London to New York in 1 hour?

[Quattro Pete]

New patent by Airbus:

http://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-ju...n-1-hour-2015-7

Wonder what the ticket price would be.

Quote:
The jet is powered by three different types of engines that work in sequential order to get the craft aloft, into cruising altitude, and then up to its cruising speed of more than 3,000 mph.

To get off the ground, the craft will use two turbojets mounted under the fuselage as well as a rocket motor mounted in the rear. As the Airbus lifts off the runway, it will climb vertically like the Space Shuttle. Right before the jet reaches the speed of sound, the turbojets shut down and retract into the belly of plane — leaving only the rocket motor to guide it up to an altitude of more than 100,000 feet.

At cruising altitude, the rocket motor will shut down and retract into the fuselage. Then the plane's pair of wing-mounted ramjets take over and propel the aircraft to a top speed of Mach 4.5.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Probably no less than $20-25k one way.

 

[DeepFriar]

Well, there would be the higher utilization rate, say 12 flights a day or more, to hold the price down to a more reasonable amount. Like $300K apiece! ;-)

 

[NMBurb02]

With only a proposed passenger complement of 20, it would be pretty expensive. The near vertical climb to 100,000 feet does not sound enjoyable.

 

[440Magnum]

I find it hard to believe that Airbus would move toward a rocket for any part of the lift from ground to high altitude. The rest of the universe is moving AWAY from rockets for the low-altitude part of spaceflight. Its more practical to use jets for low-altitude lift to carry the rocket stage(s) above the bulk of the atmosphere because its so grossly inefficient for a rocket to have to lift the weight of its own oxidizer when a jet can use the oxidizer its flying in. Plus the jet doesn't have to lift the bulk of its working mass, either. Rockets really only make sense in vacuum too hard for a ramjet to work.

 

[SEMI_287]

Looks like a giant pain in the [censored] to me.

 

[Shannow]

Runs on "various sorts of hydrogen"...nuclear rockets, or PC word for "hydrocarbon" ?

 

[Kira]

I'm no aviation buff nor do I have a dog in the fight.
I was wondering if this announcement is just a way for a company to boost its image.

When Saab announced its "hinged head-variable displacement" engine there were many who cried out "publicity release". Kira

 

[BusyLittleShop]

Can I fly it???

 

[LoneRanger]

How could they operate it from the necessary airport hubs? I would think it seems the noise would be louder than even the Concorde was, and Concorde was controversial in the noise department.

 

[emg]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Its more practical to use jets for low-altitude lift to carry the rocket stage(s) above the bulk of the atmosphere because its so grossly inefficient for a rocket to have to lift the weight of its own oxidizer when a jet can use the oxidizer its flying in.


Efficiency is irrelevant so long as fuel only makes up around 1% of the launch cost. That's why the cheapest route to orbit right now is using rockets only about 2/3 as efficient as the Space Shuttle main engines.

Also, with current designs, the first stage's job is to get the second stage out of the atmosphere, where its engines will be more efficient and won't have to work against drag. Jets aren't very good at that, since they need air to operate.

But, yes, routine use of rockets in civil aviation seems... unlikely. It's quite a while since we stopped putting RATO mountings on airliners. My guess is that this is just one of those 'lets patent it so no-one else does' patents.

 

[CT8]

At my age there still needs to be a bathroom.

 

[Rick in PA]

Originally Posted By: CT8
At my age there still needs to be a bathroom.

 

[DeepFriar]

That's wonderful. What a revelation that movie was at the time. I've been a confirmed scifi addict ever since. You can almost hear the Blue Danube Waltz in the background. Thanks for that, I'm gonna watch it again soon!

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
New patent by Airbus:

http://www.businessinsider.com/airbus-ju...n-1-hour-2015-7

Wonder what the ticket price would be.

Quote:
The jet is powered by three different types of engines that work in sequential order to get the craft aloft, into cruising altitude, and then up to its cruising speed of more than 3,000 mph.

To get off the ground, the craft will use two turbojets mounted under the fuselage as well as a rocket motor mounted in the rear. As the Airbus lifts off the runway, it will climb vertically like the Space Shuttle. Right before the jet reaches the speed of sound, the turbojets shut down and retract into the belly of plane — leaving only the rocket motor to guide it up to an altitude of more than 100,000 feet.

At cruising altitude, the rocket motor will shut down and retract into the fuselage. Then the plane's pair of wing-mounted ramjets take over and propel the aircraft to a top speed of Mach 4.5.


And NOTHING can ever go wrong....

 

[CT8]

Not with an Airbus

!

 

[Rick in PA]

Nothing can possibly go worng!

(sorry, I can't resist another old pop culture reference)

 

[stchman]

The math does not make any sense.

The proposed HST by Airbus would only reach mach 4.5, that's not fast enough.

New York to London is about a 3500 mile flight. To achieve this one hour goal, the HST would have to reach speeds of well over 4000MPH. Figure it will take time to reach the cruising altitude and time to descend.

The Concorde could make the flight in about 3.5 hours and that was doing mach 2. In order to make this trip in one hour, a speed of ~mach 6 would need to be achieved.

The speed of sound is not a constant (depends on pressure, temperature, etc.), but it looks like the speed of sounds is ~660MPH once you reach an altitude of 35K feet. The article says that the HST would cruise at an altitude of 100K feet.

This is a great story, but Airbus spent $25B to develop the A380, a HST of this magnitude would cost FAR more to develop.

Good luck.

 

[DeepFriar]

Originally Posted By: stchman
The math does not make any sense.....

This is a great story, but Airbus spent $25B to develop the A380, a HST of this magnitude would cost FAR more to develop.


Airbus has problems with math (as well as software). I recall their CEO stating about 3-4 years back that the 380 would never break even against that development cost no matter how many they might reasonably build. Airbus most often seems more of a European jobs project than a real company. Thr A400M is just the latest example.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Originally Posted By: stchman
The math does not make any sense.....

This is a great story, but Airbus spent $25B to develop the A380, a HST of this magnitude would cost FAR more to develop.


Airbus has problems with math (as well as software). I recall their CEO stating about 3-4 years back that the 380 would never break even against that development cost no matter how many they might reasonably build. Airbus most often seems more of a European jobs project than a real company. The A400M is just the latest example.

gooberment at its finest. we can afford things collectively than we can independently. This ties to the cost of new oil fineries in the new oils pqia post...Deep down inside I want to own at least 1 747 converted to a fire tanker. But I am not wealthy enough to purchase not even 1 but more depressing is I am not smart enough or have the ability to earn the money to buy or support one.