Hypersonic A2

gprellwitz

gprellwitz

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
12,765
Location
Romeoville, IL
Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Reuters and others picked up a press release about the A2, a new hypersonic plane under development that is expected to carry 300 passengers non-stop from Europe to Australia in 4.5 hours at Mach 5. It will burn liquid hydrogen and fly in the ozone layer. They're currently working on how to reduce emissions to make it environmentally safer. Of course, it isn't expected to be commercially available for 25 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/feb/05/theairlineindustry.travelnews/print

A2460.jpg
 
The way to achieve that mission is with a scramjet, which was coincidentally successfully tested by NASA.
 
Tristar said:
They're already trying to do similar things with corporate jets. One big problem is the US doesn't appreciate any aircraft over Mach 1.

http://www.aerioncorp.com/
Click to expand...
They're talking about taking the A2 north from Brussels(?) at M0.9, then accelerate over the north pole to M5 heading down the Pacific to Australia. So they're avoiding supersonic flight over (populated) land, too.
 
I saw this thing pop up on my yahoo news feeds too. Doesn't some company announce something similar every 3-4 years and end up with an infeasable product, or end up going bankrupt without enough venture capital?:dunno:


This one's unique in that it has no windows due to the heat generated (I guess flying at re-entry speeds or something). Wouldn't it be fun for that panel to go blank. :no:

I must say I like the Dead Sexy 1989 Dodge grand caravan sitting next to a high tech jet in their mock up drawing!
 
I've read about some companies working on jets that produce no or quiet sonic booms because of how they control airflow. I wonder if that type of technology might open the skies for transcontinental flight above 1 Mach.
 
Chairboy said:
I've read about some companies working on jets that produce no or quiet sonic booms because of how they control airflow. I wonder if that type of technology might open the skies for transcontinental flight above 1 Mach.
Click to expand...
Tristan's link has a biz jet that will supposedly do "no boom" at 1.1 or 1.2 Mach.
 
Maybe it's just me but the Space Shuttle has windows. Is the space shuttle just slower on re-entry? I think it would be awefull boring not to have windows. It'd be awesome to watch the earth go by at those speeds!

I know as far as the Aerion goes, they're not changing the actual engines much. Aerion plans to use the JT8D-219 engines designed by Pratt &Whitney. They actually have an edge over their Super sonic business jet competitors in the fact that Aerion’s engines have been tested, used, and repaired for many decades on many aircraft types already. So there is no need to train new A&Ps and create expensive parts. This puts them ahead of the time schedule for production. What they do do however is incorporate Quiet Eagle technology into the exhaust tab nozzle. It has replaced the factory’s cone shaped nozzle by adding its own jagged edge design. This greatly decreases jet noise by changing the frequency of the exhaust gas noise, usually increasing that frequency to a point less likely to be heard from a distance. So there is the noise problem beginning to take shape! [FONT=&quot]They are able to keep from redesigning the engine completely by emphasizing another important structure; the wing. According to Aerion, they are looking more into designing the wing around a more efficient use of Natural Laminar Flow. Supposedly thier concept wing creates less drag compared to the common delta configuration. And....they have windows! :D

There are obviously differences between the two as to what technology you can use possibly due to speed and what amenities such as windows you can provide your passengers. In the end, it's all about speed.
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Tristar said:
[FONT=&quot]
There are obviously differences between the two as to what technology you can use possibly due to speed and what amenities such as windows you can provide your passengers. In the end, it's all about speed.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...
Another couple of major differences are the number of passengers (a biz jet vs. a 300-passenger airliner) and, as you say, the speed (M1.5, about what the Concorde did, compared to M5). Not to mention that the Aerion is probably a lot closer to production than the A2! :yes:
 
The number of passengers you have can obviously be a challenge too. If you think about the cost to passenger ratio on the concord, it wasn't worth it to many standard coach passengers to fly on. It's all about what you're willing to compromise. Speed vs. passenger comfort as well as cost. The more aerodynamic an aircraft, usually the skinnier it is. As a company, are you willing to buy a concord which provides little room (from what I understand) to it's passengers for $1,000 a pop just to make the gas bill and small passenger ratio worth while? Of course you still consider the advantages of speed as well as a brand name. Or, would you rather buy a Boeing 747, which can hold well over twice the amount of passengers at $600 (depending on destination), provide more room, at the cost of going slower? The trick when designing a super or even hypersonic jet is combining the two.
 
Tristar said:
As a company, are you willing to buy a concord which provides little room (from what I understand) to it's passengers for $1,000 a pop just to make the gas bill and small passenger ratio worth while?
Click to expand...

Never had the chance to ride one, but I've walked through the test item on display at the Imperial War Museum at Duxford. Not much more room walking down the aisle than a Beech 1900 if I recall correctly. Cramped is an understatement. Guess I'll have to check out the one at the Museum of Flight at BFI one of these days. Now, a friend of mine rode one across the Atlantic. Showed them his ATP and he rode in the cockpit. Obviously pre-9/11. A long time pre 9/11.
 
Tristar said:
As a company, are you willing to buy a concord which provides little room (from what I understand) to it's passengers for $1,000 a pop just to make the gas bill and small passenger ratio worth while?
Click to expand...

And the Concorde still never showed a profit. It always operated at a loss. They just wouldn't give it up because A) They (BA & AF) had the status of having the only commercial SST service, and B) it would have amounted to addmiting to making a very big mistake.

This is where we really run into the problems with Supersonic, much less hypersonic flight, costs. The aircraft will cost extrodinary figures to construct due to the materials required to withstand the heat of hypersonic flight, the extrodinary costs of fuel (and in this case, an entire fuel infrastructure as well. Liquid Hydrogen??? WTF are they thinking??? We're looking at double dawser storage, both ground and aircraft, and handling equipment, very high levels of hazard, tons of issues with that, it makes no feasable sense). While the craft may have physical viability, it has no economic viability. I'd say the seat cost would have to end up over $60,000 on a trip to Aus from Europe to be , and there just aren't that many travellers on that route to begin with, much less the type of traveller where that time:dollar ratio would make even the slightest sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top