747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Was There Ever A Design For A Trijet SST?

Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:58 am

I was just wondering if any aircraft company ever look at designing a trijet SST. Every SST design I could remember had four engines.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Was There Ever A Design For A Trijet SST?

Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:13 am

One of Dassult's SSBJ concept from 90's was a trijet.

The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Was There Ever A Design For A Trijet SST?

Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:13 am

Full-scale SST designs are almost always quads because there have not been any turbojets or low-bypass fans with enough thrust to power a tri-jet. In its day, the GE4 was the world's most powerful engine by a significant margin (excluding the competing P&W JTF17A) and the B2707 still would have needed four.

Most SSTs on the drawing board are in the 750,000-pound class, and given the thrust-weight ratio of 0.4 found on Concorde and the B2707, you'd need engines with around 100,000 pounds of thrust for a tri-jet SST. I'm not sure that any engine core available (e.g. GE90, Trent 800) could scale to this much thrust in a low-BPR application. A quad with around 75Klbs per engine seems much more manageable.

In addition, given the greater flow instability of a tail-mounted inlet, I'd imagine that shockwave management and unstart prevention would become a serious issue, especially in an outboard engine-out situation. The added structural weight of a tail-mounted engine would also be an unwelcome feature.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Was There Ever A Design For A Trijet SST?

Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:23 am

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 2):
Most SSTs on the drawing board are in the 750,000-pound class

  • Market forecasts (based on known SST-knowledge) target a certain passenger base.

  • The available engines are not favorable, designing better ones would cost more(based on known SST-knowledge).

  • The current costs(based on known SST-knowledge) of development of such a plane are large.

  • The fuel they sip to the range they travel requires a lot of fuel.
  • Making such a plane viable will require large size (per developmental costs).

  • Large size equates to minimal use at smaler airports (extending ROI).

  • Ignoring the sonic boom issue does make the project cheaper (limits where the aircraft can fly).


  • Am I missing anything?
    The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.

    Popular Searches On Airliners.net

    Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

    Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

    Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

    Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

    Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

    Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

    Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

    Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

    Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

    Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

    Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

    Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

    Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

    Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

    Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos