ahh dont worry the nose finishes like that as the forward facing radar things is going to be shown hence the way its blunt for now (remember this is a cross section), a Concorde type hinge nose will be placed on as a final shape! The wheels and lots of the actual aircraft are placeholders such as the seats etc when its done it will all make sense dont worry lol!
Basically this is a very fast aircraft, imagine a Concorde MK2 im not going to mess it up with aerodynamic faults. And its all a changing WIP I think I may have the engines on each wing like Concorde not sure yet. Maybe one on top of the fuselage and one on each wing?
Well... You might want to reconsider a hinge nose. It adds way more moving parts to the structure. As a matter of fact, rumours have reached me that they are planning on re introducing the Concorde, minus the hinge nose but improving on the frame and adding cannards. Those cannards apparently made the plane consume 3% less fuel. The Russians found that out with their Concorde wannabe, but the real one will use that advancement as well...
My plane does have a hinged nose most of these parts ore placeholders ive already said it somewhere, yeah Concorde is supposed to be coming back but only on and strictly for the air-show circuit not in any commercial sense.
Yep, no need to have a hinged nose anyway with rap-around screens taking their images from external cameras and integrating them together to make a seamless image for the pilots. Windows are over rated...:flippy:
keeping the hinge for redundancy and as it looks cool and reminds me of concorde, going to dress it up in a nice british airways livery!
Anyway here is a bit more work fleshing out the actual shape.
If that's an exhaust on the top scramjet, you're going to blast the tail. Rerouting the exhaust to the back end will fetch you on side the space needed for the scram installation, and on the other hand save the tail from dying from epic mach exhausts
If that's an exhaust on the top scramjet, you're going to blast the tail. Rerouting the exhaust to the back end will fetch you on side the space needed for the scram installation, and on the other hand save the tail from dying from epic mach exhausts
yeah the exhaust for the middle engine is not in front of the tail but at the very end. Thats why the tail finishes flat and not pointed, still needs work on that anyway.
Still needs a bit more reshaping, need to move the wheels about, the wing engines feel to small, not sure what to do about them.
Going to start on the interior later today anyway in a different file to save space.
Not sure if its a scramjet anymore, the wing engines are pretty much conventional turbojets however the middle engine could always be a scramjet ir some sort of scifi engine? Ill just see how it goes and listen to everybody's input.
This is a very interesting concept. In case youAâre interested, I have some comments & suggestionsAâ¦
- The main landing gear seems a bit over-engineered with two whole sets taking up massive amounts main hull space. Why not go for the conventional configuration with the beams and pistons in the wings and only the wheels in the main hull? That way you save hull space and distribute the weight of the plane over a large area of wing root and not small areaAâs of main hull.
- Nose gears are always single axle, otherwise it cannot turn and a steering mechanism in the gear itself is too complicated and vulnerable.
- The cockpit windows are useless if the nose cone cannot tilt down like the old Concorde. Windows are only needed in case of a visual landing. Perhaps it is best to do without them and go full instrument landing. 10-15 years in the future should make enough time to make this feasible. A plane like this will probably only land in cat 5 equipped airports anyway (cat 5 = full instrument landing possible in zero-visibility conditions)
- Taking that train of thought one stop further: future airliners will probably not have passenger windows either. They screw up aerodynamics and create weak spots in the pressurized hull anyway. Most likely they will be replace with flat screens showing an array of outside views fed by different cameraAâs (as Airbus already does btw).
- I wouldnAât bother with crew resting compartments. If this thing is as fast as it looks, it will arrive before the crew needs to take a nap. Unless you want to keep the time-honored tradition of the captain fooling around with the flight attendants
- YouAâd probably need to lower your overhead ceiling on the top floor and/or raise the cargo deck floor to make more room for airco ducting, hydraulic lines, electrical cabling, heat exchangers, hydraulic pumps and so on and so forth.
- Winglets generally point upwards because they need to keep the low pressure in place above the wingAâs surface that sucks the plane upwards, not the unaltered air below it. Downwards pointing winglets do works, but less effective. However, BoeingAâs X-36 uses a seagull configuration with downwards pointing wings to cope with the high speeds.
- In any case, winglets create too much drag at supersonic speeds. Perhaps it is better to use the shark fin aerodynamics pioneered by Burt RutanAâs ARES fighter?
- The current engine configuration has one big disadvantage. In order to get the air into the engine, it needs to change direction. Especially at high speeds it needs to travel in a straight line flowing through the engine in order to avoid unwanted friction and above all turbulence building up in front of the core engine. ThatAâs why almost all supersonic aircraft have engines in nacelles to allow this straight airflow.
- I think ramjets are pretty feasible in 10 to 15 years, but then you REALLY need a straight airflow. YouAâd still need conventional engines to get up to speed and they need to be pretty powerful to get this plane in the air at the low speeds of take-offs and landings.
- Have you thought about the required type of fuel? The engines could be hydrogen fueled IF enough composite material breakthroughs are made in the near future to allow for light weight pressurized fuel tanks.
Hope IAâm not flooding you with this. IAâm just taking it very seriously and I love the general design of a supersonic triple-deck passenger jet.
This is a very interesting concept. In case youAâre interested, I have some comments & suggestionsAâ¦
- The main landing gear seems a bit over-engineered with two whole sets taking up massive amounts main hull space. Why not go for the conventional configuration with the beams and pistons in the wings and only the wheels in the main hull? That way you save hull space and distribute the weight of the plane over a large area of wing root and not small areaAâs of main hull.
Yeah ive already started this im having only one set however it all goes into the main hull as the wings have a pretty thin cross section, they will stick out to distribute weight like the Specat Jaguar or Mig-27 http://img200.imageshack.us/i/mig27spaviation.jpg/
- Nose gears are always single axle, otherwise it cannot turn and a steering mechanism in the gear itself is too complicated and vulnerable.
I didn't know this, I just wanted to show its a much larger scale then Concorde, I will change it asap.
- The cockpit windows are useless if the nose cone cannot tilt down like the old Concorde. Windows are only needed in case of a visual landing. Perhaps it is best to do without them and go full instrument landing. 10-15 years in the future should make enough time to make this feasible. A plane like this will probably only land in cat 5 equipped airports anyway (cat 5 = full instrument landing possible in zero-visibility conditions)
I have already designed a cockpit and it does have wrap around screens I will post images soon, and the nose does tilt down I just haven't posted any images of it doing so yet.
- Taking that train of thought one stop further: future airliners will probably not have passenger windows either. They screw up aerodynamics and create weak spots in the pressurized hull anyway. Most likely they will be replace with flat screens showing an array of outside views fed by different cameraAâs (as Airbus already does btw).
I was going to do this but the fuselage looked really boring without windows to sticking with the rule of cool before technical accuracy I kept them. They do narrow down however and are larger on the inside than on the outside.
- I wouldnAât bother with crew resting compartments. If this thing is as fast as it looks, it will arrive before the crew needs to take a nap. Unless you want to keep the time-honored tradition of the captain fooling around with the flight attendants
Yeah your right as its so fast is there really a need for crew resting areas, not really however im going to have 4 single bunks anyway, this plane is so big I may as well stick them in.
- YouAâd probably need to lower your overhead ceiling on the top floor and/or raise the cargo deck floor to make more room for airco ducting, hydraulic lines, electrical cabling, heat exchangers, hydraulic pumps and so on and so forth.
Ive already got all this in a separate model file just waiting to put it into a render, there is enough room dont worry, I took blue prints of existing design and made comparisons with the floor levels on these real world aircraft.
- Winglets generally point upwards because they need to keep the low pressure in place above the wingAâs surface that sucks the plane upwards, not the unaltered air below it. Downwards pointing winglets do works, but less effective. However, BoeingAâs X-36 uses a seagull configuration with downwards pointing wings to cope with the high speeds.
I wasn't going to have any winglets actually, I have canards but they are just there to make it look good to be honest.
- In any case, winglets create too much drag at supersonic speeds. Perhaps it is better to use the shark fin aerodynamics pioneered by Burt RutanAâs ARES fighter?
I hant seen the ARES design before somehow but took inspiration form scaled composites aircraft such as the NC-51 and NC-6
- The current engine configuration has one big disadvantage. In order to get the air into the engine, it needs to change direction. Especially at high speeds it needs to travel in a straight line flowing through the engine in order to avoid unwanted friction and above all turbulence building up in front of the core engine. ThatAâs why almost all supersonic aircraft have engines in nacelles to allow this straight airflow.
Yeah im not too sure about the engines right now, all I know is that the engines on the wings are regular engines although obv better as they are 10-15 years in advance, the third engine on the main body is the 'super' engine, I havent worked out how this will work yet I know its not in a great place but I thought it looked good which was more important on this build than technical accuracy.
- I think ramjets are pretty feasible in 10 to 15 years, but then you REALLY need a straight airflow. YouAâd still need conventional engines to get up to speed and they need to be pretty powerful to get this plane in the air at the low speeds of take-offs and landings.
Yeah a ramjet is an idea what the third engine could be but not sure if it would work with the size of the intake I have? ideas?
- Have you thought about the required type of fuel? The engines could be hydrogen fueled IF enough composite material breakthroughs are made in the near future to allow for light weight pressurized fuel tanks.
I havent thought about fuel yet and its a good job you mentioned it as I had forgot all about fuel tanks looks like I had better go and work out where they go ha!
Hope IAâm not flooding you with this. IAâm just taking it very seriously and I love the general design of a supersonic triple-deck passenger jet.
Thanks again, is helpful when people give you information all in one go rather than over many posts and pages!
Main landing gear
I see. Still, looks unnecessarily complicated when you have a low wing configuration at your disposal. You could use the wing to body fairing.
Not having passenger windows
Nobody can argue with the Rule of Cool. But at least use (slightly) bigger windows on the inside then on the outside. That way internal air pressure will push the windows locked into the hull and they cannot pop out. Same goes for cargo & passenger doors. Also, the windows on the inside of planes are fake little plastic ones that only serve to protect the real glass ones that are part of the pressurized hull .
Crew resting compartments.
YouAâre right, but if you wanna impress tell them that it is an airline cabin configuration philosophy. Some airliners value (paying) seats above all. Others have a lot more money to spend and install outrageous thing like an entire bar (like Emirates on their A380Aâs).
Ramjets
The problem is that almost all commercial research is into greener fuels, noise reduction and fuel ecomomy. Your plane is pretty much the opposite of all that
The only thing that could work is the scramjet (basically a supersonic ramjet) being developed by DARPA & Australia's Defense Science and Technology Organization (DSTO). Like I said before, that could work, but it needs to be in an underwing nacelle to work. Conventional high-bypass turbofans to get up to speed could work very good inside the fuselage at the tail(Lockheed Tristar for instance), although jetliners are not designed as such anymore. Oh, and you need at least two engines for safe take offs and landings (international design regulations), although they need not be that big & powerful.
In case youAâre wondering, I work as a project manager for the Engine Services dept of the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Engineering & Maintenance division. If you need any specific data on modern turbofans, you lemme know. :thumb:
you can get multi axel nosegear on aircraft, check out the C5 or AN225, or there's the B52 which has 4 sets layed out much like the wheels on a car except all of them have steering, I like way the more complex gear helps make it look bigger and futuristic, this is science fiction remember, it doesn't have to be super accurate to today's aircraft, for me it's based enough on real life to look feasable, and enough on sci-fi to look cool
Granted, those aircraft you mention have double nose gears, but they're either side-by-side or double wheeled SINGLE AXLEs.
As this project was tied in with university work, I guessed functionality played some part. But you're right, I'll just let liam887 decided for himself how far he wants to carry the realism.
yeah thanks for the input it has really helped, it does need some sense of functionality but I htink im going to go back and add more wheels just to show how huge it is. The windows already are bigger inside than outside as for the other stuff ill be changing it one thing at a time, still not sure about the engine however.
Posts
Basically this is a very fast aircraft, imagine a Concorde MK2 im not going to mess it up with aerodynamic faults. And its all a changing WIP I think I may have the engines on each wing like Concorde not sure yet. Maybe one on top of the fuselage and one on each wing?
http://inhabitat.com/2010/07/19/airbus-unveils-fuel-efficient-aircraft-of-the-future/
Jim
Anyway here is a bit more work fleshing out the actual shape.
yeah the exhaust for the middle engine is not in front of the tail but at the very end. Thats why the tail finishes flat and not pointed, still needs work on that anyway.
Still needs a bit more reshaping, need to move the wheels about, the wing engines feel to small, not sure what to do about them.
Going to start on the interior later today anyway in a different file to save space.
Not sure if its a scramjet anymore, the wing engines are pretty much conventional turbojets however the middle engine could always be a scramjet ir some sort of scifi engine? Ill just see how it goes and listen to everybody's input.
- The main landing gear seems a bit over-engineered with two whole sets taking up massive amounts main hull space. Why not go for the conventional configuration with the beams and pistons in the wings and only the wheels in the main hull? That way you save hull space and distribute the weight of the plane over a large area of wing root and not small areaAâs of main hull.
- Nose gears are always single axle, otherwise it cannot turn and a steering mechanism in the gear itself is too complicated and vulnerable.
- The cockpit windows are useless if the nose cone cannot tilt down like the old Concorde. Windows are only needed in case of a visual landing. Perhaps it is best to do without them and go full instrument landing. 10-15 years in the future should make enough time to make this feasible. A plane like this will probably only land in cat 5 equipped airports anyway (cat 5 = full instrument landing possible in zero-visibility conditions)
- Taking that train of thought one stop further: future airliners will probably not have passenger windows either. They screw up aerodynamics and create weak spots in the pressurized hull anyway. Most likely they will be replace with flat screens showing an array of outside views fed by different cameraAâs (as Airbus already does btw).
- I wouldnAât bother with crew resting compartments. If this thing is as fast as it looks, it will arrive before the crew needs to take a nap. Unless you want to keep the time-honored tradition of the captain fooling around with the flight attendants
- YouAâd probably need to lower your overhead ceiling on the top floor and/or raise the cargo deck floor to make more room for airco ducting, hydraulic lines, electrical cabling, heat exchangers, hydraulic pumps and so on and so forth.
- Winglets generally point upwards because they need to keep the low pressure in place above the wingAâs surface that sucks the plane upwards, not the unaltered air below it. Downwards pointing winglets do works, but less effective. However, BoeingAâs X-36 uses a seagull configuration with downwards pointing wings to cope with the high speeds.
- In any case, winglets create too much drag at supersonic speeds. Perhaps it is better to use the shark fin aerodynamics pioneered by Burt RutanAâs ARES fighter?
- The current engine configuration has one big disadvantage. In order to get the air into the engine, it needs to change direction. Especially at high speeds it needs to travel in a straight line flowing through the engine in order to avoid unwanted friction and above all turbulence building up in front of the core engine. ThatAâs why almost all supersonic aircraft have engines in nacelles to allow this straight airflow.
- I think ramjets are pretty feasible in 10 to 15 years, but then you REALLY need a straight airflow. YouAâd still need conventional engines to get up to speed and they need to be pretty powerful to get this plane in the air at the low speeds of take-offs and landings.
- Have you thought about the required type of fuel? The engines could be hydrogen fueled IF enough composite material breakthroughs are made in the near future to allow for light weight pressurized fuel tanks.
Hope IAâm not flooding you with this. IAâm just taking it very seriously and I love the general design of a supersonic triple-deck passenger jet.
Thanks again, is helpful when people give you information all in one go rather than over many posts and pages!
I see. Still, looks unnecessarily complicated when you have a low wing configuration at your disposal. You could use the wing to body fairing.
Not having passenger windows
Nobody can argue with the Rule of Cool. But at least use (slightly) bigger windows on the inside then on the outside. That way internal air pressure will push the windows locked into the hull and they cannot pop out. Same goes for cargo & passenger doors. Also, the windows on the inside of planes are fake little plastic ones that only serve to protect the real glass ones that are part of the pressurized hull .
Crew resting compartments.
YouAâre right, but if you wanna impress tell them that it is an airline cabin configuration philosophy. Some airliners value (paying) seats above all. Others have a lot more money to spend and install outrageous thing like an entire bar (like Emirates on their A380Aâs).
Ramjets
The problem is that almost all commercial research is into greener fuels, noise reduction and fuel ecomomy. Your plane is pretty much the opposite of all that
The only thing that could work is the scramjet (basically a supersonic ramjet) being developed by DARPA & Australia's Defense Science and Technology Organization (DSTO). Like I said before, that could work, but it needs to be in an underwing nacelle to work. Conventional high-bypass turbofans to get up to speed could work very good inside the fuselage at the tail(Lockheed Tristar for instance), although jetliners are not designed as such anymore. Oh, and you need at least two engines for safe take offs and landings (international design regulations), although they need not be that big & powerful.
In case youAâre wondering, I work as a project manager for the Engine Services dept of the KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Engineering & Maintenance division. If you need any specific data on modern turbofans, you lemme know. :thumb:
I really like what I'm seeing here so far
As this project was tied in with university work, I guessed functionality played some part. But you're right, I'll just let liam887 decided for himself how far he wants to carry the realism.
HA! nice man.
i agree lol