Boeing Unveils Hypersonic "Son-of-Blackbird" Demonstrator Design

originally posted by: SonofaSkunk
And once again, all we get is pretty pictures. (yawn, sigh)

I get as frustrated as you do but let's be lucky they are telling us something. We've always got the B-21 to look forward to !

Just curious. How can Boeing have the "son" of Blackbird when they didn't develop the "father?"

a reply to: SonofaSkunk

Because it's the next generation of high speed reconnaissance.

a reply to: Zaphod58

gotta admit the bird in the Boeing photo looks pretty sweet. very similar to lockheeds design. guess there's only so many ways to skin a cat

Could you use something else to speed the air up other than the speed of the aircraft?

I know that at speed it's essentially 'free' compression, but it's also limiting the scram jet as it needs to be at Mach 3+

I don't know what btw, just speculating a different approach, like emals type spinning compressor blades...

a reply to: Forensick

You could, but you'd be adding weight and complexity again.

originally posted by: EartOccupant
a reply to: Zaphod58

Really. I understand your viewpoint, but i beg to differ.

Still we are working for money, buying expensive things that will break and need expensive energy. Did i mention that no invention ever made life cheaper?

Sure, we have nice toys now, but i'm still waiting for progress.

actually the cotton gin made the price of clothes cheaper.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Forensick

You could, but you'd be adding weight and complexity again.

Yeah I know, just think maybe 'out of the box' thinking might take this forward, beyond what we currently know!

Need some bassplayr crazy speculation, LHC type oxygen particle accelerations?!

Why don't using rocket engine for the transition between turbine engine and ramjet ? I n fact there is a need for a supersonic turbine engine with out afterburner and a slow starting ramjet to make a start of a working TBCC engine. The design of the Boeing bird is very similar to the Lockheed SR-72, same job - same look.

a reply to: darksidius

Because then you either have to air launch it, which means a small unmanned platform not able to carry much fuel, or a huge, very heavy platform that can't go fast.

Scramjets are a bad bitch. Controlling combustion at supersonic speeds faces similar problems as controlling turbulences in experimental nuclear fusion devices. Capturing and managing shock wave trains through inlet to combustor takes some serious optimization work by supercomputers. Heat resistant material science is put to the limits. Its behavior in off design conditions is temperamental, un starts frequent. All of this to get a skinny thrust increment in perfect conditions. Now add dual ramjet-scramjet compatibility plus an old good turbine. Good luck.
What the X-51 team got was remarkable, but this route of hypersonic propulsion as is seems too hard.
We know there are other ways more elegant and much less aired than this TBCC concept that are being developed.

Zaph said:

"So what exactly is the civilian world going to do with hypersonic aircraft? Allow the super rich to travel to Europe in an hour, while the rest of us poor schlubs still have to take 6+ hours. Yeah, there's a lot of call for that."

Mate, you know perfectly that there are two stealth companies trying to do exactly that. They have one foot in the military too. What the rich enjoy now will be by the rest of us in the future.

a reply to: Fastmover

No, there are two civilian companies trying to develop supersonic aircraft, not hypersonic. One of them won't even reach Mach 1.5.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ahhhh! Ok, is that. I always confuse hypersonic with supersonic.

a reply to: Zaphod58

i thought hyper mach was pushing for mach 5 with their design. i thought mach 5 was a razor blade so I'm probably wrong. why would an aircraft want a shaver. guess its for the luxury market.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Hyper Mach has been on the verge of a major breakthrough for years now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

for how many years now?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

In 2011 they were going to fly by 2021. Now it's 2025 for a full aircraft, and 2028 for service entry.

a reply to: Zaphod58

is it because the technology isn't there yet or more on the financial end. backers dropping out for various reasons from anything like not confident in the technology, the market for said technology or for their own financial fiascos. etc

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Take a look at this: www.aopa.org...

a reply to: BASSPLYR

They're over reaching and trying to add magnetics to the system.