University Supersonic Transport (SST) studies

[blackkite]

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910000727_1991000727.pdf
Hi! Ohio State University's 'Project HybuJet' in 1990.
1.Cruise Mach Number : Mach 4 to 6
2.Passengers : 10 , Crew : 2
3.Range : 6000 n.m.
4.Cruising altitude : 100,000ft
5.Span : 90ft
6.Length : 115ft
7.Wave rider , L/D : 6.5 @Mach 6
8.Engine : three GE turbofan ramjet engine (S.L static thrust 32,950lbs each)
(Fan is windmilling when ramjet operation mode)
9.TOW : 171,379lbs
10.Fuel : JPX and LH2(for ramjet engine)
11.Structural Material : 80%Ni-20%Cr alloy and Titanium(explosive bonding)
12.Liquid silicon convection cooling for nose cap and leading edge.
Enjoy!　

 

[Skybolt]

Uh, Blackkite San, that's all right but if we start to look at USRA-sponsored work in the US universities, we'll end up with literally DOZENS of SST "projects". I remember a score of wide-body SSTs, a couple of trans-Pacific ones, und so weiter... :

 

[blackkite]

Dear Skybolt! I want to see all designs by U.S. university students. I am also paper plane crazy lover.
Only brave people can travel by this plane. Cabin is surrounded by LH2 tanks and cockpit is located middle of the plane. It's very radical and drastic one.
(Hi owner! Did I step on the borderline?)

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

University studies generally are not acceptable unless they are demonstrably linked to real industry projects.

We could have a separate topic for university studies if users wish.

 

[NERVA]

Overscan...

I vote for a separate topic. I'd like to see the studies.

 

[Skybolt]

Ok for me !

 

[blackkite]

Oh! I used to hear that American students have excellent brain and study very hard.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Oh! I used to hear that American students have excellent brain and study very hard.

Yeah, about that...

 

[blackkite]

Oh! Scott?

 

[Skybolt]

Noooooooooooooooooo :
John Belushi in "Animal House". See him here during discussion of his PhD Thesis...
Ok ok, wildly OT...

 

[b2707300sst]

Skybolt, KL_Lesnick, Flateric and Jozef. I scanned some post-1971 US SST drawings from Japanese AVIATION JOURNAL magazine in 1984 to 1985. Among these drawings, T-tail VG design which SKybolt told us is included. It had full time stability augmentation system(SAS) and applied CCV technology.

Still holding the torch for Boeings 2707-300. Using todays materials and technology, she might even be better than ever~...

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

blackkite,

Oh commercial planes I'm really not particularly fond of CCV technology -- especially if the design is completely dependant on it (meaning no human can fly it without the SAS on) I don't entirely mind relaxed stability (i.e. flyable but not easy without SAS). On fighter planes, sure -- it provides a great deal more maneuverability and responsiveness, but on commercial airplanes.

In regards to swing-wing designs, I have very little love for such designs. Their aerodynamic-benefits seem to almost always be offset by the extreme weight (although the B-1A is an interesting exception -- it seemed to actually be reasonably light). With variable-camber technology and airfoil advances they are only useful for military planes that have to be able to dogfight well, and be able to fly smoothly over the deck at blindingly fast speed.


blackkite,

Oh! I used to hear that American students have excellent brain and study very hard.

I don't know about all American students. I did just fine, though, and I was pulling 3.8's and 4.0's and my major was pre-med. There were some people who I truly wondered how they even made it into college.


Orionblamblam,

Yeah, about that...

I actually knew a few students who weren't too far off from that! Personality wise at least... *laughs*


Skybolt,

Noooooooooooooooooo :
John Belushi in "Animal House". See him here during discussion of his PhD Thesis...

That's just a sad sight to behold...

Ok ok, wildly OT...

Yes it is...


On a more serious note... does hypersonic sound more practical than supersonic? Honestly it sounds like a better prospect -- you don't have to worry about sonic-booms, and thus low-boom designs, we have engine technology that can operate from sitting still to Mach 5 or 6.

The only problems I can think of would be basically be keeping the engines quiet (not sure if the same designs used for the SST would work), getting reasonable low-speed performance, accelerating fast enough to make the high-speed work, and then figuring out how to avoid barbecuing the people when they get off and board the plane.


Kendra Lesnick

 

[blackkite]

Hi KJ! Civil airliner already use independent multiplex FBW system. Generally CCV is applied combined with FBW. CCV's computer is also multiplex. Reliability is high. Don't worry. Civil subsonic airliner does not use CCV because it's design specification is not severe. But SST's design specification is very severe. We need general mobilization of our all technology. If CCV applied to SST, we can use small stabilizer, which lead light weight and low drag.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

blackkite,

Hi KJ! Civil airliner already use independent multiplex FBW system.

This I know...

We need general mobilization of our all technology. If CCV applied to SST, we can use small stabilizer, which lead light weight and low drag.

I believe, generally speaking, in using what is reasonable and necessary to accomplish the goal. If using CCV was needed to accomplish the goal, it would acceptable. But if a design could be produced that would be reasonably efficient aerodynamically and not require a totally unstable design, I would prefer to go that way obviously.

Truthfully, I prefer using a tailless designs over tailed designs. They tend to produce less drag when supersonic where it actually counts and you can droop the trailing-edges somewhat if you have a leading-edge device (the LED shifts the C/L forward, the elevon/flaperons shift it rearwards and it all balances out).


KJ