747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

What Ever Happened To Airbus Study For A SST

Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:42 am

In 2001 Airbus was talking about a study for a widebody sst with high by pass turbo fans. This would have been a great ideal if they study it more. I heard that Airbus is working with Japan on there sst. Could this design be use in there work with Japan design. Do any body know what Airbus is doing with there sst design.

PS it was supposed to suced the Concorde.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8548
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: What Ever Happened To Airbus Study For A SST

Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:44 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
PS it was supposed to suced the Concorde.

It was a paper-competitor to the Sonic Cruiser which Boeing was marketing in 2001. Once Boeing dropped the Sonic Cruiser, the Airbus SST died a quiet death....
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: What Ever Happened To Airbus Study For A SST

Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:15 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
Once Boeing dropped the Sonic Cruiser, the Airbus SST died a quiet death....

Shame really, healthy competition, I think, would have led to a viable SST
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: What Ever Happened To Airbus Study For A SST

Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:21 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
In 2001 Airbus was talking about a study for a widebody sst with high by pass turbo fans

This is a contradiction in terms; SSTs require low-bypass turbofans (or optimally no-bypass turbojets) for efficient supersonic flight. High-bypass fans are great for quiet takeoffs and landings and efficient cruise at Mach < 0.9, but their enormous frontal area and slow exhaust velocity destroy their efficiency at higher speeds. For Mach 2.4 cruise, expect a bypass ratio of at most 1.5-2.0, compared to 9 on the GE90 and 10-11 on the GEnx and Trent 1000.

Probably the biggest challenge in SST design is finding an engine that is both efficient in all three speed regimes (takeoff/landing, subsonic cruise, supersonic cruise) and quiet enough to meet Stage III/IV requirements. NASA couldn't do it on the HSCT less than ten years ago, and Rolls-Royce says they still cannot appreciably beat the Olympus on supersonic efficiency. Compare this with the tremendous advances that have been and are being made in subsonic turbofans and the economic case for the SST weakens even more.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.

Who is online