Edited October 11, 20205 yr by martin-w

 

Clearly pinching bits of Concorde design - that wing looks very familiar. As for the CG mock up of the Overture - Concorde landing gear anyone?

...If it ain't broke... 🍻

Looking forward to seeing that XB-1 with all three burners lit..

The wing looks less complex than Concorde, probably because it won't have to support the same weight with it being small in comparison.  

Surely they don't need reheat? That should have been the first thing to say "we need to do without this" especially as the "B" model Concorde (set to be the next off the line that never happened) was to have reheat deleted.  This would have reduced fuel burn and noise considerably and could have made the aircraft a bigger success than it was. 

20 hours ago, HighBypass said:

Clearly pinching bits of Concorde design - that wing looks very familiar.

 

I guess it has to due to the aerodynamic requirements of supersonic flight.

Im wondering how, with the full size version, they will handle to lack of visibility when landing, due to the high angle of attack. A tilting nose like Concorde adds weight and complexity. Wondering if they will adopt the video camera solution that's sometimes proposed. 

18 hours ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

 

Surely they don't need reheat? That should have been the first thing to say "we need to do without this" especially as the "B" model Concorde (set to be the next off the line that never happened) was to have reheat deleted.  This would have reduced fuel burn and noise considerably and could have made the aircraft a bigger success than it was. 

 

Don't think they are using an afterburner for the full size version. Seems its just the smaller prototype, I think they will be using different engines for the final product.

 

https://blog.boomsupersonic.com/why-we-dont-need-an-afterburner-a4e05943b101

From that article

Quote

Besides being loud, afterburners are horribly inefficient.

So why do air superiority fighters have them? No other choice due to space constraints?

4 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

From that article

So why do air superiority fighters have them? No other choice due to space constraints?

 

Air superiority fighters do have them, but these days, for example the F22, they have supercruise too. The advantage is in terms of greater take-off weight and the availability of a quick burst of thrust when required. Rather than in terms of top speed. 

48 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Wondering if they will adopt the video camera solution that's sometimes proposed. 

That is precisely what they are using, even in the smaller prototype.

As for the engines on the full-size version, those will be supplied by Rolls-Royce. They chose the GE engines for the small-scale prototype for reasons of cost and availability...

2 hours ago, HighBypass said:

From that article

So why do air superiority fighters have them? No other choice due to space constraints?

Probably the same reason as Concorde had them - a huge thrust increase while adding very little weight or engine complexity.  Of course the military don't pass the cost of fuel onto passengers either.....

Concorde's reheat added around 22% thrust at takeoff while doubling fuel burn.  In flight it was wound down to around 7% (if I remember correctly) but it still doubled the fuel burn!  Hence it was used sparingly. 

Interesting to hear that the F22 can supercruise as for 30 odd years Concorde was the only aircraft that could!  I wonder how long they can cruise for?

1 hour ago, n4gix said:

That is precisely what they are using, even in the smaller prototype.

As for the engines on the full-size version, those will be supplied by Rolls-Royce. They chose the GE engines for the small-scale prototype for reasons of cost and availability...

 

Oh right. Thanks bill. 👍

34 minutes ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

 

Interesting to hear that the F22 can supercruise as for 30 odd years Concorde was the only aircraft that could!  I wonder how long they can cruise for?

 

The F22 can supercruise  and remain supersonic without speed bleeding off IIRC. In fact its claimed the F22 maintained Mach 1.5 in development without the burner. 

The F35 of course has supercruise too but I recall  the speed does bleed and they drop below supersonic eventually. 

The Typhoon can also supercruise with a useful weapon load, not sure if it can sustain it.

I guess the true specs are probably classified. 

Edited October 12, 20205 yr by martin-w

32 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

The F22 can supercruise  and remain supersonic without speed bleeding off IIRC. In fact its claimed the F22 maintained Mach 1.5 in development without the burner. 

The F35 of course has supercruise too but I recall  the speed does bleed and they drop below supersonic eventually. 

The Typhoon can also supercruise with a useful weapon load, not sure if it can sustain it.

I guess the true specs are probably classified. 

Thanks for that info.   Sounds like they still haven't figured out how to control shockwaves in an intake to slow the air and induce pressure recovery enough to supercruise in the true sense of the word, or I would expect them to be like mini Concordes.  Mind you, they maybe don't want to be able to supercruise anyway. 

I wonder if the XB-1 is using this Concorde tech or not. 

17 hours ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

Sounds like they still haven't figured out how to control shockwaves in an intake to slow the air and induce pressure recovery enough to supercruise in the true sense of the word

 

The F22 has.

Maintained supercruise at Mach 1.5 with a weapons load and reasonable fuel. Mach 1.8 has been claimed. 

Some of the Russian jets have supercruise too. I recall the Flanker does. 

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

The F22 has.

Maintained supercruise at Mach 1.5 with a weapons load and reasonable fuel. Mach 1.8 has been claimed. 

Some of the Russian jets have supercruise too. I recall the Flanker does. 

I would be interested to know what the surge margins/occurrences are like and how long they can supercruise for.  Still don't think they'll be flying at and all up weight of around 160 tonnes when they are at the start of their cruise though...

Interestingly, the Russians wanted to buy the air intake control system from BAC to make their TU144 supercruise but the government considered it sensitive and said no.  Probably just as well.  They also wanted to buy our Autothrottle system...in fact I often wondered why they didn't just buy a Concorde and be done with it!!

If they have managed to make it work, I wonder if they had access to any documents from the past......