Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[F-ZeroOne]

Probably. Once its in service. Funding it to start with, though... Last I heard, both us Europeans and the Japanese had been looking at concepts.

[Sildani]

Caught this flying over Dulles this morning around 10:30. It's a very cool plane, very sorry I couldn't get a better shot.

In case you can't quite make it out, it was an Airbus A400M.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Looks like some people with big money want to get the Concorde back in the air again.

http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/concorde-will-fly-again-says-group-with-massive-war-ch-1731681175?rev=1442606525838

My question is given the recent technological advancements wouldn't it be possible to make a supersonic passenger liner more efficient and a lot less expensive than the Concorde?

Theoretically maybe, though in reality the only likely improvements you'd find for such an aircraft would be in the computerized controls portion. With modern computing, it would be easy to completely get rid of the fuel panel and all the engineering junk, and replace the analog fly by wire system with an active digital system that's even more capable of flying the plane efficiently, and these would see some gains to be sure. But the main efficiency drains would still exist: tons and tons of drag inherent to supersonic flight, and the general inefficiency of turbojets, especially at low speed.

For all of NASA and others' research, the overarching conclusion still seems to be that high fineness is the best thing to do for supersonic flight. Concorde has that figured out, with about as much fineness as you can get away with in a passenger liner, so a new model won't be able to capitalize beyond that by too great a degree. And, of course, to maintain that low profile that doesn't generate tons and tons of drag, you need engines that don't present a large profile, so you have to go with turbojets or inefficient and noisy super-low-bypass turbofans like you see in fighter jets. And frankly, turbojets are probably the better option here, because for their size, the RR/Snecma Olympus 593 was a bunch more powerful than most afterburning turbofans available today. The same would likely be true of a modern replacement, but I really wonder about gains that could be had in efficiency. Turbine engines have always been rather efficient at high speed. It's just that you need 4 engines' worth of turbine running at all the power in the world to maintain supersonic flight for 100 passengers. Which means you're burning all the fuel ever to get 100 people transatlantic in only about half the time of more practical jetliners which can carry 4 times as many people on only marginally more fuel in still only 6 hours.

Ultimately, I don't know if enough efficiency can be wrung out of a supersonic jetliner to make it totally practical next to superliners like the 747-8 and A380, but I don't think that's any reason not to continue engineering, building, and flying these kinds of planes. Why should we be caught out by feelings of "we can't" when we should really be asking "why not?"

[frothymug]

One thing that is lacking in the supersonic jetliner is that there is no business case. Yes, we all know British Airways turned a profit from their Concorde fleet, but how much investment is going to be needed for a completely new program? How many decades of operation will there need to be in order to make a return on that investment? By that time, the fleet will have aged beyond any maintenance capability and will need to be retired.

As Schizo said, current jetliners seem to be satisfying the demands of 99% of the travel population. A supersonic jetliner will only cater to those who can afford the extra cash to save themselves a couple of hours on a flight.

Now, a supersonic BUSINESS jet might be able to find a niche market. People are willing to pay $65 million for a Gulfstream G650, which can go up to Mach 0.925. How much would you pay for a supersonic business jet? $100 million seems kind of reasonable, when compared the price tags of the most expensive transonic jets. You might be able to get twice that from some customers who just want to say that their jet can go Mach 1.6 or 2.0 or whatever...

Edited September 20, 2015 by frothymug

[SchizophrenicMC]

One thing that is lacking in the supersonic jetliner is that there is no business case. Yes, we all know British Airways turned a profit from their Concorde fleet, but how much investment is going to be needed for a completely new program? How many decades of operation will there need to be in order to make a return on that investment? By that time, the fleet will have aged beyond any maintenance capability and will need to be retired.

As Schizo said, current jetliners seem to be satisfying the demands of 99% of the travel population. A supersonic jetliner will only cater to those who can afford the extra cash to save themselves a couple of hours on a flight.

Now, a supersonic BUSINESS jet might be able to find a niche market. People are willing to pay $65 million for a Gulfstream G650, which can go up to Mach 0.925. How much would you pay for a supersonic business jet? $100 million seems kind of reasonable, when compared the price tags of the most expensive transonic jets. You might be able to get twice that from some customers who just want to say that their jet can go Mach 1.6 or 2.0 or whatever...

Well it's funny you say that because, frankly, Concorde was profitable. There is a business case for Concorde. There are enough people who are willing to pay a high enough price to ignore cost index to get from London to New York in 3 hours instead of 6-8. Even today.

There are really only 2 problems I foresee with supersonic jetliners: building in enough range to cross the Pacific ocean, and the long-standing US ban on overland supersonic flight. These problems restrict supersonic flight to really only one viable route: London to New York. San Francisco or LA to Tokyo is too far, and New York to LA is restricted to subsonic flight by law. There are large markets of people who would pay the absurd premium to fly supersonic from coast to coast in the US, but who can't because it's illegal. There are enormous amounts of people who would pay the premium to get from LA to Tokyo in 5 hours instead of the present 12, but that's not viable because the amount of fuel you'd have to carry gets you into Rocket Equation problems.

If those two problems can be addressed, supersonic travel may yet open up to the world again. Because there are literally billions of dollars waiting to be spent to get from major business center to major business center in short order. Concorde proved the concept can be profitable, now the concept needs to be expanded to the scale it deserves.

[renegadeleader1]

Since we are talking about fastest passenger liners its got me also pulling a 180 and thinking about the slowest... Airships like the Zeppelins.

How feasable do you think it would be to create an airship cruise liner that could match the capacity and amenities of a decent sized ocean cruise ship? Say about 500-800 passengers, a similar number of crew, and things like pools, cabins, restaurants or ballrooms?

Can a double hulled(bagged I guess is what I'm asking) work? Any idea how much lift would be needed?

I know I'm a dreamer and a romantic, but I think it would be an amazing experience to take a trip on a massive luxury airship. Imagine standing on an observation deck as a pod of whales swim in the ocean below as you steadily make your way to the Bahamas.

[sketchley]

Since we are talking about fastest passenger liners its got me also pulling a 180 and thinking about the slowest... Airships like the Zeppelins.

How feasable do you think it would be to create an airship cruise liner that could match the capacity and amenities of a decent sized ocean cruise ship? Say about 500-800 passengers, a similar number of crew, and things like pools, cabins, restaurants or ballrooms?

Can a double hulled(bagged I guess is what I'm asking) work? Any idea how much lift would be needed?

I know I'm a dreamer and a romantic, but I think it would be an amazing experience to take a trip on a massive luxury airship. Imagine standing on an observation deck as a pod of whales swim in the ocean below as you steadily make your way to the Bahamas.

I'm not sure about the 500 to 800 passenger size, but there was a show on the Discovery channel about using a modernly designed airship for heavy transport. Given such a capability, it shouldn't be a problem for up to a quarter of your inquired passenger number.

Mind you, as its a modern design using modern technologies, the airship shape is quite different from the classic zeppelin design.

Edited September 20, 2015 by sketchley

[Shadow]

The skies over Syria could be getting crowded.

http://www.voanews.com/content/russia-eyeing-payoff-military-buildup-syria/2968799.html

[frothymug]

Well it's funny you say that because, frankly, Concorde was profitable. There is a business case for Concorde.

I did say that BA made a profit, albeit by a slim margin. Just not lucrative enough for anyone to want to try again.

[Vifam7]

I did say that BA made a profit, albeit by a slim margin. Just not lucrative enough for anyone to want to try again.

Not to mention that the development of the Concorde was subsidized by the French and British governments. No Western government is going to do that today. And there's no way Boeing or Airbus is going to risk their own money on a supersonic airliner.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Subsidized or not, they were flying full Concordes until the end. I doubt if there was ever a regular non-charter Concorde flight that didn't have every seat booked. The market is there. It just hasn't been capitalized upon.

I still think there's something to this supersonic transport business. Even if it is just a statement of "we do it because we can." I think that sentiment has been sorely lacking of late. People always want to cut back and play sensible. They don't want to do the crazy, extravagant, groundbreaking scientific efforts anymore. We're all content with our new smartphone and bloatmobile car, sipping our chai latte or whatever. We're certainly not excited about anything significant, like the mission to the moon we're planning. Nobody is particularly enthused at Airbus' recent hypersonic transport patent. The world entirely glossed over the probe that just took close-up pictures of Pluto, which people have stopped insisting is a planet because they don't care anymore. And it seems all the people who do notice these things are the people protesting the progress we can make by pursuing these achievements. People who say we need to cut back instead of move forward.

I say, damn the consequences, let's build a supersonic jetliner. Let's build New Concorde. We need grace in the skies again, and to prove that we can do something of that magnitude, just because we can. Isn't it our nature as humans to accept the challenge because it's hard? Money and sensibility be damned. People will be inspired, and they will flock from all around to fly on the wings of something like this. That's the kind of spirit we need if we want to keep from burning our environment out of usability in the next 50 years.

Sorry for the rant. I work overnights, and for me it's like 3:00 AM right now.

[mickyg]

Apology NOT accepted.

We definitely need more forward thinking (and thinkers) like this these days. I couldn't agree more with what you're saying. Absolutely agree that inspiration is lacking in a lot of what I commonly see. I have to believe that it still exists and is alive and well somewhere but damn if it's not much harder to find these days than it used to be.

So no, I think you should definitely not be apologising. Celebrate that way of thinking and use it to get sh!t done, I say.

Well said. Just in case I was vague.

[frothymug]

I'll be sure to recruit you for the business pitch when I get a hand in designing the next generation passenger transport... if and when that actually happens...

I'm all for taking chances and braving new paths in science. It's one of the very few reasons I appreciate Elon Musk and his efforts, but we also have to beware of flim-flam designs that constantly show up on the internet. Some of these designs are so poorly-made, but get so much hype from people who don't know jack crap about engineering. I can come up with a few quick examples off the top of my head. The most recent one is the Terrafugia TF-X. Flying cars will NEVER be marketable until we invent some kind of antigravity system, or super-miniaturize high-output engines. This one is just another pathetic attempt at grabbing investor cash from anyone dumb enough to open their checkbook.

[505thAirborne]

Caught this flying over Dulles this morning around 10:30. It's a very cool plane, very sorry I couldn't get a better shot.

image.jpeg

In case you can't quite make it out, it was an Airbus A400M.

Nice pic, you don't see those everyday! I'll have to keep my camera handy next time some A-10's or F-16's fly over my house!

[SchizophrenicMC]

I'll be sure to recruit you for the business pitch when I get a hand in designing the next generation passenger transport... if and when that actually happens...

I'm all for taking chances and braving new paths in science. It's one of the very few reasons I appreciate Elon Musk and his efforts, but we also have to beware of flim-flam designs that constantly show up on the internet. Some of these designs are so poorly-made, but get so much hype from people who don't know jack crap about engineering. I can come up with a few quick examples off the top of my head. The most recent one is the Terrafugia TF-X. Flying cars will NEVER be marketable until we invent some kind of antigravity system, or super-miniaturize high-output engines. This one is just another pathetic attempt at grabbing investor cash from anyone dumb enough to open their checkbook.

Flim-flam designs showing up constantly on the internet with poor engineering, as the independent clause of a sentence involving Elon Musk?

The dude thinks big, but he's got no idea what engineering is. He's a dot-com-boom marketing guy, not an engineer, which is why he's great at stirring people up, and bad at delivering on the technological promises he loves making. The amount of energy it'd take to pump all the air out of a thousand-mile-long tube and maintain a vacuum is more than what it'd take to just push the bullet train you're thinking of through the air. Batteries aren't NEARLY there to make a $30,000 EV with the range you're looking for. We will not be going to Mars within your budget, and not inside of your rocket, which costs more than Boeing's rockets and doesn't work as well or as often.

As far as I'm concerned, Elon Musk's popularity isn't due to substance, but just a cult of personality. People swoon for the eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes persona. At least Howard Hughes built cool stuff that worked. The only reason Tesla Motors is popular is because the name conjures images of America's favorite mad scientist. He's kinda bad at running a profitable business, but he's probably a marketing genius. That deserves some credit. But let's not give him credit where it's not due.

Not to mention, he's never stood up and said "let's build Concorde". Probably because he's Swedish and anti-Concorde. Damned Swedes.

[spanner]

Nice pic, you don't see those everyday! I'll have to keep my camera handy next time some A-10's or F-16's fly over my house!

I'd love to have something even remotely as interesting as an A-10 or F-16 fly over my place.. we use to get F-18's fly over somewhat regularly but its been fairly quiet of late..

[frothymug]

I wasn't really praising Musk for what's been produced under his watch... merely for his willingness to push ideas that don't yet have a lot of merit in the name of progress. I'm not a fan of SpaceX's design decisions to implement pure propulsive landing in their rocket boosters and cargo/passenger capsules. IMO, Blue Origin's New Shepard is a more pragmatic approach to increasing the number of flights in the fleet to bring down the cost of putting material into orbit. Musk is, as you said, a cult of personality. He knows how to operate the hype train with the best of them, that's for sure. I have traded some e-mails with an industry vet who works at Aerojet Rocketdyne, and he told me something along the lines of, "To be frank, nobody know's how SpaceX is actually MAKING any money right now."

SpaceX is doing some cool stuff, but something seems off about them; they seem mostly legit. I wouldn't turn down a job offer from them, though.

[SchizophrenicMC]

You probably should turn down a job offer from SpaceX, considering they only pay their engineers $70,000 a year to live in Palo Alto, where $70,000 gets you about as far as $30,000 in most of the country.

[reddsun1]

Took my son to the air show this weekend. Sorta on the spur of the moment, went on Sunday as well as Saturday. Took a ride on a Huey--worth every cent. As we walked out to load on the chopper, I was thinking: man, this is a mistake; you're gonna scare the boy to death, he's only 6. Hell, the boy's even more insane than me, it appears. Grinned from ear to ear the whole time, an' all he could say during and after the flight was: "isn't/wasn't that awesome, dad? aren't you glad we did this? that was so awesome!"

It was hard not to well-up a little as I shook hands and thanked the pilot & crew afterwards. They sat us in the gun-well; I finally got to see if from my father's point of view.

[frothymug]

You probably should turn down a job offer from SpaceX, considering they only pay their engineers $70,000 a year to live in Palo Alto, where $70,000 gets you about as far as $30,000 in most of the country.

Do they require you to live in PA? Isn't that a very high-income neighborhood? I mean, Torrance is at the bottom of the hill and that place is a shithole by comparison. At least you are near the ocean... and the MW Con

Edited September 24, 2015 by frothymug

[SchizophrenicMC]

You don't have to live there, but you do have to be able to commute to work every day, and because Silicon Valley, it doesn't get cheaper enough in the surrounding area to make $70,000 worth that much as an aerospace engineer. It wouldn't be so bad in Fort Worth or Cleveland or even Redmond, Washington. But $70k within reasonable driving distance of Palo Alto is pretty weak.

[Knight26]

That is the case for a lot of engineers in SoCal though. I made more than that working at EAFB and on my income alone it was hard living. Moving up to the Seattle area has been much better for us, despite CoL being about the same. But up here we can make it work much better on a single income. The 70K AeroEngr in SoCal is still based on the idea of a multi-income household. But then I am pretty anti-SoCal, always have been.

[miles316]

Yea my Brother lives neer San DIego and his NAVY Pention does not cover his Living expenses.

[frothymug]

Knight26, where are you living at?

I haven't used my car since moving here... mostly because it needs a new hydraulic clutch slave cylinder, but I can get anywhere I need to go by bicycle or mass transit. I'm saving ass-tons of money on not having to buy gas. UW gives me an unlimited transit pass, so it's basically free.

[Knight26]

Knight26, where are you living at?

I haven't used my car since moving here... mostly because it needs a new hydraulic clutch slave cylinder, but I can get anywhere I need to go by bicycle or mass transit. I'm saving ass-tons of money on not having to buy gas. UW gives me an unlimited transit pass, so it's basically free.

I live over in Silverdale, near Bremerton, but take a vanpool to Renton where I now work for the FAA. I get reimbursed for that, it's great. If our new building was nearer to the ferry terminal I would just take that once we move. It is so much nicer up here I can't believe it.

[frothymug]

If you get reimbursed for travel, why not take a beautiful boat ride to and from work every day?? I'm also enjoying the environment out here. I loved Texas, but I think I will do just great here too.

So, building off of one of my recent posts, do you guys ever find out about concept designs being pitched to the public and just roll your eyes as you watch a video or read a description?

[Knight26]

If you get reimbursed for travel, why not take a beautiful boat ride to and from work every day?? I'm also enjoying the environment out here. I loved Texas, but I think I will do just great here too.

So, building off of one of my recent posts, do you guys ever find out about concept designs being pitched to the public and just roll your eyes as you watch a video or read a description?

The FAA office is in Renton, too far from the ferry docks to walk, and it costs a lot more to drive a vehicle across.

[frothymug]

Sorry, I was just musing as if that was an ideal situation.

[SchizophrenicMC]

If you get reimbursed for travel, why not take a beautiful boat ride to and from work every day?? I'm also enjoying the environment out here. I loved Texas, but I think I will do just great here too.

So, building off of one of my recent posts, do you guys ever find out about concept designs being pitched to the public and just roll your eyes as you watch a video or read a description?

I feel you there. Texas is a lot nicer than the pundits would have you believe, but western Washington is just gorgeous, and in many ways better-sorted than Texas. I bet the temperatures are reasonable there right now too. It's 90 right now in Arlington.

[Thom]

Saw this in a model mag. Thought it was a revamped Huey, but turns out its a new-built variant. Looks pretty cool. The UH-1Y Venom

Edited September 26, 2015 by Thom

[Knight26]

The Yankee Huey and Zulu Cobra have been flying since the early 2000s. They feature a common engine and tail block, great concept and the Marines are loving them.

[spanner]

That looks cool! Always been a big fan of the Huey! and the Cobra for that matter!

[Thom]

I just haven't seen any of them until now. I thought the Hueys were all gone from service. Makes me wonder about some movies, like Battle LA, when they show the old Hueys rather than newer Blackhawks, why didn't they just CGI them look like Venoms?

Edited September 27, 2015 by Thom

[grigolosi]

They are being built in such a small number (160 aircraft). The producers of the movies probably didn't even know they were being made or even used by the Marines since every time you see a US military attack helicopter or transport helicopter it is either an Apache or a Blackhawk due tho the sheer number of them in service.

[F-ZeroOne]

I think the original plan (from memory) was that at least some of them were going to be rebuilds but it turned out to be easier to just make new ones. I do wonder what they're going to do if they have to rebuild the "Z" again, though - Cobra ZZ? Z+? Refined Cobra Z?