|
Boeing Hypersonic airliner
Intriguing announcement.
https://www.boeing.com/features/2018...t-vehicle.page For Boeing to even float this as an idea would suggest that even absent the SR-72 supposed sightings etc. the military classified technology is a lot more advanced than we're currently aware of. Flight International thinks they're just flying a very speculative kite - so to speak. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...c-airl-449749/ The concept follows a long tradition of aircraft companies releasing highly ambitious, long-term design concepts meant to inspire the public and attract young engineers seeking the most challenging assignments. |
it’s possible a hypersonic passenger vehicle could be airborne in 20 to 30 years. All the two generations in between get is the 'joy' of non-stop 18-hr trips from London to Perth @ 550 mph; DVT guaranteed. Progress my a***! |
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??? |
Concorde: I've watched this lovely gal takeoff and land and have visited her in a decommissioned state, but have never taken flight, so this news is most welcome. I understand for power, they are looking at using a turbine core that will be cocooned at speed and altitude allowing a ramjet to take over. Another surprising change is the planned lack of reheat until well aloft.
Our hypersonic expertise gained through the Blackbird programme will no doubt be helpful, but I also wonder if there are Concorde engineers that might also participate? |
Originally Posted by vapilot2004
(Post 10182502)
Our hypersonic expertise gained through the Blackbird programme will no doubt be helpful, but I also wonder if there are Concorde engineers that might also participate?
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...main_YF-12.pdf |
Proposed powerplant indeed sounds very much like the SR-72 retractable turbine core - folding away to become a pure scramjet.
I think max speed the SR-71 attained was around Mach 3.5 - but Brian Schul reckoned he flew faster on the Libya mission. More likely your expertise on the X-15 will be relevant - that thing was flying at a mile a second back in the 1960s. I live in hope of blowing the final bit of my old age pension on a hypersonic passenger flight... |
Originally Posted by tartare
(Post 10182520)
I think max speed the SR-71 attained was around Mach 3.5 - but Brian Schul reckoned he flew faster on the Libya mission.
How fast could the Blackbirds fly? The maximum design cruise speed was Mach 3.2. The speed was limited by structural temperature restrictions. Fastest known flights: YF-12A (60-6936) – Mach 3.14 (2,070 mph), USAF, official, 1 May 1965 SR-71B(61-7956) – Mach 3.27 (2,158 mph), NASA, unofficial, 14 December 1995 and 4 March 1997 A-12 (60-6928) – Mach 3.29 (2,171 mph), CIA, unofficial, 8 May 1965 SR-71A (61-7972) – Mach 3.32 (2,193 mph), USAF, official, 27 July 1976 Brian Shul's numbers sometimes seem to get better with age ;) as with his famous ground speed readout story: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/sr-7...d-speed-check/ |
The physics of long range hypersonic flight requires such aircraft to operate at the very upper levels of the atmosphere. That requires specialist propellants and possibly a supply of on board oxider in addition to fuel. Basically a specialised rocket that takes off and lands horizontally. If regular flights ever do take place, does spewing thousands of tons a day of carbon dioxide, water vapour and nitrous oxides into the uppermost levels of the atmosphere seem like a good idea? That is where current technology will lead us. An air breathing, liquid hydrogen powered vehicle might solve the most obvious pollution problems but there would still remain the problem of extreme altitude clouds forming. They might have a beneficial effect in cooling the earth slightly, but then we have no idea what other side effects might occur, especially if combined with a major volcanic eruption or two. Perhaps it is time to take a step back and try to perfect a slower non (directly) polluting form of flight. If you can get from one side of the earth to another withing 24 hours, that should be quick enough. Anything more urgent will just have to be dealt with by a virtual presence teleconference. |
Boeing's just playing "keep up with Airbus." https://techxplore.com/news/2015-08-...us-patent.html
There must be a thousand "concept planes" like these, some dating back decades (but not obviously different from Boeing's) - they usually result in nothing but an artist's impression. However, there are some small steps being taken all the time towards solving the multitudinous problems involved - e.g. experiments now in progress to reduce "sonic boom" footprints, etc. I don't doubt that someone will get there some day - all it takes is enough cash, enough will, and enough engineering (read: more cash) |
Perhaps Gouli.
But I'd still love to see that vapour trail 18 miles up, arcing across the sky - even for the sake of a bit of global cooling. Find myself wondering `why now?' Has there been a significant breakthrough...? |
Originally Posted by tartare
(Post 10182559)
Perhaps Gouli.
But I'd still love to see that vapour trail 18 miles up, arcing across the sky - even for the sake of a bit of global cooling. Find myself wondering `why now?' Has there been a significant breakthrough...? |
Hypersonic is something military going on. If the military funds the engines there might be the technical possibilty of future commercial secondary uses.
At this time it's more some marketing phantasy maybe to show how fancy working in good old engineering is compared to Google or similar. |
Fortunately the environmental damage from this marketing exercise will be confined to however many trees were cut down to make the glossies |
Originally Posted by Less Hair
(Post 10182632)
Hypersonic is something military going on. If the military funds the engines there might be the technical possibilty of future commercial secondary uses.
At this time it's more some marketing phantasy maybe to show how fancy working in good old engineering is compared to Google or similar. To work on advanced weapons requires clearances, which take years to obtain, so having the recruits work on an unclassified civil development is a practical way to find the most competent even before they can start the real work. |
Titanium is a prerequisite for constructing hypersonic vehicles. Given that Russia and China have the majority share of world Titanium production, exactly where will the US be sourcing its' supplies? The current tariff disputes are hardly going to work to the benefit of Boeing, or any other US manufacturer. One is left with the impression that while Boeing or Lockheed may come up with the plans, the next supersonic or hypersonic passenger aircraft is going to come out of China. The Chinese are inclined to take a much longer view with regards to returns on investment and development costs, especially if it comes to establishing world dominance in a specialist field. This aircraft will undoubtably be built someday, but it won't be in the US. |
And one wonders what a 100 seat Mach 2.0 airliner as an evolution of Concorde would look like. New lightweight materials, digital technology (no need for a FE or their panel), less noise, more range.
|
Now then - what happened to HOTOL ?
|
I think there is too much hot air and not enough real world progress being made concerning all the speed hype. If you see real rockets routinely landing backwards on floating plattforms to be reused these days what we see here is plain boring. Wake me up when it's ready. However the black world might be different.
|
Back in 1981 the industry in which I planned my entire engineering career (agriculture) was plummeting with half of the major North American manufacturers going bankrupt. My company was bought by a German firm but the future wasn't rosy so I started job hunting. My headhunter arranged an interview with a defense company. During my interview I was told that these were what in the future would be termed "The Good Old Days". Reagan had opened the purse strings wide to anything military. My job would to be see that the company got their piece of the action. It would be working with other companies on concepts that would never get beyond early prototype stage. The company is now part of BAE Systems Land and Armaments. I was shown some very futuristic designs that I never saw beyond the concept stage. As the US military has now once again been given a blank check, deficit be damned, people will again see visions attracting company's piece of the action.
|
Originally Posted by vapilot2004
(Post 10182502)
but I also wonder if there are Concorde engineers that might also participate?
|
Originally Posted by hoss183
(Post 10182934)
I doubt it, even the ones who were young when it was designed are retired now.
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 :confused: |
The "why now?" might be related to any new improvements in the sonic boom footprint. Maybe they're making progress there. To make it viable for anything other than trans-oceanic routes, they have to make it less obnoxious to hear the wealthy 1% flying overhead.
|
I wish I could participate in such a program....I didn't force my way thru "Engineering Supersonic Aerodynamics" For nought
Oh well a boy can still dream :) |
I wonder how much value there is in very fast transport for passengers. If the journey is long enough for high speed to make a difference, you've probably passed through several time zones and the time to reset the body clock will become more important than actual travelling time. I suppose for a quick there and back, staying on place of departure time all the way, would be useful for those occasions when a power handshake is absolutely crucial for a transaction, but that's a case for executive jets, not airliners.
|
Flashy PowerPoints and videos, fast talking hype, maybe some corporate welfare from Uncle Sam. Who knows what they can talk Donald Duck ...er Trump... into. Couldn't build a supersonic transport in the 70's. Bilked the tax payer out of millions in the 90's. Why not "go fa$ter"?
|
Originally Posted by FlightlessParrot
(Post 10183281)
I wonder how much value there is in very fast transport for passengers. If the journey is long enough for high speed to make a difference, you've probably passed through several time zones and the time to reset the body clock will become more important than actual travelling time. I suppose for a quick there and back, staying on place of departure time all the way, would be useful for those occasions when a power handshake is absolutely crucial for a transaction, but that's a case for executive jets, not airliners.
|
Leave LHR 10am.
Assuming 2 hour crossing at FL95+ and Mach 5 or more. Arrive JFK or LGA at 7am (do I have my sums right?) Do deal and shake hands with Masters of Universe in midtown. Leave at 5pm. Presume you're well above any westerly jet-streams etc on the way home! Back at LHR by midnight - and tucked up in bed in the Home Counties by 1am. But what sounds really appealing is SYD-LAX in 4 hours or so. Now that would be very cool... And imagine flying the thing. "Speedbird 001; top of descent, established on 100 mile final..." That'd beat Brian Shul's speedcheck story hands down. Sigh... |
There is some transpacific market for supersonic or even hypersonic travel no doubt. The Gulfstream crowd would go faster if they could and they had the money to do it.
|
But what sounds really appealing is SYD-LAX in 4 hours or so I can really not see an according market for hypersonic travel. I think it is quite safe to assume, that cost will increase at least linearly with Mach, so would it really make sense to go that fast/high with all the implications it means? The decision to only go for Mach 2 made the Concorde reality, the plan to go higher killed the American SST. Technology may be different today, cost probably still is the same. I can see a market for supersonic travel, on high demand routes at barely 3 times the speed of today (which would require less than Mach 2.5, still manageable with "conventional" technology). What difference does it make, to take 1.5 hours instead of 2.5 hours NYC-LON, if you anyway need another hour to get from the runway to your meeting? Would anybody pay the extra for such a small gain? Does it make sense to accelerate/climb to Mach 5 and the according altitude for a 2 hrs flight? Would scramjets be really that more efficient? Hypersonic probably is not the answer to civil air transportation issues. But anyway it is highly interesting technology. |
Originally Posted by tartare
(Post 10183333)
Leave LHR 10am.
Assuming 2 hour crossing at FL95+ and Mach 5 or more. Arrive JFK or LGA at 7am (do I have my sums right?) Do deal and shake hands with Masters of Universe in midtown. Leave at 5pm. Presume you're well above any westerly jet-streams etc on the way home! Back at LHR by midnight - and tucked up in bed in the Home Counties by 1am. But what sounds really appealing is SYD-LAX in 4 hours or so. Now that would be very cool... And imagine flying the thing. "Speedbird 001; top of descent, established on 100 mile final..." That'd beat Brian Shul's speedcheck story hands down. Sigh... |
Originally Posted by Volume
(Post 10183418)
Would that really require Mach 5 ?
I can really not see an according market for hypersonic travel. ..... I can't see any civil elements in the Boings drawing. Or would a VIP px wear a astronauts suit, because supersonic air transport would happen above FL500? Indeed, a commercial VIP supersonic aircraft would have a double hull, for the case of rapid decompression. To highlight one point. If it is not a patent to claim one, it looks like a covered civil project to develop for military requirements. Like friction stir welding, very "necessary" for VLJ, but a huge advantage for rocket fuel tanks. |
Originally Posted by tartare
(Post 10183333)
.....But what sounds really appealing is SYD-LAX in 4 hours or so.
Now that would be very cool... ...... Sigh... |
Originally Posted by rak64
(Post 10183496)
Mach 5 is pure military demand. The idea is to attack sensitive strategic Installations.
I can't see any civil elements in the Boings drawing. Or would a VIP px wear a astronauts suit, because supersonic air transport would happen above FL500? Indeed, a commercial VIP supersonic aircraft would have a double hull, for the case of rapid decompression. To highlight one point. If it is not a patent to claim one, it looks like a covered civil project to develop for military requirements. Like friction stir welding, very "necessary" for VLJ, but a huge advantage for rocket fuel tanks. |
I understand materials and methods may have changed, in some cases, dramatically, but I still believe there remains some value in lessons from the past to be learned from Concorde, from design to development to operation.
Originally Posted by WingNut60
(Post 10183596)
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?
Now, from the perspective of the front end, I would imagine the pay packages would be rather attractive for the FL950 elite, compared to a long haul flight deck crew. |
Originally Posted by G0ULI
(Post 10182791)
Titanium is a prerequisite for constructing hypersonic vehicles. Given that Russia and China have the majority share of world Titanium production, exactly where will the US be sourcing its' supplies? The current tariff disputes are hardly going to work to the benefit of Boeing, or any other US manufacturer. One is left with the impression that while Boeing or Lockheed may come up with the plans, the next supersonic or hypersonic passenger aircraft is going to come out of China. The Chinese are inclined to take a much longer view with regards to returns on investment and development costs, especially if it comes to establishing world dominance in a specialist field. This aircraft will undoubtably be built someday, but it won't be in the US. |
Originally Posted by vapilot2004
(Post 10183837)
......
The advantage would be not having to sit in the back of Biggus Birdus, stuffed with 500 of your closest mates for a relative eon. And for the truly time-pressed, there and back with business complete before the gooney bird is done flapping her wings on the first go. ;)...... You are correct only if you have booked ahead and the hyper-jet schedule matches your requirements. But, like the never-to-happen Concorde flights to Oz, unless you have the frequency of service (which is highly unlikely) then, when coupled to mega-bucks to use it, you'll be scratching for bums. If it's going to work at all, then it'll be on something like the old Concorde routes where the affluent population lies.. She looks pretty lean. I can't imagine a real lot of fuel wedged into that shape. |
True.
Maybe engines or someone else on the site who's really clever with numbers and payload range calcs can give us an idea of the airframe size/weight for a 100 pax mission. I assume it would burn JP-7... |
That Airbus URV linked to earlier has the following specs:
Range: 4800 nm (not sure if that is with legal reserve, or absolute range). Drift-up cruise altitude: 104000-114000 feet. Fuselage capacity is 80% liquid H2 tank, 15% payload (2727 kg/6000 lbs), 5% boost rocket and retractable turbojet space. Would take at least one fuel stop to fly LHR-SYD. |
...true, but isn't a lot of the research in the US at the moment focused on burning hydrocarbon based fuels (such as the X-51) rather than liquid hydrogen?
Admittedly the X-51 looks more like a prototype hypersonic missile than a passenger carrier. I thought that burning LH2 meant you needed a massive tank - meaning there's a whole cascade of consequential structural issues if you need to carry passengers at hypersonic speeds. |
Whats the hurry?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:13. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.