Plans For Hypersonic Planes That Travel New York – London In ONE Hour

[AbbyNucksFan]

Plus the engines are just loud in general.

Then again, lol @ people who move next to an airport by their own free will then complain about the noise.

agree. the only time people next to an airport should complain is if the airport is built after they move there. Same with moving next to a dump and complaining about the smell.

[Red Light Racicot]

I imagine in the end it would have to be economical;

However, you're building presumably much more expensive engine and aircraft designs, and I'm guessing a lot of room and changes will need to be made to accommodate them at airports.

I'm skeptical as to how or even if this will work. Maybe it could be privatized to some extent, limited in number and impact? A luxury class option? Even that seems really sketchy. I say bollocks overall.

[etsen3]

I imagine in the end it would have to be economical;

However, you're building presumably much more expensive engine and aircraft designs, and I'm guessing a lot of room and changes will need to be made to accommodate them at airports.

I'm skeptical as to how or even if this will work. Maybe it could be privatized to some extent, limited in number and impact? A luxury class option? Even that seems really sketchy. I say bollocks overall.

With such radical technology and such strict safety and testing standards for aviation, I would imagine it will take many years before these could enter service commercially. I do hope these do end up working out and the advancements we've made in flight and technology in general in the last century would not be possible without radical design risks. However it will certainly take awhile for everything to be properly tested and approved as rules are so strict these days (as they should be).

[Hobble]

Can jet fuel at supersonic speeds melt steel beams?

[nucklehead]

Better question: If a jet crashes into a steel frame tower at supersonic speed in the forest will it still fall down?

[Monteeun]

That's awesome. I don't like to fly so, this would be a lot better...

...2023? God damn it.

[Ghostsof1915]

I'm still waiting for the Orion to be finished, and Space Station V.

It's damn 14 years behind!

[Red Light Racicot]

With such radical technology and such strict safety and testing standards for aviation, I would imagine it will take many years before these could enter service commercially. I do hope these do end up working out and the advancements we've made in flight and technology in general in the last century would not be possible without radical design risks. However it will certainly take awhile for everything to be properly tested and approved as rules are so strict these days (as they should be).

I hadnt thought of that, its a very good point.

If I remember correctly, the jet engine had been on the drawing board for something like 30 years before they entered common use towards the end of WW2, and by that time the German ME-262 model was literally miles ahead of everything else. Fortunately, it was introduced too late to make a difference.

One way or another our current commercial flyers will become dinosaurs, I just dont believe its going to happen by 2023.

[red&white]

The largest stumbling block in commercial aviation technology is cost effectiveness. Airframe and engine makers aren't marketing themselves on faster and further, the are all about operational costs. The airfares we are paying are the lowest the have ever been and the airlines are fighting each other for passengers when profit yields per seat are razor thin. The cost to go supersonic will appeal to too small of a demographic at least in the near future to make it worthwhile for airlines. I don't doubt that one day it will become a reality, but I am 35 years old and I doubt I will see supersonic travel again in my lifetime.

[Gurn]

Better question: If a jet crashes into a steel frame tower at supersonic speed in the forest will it still fall down?

For clarity's sake are you asking if the plane, the tower or the forest will fall down?

[etsen3]

The largest stumbling block in commercial aviation technology is cost effectiveness. Airframe and engine makers aren't marketing themselves on faster and further, the are all about operational costs. The airfares we are paying are the lowest the have ever been and the airlines are fighting each other for passengers when profit yields per seat are razor thin. The cost to go supersonic will appeal to too small of a demographic at least in the near future to make it worthwhile for airlines. I don't doubt that one day it will become a reality, but I am 35 years old and I doubt I will see supersonic travel again in my lifetime.

I think there would be a decent niche market for this type of thing. The ability to travel across the world in such a short period of time would be a huge advantage for some. There's no way your average airline passenger would pay for something like this, but I bet they could find some interested parties in the corporate/charter/private world. The biggest obstacle to me is the safety/testing/noise factor.

The other thing is that the current aviation infrastructure and procedures are not designed for these planes. So some special accommodations will have to be made for these radical designs.

[aeromotacanucks]

I think there would be a decent niche market for this type of thing. The ability to travel across the world in such a short period of time would be a huge advantage for some. There's no way your average airline passenger would pay for something like this, but I bet they could find some interested parties in the corporate/charter/private world. The biggest obstacle to me is the safety/testing/noise factor.

The other thing is that the current aviation infrastructure and procedures are not designed for these planes. So some special accommodations will have to be made for these radical designs.

actually there is...

here´s why:

1) any airport in the past able to receive the Concorde will do fine (in terms of runways), in terms of size any airport able to receive the A380 or the giant AN-225 will receive a hypersonic plane since a hypersonic plane will not be super heavy and hadrly a fast plane will be as heavy as an AN-125/AN-225 or an A380...

2) in the past there was something "supersonic airways" and they were closed since the Concorde was retired BUT will the new tecnologies create a direct "hypersonic airway" will not be hard. remember that the Concorde didn´t use GPS or modern advanced navigation systems, only INS. and since hypersonic planes will fly WAY ABOVE subsonic jets they will not interfere with the current planes)

3) procedures can be created, the ATC (Air Traffic Control) can manage that since will be a few of then compared will a lot of subsonic planes, a hypersonic plane will approach fast so it will land fast, make them do a direct and fast approach/land will clear the path for the subsonic planes...

the problem will be if the hypersonic travels become popular (unlikely), then a lot of very fast planes coming at the same time...

4) the REAL problem is the "speed transition zones", a supersonic plane (do not consider fighters since they acelerate very fast) will need space to reach "Mach 1" and for that it will need altitude and a zone without restriction to increase the speed...

-since the problem is breaking the sound speed and not after that (because the drag at Mach 1 is huge) the plane will need a large corridor where it can be done, Concorde needed a lot but a bigger hypersonic plane will need a bigger space to do the same.

-BUT bigger planes means big sonic booms and the booms can be intensive, the vibration and pressure waves can be more disturbing than the actual boom, leaving tre "transition zones" near big cities will cause problems. so what to do? the "normal way" is doing above the oceans...

-BUT that creates another problem. since the plane can´t fly at supersonic speeds all the time it will fly subsonic and a supersonic/hypersonic jet isn´t designed to fly that way all the time. it will lose money that way and increasing the flight time...

-AND since the countries have their own rules the flight time will vary, the A-B leg might be shorter than the B-A leg due to specific rules of each countries

5) so what´s the way to solve it?

-the Concorde/TU144 needed a 30.000 to 35.000FT and Mach 0.85 to start the speed transition (air dense enought to give engine power/ratio but less dense enought to allow a faster transtition and less "sonic drag"). in the vasts areas of Russia that might be possible but near big cities (including Moscow) or heavly movemented coastal areas (the hole coast of Brazil, USA and Canada) a plane at these altitudes just to "speed transition" will mess the hole air traffic because the planes wishing fly there at cruise speed will have to give the way to a plane flying there just to accelerate and since a plane can´t fly at the same level of a plane in trasition to supersonic speeds planes will have to fly above/below their intended levels for some time...

-that might not be a problem for a hour flight. but if you have a 12 hours flight ahead 35 minutes flying at a lower level will increase your fuel consuption...

6) ok. next step?

-one possible solution would be "direct climb and transtition" meaning the plane will take-off and do the "speed transition" while climbing, at the "point" the plane will reduce it´s climb rate in order to reach Mach 1 and beyond returning to it´s "supersonic cimb rate" after that. the "speed transtition" will be longer but smoother but it will reduce the flight time and will optimize the plane performance since the airplane will have a constant speed scceleration BUT will lead to mor separation between supersonic/hypersonic and subsonic planes meaning more delays because the procedure will also be done during the descent and landing...

-the other one would increase the airplane envelope to do the "transition" at a higher altitude where it will not interfere with the normal traffic. if the transtition could be done at 40.000 to 45.000FT it will not cause any problems to the subsonic traffic anymore because apart some executive jets that can fly that high you will not see a B737/A320 there. so less traffic more space to do what you want. the climb/descent will be done like a normal subsonic plane and once at 40.000FT and above the plane will do the transtition...

-also the use of the variable-sweep wing might be handy. you can fly at hypersonic speeds but also at supsonic speeds so you will have a double function plane and will make both happy, the ATC, the passengers and the people on the ground. HOWEVER this device means a hole new mechanism to change the sweep and so doiing that it will increase the costs because more maintenance is required, so more maintenance required the tickets will be more expensive and less passengers will fly that plane...

7) so can it be solved?

-to me yes but involves a radical but straight foward way. make the plane climb faster to the highest altitude possible, let´s say 80.000FT and will the dual "turbojet-scramjet" combination, a progressive but fast transtition at 45.000FT (climbing and descending) and making the hypersonic plane approach/land straight foward. from the cruise level to the runway just like the Space Shuttle did, doing that it will reduce the power and ruel consuption since the plane will basically descend at "Idle power" reserving fuel for an eventual missed approach.

[red&white]

I think there would be a decent niche market for this type of thing. The ability to travel across the world in such a short period of time would be a huge advantage for some. There's no way your average airline passenger would pay for something like this, but I bet they could find some interested parties in the corporate/charter/private world. The biggest obstacle to me is the safety/testing/noise factor.

The other thing is that the current aviation infrastructure and procedures are not designed for these planes. So some special accommodations will have to be made for these radical designs.

I think something like this in the near future is too niche. Look at the cost that Airbus and Boeing had with the design and development of the 380 and 787. Boeing doesn't expect to break even on the 787 until the have delivered 1100 airframes. You're talking about 10 years of production. Although the 787 was groundbreaking in technology with the way it was designed and the implementation of new materials and how existing materials are used, it would be nothing in terms of R&D of an aircraft that could fly from NYC to London in an hour. The cost of developing the 787 compared to a hypersonic aircraft would be peanuts. Whoever builds this would have to convince a lot of airlines to buy a ton of these things to make any money.

[etsen3]

I think something like this in the near future is too niche. Look at the cost that Airbus and Boeing had with the design and development of the 380 and 787. Boeing doesn't expect to break even on the 787 until the have delivered 1100 airframes. You're talking about 10 years of production. Although the 787 was groundbreaking in technology with the way it was designed and the implementation of new materials and how existing materials are used, it would be nothing in terms of R&D of an aircraft that could fly from NYC to London in an hour. The cost of developing the 787 compared to a hypersonic aircraft would be peanuts. Whoever builds this would have to convince a lot of airlines to buy a ton of these things to make any money.

Like I said, I think if anyone buys this, it will be in the corporate/private world where companies have money to spare and have a need for this thing. It's highly unlikely Delta Airlines would buy one.

You also have to remember that most of the development is being done/funded by the military. Entirely different than Boeing building a 787 from scratch using their own profits. Converting these planes to a passenger variant once the basic technology is there would be easier.

[aeromotacanucks]

Like I said, I think if anyone buys this, it will be in the corporate/private world where companies have money to spare and have a need for this thing. It's highly unlikely Delta Airlines would buy one.

You also have to remember that most of the development is being done/funded by the military. Entirely different than Boeing building a 787 from scratch using their own profits. Converting these planes to a passenger variant once the basic technology is there would be easier.

two simple examples for this. both Russian/Soviets

TU-114 was basically a civilian version of the TU-95 bomber. share the same wing, engines and airframe, only the fusellage is different

TU-104 was converted from TU-16. same wing, engines, tail. only the fusellage is diferent...

also the B-377 developed from the Boeing C-97 developed from the Boeing B-29...

[red&white]

Like I said, I think if anyone buys this, it will be in the corporate/private world where companies have money to spare and have a need for this thing. It's highly unlikely Delta Airlines would buy one.

You also have to remember that most of the development is being done/funded by the military. Entirely different than Boeing building a 787 from scratch using their own profits. Converting these planes to a passenger variant once the basic technology is there would be easier.

Military development is going to be done for military applications. There are a lot more tangibles when dealing with commercial and passenger flights to just piggy back off of military technology. The cost to certify a hypersonic aircraft to meet all the regulatory administration's requirements around the world would be extraordinary. No one is going to spend that amount of money to market a such a plane for a few potential corporate or private customers. At least not in the near future.

[Ghostsof1915]

I feel that Boeing had the right idea with the Sonic Cruiser. .98 Mach. So 20% faster than existing planes. Perfect for long haul flights like across the Pacific, or from say UK to Australia.

The technology is there. No sonic booms. But the engineers and planners want to be conservative.