Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Many Big Sonic Airplanes Were Built In US?  
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4009 times:

I mean like, XB-70 had to be the biggest, then maybe B-58 Hustler, etc.

How many others, if any?

Granted 2707-300 was the longest but never flew.  Wink/being sarcastic


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOkie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3963 times:

Don't forget the B1, much larger than the 58.

Okie


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3942 times:

Really? I thought B-1 was the size of a 757?


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineDALMD88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2612 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3928 times:

The 58 was actually rather small compared to the XB-70 and the B-1. I've seen the 58 in person and was suprised how small it was. One is at the Lone Star Flight Museum http://www.lsfm.org/

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2124 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3909 times:

The B-1 is much, much larger than the B-58. For that matter, the SR-71 family, at 107' long and over 140,000lbs is no slouch. 10' longer and almost as heavy as a fully loaded B-58.




Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3893 times:

The DC-8 was a fairly large supersonic aircraft....


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8366 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3891 times:

The DC-8 was a fairly large supersonic aircraft....

By accident....



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3886 times:

Not knocking the SR-71, but the XB-70 was a pretty amazing aircraft. It did more to push the state of the art than almost any other supersonic a/c. At a MGTOW of 550,000 lbs it was by far the heaviest supersonic a/c built in the West. It was designed to carry 25,000 lbs. of bombs 5000 nm at Mach 3+. Unfortunately ship 1 had a number of manufacturing defects (brazing stainless steel honeycomb was a brand new tech) and was limited to Mach 2.7. The airplane is actually more efficient at Mach 3, as compared to 2.7 due to the intricacies of it variable cycle propulsion system (done in the duct vs. done in the engine on the SR-71).

The B-1, another of the Rockwell/North American designs is not only a 450,000 a/c but it has a wing loading from hell, ~255 lb/sq foot. Of course the B-1A seems to have driven the even larger Tu-160, now that is a big airplane.

As for another large supersonic a/c don't forget the A-5/RA-5 also built by North American. It grew out of the Rapier escort fighter design (proposed for the B-70) and was for quite a while the largest carrier born aircraft (it may still be).


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days ago) and read 3671 times:

I have a slightly different question: With what has gone on with the A380 in terms of the 80 x 80 meter box, I've seen bits of research data on NASA's many SST proposals that were recent, like 2002 or 2003; all have scaled drawing/models of machines that are supposed to be over 100 meters in length!

When an SST project develops in the future, will designers scale this idea down or will airports have to deal with a 150 x 300 foot flying football field weighing in around a Boeing 744?

I think I remember an old MD SST design having a conceptually proposed length of 334 feet, 101.2 meters. That is insanity, IMO.  Wow!



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3641 times:

With the high fineness ratio (fuselage length / fuselage diameter) required to keep wave drag under control, there's basically no way around having very long fuselages. For a 300-pax SST, which seems to be the universally agreed-upon optimum size, most designs have a 3-3 or 2-3-2 seating configuration and approach 100 meters in length. Concorde only sat 128 pax (2 classes) and was 204 feet / 61 meters long (about the length of a 767-400 or 777-200!). The upside is that swept wings have much less span than a subsonic, so engine and gate clearances will be lower.

The Boeing SST's length topped out at 318 feet (a whopping 97 meters) on the 2707-200, which was 12 feet longer than the -100. The long fuselage actually led to the downfall of the swing wing design. The engines had to be mounted on the tailplane (engines on pivoting wings doesn't work too well), meaning the center of gravity was quite far aft. This required very large elevators to overcome the short moment arm. In extreme maneuvers, the force exerted on the tail caused an elastic bending response in the long fuselage. The extra strengthening needed to reinforce the fuselage basically eliminated the 2707's payload, and the FAA flatly refused to allow the maximum takeoff weight to exceed the contractually-stipulated 675,000 pounds. Desperate to eliminate weight, Boeing cut out the swing wings.

The -300 was somewhat shorter than the -100 and 200, mostly because the pax capacity was dropped from 300+ to about 270. The double-delta wing was supposed to be lighter than the swing wing, but it was such a poor performer (having been sized to meet runway and noise requirements) that the -300's weight exceeded the -200's anyway. When the program was axed in 1971, it was approaching 800,000 lbs and range had fallen to about 3,500 miles from 4,400 miles earlier. Operating costs went through the roof. No wonder Congress, the airlines, and even Boeing itself started to lose interest.

Nowadays, with advanced materials and CAD technology, structural issues aren't as big a deal. Still, NASA identified the aeroelastic effects of a long, thin fuselage as a potentially major problem for the HSCT that needed further investigation.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2124 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3630 times:

"it was approaching 800,000 lbs"

I understand why it was axed, but it is still fascinating that if it went thru, one of the fastest airliners on Earth would have also been one of the heaviest aircraft to ever have flown, save the An-124/225 and the soon to be flown A-380. Even the C-5 doesn't take off at that weight under normal conditions.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3559 times:

Quoting Lehpron (reply 8):
I have a slightly different question: With what has gone on with the A380 in terms of the 80 x 80 meter box, I've seen bits of research data on NASA's many SST proposals that were recent, like 2002 or 2003; all have scaled drawing/models of machines that are supposed to be over 100 meters in length!

When an SST project develops in the future, will designers scale this idea down or will airports have to deal with a 150 x 300 foot flying football field weighing in around a Boeing 744?


Thats the beauty of the 80 meter box, which is a fairly arbitrary number based upon a lot of untestable assumptions on how much it would coast to modify airports to hold increasingly large airplanes. An 80x80m box is 113 meters on the diagonal. This means that you can fit almost all of the SST and HSCT designs in the 80m box.


Quoting B2707SST (reply 9):
Nowadays, with advanced materials and CAD technology, structural issues aren't as big a deal. Still, NASA identified the aeroelastic effects of a long, thin fuselage as a potentially major problem for the HSCT that needed further investigation.


Aeroelasticity problems with the double/cranked delta wing are also a huge problem. Remember the wing is very thin near the tip and, therefore, the stiffness is a little lower than ideal. That combined with the reduction in sweep leads to all sorts of fun. This is one of the multitude of reasons that all of the SSBJ designs seem to be returning to morphing baselines, e.g. swing wing.

Of course one of the real tech barriers for the HSCT was noise, and not just sonic boom. The engine noise rules are a moving target and efficient Mach 2.4 gas turbines (there is an oxymoron) are not very quiet in the terminal area. Some of the HSCT designs had 30,000 lb mufflers on each engine. That is more weight than a GE90-115B and all it does is decrease thrust.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17171 posts, RR: 66
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3553 times:

Thats the beauty of the 80 meter box, which is a fairly arbitrary number based upon a lot of untestable assumptions on how much it would coast to modify airports to hold increasingly large airplanes. An 80x80m box is 113 meters on the diagonal. This means that you can fit almost all of the SST and HSCT designs in the 80m box.

If we make the assumption that wingspan will be smaller than 80m, the length is less of a problem. Gates have to allow more space behind the plane, less of a problem than spacing between gates. Just put the plane in the farthest gate. But those tight taxiway turns become exciting  Big grin



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3523 times:

An 80x80m box is 113 meters on the diagonal. This means that you can fit almost all of the SST and HSCT designs in the 80m box.

That's a great point -- I had never thought of that.


Aeroelasticity problems with the double/cranked delta wing are also a huge problem. Remember the wing is very thin near the tip and, therefore, the stiffness is a little lower than ideal. That combined with the reduction in sweep leads to all sorts of fun.

That doesn't surprise me: Boeing ran into some serious flutter problems with the 2707-300's outer delta, which was very large and had relatively low sweep to meet field length and noise requirements. To keep supersonic drag down, it was extremely thin. The eventual solution was to fit 600-pound mass balance booms projecting ahead of the leading edge of the wing.




Based on the numbers alone, Boeing should never have ditched the swing wing: both subsonic and supersonic performance was markedly poor compared to the swing wing. At slow speeds, the swing wing at 20 degrees with double-slotted flaps was much more efficient than a double-delta at more than 50 degrees with smaller flaps, and the delta's low sweep and big span crippled it at Mach 2.7. It always seemed like a lose-lose design to me, but I'm sure Boeing had their reasons.





The engine noise rules are a moving target and efficient Mach 2.4 gas turbines (there is an oxymoron) are not very quiet in the terminal area. Some of the HSCT designs had 30,000 lb mufflers on each engine. That is more weight than a GE90-115B and all it does is decrease thrust.

For all the progress that's been made on quieter, more powerful subsonic engines, noise was still the single biggest problem on the HSCT. I read once that the mixer-ejector silencing systems were the size of an RV. I've seen even bigger nozzles than this, but it gives some sense of scale:



I think NASA said they could get the HSCT down to Stage 3 levels, but Stage 4 was a beast. Getting a 60,000lb.-class low bypass turbofan to meet Stage 4 standards is a formidable task, and I'm not sure it can be solved economically until someone bites the bullet and builds a real variable-bypass turbofan.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2005-02-20 21:06:21]


Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17171 posts, RR: 66
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3512 times:

As B2707SST says, unless someone comes up with a way to make engines that can range efficiently and silently from 0-1000mph, the whole traditional SST idea becomes very very hard to carry out.


However, if we think outside the traditional SST envelope things look brighter.

Alternative 1 - Horizontal takeoff and landing with 2 "traditional" high-bypass turbofans. No noise issue there. At high subsonic speeds, ramjet/scramjet propulsion takes over for either a very noisy transit at 60000 feet (think Concorde over the Atlantic) or a (for ground observers) silent suborbital hop.

Alternative 2 - Vertical takeoff and landing with airbreathing rocket engines and suborbital hop with ramjet/scramjet. This would keep the noise somewhat limited to the immediate environs of the airport. Forget about doing this at LHR  Big grin


Let the flaming begin! Big grin



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21520 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Starlionblue: Alternative 2 - Vertical takeoff and landing with airbreathing rocket engines

Isn´t that exactly the problem? An "airbreathing rocket engine" - that´s by necessity a turbojet, since you need a compressor of some kind to feed it. And unless you´ve got something better than that, it would mean a turbo-compressor which needs to be driven somehow, so there you go...


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3470 times:

I see an airbreathing rocket engine as a pure ramjet, but ramjets require pre-compression via motion, i.e. ram effect, whereas a turbojet uses it's set of fans to do the job. Since by definition the density of air compress as soon as it is in motion, it is still less than 5% up to Mach 0.3, thus we assume incompressible flow. A really subsonic may run but I think a nuclear bomb can convert mass to energy more efficiently. I do not even think a ramjet-powered plane can produce enough force to overcome rolling friction drag.

However, If the ramjet had an oxygen injector tap that is variably used up to a point where oxygen is sufficient from the atmosphere, that would be an interesting system. The problem is getting hold of LOX in the first place, it may not have to be liquid but gases require more volume.

What about using liquid hydrogen to create the liquid oxygen, so while a plane waits at the terminal for loading and unloading, it produces it's own oxygen from the air during refueling? It would make sense in a hypersonic transport.

>>"Thats the beauty of the 80 meter box, which is a fairly arbitrary number based upon a lot of untestable assumptions on how much it would coast to modify airports to hold increasingly large airplanes. An 80x80m box is 113 meters on the diagonal. This means that you can fit almost all of the SST and HSCT designs in the 80m box. "<<

113 meters? That is 370 feet, that is long...fuselage must be flapping worse than the wings by then, I'm surprised that hasn't happened yet w.r.t. B773 or A346. A plane like that, by square-cube and using Concorde as [terrible] reference, would weigh in at over 2.4 million lbs with a one-quarter acre wing area and capable of merely 600pax. How the hell would this thing make a 180??

Christ, that ain't happenin (from a business perspective, I'm sure we could do it -- there's our A380 replacement.  Laugh out loud  Big thumbs up )

>>"a real variable-bypass turbofan"<<

Do you mean with variable pitch mainfan blade? Sounds like a serious by-pass pressure issue aside from complexity, unless the core exhaust area varied along with it...  Confused



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3456 times:

Quoting B2707SST (reply 13):
Based on the numbers alone, Boeing should never have ditched the swing wing:...


They did it because during the mock-up stage (the good ol'days.), the engineers discovered that plane could have the swing-wing pivot or pax but not both. The pivot bracket went completely through the cabin, separating the passengers from the front, not like a wingbox going underneath. I would guess claustraphobia was not rational.

However, I think todays technology probably can do it; I'm not usually for over-complex ideas -- which is subjective to say the least. Big grin



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineLeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3451 times:

Quoting Lehpron (reply 17):
However, I think todays technology probably can do it; I'm not usually for over-complex ideas -- which is subjective to say the least. Big grin


Any SST that works will be an overly-complex idea.  Smile


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3442 times:

Quoting LeanOfPeak (reply 18):
Any SST that works will be an overly-complex idea.  Smile


When compared to a subsonic or even Concorde, yes; which happens to be an unfair comparison that many people don't notice doing as they are just so used to the same damn thing over and over again.  Big grin



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (9 years 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3380 times:

Quoting Lehpron (reply 17):
They did it because during the mock-up stage (the good ol'days.), the engineers discovered that plane could have the swing-wing pivot or pax but not both. The pivot bracket went completely through the cabin, separating the passengers from the front, not like a wingbox going underneath. I would guess claustraphobia was not rational.


I've never heard of this problem before: the pivots on the 2707-100 and -200 were located in the fixed inboard portion of wings, at the "plus signs" in the schematic I posted above. The hydraulically-powered actuator system was located between them, under the pax cabin, using jackscrews to drive the outboard moving wings.

The 2707's fuselage sat on top of the wing (the bottom of the aircraft was essentially flat; the fuselage did not "protrude" through), so there was plenty of room below the cabin for the drive system. The pivots were outboard of the fuselage and were physically not that large, so there should not have been a space conflict. The mockup's cabin ran uninterrupted through the length of the fuselage, and all the seating charts I've seen show the same, even the -200's, which were released almost a year after Boeing built the mockup.

There were originally some concerns that the wing pivots, actuators, and landing gear bays could not all be accomodated in the same area, but the -100's design had room for them as well as triple-slotted flaps in the fixed portion of the wing (the boxes behind the wing pivots).


The explanation I've always seen in the literature is that the weight of the fuselage stiffening required increased the empty weight such that it eliminated the payload, leading to the quip that the SST could fly transatlantic routes just fine as long as it had no passengers. The FAA would not allow an MTOW increase and conventional weight reduction could not close the gap, so Boeing had to choice but no cut out the weight of the swing system and go to the delta.

The irony is that, due to sharply reduced L/Ds at every point in the speed range, the -300's weight ended up much higher than what Boeing would have needed to make the swing wing work. I've never been able to resolve this puzzle. I'm sure there were some lingering problems with the swing wing over and above the weight concerns, but I haven't found them yet. The F-14, F-111, and B-1 do not seem to have any serious structural or stability problems, but these are much smaller aircraft than the 2707. It would be interesting to know how the TU-160 handles.

With modern technology and materials, I'm certain the 2707-100's swing system would be viable today at the original takeoff weight. However, a plane built to beat Concorde and 707 operating economics wouldn't shape up so well against 777s and A330s!

--B2707SST

[Edited 2005-02-21 20:36:56]


Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3364 times:

Quoting B2707SST (reply 20):
I've never heard of this problem before:


I heard that from a PBS/NOVA special called "Fastest airplanes in the sky", first aired 1991, I assumed they did their research too, look it up. I loved that program when I saw it in 1994, it started a personal revolution that is still going.  Smile

Quoting B2707SST (reply 20):
The 2707's fuselage sat on top of the wing (the bottom of the aircraft was essentially flat; the fuselage did not "protrude" through),...


I should note that I insinuated that the bracket went through the cabin, by what the show said, "that the plane could have either the swing-wing pivot or passengers, but not both".

Have you seen exploded views of the B-1 Lancer bomber? It was first being built around the same time, actually the early 70's, so afterwards (I suppose lesson's learned). Anyway, it's pivot bracket went completely through the cross-section, perhaps it had to for it's applications as a bomber. Even F-111 and F-14 had their brackets goung completely through, but then again they are military and not designed to hold cargo that moves around with partial randomness. Big grin


[quote=Starlionblue,reply=14]...the whole traditional SST idea becomes very very hard to carry out.[/quote]

Funny how I insisted this was not the right approach last year...and got beef for it.  Big thumbs up

[Edited 2005-02-21 22:21:58]


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17171 posts, RR: 66
Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3320 times:


Quoting Starlionblue (reply 14):
...the whole traditional SST idea becomes very very hard to carry out.


Funny how I insisted this was not the right approach last year...and got beef for it.


If I recall correctly I agreed with you  Big grin But don't quote me on that. In any case I think out of the box thinking is required and suborbitals are the way to go. After all, there is a fair bit of experience with this kind of flight profile.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 23, posted (9 years 10 months 21 hours ago) and read 3276 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (reply 22):
If I recall correctly I agreed with you But don't quote me on that. In any case I think out of the box thinking is required and suborbitals are the way to go. After all, there is a fair bit of experience with this kind of flight profile


I do remember, I don't know who I was talking bout...  Wink/being sarcastic

Speaking of you:

Quoting Starlionblue (reply 14):
Alternative 1 - Horizontal takeoff and landing with 2 "traditional" high-bypass turbofans. No noise issue there. At high subsonic speeds, ramjet/scramjet propulsion takes over for either a very noisy transit at 60000 feet (think Concorde over the Atlantic) or a (for ground observers) silent suborbital hop.

Alternative 2 - Vertical takeoff and landing with airbreathing rocket engines and suborbital hop with ramjet/scramjet. This would keep the noise somewhat limited to the immediate environs of the airport. Forget about doing this at LHR


It facinates me that people think we can bypass the boom/noise/cost issue by going straight to a hypersonic/suborbital commercial plane based on available technology. Say it has a flightpath that has a segment that is horizontal and will pass through the speed of sound for a period of time before and after the flight, there will be a resultant sonic boom to the ground. Although not at extreme altitudes, there will be near the city of arrival or departure.

Point: any suborbital/hypersonic airplane that is not shaped like a re-entry vehicle and will spend significant time within the atmosphere needs to have some low-boom tech onboard. Yes that will make it more expensive, but is it worth limiting flights that go over oceans? It becomes the same stupid SST problem from the 70's, the boom and the noise. Rockets aren't exactly quiet.  Smile

Consider a flight from LAX -> JFK, @ Mach 6 it would take 40 minutes total if it flew like any plane, or 80-minutes just to accelerate over the pacific and make a giant U-turn (which you'll be over Alaska) to cross the continent and decelerate over the Atlantic (over the Bahamas) and make another U-turn to land at JFK. Or you could turn south and pass eastwards over Panama and then northwards past the Florida Keys. All the latters, IMO, are ridiculous.

I have only recent begun to apply my ideas to a hypersonic transport system...oh my God it sux.  Wow!



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17171 posts, RR: 66
Reply 24, posted (9 years 10 months 13 hours ago) and read 3269 times:

It facinates me that people think we can bypass the boom/noise/cost issue by going straight to a hypersonic/suborbital commercial plane based on available technology. Say it has a flightpath that has a segment that is horizontal and will pass through the speed of sound for a period of time before and after the flight, there will be a resultant sonic boom to the ground. Although not at extreme altitudes, there will be near the city of arrival or departure.


Good point, but why not cruise subsonically until you get over an ocean. Granted, routes from St Louis would be a bit tricky, but there are quite a few cities within an hour's flight of an ocean. The time savings involved in having a <60 minutes suborbital segment are quite large. Once you are at suborbital altitudes any boom becomes irrelevant so as long as you can make the initial and final supersonic phases over water/desert you are fine. In your LAX-JFK example, the aircraft would fly west from LAX for 20 minutes, turn east, go suborbital over the Pacific, fly over the continental USA with a suborbital profile (no noise on the ground here...), coast down over the Atlantic south-east of Long Island, slow down to subsonic speed and make the 20 minute transit to JFK. You're still talking a flight time of 90-120 minutes, which is at about 4 hours less than with a 777.

As for geometry, I am convinced that a suborbital which uses traditional airports will have some kind of variable surfaces. A lifting body (think dyna-soar) with extendable canards?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
25 Post contains images Lehpron : >>"Good point, but why not cruise subsonically until you get over an ocean"
26 Sonic67 : Would the F-111 qualify as a large supersonic? Lockheed had a design in the works to modify it as a large bomber to compete against B-1 at one time.
27 Starlionblue : >>"Good point, but why not cruise subsonically until you get over an ocean"
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic How Many Big Sonic Airplanes Were Built In US?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Many Times Can A Pilot Fly A Plane In 1 Day? posted Fri Aug 5 2005 08:42:26 by Palladium
How Many G's Are Usually Pulled In A Civil Flight? posted Fri Oct 14 2005 02:08:47 by TheSonntag
How Many Years For A B732 In Service posted Mon Feb 9 2004 16:20:31 by HAWK21M
How Many USG In A LB Of Fuel? posted Tue Apr 15 2003 19:39:39 by LanPeru
How Many Gallons In A Pound(lb) Of Fuel? posted Sun Sep 8 2002 08:01:40 by LanPeru
How Many Miles Of Wiring In A Plane? posted Thu Feb 21 2002 01:15:28 by Arsenal@LHR
How Many Feet In A Nautical Mile? posted Mon Feb 4 2002 16:55:51 by Cosync
How Many F/As Do You Need......? posted Sat Jun 10 2006 16:20:31 by Msllsmith
B737 Family And Built In Stairs posted Sun May 28 2006 11:09:42 by FlyATRs
Why Are Airplane Fueslages Built In Sections? posted Thu Mar 9 2006 07:12:53 by A380X4TRENT900

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format