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 4th Aug 2015, 22:16
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Airbus patents Mach 4.5 plane

Airbus patents supersonic plane that could hit Mach 4.5 - Technology & Science - CBC News
rotornut is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 05:24
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Off the map
Posts: 1,028
Damn ugly, if you ask me.
DirtyProp is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 08:31
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dortmund
Age: 51
Posts: 63
"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.
noske is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 08:35
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In a Bar
Posts: 181
Airbus??
Must be a misprint for M.45 !
Jn14:6 is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 10:42
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 38
Posts: 285
with current emissions restrictions and other regulatory bollocks we won't see anything supersonic for another half a century at least
AreOut is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 11:04
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 227
That'll get your doors trimmed quickly!

OB
Opsbeatch is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 11:10
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 187
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.
MaxReheat is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 11:15
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 1,218
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.
Mikehotel152 is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 11:57
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
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 . .

Torquelink is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 12:25
  #10 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Secret files reveal US interest in UK HOTOL spaceplane - 23/02/2009 - Flight Global

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 13:58
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 61
Posts: 213
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.
Momoe is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 15:57
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North of the South Pole
Posts: 1,006
This would be the logical point to introduce the first fully automated i.e. single pilot airliner.
ZeBedie is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2015, 22:20
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 148
I would expect a maiden flight any time early next century:

Retrieving Patent from PAT2PDF.org - Free PDF copies of patents: Download and print!

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?
Downwind Lander is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 06:56
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Somewhere cold
Posts: 9
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

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.
hwilker is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 09:58
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 165
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.]
Peter H is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 13:33
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,827
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.
tdracer is online now  
Old 6th Aug 2015, 17:11
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 666
As Tdracer points out, this is a farrago of wishful thinking and old concepts.
The only thing lacking is the [email protected] propulsion feature.
Airbus should be ashamed of putting their name on this content free document.
etudiant is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2015, 08:34
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
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!
Torquelink is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2015, 09:13
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Rainsville
Posts: 46
Another thing that isn't new is pointless aviation patents. The Wright brothers were pioneers in that regard too...
oblivia is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2015, 22:13
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Swindon, Wilts,UK
Posts: 563
Has the estate of the Late Gerry Anderson seen this?

Windy Militant is offline  

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.