Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Warp Speed Scotty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Warp Speed Scotty

    Concorde Mark 2: Airbus files plans for new supersonic jet

    New jet could cut flight time from London to New York to just one hour

    Facebook
    4K
    Twitter
    216
    Pinterest
    0
    LinkedIn
    82
    Share
    4K
    Email



    Concorde might have gone out of service, but aircraft designers have hopes for a successor to the iconic jet Photo: Dennis Stone / Rex Features









    Learn a new language at your own pace Studying a new language doesn’t have to mean stepping back into the classroom. Babbel offers 13 language courses that can be studied online and on the go.

    Sponsored by Babbel



    By Alan Tovey, Industry Editor

    12:23PM BST 04 Aug 2015
    Follow
    214 Comments


    Supersonic passenger planes could once again be racing through the skies with Airbus having filed a patent for what could become the 'son of Concorde'.

    The new jet could fly from London to New York in an hour - opening up the possibility of a transatlantic return journey in a day.

    Concorde 2 would be capable of flying more than four times the speed of sound – or more than 2,500mph, according to documents lodged with the US Patent Office by the aerospace and defence group.


    What it was like to fly by Concorde

    The filings refer to an “ultra-rapid air vehicle” and “method of aerial locomotion” for the aircraft, which would cruise at an altitude of more than 100,000ft and carry up to 20 passengers or two or three tons of cargo for distances of about 5,500 miles.


    According to the patent, power would come from three different types of engines:
    • “at least one” conventional jet that could be retracted into the fuselage
    • one or more ramjets, which use the forward speed of the aircraft to compress the air entering them before it is mixed with fuel and ignited

    • a rocket motor powered by hydrogen and oxygen.

    Flights in the new aircraft look set to be a wild ride, with the rocket motor used in combination with conventional jets to power a “near vertical ascendant flight” until its breaks the sound barrier when the engines are retracted in the fuselage and the ramjets take over.

    The sketches supplied with the Airbus filing are rudimentary but give a basic idea of the design
    The aircraft would then cruise on the edge of space, high above conventional aircraft, before slowing down and entering normal air traffic close to its destination.

    Concorde – built by Aerospatiale, a forerunner of Airbus, and British Aircraft Corporation – was the only supersonic passenger airline to successfully enter service.

    It flew at Mach 2.04 – twice the speed of sound or about 1,350mph – at an altitude of up to 60,000ft while carrying up to 120 passengers. It began scheduled services in 1976, though only 14 ever went into service.

    However, the jets were withdrawn in 2003 following a crash in Paris three years earlier, ending the age of travelling faster than sound for all but a select few military pilots.
    • Picture gallery: Concorde, the supersonic airliner

    Airbus suggested the market for the new aircraft would be “principally that of business travel and VIP passengers, who require transcontinental return journeys within one day”.
    It also imagines the military using it for strategic reconnaissance and “ultra-rapid transport of high added-value goods or elite commandos”.

    The height the aircraft would fly at gives it “almost total invulnerability to conventional anti-aircraft systems” the designers say, adding that it could also be used for “precision strikes and to take out preferred high added-value targets, for example by high-power electromagnetic pulses (EMP)”.
    NASA prepares for supersonic flight

    Sonic boom

    The patent filing contains basic sketches of Airbus designers’ ideas but does acknowledge the problem of supersonic aircraft making sonic booms as they break the sound barrier.
    This boom is seen as one of the main reasons Concorde was not a commercial success, with noise complaints leading to it being banned from operating at high speed over land by many countries, negating the main attraction of travelling on the jet.

    The noise created by Concorde going supersonic limited the routes on which it could operate
    The patent filing says: “The air vehicle proposed... substantially reduces the noise emitted when the sound barrier is broken, also called the ‘supersonic bang’; this noise has been the main limit, if not the only one preventing the opening of lines other than transatlantic ones for Concorde.”

    Details are limited on how the supersonic bang would be reduced, but the height at which the new aircraft would fly and the “narrow” angle of the supersonic shock wave coming off its nose – estimated at between 11 and 15 degrees – would help reduce it because it has a longer distance to dissipate before it reaches the ground.

  • #2
    Re: Warp Speed Scotty

    Originally posted by Mega View Post
    Concorde Mark 2: Airbus files plans for new supersonic jet

    New jet could cut flight time from London to New York to just one hour

    Concorde might have gone out of service, but aircraft designers have hopes for a successor to the iconic jet Photo: Dennis Stone / Rex Features

    By Alan Tovey, Industry Editor

    12:23PM BST 04 Aug 2015

    Supersonic passenger planes could once again be racing through the skies with Airbus having filed a patent for what could become the 'son of Concorde'.

    The new jet could fly from London to New York in an hour - opening up the possibility of a transatlantic return journey in a day.

    Concorde 2 would be capable of flying more than four times the speed of sound – or more than 2,500mph, according to documents lodged with the US Patent Office by the aerospace and defence group.


    The filings refer to an “ultra-rapid air vehicle” and “method of aerial locomotion” for the aircraft, which would cruise at an altitude of more than 100,000ft and carry up to 20 passengers or two or three tons of cargo for distances of about 5,500 miles.

    According to the patent, power would come from three different types of engines:
    • “at least one” conventional jet that could be retracted into the fuselage
    one or more ramjets, which use the forward speed of the aircraft to compress the air entering them before it is mixed with fuel and ignited

    • a rocket motor powered by hydrogen and oxygen.

    Flights in the new aircraft look set to be a wild ride, with the rocket motor used in combination with conventional jets to power a “near vertical ascendant flight” until its breaks the sound barrier when the engines are retracted in the fuselage and the ramjets take over.

    The sketches supplied with the Airbus filing are rudimentary but give a basic idea of the design
    The aircraft would then cruise on the edge of space, high above conventional aircraft, before slowing down and entering normal air traffic close to its destination.

    Concorde – built by Aerospatiale, a forerunner of Airbus, and British Aircraft Corporation – was the only supersonic passenger airline to successfully enter service.

    It flew at Mach 2.04 – twice the speed of sound or about 1,350mph – at an altitude of up to 60,000ft while carrying up to 120 passengers. It began scheduled services in 1976, though only 14 ever went into service.

    However, the jets were withdrawn in 2003 following a crash in Paris three years earlier, ending the age of travelling faster than sound for all but a select few military pilots.
    • Picture gallery: Concorde, the supersonic airliner

    Airbus suggested the market for the new aircraft would be “principally that of business travel and VIP passengers, who require transcontinental return journeys within one day”.
    It also imagines the military using it for strategic reconnaissance and “ultra-rapid transport of high added-value goods or elite commandos”.

    The height the aircraft would fly at gives it “almost total invulnerability to conventional anti-aircraft systems” the designers say, adding that it could also be used for “precision strikes and to take out preferred high added-value targets, for example by high-power electromagnetic pulses (EMP)”.
    NASA prepares for supersonic flight

    Sonic boom

    The patent filing contains basic sketches of Airbus designers’ ideas but does acknowledge the problem of supersonic aircraft making sonic booms as they break the sound barrier.
    This boom is seen as one of the main reasons Concorde was not a commercial success, with noise complaints leading to it being banned from operating at high speed over land by many countries, negating the main attraction of travelling on the jet.

    The noise created by Concorde going supersonic limited the routes on which it could operate
    The patent filing says: “The air vehicle proposed... substantially reduces the noise emitted when the sound barrier is broken, also called the ‘supersonic bang’; this noise has been the main limit, if not the only one preventing the opening of lines other than transatlantic ones for Concorde.”

    Details are limited on how the supersonic bang would be reduced, but the height at which the new aircraft would fly and the “narrow” angle of the supersonic shock wave coming off its nose – estimated at between 11 and 15 degrees – would help reduce it because it has a longer distance to dissipate before it reaches the ground.


    Two comments

    1. The Concorde is still a stunningly elegant looking airplane even after all these decades;





    2. Airbus playing catch up (?): Note the date below

    X-51A Waverider achieves history in final flight
    Posted 5/3/2013 Updated 5/3/2013
    5/3/2013 - WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio -- The final flight of the X-51A Waverider test program has accomplished a breakthrough in the development of flight reaching Mach 5.1 over the Pacific Ocean on May 1 a little after 10 a.m. Pacific Time.

    "It was a full mission success," said Charlie Brink, X-51A program manager for the Air Force Research Laboratory Aerospace Systems Directorate.

    The cruiser traveled over 230 nautical miles in just over six minutes over the Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center Sea Range. It was the longest of the four X-51A test flights and the longest air-breathing hypersonic flight ever.

    "I believe all we have learned from the X-51A Waverider will serve as the bedrock for future hypersonics research and ultimately the practical application of hypersonic flight," Mr. Brink said.

    The X-51A took off from the Air Force Test Center at Edwards AFB, Calif., under the wing of a B-52H Stratofortress. It was released at approximately 50,000 feet and accelerated to Mach 4.8 in about 26 seconds powered by a solid rocket booster. After separating from the booster, the cruiser's scramjet engine then lit and accelerated to Mach 5.1 at 60,000 feet.

    After exhausting its 240-second fuel supply, the vehicle continued to send back telemetry data until it splashed down into the ocean and was destroyed as designed. All told, 370 seconds of data was collected from the experiment.

    "This success is the result of a lot of hard work by an incredible team.
    The contributions of Boeing, Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne, the 412th Test Wing at Edwards AFB, NASA Dryden and DARPA were all vital," said Mr. Brink.

    This was the last of four test vehicles originally conceived when the $300 million technology demonstration program began in 2004. The program objective was to prove the viability of air-breathing, high-speed scramjet propulsion.

    The X-51A is unique primarily due to its use of a hydrocarbon fuel in its supersonic combustion ramjet, or Scramjet, engine. Other vehicles have achieved hypersonic - generally defined as speeds above Mach 5 - flight with the use of hydrogen fuel. Without any moving parts, hydrocarbon fuel is injected into the scramjet's combustion chamber where it mixes with the air rushing through the chamber and is ignited in a process likened to lighting a match in a hurricane.

    The use of logistically supportable hydrocarbon fuel is widely considered vital for the practical application of hypersonic flight...
    Last edited by GRG55; August 04, 2015, 11:24 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Warp Speed Scotty

      I think Airbus are trying to Patent EVERY possable out come............My Father worked for Dunlops in the 70's & they did the same trick.........

      Mike

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Warp Speed Scotty

        When I see articles like this, I just cringe a little about how enthusiastic people get. It's like we're a bunch of horses getting excited over little sugar cubes when there's an entire farm next door with endless wheat and a sugar cane processing plant.

        Making the rounds less than a month ago:
        1) NASA - Has engine that can get us to the moon in 4 hours or to Mars in 70 days. This is not sci-fi or wishful thinking, it's passed every test so far.... and it was invented 15 F'in years ago! But of course mainstream science dismissed it as 'impossible'.
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...our-hours.html

        2) The Flux Liner - Faster than light since the late 60's - I posted about this only last week.
        http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...documentary%29


        People, you get what you ask for. I suggest we demand more from our governments & tax dollar funded organizations. We are being fed bread crumbs. The first step though, is to drop your school paradigms and not be afraid to look under the covers as to the 'impossibles' that may be laying there.
        Last edited by Adeptus; August 05, 2015, 12:33 PM.
        Warning: Network Engineer talking economics!

        Comment


        • #5
          Who's paying for it?

          Originally posted by Adeptus View Post
          When I see articles like this, I just cringe a little about how enthusiastic people get. It's like we're a bunch of horses getting excited over little sugar cubes when there's an entire farm next door with endless wheat and a sugar cane processing plant.

          .
          From everything I have read, the Concorde was a financial dodo from the word go. It needed special tires, which did not last long
          and were very expensive to make in small quantities. Who will pay for the next generation of SS planes? The people who ride them,
          or the general public?

          If you spend a lot of money on something, the performance can always be increased. But what is cost effective innovation?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Who's paying for it?

            Appropos, I recall a fairly good documentary on the development of the SST. JFK was deftly manipulated by Juan Trippe in subsidizing development of SST to the tune of 75% of the program's cost to produce a design rivaled Concorde and the TU-144. Seems like a white elephant from our perspective, but goodness it's almost depressing to compare our timidness and shortsightedness versus the audacity and vision of our those political and business leaders. We reached for such grand dreams and made so many of them real.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Who's paying for it?

              Originally posted by Polish_Silver View Post
              From everything I have read, the Concorde was a financial dodo from the word go. It needed special tires, which did not last long
              and were very expensive to make in small quantities. Who will pay for the next generation of SS planes? The people who ride them,
              or the general public?

              If you spend a lot of money on something, the performance can always be increased. But what is cost effective innovation?
              Cost effective innovation these days seems to be "start a foundation and do a pair of husband & wife stints in the Oval Office", or create yet another hedge fund or PE firm in an already overcrowded playing field, or get yourself into the top floor corner office, run the company into the ground and get a golden parachute payoff while thumbing your nose at your long suffering shareholders as you head to Palm Beach.

              That's where the money is apparently.
              Last edited by GRG55; June 04, 2016, 09:51 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Who's paying for it?

                Good video Woodsman,

                Thanks to Adeptus, Mega, and you bringing us this interesting history.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Who's paying for it?

                  I think the legal definition of corporations needs to be changed to prevent these abuses. I am not sure how to do that, but something about the incentive structure needs to change.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X