Slashdot Mirror
Son of Concorde
targo writes "BBC reports that EADS is considering a new generation hypersonic commercial aircraft. "Son of Concorde" would be twice as fast, carry twice as many passengers while being much quieter than its predecessor. It would get from Tokyo to Paris in just two hours, US destinations are not mentioned.
However, as Japan's failure last summer suggests, it might not happen too easily."
2 hours to cover half the world... It almost sounds like a low-earth-orbit travel arc.
I think Europe to Japan is a North Pole route, so it's a lot shorter then it sounds.
Much as I love Really Fast things, the enviromental effects will be the big hurdel, not noise.
Quote from article about the original Concorde:
The companies decided to retire the famous aircraft after 27 years because it was no longer profitable.
What's the chances of a new Concorde (twice the passengers, twice the speed.. read twice the price) being able to succedd commercially in the near future, especially given the state of the post-9/11 airline industry?
Ladies, form queue here -->
This article makes two claims about speed that are very different. First it says that new plane will be twice as fast as the old Concorde. Ok, seems like a suspiciously large performance leap, but the concorde at mach 2 to a new plane at mach 4 is possible.
Then it says Paris to Tokyo in 2 hours! Hell no. A quick google search shows the old Concorde flew the route in 7h 54m. Soooo, that means 4 hours for a plane twice as fast. Not two. Two hours is not even close. Nice math, BBC. It would be nice if reporters would bother to think before they write once in a while...
I'm a huge fan of 'stuff that's already been done decades ago'...
SST
And of course, for sheer brilliance and awe, the XB-70 Valkyrie can't be beat.
All this technology exists and is scumming away in museums, or even worse, in old magazines in disused libraries.
F-22 Raptor can fly at "super cruise" which is some method of breaking the sound barrier without afterburners... technology behind that was still secret.
The secret is technically known as the "kick-ass engine".
Drag increases sharply at transonic speeds, then falls off again. So, you need a lot of thrust to punch through Mach 1, after which you don't need quite so much thrust. Afterburners increase thrust from a jet engine at a high cost in fuel. Older aircraft had engines that weren't quite powerful enough to push them through the Mach 1 wall without using their afterburners. The F-22, quite simply, has powerful enough engines (with a clean enough airframe) to push through to supersonic without needing its afterburners to increase thrust.
Put a big enough engine on a brick, and it'll supercruise, too. It's all about the thrust-to-drag ratio.
It is indeed very farsighted, you won't be hopping on one of these like you will with the A380 in 18 months time.
The original EADS press release stated timeframes around 2020-2025 with possibly 1000 (!) craft by 2020 with development costs in excess of $15 billion.
That isnt true about the supersonic cruise.
.. u can bet so can lots of US and foreign fighters.
Concorde cruises at supersonic too.
http://www.concordesst.com/powerplant.html
If the concorde can do it
Supercruise is a fairly easy-to-understand phenomenon; in effect, it requires two things:
- lots of thrust from the powerplant;
- subsonic airflow in high quantities through the engine due to the way a "conventional" turbine operates, with slightly supersonic exhaust flows.
Normally, a turbine can't attain supercruise because of the latter; the airflow needs to be slowed considerably going through the powerplant in order to stop a shock stall (where the supersonic shockwave suffocates the powerplant).The powerplant behind the F-22 (Pratt&Whitney F119-PW-200) attains this primarily though a few good engineering tricks such as single-crystal-cast blades with a slightly shallower angle of attack than most; thus allowing the engine to operate at a higher temperature and pressure internally than is "normal". It has a lower bypass ratio (the ratio of cool air passing around the engine to that going through the engine) than most fighter-class engines; thus, it needs a smaller front fan, which in turn reduces the area causing a shock stall. It also wears out quicker, but that's another matter entirely. :)
High bypass ratios are great for fuel efficiency at subsonic speeds, but by virtue of the way these turbines work and their tendency to shock-stall when confronted with a supersonic airflow, are not much good for supersonic flight, and not for the nearly-supersonic airflows that supercruise requires.
A typical mid-to-high bypass turbine used in a fighter will have a bleed air system to reduce the airspeed running through the turbine; this has to be counteracted by dumping raw fuel into the bypass & exhaust (i.e. afterburner). Indeed, to get much over M1.0 the F22 needs to employ this same trick. A low bypass turbine can operate with input airspeeds closer to M1.0, which in turn means less air needs to be bled, while still producing a slightly supersonic exhaust out the rear end.
http://www.mailarchive.com/fork@xent.com/msg13640. html
The above link has some info on the economics of the Concorde. It's profitablity was never quite known because BA and Air France never really released that information. Also don't forget, those planes were heavily subsidized by their respective governments.
There is no spoon or sig.
Since we were referring to Concorde earlier, I used the calculator at British Airways for flights London (UK) to Sydney (Australia). That's a long flight, pretty much half way around the globe.
The cheapest economy fare is GBP 511-848 (return);, Business class is GBP 1,927-2,570; 1st class is GBP 2,891-3,220. That's a huge difference, yet people are willing to pay it, just for more leg room.
You don't think those same people would pay business class rates for cattle class seating---but get there in a few hours?
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
The building of the planes was underwritten by the British and French governments, and each flag carrier recieved craft at un realistic prices. Mind you even today lot of civilian industry, science and technology in the US and its spin off is underwritten by the US Military budget, so this can be forgiven when you talking about how things were done in the early 60's.
However in the running of the craft, especially in the case of BA, they were cut free of any support very early on even before the company itself was privtised, BA ran Concorde on a purely commercial basis for nearly 25 years. Later on they realised its significance in winning big corporate travel contracts, they could offer upper management travel on Concorde as part of the package, something that other carriers couldn't offer, so that was a real differentiator that provided an incentive for companies to choose them for subsonic flights.
As for Air France, well, the company is still state owned and CDG was never as popular as Heathrow, they may well have been running it on a breakeven basis.
It appears the Beeb has confused peak speed with average speed.
According to the US Department of Agriculture, the Great Circle distance from Paris to Tokyo is 6033 miles. Let's round that to 6000 mi. The speed of sound varies with temperature, but using 750mph makes the math easy (at aircraft altitudes, the speed of sound is closer to 700mph).
If it could hold the fuel, the Concorde at Mach 2 (1500mph) could do 6000 miles in four hours. If the EADS jet achieves Mach 4 (3000mph), it could do 6000 miles in two hours. If the entire distance were covered at cruising speed.
My impression (purely from being a passenger) is that it takes half an hour or so for a typical commercial airliner on a 1000 mile flight to reach cruising speed and altitude; the plane will then be at cruising speed for about 60 minutes, and then another 30 minutes is spent in deceleration. Of the 2 hours spent in the air, only half of the time is actually spent at crusing speed.
How long would it take for the EADS-SS to reach Mach 4? And how long would it take it to slow down from that speed to the typical 150mph (+/-) landing speed that current runways are designed for? I doubt the typical passenger is prepared for Michael Schumacher / John Force g-forces on takeoff and landing.
Let's say the EADS-SS takes 45 minutes to reach Mach 4, and another 45 minutes to drop back to landing speeds. Assuming linear acceleration and deceleration, that's an hour and a half spent at an average speed of 1500mph. So 2250 miles of the trip takes 1.5 hours. Transiting the remaining 3750 miles at Mach 4 (3000mph) would take another 1.25 hours, for a total trip of 2.75 hours. [Ignoring any ground taxi times or other delays.]
I would think, fuel-wise (which is basically the only marginal cost of airplane flight), that going from Mach 2 to Mach 4 is more expensive than going from Mach 1 to Mach 2. On the other hand, Mach 1 -> 2 is done in denser air than Mach 2 -> 4, so maybe not.
This could be a great question for a final exam in Engineering Analysis and Synthesis.
It's not clear that the Sonic Cruiser was scrapped for the right reasons. It was probably board of directors politics rather than an informed technical and business decision that killed this bird.
In general, Boeing is hurting; it's a cyclical industry and even in the best of times they have to take huge financial risks with new models.
Also, they seem to have a really antagonistic relationship with their unions, and it so happens that the mechanics and even the engineers were on strike at the time that the Sonic Cruiser had been announced. Under these circumstances, a couple of board members including John F. McDonnell, relics from the old McDonnell-Douglas corporation, were able to veto the project as "too expensive".
There's been a lot of articles about Boeing's descent from a dynamic innovator to a stodgy defense contractor, partly caused by its merger with Mc.D. See this article for example.
It's sad to see a once great company fading away.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Alot of people will!!
Even if most of the people doesn't fly internationally ever in their life.
Or maybe only 0.01% of the people in this world would fly internationally that is still a large amont of people.
So maybe only 0.0001% people will take such fly, it is still a large customer base.
BTW I will be flying from Indy to Tokyo this Tuesday, it will be total of 18 hours fly (includes stop-over) and if paying an extra $1000 can get me there in 2 hours instead of 18 hours, I would do it.
And for those CEO, CFO, CTO, etc... that gets pay $300+ per hours, it is cheaper for them to pay the $2000 extra to fly than waste 16 hours ($300+ x 16hours)
I think the parent means planes that have an unstable airframe, like the F-22 Raptor for example, that wont stay in the air without computers keeping it stable. Take that 777, make all the computers in it malfunction and it will still fly, glide at least. Do that to an F22 and it will drop like a rock... I'm not aware of any civilian airliners that would be like this, but maybe they are coming. I would feel less safe flying in one of those than a "traditional" airliner.
Concorde didn't use its afterburners while cruising.
http://www.concordesst.com/powerplant.html
Perhaps you should think before you post?
Single-crystal titanium blades are common in high performance engines, not just the F119-PW-100 (note it's 100, not 200).
"A typical mid-to-high bypass turbine used in a fighter will have a bleed air system to reduce the airspeed running through the turbine; this has to be counteracted by dumping raw fuel into the bypass & exhaust (i.e. afterburner). Indeed, to get much over M1.0 the F22 needs to employ this same trick."
The F-22 has demonstrated supercruise at 1.53 mach, i.e. it has reached speeds significantly above 1 mach without afterburner use. Top speed in level flight, at altitude, is probably no greater than 1.9 mach due to the deletion of variable intake ramps (which the YF-22 had).
Supercruise is generally used as a term to describe an aircraft capable of maintaining supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners. Supercruise is rarely used to describe the ability to accelerate to supersonic speeds without afterburners e.g. the ability to push through the transonic region.
Supercruise as defined in the context of the F-22 is the ability to cruise M1.5 @ 50,000ft without the usage of afterburners. F-22 is unique in that it can accelerate to its supercruise speed without afterburners. However current information suggests afterburners will be used operationally in the transonic region to achieve M1.5 due to payload weightings (no publicly disclosed test has achieved M1.5 without using afterburners to attain that speed when fully laden). The only tests to attain the aircrafts supercruise speed without afterburners have been un-laden tests.
There have been plenty of aircraft capable of supercruise after using afterburners in the transonic region. SR-71 could supercruise at M1.8+, Concorde was/is capable of supercruise at M1.4+. Both aircraft would routinely supercruise at those speeds during their operational life. It might surprise you to learn that the Rolls-Royce/SNECMA Olympus 593 Mark 610 (used in concorde, designed back in the 60's) could be used to accelerate the plane through the transonic phase without afterburners, but was found to be more expensive operationally than using the afterburner from M0.95 to M1.4.
A revision of the engine was under development in the late 70's before cancellation of the concorde mrk-II project which would have made transonic acceleration economic. The intake system on the Rolls-Royce/SNECMA Olympus 593 engine is even today still a state secret and had to be removed from the planes before they could be put on public display.
As a comparison the engine specs state that:
Rolls-Royce/SNECMA Olympus 593 Mark 610
31,350 lb st dry thrust
38,050 lb st with afterburner.
F119-PW-100
35,000 lb st dry thrust
39,000 lb st with afterburner.
While the concorde did land in New York, it had to drop to subsonic speed over the Atlantic (in accordance with the FAA rule), so the plane is essentially useless for US domestic flights.
"The real reason Concorde failed was that it carried too few passengers, used too much fuel and protectionism in the US blocked landing at the major airports until the consortium stopped manufacture."
Not only in the U.S., but also in Europe.
"Airbus will be building a 1200 seat aircraft, which with the current glut of 600 seaters is probably the sweet spot in the market at this point."
Whoa there! 1200 seats? The double-decker A380 currently undergoing early construction seats about 560, roughly 100 more than the 747-400 (the current largest capacity civil passenger aircraft). There are no 600 seat aircraft in service at this time, and certainly not any 1200 seaters for a while.
Concorde was just as a fuel-efficient cruiser as subsonic planes
This is correct - for the era. Concorde was more efficient than the early Boeing aircraft like the 707. The problem is, newer designs like the Boeing 777 are *vastly* more efficient than either:
Boeing 707: 4800 gallons / hour
Boeing 777: 1728 gallons / hour
Concorde (100% throttle): 2885 gallons / hour
Concorde (afterburner): 6180 gallons / hour
Concorde fuel costs were probably not hugely different from a Boeing 707. But they would have been over 5 times more than a 777 when you consider that the 777 takes three times as many passengers (although since Concorde is twice as fast spends less time in the air).
(Numbers from various places on teh intarweb).
And after American attempts at VTOL fixed wing aircraft failed, the U.S. acquired British Harriers, and then later assisted in advancing the aircraft's design. And there are British "Dauphin" helos used by the USCG, the Merlin engine in WW2, the Merlin helo used today, the British ejection seats, the British DASS and HUD used in the F/A-22, the list goes on...
At subsonic speeds drag increases exponentially as function of velocity. As supersonic speeds the effects of compression, wave drag and viscous airflow have to be taken into account, making things much more complex...
Nope, Minot AFB, Minot, ND. It's the same base that has control over half of the country's nukes. Up here they do have special civilian days every few months where they'll have an air show and they'll have some local bands play on open stages. They give tours of the aircraft, how certain things work, general Air Force knowledge. It's actually kind of neat to check out. I'm sure other bases have a lot of the same kind of things. They usually aren't announced to loudly public but they always have an ad in the newspaper or a radio spot.
not quite. I work for an airline. A positively giddy amount of work goes into flight planning. Shortest path comes into it if you're trying to be quicker, but these days fuel burn and thus cost matters a lot. Trying to maximize your tailwind, reduce headwind, avoiding restricted airspace and following airways (like an interstate in the sky) for air traffic control reasons. This might answer the "hops" you talk about. Its navigational beacons which are often at airports.
Which brings us to tracking. If you're over the open ocean you follow tracks. Its a bit like hunt for red october going through the canyons. This speed, at this altitude through these points to maintain separation. Over land, you can be spotted within a couple hundred miles by your ground-air comms. And theres a lot of those. You are almost right on the airports, depending on where you're flying, type of aircraft and and how many engines you must be within a certain flying time of a suitable airport. Its called ETOPS.
So lots of things to worry about, including weather, but it typically starts with shortest distance.
While the XB-70 Valkyrie was not quite as fast as the SR-71, it was nearly as fast (Ben Rich in "Skunk Works" tries to tell us it was only Mach 2.5, but that was only for the number 1 XB-70 because when they took it up to Mach 3, parts melted off (the brazing on the honeycomb steel panels came apart) and got ingested in the engines). They fixed that problem on the number 2 XB-70, but they crumped the number 2 XB-70 in a fatal rear-end collision doing a photo op with a bunch of "chase planes", and the XB-70 parked inside the Dayton, Ohio Air Force museum is the Mach 2.5-capable number 1 plane.
Anyway, the XB-70 also experienced the unstart problem. The XB-70 was used for aero research for the SST, and the honkin' sonic booms from the XB-70 were part of what helped discourage the SST. It was also noted that unstarts were pretty scary and would need to be remedied for the SST.
Concord/Concorde has movable inlet ramps for the shock waves -- I wonder if it ever experienced unstarts?
Also, the XB-70 was supposed to use "compression lift" -- they stuffed the six engines in this big, wide pod under the delta wing to get lift from the shock wave. This was supposed to make it much more aerodynamically efficient than the typical supersonic aircraft, allowing it to have intercontinental supersonic cruise range. I also heard that the compression lift didn't quite work up to the expectations of the wind tunnel model tests.
Is anyone considering whether compression lift (apparently there is better fluid modeling software) can result in a more fuel-efficient/longer-range SST?
Actually, the concorde cruised at Mach 2 without afterburners. The afterburners were used for take-off, the acceleration from subsonic to M1.70, and then they were not needed for speeds above M1.7. This is documented in quite a few books about Concorde.
They didn't call it supercruise though, as that is a marketing buzz word developed recently to help sell fighters. There is no maqic about supercruise - it is just a matter of having an efficient intake system that decelerates the air to subsonic speed going into the engine, and an efficient nozzle system to accelerte the exhaust to supersonic speed so you can get net positive thrust.
Kevin Horton