Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Boeing Hypersonic airliner

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Boeing Hypersonic airliner

Old 29th Jun 2018, 04:37
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Perth, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Age: 71
Posts: 885
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full
....... 15% payload (2727 kg/6000 lbs)........
6,000 lbs payload = military, not commercial.
Nobody except the manufacturer and the fuel supplier is going to make money out of that.
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2018, 07:30
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Folks,
The US did recently announce a high priority manned and armed spaceplane program.
I hope I live long enough to see the next technological jump, after all re-usable rocket stages are now a fact of life.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2018, 10:20
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,882
Received 362 Likes on 192 Posts
There are substantial titanium reserves in many currently friendly countries
I wonder if the Russians knew at the time that they supplied the titanium to build the SR-71/A-12.
megan is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2018, 12:14
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It sounds very promising to be able to roster crew for 2-sector duty LAX-SYD-LAX, no hotels, no layover, no flight pay for 30 hours etc.
CargoOne is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2018, 12:24
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,060
Received 64 Likes on 39 Posts
Just the cancer insurance.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 29th Jun 2018, 13:45
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Less Hair
Just the cancer insurance.
Lol, that's the dealbreaker!
rak64 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2018, 14:01
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Somewhere cold
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
trouble with Mach 5 capability is it takes us back to "launch on warning"......
Right - here is a longer explanation on why hypersonic airliners are a no-no:

antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/01/why-were-not-going-to-see-sub-.html
hwilker is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2018, 17:26
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,483
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Supersonic and hypersonic aerodynamics is old ha.
The real problem is airframe heating and materials to deal with that.
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2018, 18:20
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
Thing about this:
In the 1700's, rapid long distance travel was typically about 6 mph - the speed of a horse drawn carriage or a large sailing craft.
In the 1800's, rapid long distance travel was around 60 mph - the speed of a steam locomotive.
In the 1900's, rapid long distance travel was around 600 mph - the speed of a jet aircraft.
In the 2000's???
glad rag is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2018, 20:33
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: B.C.
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Devil

Originally Posted by WingNut60
Very cool, BUT ..... where is the advantage in waiting for the 3 flights per week service when 50 A380's have arrived at destination in the meantime?
I wouldn't be sitting at the airport waiting, would you?
Busserday is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2018, 21:14
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 3,462
Received 135 Likes on 73 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
Not only that, but the methods, processes, materials, and overall technology has evolved so dramatically in the last 40 years that anything they did on Concorde would be of minimal value today.

Gouli - it's unlikely they'd base such an aircraft on titanium - there are new synthetic materials that would be more suitable.

It won't happen quickly - when you get right down to it commercial aircraft today still trace their roots to the 707, but take a look at what a state of the air flying machine looked like in 1918, and then then tell me what aircraft will look like in another 50 years

It won't happen quickly - when you get right down to it commercial aircraft today still trace their roots to the DH Comet,
Fixed it for you.
TURIN is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2018, 23:09
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by hwilker
Right - here is a longer explanation on why hypersonic airliners are a no-no:

antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/01/why-were-not-going-to-see-sub-.html
Interesting link Clickable link to Charlie's diary Based on 2 assumptions Charlie feels hypersonics will not happen:
1. Security will need to be ultra tight because the hypersonic aircraft cannot be caught/intercepted if hijacked. Not sure that is an issue - but one to think about.
2. Hypersonic aircraft will operate so unlike 'conventional' jet aircraft that they will be unable to share airports so will operate from remote 'spaceports' so all travel saving is lost. Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) designs are also developing and it is quite possible that by the time of commercial services they will be able to operate from normal airports. After all the requirement for large remote areas is linked to 'debris fields' and accepted failure rates of 1 in 100 operations - which are not really compatible with commercial passenger operations.

There is a whole new field of 'Space Traffic Management' (STM) coming into being looking at the integration of RLVs into normal air traffic. The idea of closing off half of Florida - the current approach - for every commercial launch will not be acceptable commercially by the airlines that get the monetary hit of delays and reroutes. It is the same for all the current planned launch sites. So RLVs must start to fit in with existing traffic. Or they will not be commercially viable. STM is intended to provide this safe integration.

Lots of research in this area if anyone is interested : Embry Riddle Aeronautical University - Space Traffic Management
Ian W is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2018, 00:35
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Never going to happen! Only 6 or 8 city pairs would benifit. R&D costs prohibitive


UP TO SPEED, SLOW DOWN AND LAND? Easier to go around the planet yet that would negate the concept

Last edited by bloom; 2nd Jul 2018 at 05:46.
bloom is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2018, 01:06
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ian W
1. Security will need to be ultra tight because the hypersonic aircraft cannot be caught/intercepted if hijacked. Not sure that is an issue - but one to think about.
What will stop hypersonic fighters intercepting them?

I don't think the argument that they can get to an attack location "quicker" really holds water. The aircraft that crashed into the world trade centre didn't give 20 minutes notice of their intention.
Dee Vee is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2018, 01:10
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Perth, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Age: 71
Posts: 885
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by Ian W
After all the requirement for large remote areas is linked to 'debris fields' and accepted failure rates of 1 in 100 operations - which are not really compatible with commercial passenger operations.
True. But noise has a bit to do with it too.

And I'm guessing that anything that sleek is going to need a pretty fair runway length, both getting away and landing.
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2018, 07:37
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Also a potential issue with the military - people are going to feel very uncomfortable about something taking off from (say ) N America and heading at hypersonic speed towards Moscow of Beijing - especially if the military have also deployed hypersonic missiles..............

It's easy to spot the difference between a Gulfstream and a Minuteman - not so if they both have the same speed and flight profile
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2018, 02:53
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,357
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
Originally Posted by TURIN
Fixed it for you.
OK, just how many commercial aircraft currently flying have the engines imbedded in the wing? Putting the engines in pods on the wings was a breakthrough (pioneered on the B-47). Quite simply a better solution.
The Comet was close, but just like disc brakes and many other things, while the Brits came up with the basic idea, someone else figured out how to make it work reliably and profitably...

BTW, pretty good article on the subject here:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/fli...ws&date=062918
tdracer is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2018, 03:01
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,357
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
Also a potential issue with the military - people are going to feel very uncomfortable about something taking off from (say ) N America and heading at hypersonic speed towards Moscow of Beijing - especially if the military have also deployed hypersonic missiles..............

It's easy to spot the difference between a Gulfstream and a Minuteman - not so if they both have the same speed and flight profile
HH, people have been launching rockets into earth orbit for 60 years, with very little difference between orbital and sub orbital trajectories - yet somehow they know the difference between satellite launches and ballistic missiles...
If the intent was to nuke Moscow or Beijing (or New York or London), why bother with a hypersonic aircraft (still an hour or more) instead of the currently available ICBMs (minutes)?
tdracer is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2018, 05:57
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: London
Posts: 16
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Issues that need to be overcome:

Sonic boom. I believe some progress has been made in minimising sonic booms, but it’s still a big problem overflying land. Partially why LHR-NY is one of only a few viable routes as it’s water most of the way

Noise. Anyone remember Concorde? Now sub-sonic aircraft are so much quieter than in the Concorde days, I very much doubt anyone would put up with Concorde

Drag is very non-linear. From my university days I remember a graph (but can’t find it now) showing that drag vs speed had a bit of a dip around M2.2, not un-coincidentally around Concorde’s speed. After that it goes up, and fast.

Fuel usage/cost. Concorde was ~4x subsonic. Given we’ve seen oil gyrate from 110 to 25 and back up to 80ish, who would take the risk of producing a white elephant should oil reach maybe 110 again?

There are very few city pairs that warrant it. You can’t overfly land super-sonic and you wouldn’t want to go for much more than 3 hours as Concorde seating was economy class width and pitch. Modern private jets fly fast enough, and you can work on a plane, it’s not dead time. When people in my office flew Concorde it was only because they needed to do meetings the same day in London and NY, not because it was quicker. The time difference and highish latitudes help here. Are there any other city pairs that work??

Every 2-3 years we get a new press release saying its imminent. I don’t think this time it’s different.

Fix all the above and it’ll work

Very interested to hear more up-to-date developments on any of these issues…
NOC40 is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2018, 15:36
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by megan
I wonder if the Russians knew at the time that they supplied the titanium to build the SR-71/A-12.
They didn't know what we were doing with it.

It's sad that we screwed Canada over with the Avro Arrow. They wanted to use this program to develop their titanium production and machining capabilities. And then we'd have a next door neighbor willing to partner on a few projects. But since the Arrow, their attitude seems to be along the lines of f* off.
EEngr is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.