Cool Hypersonic Airplane
- Thread starter gabeti
- Start date
This isn't realistic. The canards on the nose and lack of control surfaces on the tail isn't kosher. the small airfoil surface is fine in a supersonic plane. Remember the "starfighter"or "widowmaker" in the 60's had tiny little wings. The jet powerplants on the wingtips aint too smart either. You want to keep the source of thrust close to the tube of the plane to avoid catastrophic thrust differentials that would tear the plane apart at supersonic speeds. Again back to the canards, these would break the tube in half if they where the only attitude control surfaces on the boat. This design is great for posters and comic books but it would never fly.
The F-104 Starfighter:
http://images.google.com/images?q=F-104&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title
If you watch the movie The Right Stuff, that was the plane that Chuck Yeager used to break the altitude record.
Because of the design of the F-104 (long fuselage and short wings), it was meant for high-altitude interception.
http://images.google.com/images?q=F-104&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title
If you watch the movie The Right Stuff, that was the plane that Chuck Yeager used to break the altitude record.
Because of the design of the F-104 (long fuselage and short wings), it was meant for high-altitude interception.
I wonder how much hydrogen would be on bored... I imagine if things went bad, it would blow up real good!
Didn't the Hindenberg contain a lot of hydrogen?
Didn't the Hindenberg contain a lot of hydrogen?
The Challanger had quite a bit of hydrogen on board
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/movies/51-l-launch1.mpg
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/movies/51-l-launch1.mpg
Well, I guess you know better than the engineers who are developing it....blackdog said:
I mean really, why aren't you working for NASA, Boeing or McDonald Douglas?
For the record: the F-117 wouldn't be able to fly either without the computer control system (anyone remember the flying wing from the 50s??) but it does pretty good considering it is as aerodynamic as a brick and the B-2.....
I also recall someone saying that man would never get off the ground either, I guess we put that myth to shame....
As for the cannards, this isn't the first plane to use forward mounted cannards as attitude control, I think the mirage or Saab has them and also I think there is a russian fighter with them. It has been found they are much more efficient (in terms of handling) than rear mounted.....
But then again, I'm not an armchair engineer with 12 degrees from MIT....
To risk being banned again, the size of the wing is directly proportional to the amount of air moving over them. At mach 5, there is tremendous volume of air travelling over the wing surface and if they wings are too large, they would produce too much drag in relation to lift.
Where's rubmeister when you need him?
Im not going to say where I have worked, but I do know what im talking about. Im just saying that this artists rendition of a supersonic airplane isn't realistic. Yes canards have been around for a long time but they are always off set by another control surface aft of the leading edge of the wing. Small wings are more efficient at high speeds as is seen in modern fighters. There are several supersonic airliner designs floating around that are much more practical than this one. I think this drawing not accurate. Thats all.
Hmmm doesn't seem to be any additional control surfaces on this J-10blackdog said:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img006/j-10_001.jpg
or this X-29
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/foward_sweep/Tech9G3.htm
or this X-31
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-31/Small/EC94-42478-12.jpg
or this typhoon eurofighter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eurofighter_Typhoon_take-off.jpg
Need I go on?
Tboy, on all of those fighters there are control surfaces on the trailing edge of the wings. Its just a fact of aerodynamics that you must balance the forward and rear control surfaces. On planes without canards this isnt an issue because the wings serve as the forward control surfaces. All of the planes that you noted have balanced forward and aft control surfaces. The X-31 has no canards, just a large delta wing with control surfaces on the trailing edge. This is basic stuff guys. That drawing is not a real plane design, the canards are just one problem. The pictures of real planes all follow the rules of aerodynamics. If they didn't they wouldn't build them.
Actually the X-31 did have canards:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-31/Medium/EC93-42152-8.jpg
As for no aft control surfaces, just because the artist didn't put them into the concept drawing doesn't mean the designers won't include them. I think the drawing was only meant to convey the general concept not provide a final design ready for fabrication and flight tests.
As for the engine configuration, the company that created the design is an aerospace company that looks like they have a few people that might know what they're doing.
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html
I can appreciate why you wouldn't want to say where you work but isn't it possible that these guys collectively might know a bit more than you do?
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-31/Medium/EC93-42152-8.jpg
As for no aft control surfaces, just because the artist didn't put them into the concept drawing doesn't mean the designers won't include them. I think the drawing was only meant to convey the general concept not provide a final design ready for fabrication and flight tests.
As for the engine configuration, the company that created the design is an aerospace company that looks like they have a few people that might know what they're doing.
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html
I can appreciate why you wouldn't want to say where you work but isn't it possible that these guys collectively might know a bit more than you do?
Dude, look at the nose of the X-31, those certainly look like attitude control surfaces to me.....man I've got poor eyesight and I can see them....blackdog said:
As for control surfaces on the rear edge of the wings...doh, every plane has them, they are called ailerons.....*shakes head*
And Glaeken's comment:
"I can appreciate why you wouldn't want to say where you work but isn't it possible that these guys collectively might know a bit more than you do?"
Dude, didn't you know that people on the net know much more than the people who actually DO the things that these armchair experts say they know about doing?
Funny, there are so many doubters out there but history has a habit of making fools out of them, for eg:
Star Trek:
Everything in the show was impossible and pure fantasy, yet we now all have personal communicators (cellphones) automatic doors, hyposprays, spray on bandages, MRIs, cutting lasers, etc etc etc
Oh yeah, and the best one of all: no one will every need more than 640K of system memory and the PC is a fad and never catch on.......
