2 hours from NYC to Tokyo (Hypersonic age is near)

[mpenguin1]

Silver Bullet: If it works, the HTV-3X will be the first reusable scramjet-powered plane. It will be able to take off from a runway, fly at speeds of up to Mach 6, land safely, and then do it again.

The Hypersonic Age is Near

Recent breakthroughs in scramjet engines could mean two-hour flights from New York to Tokyo. They could also mean missiles capable of striking any continent in a moment's notice. No wonder the race to develop them is as fierce as ever.

To put things in context, the world's fastest jet, the Air Force's SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, set a speed record of Mach 3.3 in 1990 when it flew from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., in just over an hour. That's about the limit for jet engines; the fastest fighter planes barely crack Mach 1.6. Scramjets, on the other hand, can theoretically fly as fast as Mach 15—nearly 10,000 mph.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviatio...cbccdrcrd.html

[sdfcvoh]

Seriously awesome... but realistically? About the time Doug is passing this forum off to some newbee (while he's sh!++!ng himself wild) this will be the newest rage thats already killed half a dozen fools.

Honestly - once we get into hyperspace, it's so much more than jet engines. Folks need to look at the properties of magnetism (in relation to negative gravity) and those properties. Why do the planets rotate? Figure it out, grab one billionth of it, rock and roll.

Me? I haven't a clue. I'm just dangerous.

[RPJ]

I see this technology being primarily used for missiles. Or at least in the near future..

[Gumps]

Will an RJ course be required to fly these things?

[SkyCougar]

Originally Posted by sdfcvoh

Honestly - once we get into hyperspace, it's so much more than jet engines. Folks need to look at the properties of magnetism (in relation to negative gravity) and those properties. Why do the planets rotate? Figure it out, grab one billionth of it, rock and roll.

I wonder if when we get to hyperspace if it's going to look like what we envisioned it would look like in the movies we made?

I will volunteer to find out!

[Bumblebee]

Originally Posted by SkyCougar

I wonder if when we get to hyperspace if it's going to look like what we envisioned it would look like in the movies we made?

I will volunteer to find out!

It looks just like that . . .


Actually, flying through snow is very much like the Millinnium Falcon jumping into hyperspace . . . very surreal.

[greaper007]

Well they'll have to at least quadruple our hourly pay!

Unless it's just a Delta Tokyo shuttle.

[mtsu_av8er]

In the future, people won't travel in planes that fly to the destination - only planes that might have flown to the destination.

[mikecweb]

Originally Posted by mtsu_av8er

In the future, people won't travel in planes that fly to the destination - only planes that might have flown to the destination.

Huh?
Have another.
Or maybe I've had too many but that don't make no sense yo.

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by mpenguin1

That's about the limit for jet engines; the fastest fighter planes barely crack Mach 1.6.

Huh? I guess they never heard of the F-4, F-15, F-104, MiG-25, F-111 or Mirage 5. All of which exceeded M2.

In all seriousness, I am greatly disappointed that this industry has not used the technology available. We broke the sound barrier over 60 years ago. The SR71 was operational over 50 years ago and the Concorde has been used and retired. Why are airliners still plodding along the same speed (or less) than the first generation airliners of the 60s?!?!?!?
Even modern fighters (F22/35) aren't as fast as previous generations. I've been hearing about supersonic pax jets, US Space plane, and hypersonic this and that since the 1980s. I would have like to see one before I retire.

Why is it that planes designed by slide rules and paper were built/flown in less than 1-2 years, but CAD designed airplanes and modern factories can't get one out in less than 10 years?

[killbilly]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

It looks just like that . . .


Actually, flying through snow is very much like the Millinnium Falcon jumping into hyperspace . . . very surreal.

At relativistic speeds, time runs slower, so you'll actually make less money.

Unless your contract with the airline stipulates "block or better, relative to destination airport" or something like that. Then you're makin' bank!

[Realms09]

Originally Posted by NJA_Capt

Huh? I guess they never heard of the F-4, F-15, F-104, MiG-25, F-111 or Mirage 5. All of which exceeded M2.

In all seriousness, I am greatly disappointed that this industry has not used the technology available. We broke the sound barrier over 60 years ago. The SR71 was operational over 50 years ago and the Concorde has been used and retired. Why are airliners still plodding along the same speed (or less) than the first generation airliners of the 60s?!?!?!?
Even modern fighters (F22/35) aren't as fast as previous generations. I've been hearing about supersonic pax jets, US Space plane, and hypersonic this and that since the 1980s. I would have like to see one before I retire.

Why is it that planes designed by slide rules and paper were built/flown in less than 1-2 years, but CAD designed airplanes and modern factories can't get one out in less than 10 years?

You act like the transonic drag rise is easy to defeat, and that people want to pay more to go faster

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by Realms09

...and that people want to pay more to go faster

As a matter of fact, I might know a little about people paying more to go faster.

Our company is very involved with several manufacturers in the development of a SS Business jet. If it is built, we will buy it.

[SkyCougar]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

It looks just like that . . .


Actually, flying through snow is very much like the Millinnium Falcon jumping into hyperspace . . . very surreal.

I bet! One of these days, somehow, I'm going to ride in the cockpit of a jet and find out! - It will probably have to be on a client's charter jet though.

[Realms09]

Originally Posted by NJA_Capt

As a matter of fact, I might know a little about people paying more to go faster.

Our company is very involved with several manufacturers in the development of a SS Business jet. If it is built, we will buy it.

I have a lot of hope for the technology of the Aerion, provided the design firm finds a good manufacturing partner. Historically when manufacturers begin a SS trade study they have been unrealistically ambitious and as a result nothing ever comes to fruition. By lowering the target speed to Mach 1.6 and keeping the aircraft small things start to make a lot more sense. I'm pulling for you getting to fly one

As for as scramjet hypersonic vehicles go - 20 billion dollars and 20 years of research away.

If the commercial suborbital space market develops maybe we can get that service kick started with rocket based vehicles.

[secretapproach]

Originally Posted by NJA_Capt

In all seriousness, I am greatly disappointed that this industry has not used the technology available. We broke the sound barrier over 60 years ago. The SR71 was operational over 50 years ago and the Concorde has been used and retired. Why are airliners still plodding along the same speed (or less) than the first generation airliners of the 60s?!?!?!?
Even modern fighters (F22/35) aren't as fast as previous generations. I've been hearing about supersonic pax jets, US Space plane, and hypersonic this and that since the 1980s. I would have like to see one before I retire.

As far as I have heard, the lack of fast planes, especially airliners, is because of the fuel burn at those high speeds. Future planes using open rotor engines will probably fly even a little bit slower and lower than current jets. Flying lower would be to keep the emissions in the lower part of the atmosphere to reduce the negative effect. So it'll take longer to get where you're going but you'll burn something like 40% less fuel.

[NJA_Capt]

Originally Posted by secretapproach

Future planes using open rotor engines will probably fly even a little bit slower and lower than current jets.

If by open rotor you mean the UHB/UDF fan tests conducted by Boeing and MD. Those programs were tested and scrapped in the late 1980s. No-one to my knowledge is even considering those currently.
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?album=1685

I'll pass on the lower and slower/less fuel discussion. There are too many holes in that theory. People fly to save time. Comfort and class have already been removed from airlines, take away speed and you have no reason to fly.

Ever wonder where the ERJ135 originated?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0386521/L/

[secretapproach]

Originally Posted by NJA_Capt

If by open rotor you mean the UHB/UDF fan tests conducted by Boeing and MD. Those programs were tested and scrapped in the late 1980s. No-one to my knowledge is even considering those currently.
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?album=1685

I'll pass on the lower and slower/less fuel discussion. There are too many holes in that theory. People fly to save time. Comfort and class have already been removed from airlines, take away speed and you have no reason to fly.

Ever wonder where the ERJ135 originated?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0386521/L/

What do you mean by "holes" in the slower/lower theory? I'm not talking about airliners flying C172 speeds, but rather somewhat slower than current jet aircraft. The shorter the sector length, the less time penalty that causes. Even if aircraft were slightly slower than now, they would still be the fastest alternative by far for trip lengths of more than, say, 500 miles (in the US without fast train service). Faster is better, of course, but fuel prices and environmental regulations will be large factors in how transportation options develop.

Open rotor research is alive and well, and is considered a critical timing factor for Boeing and Airbus to introduce their narrobody (737/A320) replacements. A large part of the reason that those older research programs into open rotor design were scrapped is because the efficiency gains were not needed with the low fuel prices of the time. There is currently great interest in open rotor technology from aircraft manufacturers and much research is going into it by the engine manufacturers. P&W is the exception, as they are trying to sell the industry on the geared turbofan (GTF), which is a technology that will be ready for primetime several years ahead of open rotor/unducted fans (UDF). If Boeing and Airbus decide to go for the GTF over the open rotor engines, they could probably introduce the next generation narrowbodies around 2014-2016 instead of 2017-2020. It remains to be seen, however, whether the GTF can deliver the efficiency gains that the UDF designs promise.

The combination of high fuel prices and new environmental regulations will very likely make the use of a new type of engine necessary. The next few years of research and testing of these new engine types should be interesting. There's a good chance that aircraft rolling off the production line around 2017 will look a lot different than the ones rolling off today.

Here are a few articles on the subject:

http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/s...0Narrow%20Body

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...t-engines.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...163/pratt.html

http://www.aviation.com/technology/0...t_ecojet2.html

[RiverHill]

Even modern fighters (F22/35) aren't as fast as previous generations.

Actually, the F-22 can cruise at Mach 1.72 with a full internal load. F-35 carrying a full internal load can fly just as fast as any other fighter, though it may not be abled to break Mach 2.

[NJT916]

Originally Posted by Gumps

Will an RJ course be required to fly these things?

Not sure, but I think ATP is already thinking about raising their price in anticipation.