the same or slightly larger diameter than the length of the fan blade. Hmmm. :(

Dak Man
7th Feb 2014, 18:38
Only if you cascade them linearly, they could translate into an axially aligned arrangement so the spinner diameter would be more or less the same as the hub.

tdracer
7th Feb 2014, 19:53
Back in the 1970s, Boeing patented a system for an engine with two different bypass ratios. It had a "high" bypass mode for takeoff and lower speed, then switched to a "low" bypass mode for high speed (potentially supersonic) cruise. Now recall this was the 70's, so 'high' bypass was only about 4 to one, it's been a long time but I think in low bypass is was around 1 to 1.


They built a running prototype - saw film of it operating. You could hear a dramatic change in tone of the engine when it switched modes.


IIRC it never went past the initial prototype phase since interest in supersonic commercial aircraft went away. But I bet there are drawings stashed somewhere.

redsnail
7th Feb 2014, 20:14
The most important feature in any bizjet is the galley. Good coffee is a life saver.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Every thing else is a detail. :E

Dak Man
7th Feb 2014, 20:16
Since when has Boeing been an engine maker?

Unless of course your Marcus Luttrell (Lone Survivor) who thinks a C-130 has 4 Boeing engines and a C-130 cruises at 45,000ft.................

tdracer
7th Feb 2014, 20:58
Dak Man


Boeing used to have a turbine division (more aimed at small turbines - one of their projects was a turbine powered big truck), but point taken.


I never did know a lot about that dual bypass project, and most of that has been lost to the mists of time. But what I think I remember is that most of the trick was in the nacelle and nozzle, not the engine itself. I'm sure a production version would have needed a customized engine to be efficient but I think the prototype used a run of the mill engine.

Dak Man
7th Feb 2014, 21:22
Slight aside, putting a PT-6 into land based vehicles is something that has oft been tried.

All from the PT-6 archive

Race Car
http://imgbin.me/image/JXNZSKJF.jpg

Snow Blower
http://imgbin.me/image/FDHLRVKB.jpg

Train
http://imgbin.me/image/GQNJDQUJ.jpg

Power Boat
http://imgbin.me/image/ZLMBPVMH.jpg

Windy Militant
7th Feb 2014, 22:24
Four pages and nobody's mentioned LAPCAT, Skylon's big brother! ;)
Lapcat A2 Concept - YouTube

TURIN
7th Feb 2014, 23:21
I don't think there's ever been a successful aeroplane that carries around the weight and drag of engines which are shut down for some of the time, and not used for all phases of flight. Never mind one as marginal on weight as an SST.

Nimrod ASW?

IFMU
8th Feb 2014, 02:31
AW101? Some self-launch gliders too.

awblain
8th Feb 2014, 10:24
Was the B36 successful? Weren't all 10 mandatory to leave the ground?

Mechta
9th Feb 2014, 20:25
I don't think there's ever been a successful aeroplane that carries around the weight and drag of engines which are shut down for some of the time, and not used for all phases of flight. Never mind one as marginal on weight as an SST.Rutan Voyager? First aeroplane to fly around the world unrefuelled, non-stop. Front engine stopped of most of it. Weight was so critical that they didn't paint parts of the underside.

http://www.air-racing-history.com/PILOTS/images3/24.jpg

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Rutan-Voyager/IMAGES/Rutan-Voyager-Inflight.jpg

Lonewolf_50
10th Feb 2014, 12:40
A2:
Wonderful concept.
Engines on the wing tip. Huh?
I can see how that would have a handy aerodynamic effect, but when you consider the thrust required to accelerete to Mach 5, I have some questions on how the wing box and the wing would be built to take on that non trivial load. Are such materials even in existence today? Last I checked, you need to head to planet Avatar to get unobtanium. :p

And even more fun: all four engines lit up on take off, starboard outboard engine eats a bird at full thrust.

Fun time in the cockpit, no doubt, for HAL.

I note a lack of windows in the cockpit and in the cabin.
No thanks, folks, not interested in HAL taking me from London to Sydney, nor much of anywhere.