Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

Airbus patents Mach 4.5 plane

Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

Airbus patents Mach 4.5 plane

Old 19th Aug 2015, 14:12
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 148
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.

Last edited by Downwind Lander; 19th Aug 2015 at 16:03.
Downwind Lander is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2015, 20:00
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brussels
Posts: 131
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.





silvertate is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2015, 20:09
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brussels
Posts: 131
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.
silvertate is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2015, 22:15
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,826
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.
tdracer is online now  
Old 20th Aug 2015, 01:00
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Rainsville
Posts: 46
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...
oblivia is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2015, 15:17
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,083
and had all sorts of unresolved issues to fix - such as the engines.............
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2015, 15:33
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 66
Posts: 187
@ Silvertate,

Valkarie
= Valkyrie

until some maverick in a chase-plane
The pilot flying chase and involved in this accident was certainly not a maverick.
Green-dot is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2015, 15:59
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 649
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:



I wonder how long it was before someone fessed up to the Pentagon brass that this was in fact not a test flight.
EEngr is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2015, 22:36
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 66
Posts: 187
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.
Green-dot is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 00:07
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,826
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.
tdracer is online now  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 08:42
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 64
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.
PAX_Britannica is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 09:56
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brussels
Posts: 131
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 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 10:01
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brussels
Posts: 131
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
silvertate is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2015, 13:51
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 66
Posts: 187
the popular theory was that the F104 got caught in the wing vortex of the XB-70
Data 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.
Green-dot is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.