News Airbus Wants Supersonic Jet to Fly Four Times Faster Than Speed of Sound

Do you believe you will be able to enjoy a hypersonic flight in your lifetime?


  • Total voters
    33

Soheil_Esy

Fazanavard فضانورد
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
744
Reaction score
20
Points
18
04.08.2015

Long, overnight international flights could be a thing of the past. If Airbus follows through on a patent it’s just received, you could complete that trans-Atlantic before you’ve even had enough time to flip through a Sky Mall magazine.

International travel is typically an all-day affair. Any trip across the Atlantic takes almost as long as an average workday. Travelling roughly 555 mph on today’s airplanes, it takes between seven to eight hours to get from New York to London.

Once upon a time, the Concorde could make that trip in half the time, but those ceased operation in 2003.

But Airbus – the Concorde’s successor company – has just won a patent for a hypersonic jet capable of traveling at Mach 4.5.

1025368521.png

The concept aircraft includes a gothic delta wing distributed on either side of the fuselage.

That’s 4.5 times the speed of sound, in other words. Over twice as fast as the Concorde, Airbus predicts the craft could ferry passengers across the Atlantic in as little as one hour.

An "ultra-rapid air vehicle and related method of aerial locomotion," reaching those kinds of speed is a two-fold process.

For one, there’s the design of the aircraft. According to the patent, the plane would consist of "a fuselage, a gothic delta wing distributed on either side of the fuselage, and a system of motors able to propel the air vehicle." Those motors include two ramjets, a rocket engine, and a pair of retractable turbojets.

1025369228.png

Once at cruising altitude, the rocket engine will retract (D) and the ramjets (ST1, ST2) will kick in.

All of this could be powered by hydrogen stored on board.

Secondly, the plane doesn’t even fly the same way as a normal airplane. Once the rocket engine and turbojets lift the craft from the ground, the plane ascends almost vertically until it reaches the upper atmosphere.

1025368526.png

The diagram gives a rough idea of the plane's takeoff, near-vertical ascent, and then horizontal flight above 100,000 feet.

Once the aircraft reaches an altitude of over 100,000 feet – most commercial jets stay between 30,000-45,000 feet – it levels off. The rocket engine retracts and the ramjets push the plane to its cruising speed – over 3,000 mph.

That vertical lift plays another key factor as well. As it approaches the speed of sound, the plane will emit a sonic boom. Vertical flight will allow those sound waves to travel horizontally across the atmosphere, instead of traveling downward toward the ground.

The sonic boom caused by the Concorde was a large reason for its failure. The horizontal flight path caused massive noise pollution, and as the result the aircraft was banned from flying over land.

Of course, while the rocket-inspired vertical lift seems like a novel solution, it presents another problem: landing. Airbus’ concept presumably must perform a corresponding vertical nosedive when approaching its destination, which could be a nonstarter for many passengers.

Of course, it’s worth remembering that patents are rarely come to life on the production line. But many of the concepts involved could find their way into designs in the not-too-distant future.

http://sputniknews.com/science/20150804/1025368542.html
 
That patent design is really ugly they could have made it look a lot better (it's only a patent) ! Concorde is/was a beautiful airliner. ;)
 
How is any of this patentable? Nothing here is really new.

Turbojets, rockets, and ramjets are all existing propulsion systems. So they own the idea of using all three on one design? That sounds like a bad design anyway.

Are they patenting the idea of a hypersonic airplane? There have already been hypersonic aircraft. How do you patent a performance metric anyway? I don't see any evidence that their design is even capable of that speed.

:shrug:

Perhaps they just wanted to train a junior attorney on how to file a patent?
 
Supersonic and Hypersonic flight will happen when there is a need for it. Right now there isn't. Not sure there will ever be..
 
Of course, while the rocket-inspired vertical lift seems like a novel solution, it presents another problem: landing. Airbus’ concept presumably must perform a corresponding vertical nosedive when approaching its destination, which could be a nonstarter for many passengers.

Really? I guess whoever wrote this has never seen a space shuttle re-entry and landing...

While this seems really cool, the idea of a passenger plane with 3 different types of engine, including a rocket, doing a near-vertical climb and cruising at 100k ft is a bit much to imagine.

Let me see SpaceShip 2 get into regular service first and then I'll think about taking this seriously.
 
The issue with a shuttle-like lading would probably be similar to the one encountered on a more conventional ascent, namely the sonic boom.
 
The issue with a shuttle-like lading would probably be similar to the one encountered on a more conventional ascent, namely the sonic boom.

But having only one sonic boom (pair) is still easier to handle than two...

Especially since a subsonic descend could be initiated further away from the airport, without additional fuel costs.

But if you remember, that military jets in Germany are even forbidden from using their afterburner over populated areas, I doubt that using rocket engines will be a better solution.
 
Last edited:
It's the same here: a couple of years ago two Eurofighters had to scramble and flew past Genoa supersonic, causing various local web newspapers to report of two closely spaced explosions being heard, since obviously it is quite unusual to hear such a sound.
 
It's the same here: a couple of years ago two Eurofighters had to scramble and flew past Genoa supersonic, causing various local web newspapers to report of two closely spaced explosions being heard, since obviously it is quite unusual to hear such a sound.

I had two extremely funny Tornado jockeys going on afterburner for a few seconds when passing over me and my dogs at low altitude. If the dogs would not have been leashed on, they would have stopped running in Skagen.
 
I am guessing the residents of western Florida underneath shuttle flight paths must be okay with sonic booms?
 
I am guessing the residents of western Florida underneath shuttle flight paths must be okay with sonic booms?

Nobody lives underneath a shuttle flight path. at most, you had been able to get pretty close.

For the ISS flights, the Shuttle was only allowed to use the north-eastern direction, since the south-east launch was passing over communist cuba.
 
Nobody lives underneath a shuttle flight path. at most, you had been able to get pretty close.

For the ISS flights, the Shuttle was only allowed to use the north-eastern direction, since the south-east launch was passing over communist cuba.

I'm talking about the decent. The vehicle flew over much of the southern US on it's approach to the SLF.
 
I'm talking about the decent. The vehicle flew over much of the southern US on it's approach to the SLF.

Yes, but the sonic booms were only heard loud when the Shuttle descended towards the HAC. Not while travelling in 70 km altitude.
 
Yes, but the sonic booms were only heard loud when the Shuttle descended towards the HAC. Not while travelling in 70 km altitude.

So that would seem to be a point in favor of a high altitude hypersonic plane, then. It's only noisy near it's departure and landing sites, but cruising overland shouldn't be an issue.
 
So that would seem to be a point in favor of a high altitude hypersonic plane, then. It's only noisy near it's departure and landing sites, but cruising overland shouldn't be an issue.

exactly, if you are just really high enough. But it still limits the number of airports you can use, just like it did for Concorde.
 
I don't know much, but wouldn't having three different types of engines make manufacturing and operations more complex and costly?
 
Last edited:
I don't know much, but wouldn't having three different types of engines make manufacturing and operations more complex and costly?

Having any kind of engines operating at Mach 4.5 will likely be complex and costly. But the plan in the patent has also some additional "fun" in it because it uses hydrogen as fuel.

Still, you also have to say: If ramjets work, they work. They have no running parts, so everything that can damage them is wrong use or factors from outside. The jet engines are also not that bad today, but using hydrogen will make things more complex than they are today.

And simple rocket engines with LH2/LOX fuel, the necessary thrust to weight and long engine life are also available "commercially".
 
My first question is what sort of fuel fraction would this plane need for a typical near-antipodal flight profile (e.g. Great Britain to New Zealand).

Second is whether it can be done cheaply enough to operate profitably--can it sustain itself on ticket prices not greater than were charged for Concorde flights, or is it only going to carry the ultra-wealthy who can spend what to the rest of us is a year's income per ride?
 
Back
Top