Concorde successor

[Ray B]

Airbus have lodged plans in the U.S. for a supersonic plane that will fly from London to New York in one hour. Flying at 100000ft on the edge of space, at 2500 mph, this will be twice the speed of Concorde.
Paris to San Francisco and Tokyo to L.A. all in three hours.
The power would come from a conventional jet that will be able to retract into the fuselage, one or two ram jets and a rocket motor.
Don't all go out and try to book a flight, it will only take 20 passengers.
It is just a plan at the moment, but I would love to see this thing fly.


Ray

[ITWA Travel Writer]

I am surprised that it is Airbus and not Virgin Atlantic, as it reeks more of Branson than Paul McKinlay!!

[Quizzical Bob]

I think it's only a patent at the moment rather than a plan.

[Silver_Shiney]

Probably won't get off the ground (in more ways than one!). Not sure, as a passenger, I'd be wanting to take off vertically...

[Raybosailor]

I don't suppose there will be economy class seats on this flight so they can keep it. I only traveled first class once on a one way from Heathrow to Toronto with B.A. and despite having a seat that turned into a bed and copious amounts of alcohol and food I didn't think it was worth the £3000.00 extra they charged for the privilege.

On the return flight I was on economy with American Airlines which cost less than 200.00 Canadian dollars, the fight was overbooked and they were offering 600.00 dollars to give up the seat and take a later flight. As the flight was two legs with a connection at Chicago O'hare an American asked me if I would sell him my first leg flight for 750.00 dollars, unfortunately I was needed back home so I had to turn him down.

[Onelife]

HI Ray,

I love to hear stories such as this as it is these pioneering ideas that take us on our journey of discovery....never stop reaching for the stars l say.....its our future and our destiny.

Regards

Keith

[Raybosailor]

You wouldn't get me on that flight if it was free at that speed Onelife, I hate flying at the best of times that is why I have started cruising. Southampton to Southampton is the only way for me as there are no flights involved, even on our regular trips to Spain I have often opted to drive the 1,515 miles with two overnight stops on the way rather than a two and half hour squeezy jet.

[Onelife]

You wouldn't get me on that flight if it was free at that speed Onelife, I hate flying at the best of times that is why I have started cruising. Southampton to Southampton is the only way for me as there are no flights involved, even on our regular trips to Spain I have often opted to drive the 1,515 miles with two overnight stops on the way rather than a two and half hour squeezy jet.

Hi Ray....you won't notice the speed unless you stick your head out of the window

Regards

keith

[towny44]

Probably won't get off the ground (in more ways than one!). Not sure, as a passenger, I'd be wanting to take off vertically...

I think its planned to take off conventionally, and then Rocket vertically to its cruising altitude, then it Rams its way to its destination(notice what I did there?); I wonder are you still in earth's atmosphere at 100,000 feet or do you need to go through re-entry?

[Not so ancient mariner]

If it's being powered by a ram jet rather than a rocket - then you are still in the atmosphere.

[Silver_Shiney]

Probably won't get off the ground (in more ways than one!). Not sure, as a passenger, I'd be wanting to take off vertically...

I think its planned to take off conventionally, and then Rocket vertically to its cruising altitude, then it Rams its way to its destination(notice what I did there?); I wonder are you still in earth's atmosphere at 100,000 feet or do you need to go through re-entry?

This says it'll take off like the space shuttle

[towny44]

This is where I got the conventional take off data from:- http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0 ... -successor

Which quotes this extract, from which I assumed it would go vertical after normal take off, since it probably won't be built in our lifetime we may never know who is right.

The patent application says the airplane would use conventional turbojet engines for initial takeoff before rocket engines kick in for a "near-vertical" ascent that brings the craft to supersonic speeds.

[Silver_Shiney]

Well, we all know how impartial and accurate the BBC is in their reporting....

[Quizzical Bob]

Three different types of engines in the reports I saw.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... c-jet.html

[ITWA Travel Writer]

Education time:

The problem is that most jet engines, today, burn fuel at subsonic speeds and choke on supersonic airflows.

The height record for a pure jet engine, an oxygen breathing engine, was set in 1976 by the SR-71 Blackbird. Whilst many military aircraft can operate over 50,000 feet, passenger aircraft engines are only economical up to around 45,000 feet.

Ramjets still require oxygen to mix with the fuel in order to burn whether it is drawn from the surrounding atmosphere or is carried on-board for that specific purpose. A ramjet, sometimes referred to as a flying stovepipe or an athodyd requires forward movement through the air in order to work. These engines have no blades and no shaft... air comes in the front and is compressed as the tube narrows... fuel is added and burned which heats the air and generates thrust... simple and cheap and very light.

You can today get combination engines which are designed to draw in air when stationary then alter their air intake pattern to operate as ramjets.

Unlike Ray I would definitely be in the queue for these flights. Going by the speed of technological advancement it won’t be long before PandO will be offering Branson style “Space Cruises” with freedom dinning etc.

[Quizzical Bob]

Education time:

The problem is that most jet engines, today, burn fuel at subsonic speeds and choke on supersonic airflows.

The height record for a pure jet engine, an oxygen breathing engine, was set in 1976 by the SR-71 Blackbird. Whilst many military aircraft can operate over 50,000 feet, passenger aircraft engines are only economical up to around 45,000 feet.

Ramjets still require oxygen to mix with the fuel in order to burn whether it is drawn from the surrounding atmosphere or is carried on-board for that specific purpose. A ramjet, sometimes referred to as a flying stovepipe or an athodyd requires forward movement through the air in order to work. These engines have no blades and no shaft... air comes in the front and is compressed as the tube narrows... fuel is added and burned which heats the air and generates thrust... simple and cheap and very light.

You can today get combination engines which are designed to draw in air when stationary then alter their air intake pattern to operate as ramjets.

Unlike Ray I would definitely be in the queue for these flights. Going by the speed of technological advancement it won’t be long before PandO will be offering Branson style “Space Cruises” with freedom dinning etc.

Always interesting, ITWA.

The design of the Concorde engine intakes is especially complicated with a series of adjustable baffle and ramps which slow the air down through shockwaves if necessary so that the turbines can operate over a wide range of air speeds. I seem to remember a figure of Mach 0.45 but that was sometime ago now and I can't remember if my memory is as good now as it was then.

[Silver_Shiney]

The Phantom (F4) fighter-bomber had a large hydraulically operated plate either side of the fuselage in front of the intakes to "stall" the air before it entered the engine bay.

They never managed to find out the top speed of the English Electric Lightning - in tests, it ran out of fuel before it got that fast!

[Raybosailor]

This is all getting too technical for me, planes that travel at supersonic speeds and outer space altitudes, mind you I am going to Donnington Park on Monday to watch the first day of the Formula E trials and I'm told that these glorified milk floats can do 140 mph plus.

[screwy]

Will never happen...just like Concorde the Yanks wont allow it because they didn't build it.!

[Mervyn and Trish]

They never managed to find out the top speed of the English Electric Lightning - in tests, it ran out of fuel before it got that fast!

I used to live near RAF Wattisham in Suffolk when they flew Lightnings. They were amazing to watch. Took off conventionally along the runway then as soon as they were a few feet of the ground pulled up the nose and went up almost vertically. Pretty much just a bloody big engine with a pilot seat bolted on top!