hypersonic flight

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by tiger stacker, Aug 14, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Viable by 2050, not good enough just tart Concorde up I can't wait that long and neither will my liver.
  2. I have been drumming my fingers waiting for this stuff to mature into a viable technology since I was a kid.
  3. Exactly, there was a lot of UK research into ramjet and other hypersonic propulsion in the 1950s. There were good reasons why it was impossible then and most haven't gone away - acceleration to flight speed, airframe heating and strength and so on.
  4. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    It shares somethign with cold fusion, in that it's been 'just a few years away' for something like half a century or more.

    I'm not so sure that the obstacles were so much engineering as financial though, Gluteus Maximus. There's been plenty of engineering talent has looked at this. Off the top of my head and just in the UK, Barnes Wallis was starting to look at the idea of something that'd do London to Sydney in just two or three hours when he died, and British Aerospace had HOTOL back in the 1980s (HOTOL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

    As ever, who's going to pay for the development, and what's its financial viability once it's been built and proven? Remember that Concorde worked but was badly stung by Not Invented Here syndrome.
  5. Shouldnt they be concentrating on fixing the F-35 and getting their nation off food stamps?
  6. It will end up with the passenger spending longer in security, passport control and the departure lounge than they will actually flying...

  7. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    Too true, unfortunately.
  8. Cold Collation, there's a good summary of the UK work in 'British Secret Projects, Hypersonics, Ramjets & Missiles by Chris Gibson and Tony Buttler, Midland Publishing 2007. It's a while since I read it but one of my 'and so ons' is the effect of g on passengers: can you imagine the chubbies dropping in droves with DVTs?

    Good points though!
  9. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    I see a cure for the obesity problem. Best of all, they just get dropped off for disposal/rendering at the far end. :-D
  10. maguire

    maguire LE Book Reviewer

    is it the future? not really. it's always going to have very limited applications IMHO, or aircraft would have been trending this way for quite some time. Instead, Concorde and the TU-144 have been very much one offs in the civil arena, as has the SR-71 on the military side of things. The MiG-25 was deployed to combat prospective fleets of B-70 Valkyries which never materialised...every military fast jet since then (excepting the Aurora... ;) ) has had an airframe and engine designed for the Mach 2 regime at the outside. the faster you go, the more it costs, for very little practical gain.
  11. Feast your eyes - the people who designed HOTOL went on to design something a bit more modern, having formed Reaction Engines.

    Skylon (a spaceplane)

    LAPCAT A2 (a Mach 5 airliner)
  12. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    Still comes down to cost point (and not being greedy), doesn't it? At present, the only people happy to shoulder the cost are government/military for strategic strike. But if you can make London to Sydney or London to Los Angeles (as examples) pay commercially (no jet lag, etc...) then great. Until then, it's just a technological curio.
  13. maguire

    maguire LE Book Reviewer

    thats exactly it though- if BA had been forced to take on the r&d costs and the charges incurred to bring Concorde into service, it would never have run at a profit. to make such a service pay commercially, you'll either need massive uptake or have to charge shedloads - probably a mixture of both. I cant see the man in the street being willing to pay those prices when he goes on holiday, and I cant see many businesses being happy to let their staff fly at vastly inflated prices (unless theyre at the top of their corporate food chain). far more cost effective to tell your staff to either videoconference it, or if they absolutely HAVE to be there, fly them regular business class.
  14. You only get the effects of g during acceleration, deceleration or change in direction. At 9.81 m/s/s, 1g is nothing, and anything accelerating at that constant rate for 204 seconds (3 mins 24 secs), from a standing start, would achieve 4500 mph.

    If you accelerated at half that rate it would take about 6 mins 30 secs and you probably wouldn't even notice (as long as the airframe could take it).