LAPCAT and other hypersonics
Thread Starter
LAPCAT and other hypersonics
Have been reading about Lapcat and various proposed hypersonic transport programmes.
The thing I wonder about is how pleasant it would be to pax on one of these things?
Acceleration and climb to altitude would be around +4g's I'd imagine?
The cruise would be ok.
But then another minimum 4g decceleration at least?
And you'd have to join straight in on a 30-40 mile final....???!!!
My point being, a combination of approved routes and climbs to, descents from altitude might mean they are less than optimal for passenger flights.
Any thoughts anyone?
The thing I wonder about is how pleasant it would be to pax on one of these things?
Acceleration and climb to altitude would be around +4g's I'd imagine?
The cruise would be ok.
But then another minimum 4g decceleration at least?
And you'd have to join straight in on a 30-40 mile final....???!!!
My point being, a combination of approved routes and climbs to, descents from altitude might mean they are less than optimal for passenger flights.
Any thoughts anyone?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing I wonder about is how pleasant it would be to pax on one of these things?
Acceleration and climb to altitude would be around +4g's I'd imagine?
The cruise would be ok.
But then another minimum 4g decceleration at least?
And you'd have to join straight in on a 30-40 mile final....???!!!
Acceleration and climb to altitude would be around +4g's I'd imagine?
The cruise would be ok.
But then another minimum 4g decceleration at least?
And you'd have to join straight in on a 30-40 mile final....???!!!
Concorde, at full afterburner, has less than 0,4g thrust to weight at MTOW.
If you arrive at Mach 5 and decelerate at 4g, you will stop in 40 seconds, and cover 30 km over the time. Why not decelerate at 0,4 g over 7 minutes, covering 300 km in the meanwhile?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention that for 4g acceleration the thrust in lbf needs to be at least 4 times the MTOW in lb of the aircraft (not even counting drag...).
Seems overkill to me.
tartare, where did you get this notion?
And BTW, LAPCAT is an early study of advanced propulsion techniques, not an aircraft design.
The Reaction Engines A-2 is a paper exercise to give an idea what such an aircraft might look like in 25 years time.
Seems overkill to me.
tartare, where did you get this notion?
And BTW, LAPCAT is an early study of advanced propulsion techniques, not an aircraft design.
The Reaction Engines A-2 is a paper exercise to give an idea what such an aircraft might look like in 25 years time.
Last edited by ChristiaanJ; 12th Feb 2008 at 16:17. Reason: remark added
Thread Starter
Points taken
Fair enough.
I guess the point I am trying to clarify is the minimum length of sector on which travelling at hypersonic speeds would be practicable.
Any links to studies or modelling done for hypothetical flight paths etc?
I guess the point I am trying to clarify is the minimum length of sector on which travelling at hypersonic speeds would be practicable.
Any links to studies or modelling done for hypothetical flight paths etc?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tartare,
I have found myself staring at that question as well.
On what sectors does it become interesting to spend only three or four hours in the air, and sort out the 'timezone shift' on the ground?
Europe - Australia/NZ, possibly.
US West Coast - Asia and Australia, probably.
Europe - US East Coast (which would be about an hour's flight) ?
So much time is now spent on ground transport to and from the airport, "security" at the airport, taxying at the airport at 30mph, waiting in the take-off queue, then waiting in the landing queue and getting to the gate, disembarking, getting through immigration and getting one's luggage.....
Chopping a significant part off the 'in the air' time is only worth it over long distances.
And even then the time zone changes can negate much of the gain in travel time.
Look at Concorde. UK or France to the US you gained. In the other direction you still lost.
I have found myself staring at that question as well.
On what sectors does it become interesting to spend only three or four hours in the air, and sort out the 'timezone shift' on the ground?
Europe - Australia/NZ, possibly.
US West Coast - Asia and Australia, probably.
Europe - US East Coast (which would be about an hour's flight) ?
So much time is now spent on ground transport to and from the airport, "security" at the airport, taxying at the airport at 30mph, waiting in the take-off queue, then waiting in the landing queue and getting to the gate, disembarking, getting through immigration and getting one's luggage.....
Chopping a significant part off the 'in the air' time is only worth it over long distances.
And even then the time zone changes can negate much of the gain in travel time.
Look at Concorde. UK or France to the US you gained. In the other direction you still lost.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the point I am trying to clarify is the minimum length of sector on which travelling at hypersonic speeds would be practicable.
What would be faster: Concorde New York-Houston overland (subsonic) or the same route round Florida (supersonic)?
