Airbus patents supersonic plane that could hit Mach 4.5

[HossHuge]

A rocket-plane that could fly from Vancouver to Tokyo in three hours instead of 10 has been patented by Airbus.

The U.S. patent for an "ultra-rapid air vehicle and related method for aerial locomotion" was awarded to Airbus, also known as the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, in July.

Airbus said the plane would be targeted mainly at business travel and VIP passengers "who require transcontinental return journeys within one day," and at the military.

The document states that the supersonic plane could carry 20 passengers or two to three tonnes and reach up to 4.5 times the speed of sound (Mach 4.5) — around 5,500 kilometres per hour.

That would allow it to fly about 9,000 kilometres from Paris to San Francisco (currently an 11-hour flight) or Tokyo to Los Angeles (currently a 10-hour flight) in three hours, the patent says.

Observers such as Deepak Gupta, founder of the Gurgaon, India-based intellectual property drafting service Patent Yogi, have remarked that at Mach 4.5, the plane could cover the 5,600-kilometre distance between New York and London, normally a seven to eight hour flight, in an hour. However, that doesn't take into account that the plane wouldn't be at its top speed for the entire duration of the flight.

The plane would achieve its extreme speed with a combination of three sets of engines — turbojets for taxiing, takeoff and landing; a rocket motor for rapid acceleration; and ramjets for high-altitude cruising. The turbojets and rocket motor fold into the body of plane when not in use and the plane also has adjustable fins to make it more aerodynamic. It would be fuelled by hydrogen and liquid oxygen.

source

 

[FordGT90Concept]

a) that's a pretty ugly plane
b) rocket fuel is not cheap and very dangerous. Few/no airports have hydrogen and liquid oxygen on site.
c) 20 passengers aren't many. Concorde had 20 too but it didn't have a rocket engine. Concorde was killed by not being a huge money maker. I don't see how this would be any different.

 

[droopyRO]

Not a good plane for Inception.

 

[P4-630]

a) that's a pretty ugly plane
b) rocket fuel is not cheap and very dangerous. Few/no airports have hydrogen and liquid oxygen on site.
c) 20 passengers aren't many. Concorde had 20 too but it didn't have a rocket engine. Concorde was killed by not being a huge money maker. I don't see how this would be any different.

"Concorde was jointly developed and produced by Aérospatiale and the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) under an Anglo-French treaty. It featured a maximum speed over twice the speed of sound at Mach 2.04, with seating for 92 to 128 passengers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Ahahaha, I thought it was 100ish but looking on Wikipedia I saw 20. Looking again, that was the number built. So yeah, 100 versus 20 and 100 wasn't profitable enough, this definitely won't be. Airbus has a few screws loose.

 

[W1zzard]

A 4 year old kindergarten kid could have filed for that patent

 

[dorsetknob]

c) 20 passengers aren't many. Concorde had 20 too but it didn't have a rocket engine. Concorde was killed by not being a huge money maker. I don't see how this would be any different.

You need to be Bitch Slapped 20 passengers way out there @FordGT90Concept

Quote from crapidia
On 25 July 2000, Air France Flight 4590, registration F-BTSC, crashed in Gonesse, France after departing from Paris-Charles de Gaulle en route to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, killing all 100 passengers and nine crew members on board the flight, and four people on the ground. It was the only fatal accident involving Concorde.

that was a passenger complement of 100 not the 20 you suggest Concorde could Carry

edit seems i'm in the Queue to bitch slap you for you inaccuracy hope the cheeks are not too sore

A 4 year old kindergarten kid could have filed for that patent

And the Three yr old that works in the US patent office would grant it (for a box of lolly pops)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I bet the tickets on that aircraft would be upper 4 or 5-digits. Not many people have their time so valuable that they would be willing to pay that. The odds of them being where these aircraft operate (can only go super sonic over water) is remote too. To add to it all, I don't see anything worth patenting.

 

[64K]

I bet the tickets on that aircraft would be upper 4 or 5-digits. Not many people have their time so valuable that they would be willing to pay that. The odds of them being where these aircraft operate (can only go super sonic over water) is remote too. To add to it all, I don't see anything worth patenting.

Supposedly according to the link they have overcome the sonic boom thing that the Concorde caused but who knows. Your point about costs of fares I agree with completely and the aircraft is propelled by hydrogen and liquid oxygen. What could possibly go wrong with that?

 

[rtwjunkie]

Supposedly according to the link they have overcome the sonic boom thing that the Concorde caused but who knows. Your point about costs of fares I agree with completely and the aircraft is propelled by hydrogen and liquid oxygen. What could possibly go wrong with that?

I had to go read that awfully dry document to confirm. It doesn't get rid of the sonic boom, it merely reduces it(although they claim by a great deal), according to page 8. From what I know of physics and aerodynamics (and admittedly, Oprah probably knows more than I do, you can't eliminate a sonic boom. The faster you go, the more the air becomes like solid ground being compressed, and the more friction is present. It's going to make noise.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Supposedly according to the link they have overcome the sonic boom thing that the Concorde caused but who knows. Your point about costs of fares I agree with completely and the aircraft is propelled by hydrogen and liquid oxygen. What could possibly go wrong with that?

There's only a few places over land where aircraft are permitted to go supersonic, military or civilian, and they're not where these aircraft would operate. Concorde specifically went from London to New York because it was over water and heavily trafficked. Besides that route, I suppose one could add Los Angeles to Beijing for this aircraft but could they even come up with 20 passengers several times a day? Unless they found a way to make tickets cost about the same as the Concorde, I don't see anyone operating these aircraft except maybe Airbus itself.

The only way Concorde became operational was due to massive government grants. The aircraft was never profitable from the manufacturer's perspective.

I had to go read that awfully dry document to confirm. It doesn't get rid of the sonic boom, it merely reduces it(although they claim by a great deal), according to page 8. From what I know of physics and aerodynamics (and admittedly, Oprah probably knows more than I do, you can't eliminate a sonic boom. The faster you go, the more the air becomes like solid ground being compressed, and the more friction is present. It's going to make noise.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the wing design. Speaking of which, this aircraft looks like it would be extremely unstable/dangerous at low speeds. Imagine it having to linger over an airport for a runway to clear. I'd be very worried about it either running out of fuel or stalling.

 

[RejZoR]

This will never work because it goes against business policy. In business, you have to cram as many passangers onboard with as little expenses as possible. The exact same reason why Concorde is not flying anymore...

 

[n-ster]

Airbus REALLY likes patents. They'll patent anything and everything

 

[dorsetknob]

Reason Concorde is not flying anymore is Airbus will not maintain the airframe
Despite Virgin Airways wishing to Buy each existing airframe and Pay the full COST of Airbus maintenance
Its not an Economic Decision but a political Decision that keeps Concorde grounded

All of BA's Concorde fleet have been grounded, drained of hydraulic fluid and their airworthiness certificates withdrawn. Jock Lowe, ex-chief Concorde pilot and manager of the fleet estimated in 2004 that it would cost £10–15 million to make G-BOAF airworthy again. BA maintain ownership and have stated that they will not fly again due to a lack of support from Airbus

On 11 April 2003, Virgin Atlantic founder Sir Richard Branson announced that the company was interested in purchasing British Airways’ Concorde fleet for their nominal original price of £1 (US$1.57 in April 2003) each. British Airways dismissed the idea, prompting Virgin to increase their offer to £1 million each. Branson claimed that when BA was privatised, a clause in the agreement required them to allow another British airline to operate Concorde if BA ceased to do so, but the Government denied the existence of such a clause. In October 2003, Branson wrote in The Economist that his final offer was "over £5 million" and that he had intended to operate the fleet "for many years to come".The chances for keeping Concorde in service were stifled by Airbus's lack of support for continued maintenance

 

[Tatty_Two]

I bet the tickets on that aircraft would be upper 4 or 5-digits. Not many people have their time so valuable that they would be willing to pay that. The odds of them being where these aircraft operate (can only go super sonic over water) is remote too. To add to it all, I don't see anything worth patenting.

I got a return to New York for £2,200

 

[peche]

A 4 year old kindergarten kid could have filed for that patent

and he ate half of the crayon ...

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but the US patent office sucks. It's underfunded, run by bureaucratic chimps, and they'll sign off on pretty much anything that isn't poorly copy-pasted from someone else's work.

If you need reference, consider for just one moment that they have issued software patents to things like securely transmitting data via the internet. Such a fundamental technology has patent trolls out there, seeking to profit from insane oversight.



When it comes to the aerospace industry a patent is issued for anything and everything. The high cost of design, coupled with the fact that patentable technologies can effectively kill your competition (even if they're from 10 years ago), means companies want engineers churning out patents. They don't care whether the technology is usable, only that it can't be used by competition.

Airbus is patenting this for the future. Imagine the PR piece. A single electrolysis machine can be added to the airports in question. The airports have to be near the ocean (restrictions of high mach flight circa the Concorde), so they can be "green." The decreased trip time, and functionally emissions free flight, will likely get governmental funds for being green transportation. High powered hippies, and people who can't afford a 12+ hour journey by plane, will gladly pay 2 or 3 times as much to fly on one of these planes. Combine that with the new and much more restrictive passenger list, and you've got first class+.




As far as profitability, let's just say that's an unknown.

Assuming that there are generous tax breaks, and maintenance costs are much lower (neither assumption is hard to accept), then this plane is not far fetched. Most maintenance on planes is to the wings and engines, which this particular model doesn't have. Jet engines have far fewer components than our current ones, while the wing structure of this plane is much smaller. Smaller wings, experiencing much less force (decreased passenger count so less required upward force), means less damage. There's no reason to think that with a bit of clever engineering this plane couldn't be a transcontinental success. As far as cross-continental travel, it's unlikely. People are unlikely to ever embrace a sonic boom, even if it dissipates before any of them are influenced by it.