Airbus patents Mach 4.5 plane

[rotornut]

Airbus patents supersonic plane that could hit Mach 4.5 - Technology & Science - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/airbus-patents-supersonic-plane-that-could-hit-mach-4-5-1.3178955)

[DirtyProp]

Damn ugly, if you ask me.

[noske]

"Yo mama's rocket-plane so ugly, passengers must be blinkered for boarding."

Jokes aside, this seems to be the most ambitious leap in transportation technology since the Ford Nucleon. :ok:

[Jn14:6]

Airbus??
Must be a misprint for M.45 !:E

[AreOut]

with current emissions restrictions and other regulatory bollocks we won't see anything supersonic for another half a century at least

[Opsbeatch]

That'll get your doors trimmed quickly!

OB

[MaxReheat]

On the premiss that 'If it looks right - it flies right' that thing will never get off the ground.

Must be the same ugly-design team that worked on the A380.

Seem to remember a supersonic transport that used to carry 120 pax.:{

[Basil]

TSR-2 ????

[Mikehotel152]

Looks like Star Trek's USS Enterprise mated with an A330. Yuck.

A decidedly risky mudus operandi too. A lot can go wrong when combining those technologies and flying at mach 4.5.

[Torquelink]

The plane would achieve its extreme speed with a combination of three sets of engines — turbojets for taxiing, takeoff and landing; a rocket motor for rapid acceleration; and ramjets for high-altitude cruising

Someone give Airbus the phone number of Reaction Engines . .

:)

[G-CPTN]

Secret files reveal US interest in UK HOTOL spaceplane - 23/02/2009 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/secret-files-reveal-us-interest-in-uk-hotol-spaceplane-322955/)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL

[Momoe]

The multiple donk's scenario for different flight regimes appears to make this a non-starter.
Hotol/Reaction Engines is a better starting place, more flexibility and more payload which ultimately should make it more cost effective.

[ZeBedie]

This would be the logical point to introduce the first fully automated i.e. single pilot airliner.

[henry_crun]

It is a common practice for patents to be used as a means of formally disclosing ideas so that nobody else can patent them.

The procedure is generally to take a number of ideas put forward by ones staff and to combine them in a 'portmanteau' patent which you register but do not pursue. This way those ideas cannot be patented by anyone at all.

In this case the various engines, the retracting of engines, the rotation of the fins, and the inward facing seats are all ideas that might one day be useful, and if anyone else were to patent them this might get in the way of ones design work.

Would EADS seriously pursue this patent with all the severe costs of patenting longer term in various countries? No, I don't think so. I think they are just preventing anyone else from getting in their way.

[Downwind Lander]

I would expect a maiden flight any time early next century:

Retrieving Patent from PAT2PDF.org - Free PDF copies of patents: Download and print! (http://www.pat2pdf.org/pat2pdf/foo.pl?number=9079661)

Am I right that the London/New York Concorde flight used to cost over £4,000? What is this thing going to cost its passengers?

As for the shock wave, do they have a solution?

[hwilker]

This is an interesting take on the security (not safety) aspects of hypersonic and sub-orbital air transport:

Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners - Charlie's Diary (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/01/why-were-not-going-to-see-sub-.html)

In short, the author asserts that it will not happen since the risk of misuse is to big: a multi-Mach, multi-ton piece of titanium and plastic makes a good kinetic energy projectile, and regularly having those on trajectories pointing directly at densely populated areas would not be a Good Idea - mainly because the warning time between detection of malicious intent and impact is too short.

[Peter H]

As for the shock wave, do they have a solution?My initial understanding was that the near vertical flight path was intended to
prevent the shock waves reaching the ground. [Or at worst only at long range.]

[tdracer]

The shock waves from supersonic flight travel pretty much perpendicular to the direction of travel, so Peter is correct - during vertical flight the shock wave is unlikely to reach the ground. However to be useful, eventually they need to travel horizontally, and that shock wave will still reach the ground. They're quoting 100k ft. cruise altitude - the higher altitude means the shock won't be as strong when it hits the ground relative to something like Concorde, but will reach a wider area. Further, they're quoting 4.5 Mach cruise, which would make for a much stronger shock than Concorde's ~ 2.0 Mach. In short, I still doubt such a vehicle would be allowed to regularly cruise supersonic over populated areas.
I also question the value of the patent as anything more than a PR exercise. First off, patent's expire, and we're talking an aircraft that is decades away. Further, much of the 'new' isn't so new. The Bomarc used a combination of rocket and Ramjet power 60 years ago, the XB-70 moved aerodynamic surfaces from horizontal to near vertical to improve cruise stability 50 years ago, the military has been using 'inward facing' seats since WW II, and while I'm unaware of anyone actually building an aircraft with a retracting engine, the concept is far from new. This stuff is public domain 'common knowledge' so even if a patent is granted, it won't stand up if someone challenges it.

[etudiant]

As Tdracer points out, this is a farrago of wishful thinking and old concepts.
The only thing lacking is the laser propulsion feature.
Airbus should be ashamed of putting their name on this content free document.

[Torquelink]

and while I'm unaware of anyone actually building an aircraft with a retracting engine

Schleicher ASH 26e self-launching motor glider has a retractable engine - so not even that's new!

[oblivia]

Another thing that isn't new is pointless aviation patents. The Wright brothers were pioneers in that regard too...

[Windy Militant]

Has the estate of the Late Gerry Anderson seen this?
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/50/20/e5/5020e5a4f2fb8669bbfae3a582787f92.jpg
;)

[NSEU]

Nevermind the sonic boom... Would two turbojets pass the airport noise restrictions?

And would turbojets this small even get this thing off the ground?

[underfire]

Note from the patent that cruising altitude is 30,000 m to 35,000 m :eek:

Within the text of the patent, a military version is envisioned

[pattern_is_full]

Nevermind the sonic boom... Would two turbojets pass the airport noise restrictions? And would turbojets this small even get this thing off the ground

Taking your points in reverse order - proposed takeoff (per the patent) is with both turbojet and rocket power. But that obviously makes your first point more relevant - what kind of noise does two turbojets PLUS a high-thrust rocket make? Probably not Space-Shuttle volume - but could be similar.

Probably depends on the weight that has to be moved. This thing has a payload estimate of just 2-3 tonnes (20 pax), but a BIG tank of slurried H2.

Some other tech points that have been missed:

1) Emissions - everything is H2/O2-powered, so zero carbon or sulphur emissions. Just water, and some loose H2 (which is what 99.99999% of the universe is made of anyway.) Nitrides or ammonia - probably some from the turbojets when burning hydrogen with atmosphere (a non-chemist's guess), but that is only in the subsonic phases. On-board electric is either batteries or H2O2 fuel cells.

2) At Mach 4.5 horizontal cruise, the shock cone is twice as narrow (11-15°) as with, say, Concorde (30°). So it doesn't sweep the ground until twice as far away (even without the doubling of cruise altitude). If it's quieter than, say, the shunting of railroad freight cars I hear all the time (from 2 miles away they still sound like explosions in a boiler-factory), and which are apparently legal, and far more common....?

Economics? Hey, the 1% of the 1% probably doesn't care if it costs $200,000. The real question is how often, in the era of smartphones and skype and such, they really need to make a transglobal round-trip in one day (and how comfortable they are on rollercoasters!)?

I won't get into the patent "politics" - except to say I don't disagree with most of what already has been said.

[rak64]

Mach 3.5 at FL800 is about 250KIAS, not so bad.
But temperature raise is definitely a factor.
But new generation aircrafts had been always build after new type of engines. This model lacks a idea for engines. The so called CDE would be a plausible idea. The idea is constantly to have small explosions which producing a substantial higher impulse than rocket motors. Possible would be a marriage of ramjet with a CDE motor. If the small cannons are in positions to bring the airstream into rotation, it could be a highly efficient motor.

Aerodynamically all of this drafts are utterly weak, producing high drag, low lift in certain situations, low maneuverability. They showing clearly that since several years no inventors are in Aerodynamik.

[Downwind Lander]

All this is drifting into the area of Aurora:

'Aurora' spy plane that travels SIX TIMES the speed of sound blamed for mysterious booms | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2855795/So-secret-existence-not-acknowledged-Futuristic-Aurora-spy-plane-travels-SIX-TIMES-speed-sound-blamed-mysterious-booms-heard-weekend.html)

[KenV]

with current emissions restrictions and other regulatory bollocks we won't see anything supersonic for another half a century at least

If it runs on hydrogen as indicated, the only emissions will be water vapor, which should be politically correct as it contains no carbon.

On the other hand dumping tons of water vapor in the atmosphere at 100,000 feet may be worse than dumping carbon at that altitude. H2O has more of a greenhouse effect than CO2.

[Downwind Lander]

They are going to be using serious quantities of hydrogen. It'll be interesting to see if they produce patents on new methods of its production, over and above Boyce, Keely, Lawton et alia. That could really benefit us all.

[glob99]

Maybe one day Airbus will patent this, ;)

http://www.aviationtrivia.org/images/rc_sr71_5.jpg

[AreOut]

nice angle

[Green-dot]

https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11058666_953178738078746_3632783240850883740_n.jpg?oh=231ed0 5d7e2903177ebb7897b85de456&oe=56798633

With a bit of tweaking using current technology in a proven concept of 50 years ago this could be reality sooner than the Airbus patent. . . .

https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11885065_953180498078570_8094535043939033108_n.jpg?oh=14feb5 0cedb2279f1d88b52681e9d73c&oe=564DB00F

[G-CPTN]

With a bit of tweaking using current technology in a proven concept of 50 years ago this could be reality sooner than the Airbus patent. . . .

Fuel carrying capacity?

[Green-dot]

Fuel carrying capacity?over 47.000 US Gallons / approx. 320.000 lbs (prototype configuration only) in 11 tanks.
Demonstrated cruise speed M 3.1 at 70.000 ft.
Range was never fully explored.

[EEngr]

Fuel carrying capacity?

over 47.000 US Gallons / approx. 320.000 lbs (prototype configuration only) in 11 tanks.
Problem is; looking at the artists conception in post 32, passenger cabin windows are shown extending back to where the fuselage tank is located. You can either have useful range or carry cargo/passengers. The only space left is actually in the weapons bay, located between the engine inlet ducts.

The original design depended on the use of a a toxic fuel (zip fuel). But when that was dropped, most of the remaining fuselage space was converted to fuel tankage to carry JP-6.

[pattern_is_full]

Right. Remember that part of the design mission is zero carbon emissions.

That means LH2 (liquid hydrogen) fuel. Which is only liquid at extremely low temperatures and/or extremely high pressures (something like 500 bars/atmospheres or 50 million pascals). It ain't kerosene (or even Zip fuel, which is just kerosene with boranes added).

So you need a substantial pressure vessel for the fuel. You can't just tuck it into nooks and crannies throughout the aircraft (and certainly not the leaky wings of the SR-71 :E).

H2 is not very dense, even in liquid form (~70 Kg per cubic meter) - but it is bulky. Thus the fat fuselage that is 50% pressure tank.

The Airbus design makes a virtue out of necessity by putting the delta wing on top, and giving the fuselage around the tank a wedge shape to promote compression lift below the wing (which the XB-70 also did, with the aft fuselage).

Think of this Airbus proposal as the Space Shuttle - with the orbiter cabin placed on the nose of the fuel tank instead of on top, and within one aerodynamic skin. Or as a fatter XB-70, with the "crank" in the fuselage/engine box straightened out.

The other design goal is minimum sonic impact on populated areas. Neither the SR-71 or the XB-70 could accelerate through Mach 1 (and on up to Mach 4.5) while in a vertical climb (70°+ pitch angle) at or above 45,000 feet. Not even close.

Concorde could reach Mach 2 only with a long, slow climb of about 20 minutes between ~27,000 feet and 51,000 feet, and a pitch of 4-5 degrees. The SR-71 had to level off at 33,000 feet and enter a descent (the "dipsy-doodle") to punch through Mach 1, followed by a Concorde-like climb/accleration at a constant 450 KEAS.

[Green-dot]

Problem is; looking at the artists conception in post 32, passenger cabin windows are shown extending back to where the fuselage tank is located.That is correct for the original XB-70 design. But taking this design / concept into the 21st century using current state-of-the-art technology and scaling up the dimensions of the aircraft (within the current 80 by 80 meter airport limits) and enlarging the fuselage both in diameter and length, extending the passenger compartment all the way to the tail section would make it feasible. Fuel would be stored in the larger wing tanks, including the folding wing tips (which had no fuel tanks in the XB-70), and perhaps in the compartment that was originally designed as weapons bay. The original six YJ-93 turbo jets can be replaced by, say, four variable cycle engines or super cruise designs. Type of fuel is open for discussion.

The other design goal is minimum sonic impact on populated areas. Neither the SR-71 or the XB-70 could accelerate through Mach 1 (and on up to Mach 4.5) while in a vertical climb (70°+ pitch angle) at or above 45,000 feet. Not even close.

Concorde could reach Mach 2 only with a long, slow climb of about 20 minutes between ~27,000 feet and 51,000 feet, and a pitch of 4-5 degrees. The SR-71 had to level off at 33,000 feet and enter a descent (the "dipsy-doodle") to punch through Mach 1, followed by a Concorde-like climb/accleration at a constant 450 KEAS.

The XB-70 accelerated with wingtips lowered to mid-down position through the transonic region at 32.000 ft to M 1.5. Then the wingtips were lowered to their full-down position. M 1.5 was maintained to about 50.000 ft, and then varying rates of acceleration were applied until M 3.0 was reached at 70.000 ft. The best recorded time to M 3.0 was 25 minutes from moment of rotation at take-off.

[mikedreamer787]

From the original article -

Airbus has filed other unusual aircraft patents in the past.
For example, last summer, it filed a patent tobicycle-style seats on planes (http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/airbus-files-patent-for-bicycle-style-seating-on-airplanes) that would make it possible to cram more passengers in the same amount of space. And last fall, it patented an aircraft cabin shaped like a giant flying saucer (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba80c518-6492-11e4-b219-00144feabdc0.html#slide0).
Seats like those on treadlies? No doubt airbus will design 'em a la St Pauls Cathedral (no feckin ball room)... :hmm:

And Airbus would be wise in following Boeing's tried 'n trusted 'That Looks About Right" rule...

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRx7MOtrVj6qOjC9A72a430vhBuEu2J0k58Je-skYfpvdOEa3S5

Mr Anderson did!

[Downwind Lander]

That article says:

"Low-cost airlines already cram as many passengers as possible onto their planes, but as anyone who has recently flown economy class can attest, traditional seats can’t get much smaller".

Has Airbus noticed that much of their public seems to be fed on a diet of greaseburgers, taken orally (and possibly in suppository form). This must be another patent straight down the drain.

[MG23]

If it runs on hydrogen as indicated, the only emissions will be water vapor, which should be politically correct as it contains no carbon.

If you ignore the fact that most current hydrogen production comes from natural gas.

The SR71 was originally going to be hydrogen-powered, but I forget exactly why. They dumped that idea because they just couldn't make it work; amongst other things, it would have been a much larger vehicle, just to support the tanks required for the low-density fuel.

[TURIN]

Call me a cynic but there's more chance that Pan Am will grace the skies again than any of this lot of XB70 derivatives or Airbus concepts.

[Green-dot]

And when Pan Am does grace the skies again, so will their pioneering spirit of introducing many firsts in their rich history. With someone having the innovative drive of Juan Trippe at the helm they would likely be the first to introduce supersonic (or even hyper sonic) service when its viability one day is proven.

With respect to the XB-70: its impact on aviation has far outstripped her recognition. The aircraft is often a hazy memory, yet the technology it pioneered would dictate aerospace manufacturing for decades after its last flight. The integrated aerodynamic package this aircraft represented would remind designers that shape can best brute force when it comes to speed and performance. Most who even remember the XB-70, recall images of an expensive, cranky, and problematic design.

Until you look at the logs of the second and improved prototype, the confidence that had been developed doesn't come through. One has to remember that the chief test pilot was going to leave the program, signalling that from an engineering standpoint the aircraft had accomplished the goals set for it.

From a pilot's judgement it was an easy airplane to fly, considering that due to budget restraints in this research program the airplane was flown without an autopilot and was equipped with "off-the-shelf" flight deck instrumentation.

[Downwind Lander]

MG 23 says: "If you ignore the fact that most current hydrogen production comes from natural gas".

There are views that NASA has innovative methods of H2 production for their launchers. See my post #29 above.

[silvertate]

Green-dot

With a bit of tweaking using current technology in a proven concept of 50 years ago this could be reality sooner than the Airbus patent. . . .



That futuristic Pan-Am concept aircraft aircraft actually few. It was called the XB-70 Valkarie.

A great project with high promise, until some maverick in a chase-plane ran into the back of it. A bit like TSR2, another great project with high promise, until the Labour Party ran into the back of it. And they destroyed the jigs and tools, so no future government could restart the project. That was just pure spite.


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/29/7b/2d/297b2d18c8ae976de6b796515d3f54a5.jpg


http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f6/6a/cf/f66acf39694e8bbe55295a4813047c0e.jpg

[silvertate]

Remember that part of the design mission is zero carbon emissions.
That means LH2 (liquid hydrogen) fuel.



Hydrogen is not a zero emissions fuel.

In fact, the standard hydrogen car outputs much more CO2 than my diesel car. The hydrogen has to be generated via grid electricity or the gas reduction process, which outputs a lot of emissions. And since there are so many losses on the cooling and storage of hydrogen, the hydrogen 'battery' is a very inefficient one.

London Transport had three hydrogen buses, that they championed as being 'emissions free'. But after prompting and getting a FoI request, it turned out that the hydrogen generator was in the London Docklands. So all they were doing, is taking the emissions out of Central London, and spraying them all over the people living in the East End.

Charming.

[tdracer]

Exactly Silvertate.


I keep telling people, hydrogen is not a viable energy source, it's an energy medium. And a not particularly efficient one given current technology.

[oblivia]

A bit like TSR2, another great project with high promise, until the Labour Party ran into the back of it.

Damn those socialists for, err, not wasting taxpayers' money on a Cold War project that history proves we didn't need...

[Heathrow Harry]

and had all sorts of unresolved issues to fix - such as the engines.............

[Green-dot]

@ Silvertate,

Valkarie = Valkyrie

until some maverick in a chase-plane
The pilot flying chase and involved in this accident was certainly not a maverick.

[EEngr]

The pilot flying chase

Not exactly flying chase at the time. This was a setup for a GE publicity photo. All of the GE-equipped military jets flying in formation. This was taken a few moments before the collision:

http://www.edwards.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/061122-F-1234P-036.jpg

I wonder how long it was before someone fessed up to the Pentagon brass that this was in fact not a test flight.

[Green-dot]

Not exactly flying chase at the time.Not a test flight at the moment of the collision but the flight did start as a test flight with the pilot in the F-104N (NASA 813) flying chase during that test flight. After completion of the scheduled test points, the two aircraft rendezvoused with the other aircraft for the GE photo shoot.

I wonder how long it was before someone fessed up to the Pentagon brass that this was in fact not a test flight.The investigation (which was wrapped up quickly in August 1966 due to substantial political pressure) revealed that approval for the photo shoot was arranged at local level with some in the ranks having the authority to reject the photo shoot but did not do so, and not following proper procedures. Proper procedures for approving such a mission should have gone from local through higher headquarters.

The investigative board ultimately concluded that the position of the pilot in the F-104 relative to the XB-70 left him with no good visual reference points for judging his distance. Therefore, a gradual movement in any direction would not have been noticeable to him. An inadvertent movement of the F-104 placed it in a position such that contact was inevitable. The length of the precision formation may have been a factor. Cloudy weather had extended the flight time and forced the formation to move to a different area than had originally been planned. Other air traffic in the area created distractions (a B-58 in a supersonic corridor at higher altitude caused other members in the formation to report traffic in sight by seeing its contrail). Accidents are usually the result of several factors, so no one knows for sure what happened that day.

[tdracer]

Many moons ago I worked with a guy that had been on the XB-70 project at North American. According to him, the popular theory was that the F104 got caught in the wing vortex of the XB-70 which flung the F104 into the vertical stabs (the collision took out both the vertical stabs on the XB-70 making it uncontrollable and it went into a flat spin).


Supposedly there is some spectacular video of the collision (after all, it was a photo shoot) but most of it remains classified.

[PAX_Britannica]

Thankyou Green-dot and tdracer for putting things straight.

In a better world, with better planning, briefing, training, and authority gradient,
perhaps the F104 pilot would have said: "No! this is too dangerous. I'm backing off."
Possibly before takeoff.

[silvertate]

Oblivia

Damn those socialists for, err, not wasting taxpayers' money on a Cold War project that history proves we didn't need...



Err, if the West had disarmed in the '60s, do you really think you would be speaking English instead of Russian? The test of a reaally good weapon system is one that is so superior that you never have to use it. And so the reason the USSR did not start WWIII was because of superior Western weaponry, and the demonstration of that superiority in the two great Israeli wars.

In the Six Day War Israel only had Super Shermans, and yet they went through the Russian T34s like a knife through butter. In the Yom Kippur War Israel had M-60 Pattons and British Centurians, and they went through the thousands of Russian T55s and T62s like a knife through butter. Check the Valley of Tears, where a small Israeli force knocked out 500 Syrian tanks.

So the pivotal event that prevented the Russians rolling across Germany and starting WWIII, was the decimation of all its hardware in the Israeli wars. If that scale of destruction could happen in the Near East, it could certainly happen in Europe.


Silver

[silvertate]

Harry

and had all sorts of unresolved issues to fix - such as the engines.............



The TSR2's Olympus engines went on to power Concorde, so it was obviously a very good design. As the power plant for Concorde, it was probably one of the most reliable engines of the era - especially considering it was operating on the edge of the envelope and with lots of reheat.


Silver

[Green-dot]

the popular theory was that the F104 got caught in the wing vortex of the XB-70Data from North American and independent calculations made by NASA to determine the energy of the wake vortex flow around the XB-70 wingtip revealed similar results. They indicated that within about eight feet of the XB-70 wingtip, the vortex energy was such that it would equal the F-104's full roll control at the same airspeed. Once the horizontal tail of the F-104 came up under the wingtip of the XB-70, it became pinned by the wingtip vortex from the XB-70. The F-104 lost its trim and pitched up violently, rolling inverted across the top of the XB-70. The accident board concluded that the swirling wake vortex only became a contributory factor in the accident after the F-104's tail was so close to the XB-70 that a collision was imminent.

After searching for F-104 wreckage in the desert (especially for the upper surface of the left tip of the horizontal stabilizer) in the days after the accident, this part of the horizontal stabilizer was found. A careful study of this stabilizer fragment was made. On the top outer edge was an imprint of the XB-70's right wingtip position light.

Thankyou Green-dot and tdracer for putting things straight.

In a better world, with better planning, briefing, training, and authority gradient,
perhaps the F104 pilot would have said: "No! this is too dangerous. I'm backing off."
Possibly before takeoff. Thanks and well said . . . . in hind sight. But on the day of this accident, the pilot flying chase in the F-104 was the Chief test pilot for NASA and was slated to start flying the XB-70 himself on June 10th '66 (accident date was June 8th '66). The USAF XB-70 program was coming to an end with all the goals set out for the aircraft accomplished. NASA was about to get more involved in the program for further SST research and the aircraft had already been modified with additional instrumentation for this program. Therefore, the F-104 chase pilot had a good reason to be in the air as he was close to flying the XB-70 himself.

The accident XB-70 (A/V-2) was best suited for the NASA program as it was an improved version compared to the first prototype (A/V-1) which was restricted to M 2.6 due to skin panel separation as a result of a steep learning curve during construction and poor quality control. This issue and many others were corrected during construction of A/V-2.