Supersonic BizJet

Decent looking bird anyway. Here's hoping!

 

That engine placement looks suspicious to me. I suspect that it would spoil the "area rule" principle and that there would be a lot of drag putting the engines right above be top part of the wing root.

Is this worth doing when the only place it could be used would be trans-ocean?

 

If I remember reading about this in the past, you can see the fuselage is rather small in cross section next to the engines to help with the area rule and keep the air moving where it needs to.

 

Well, yeah, but the engines far more than make up for the fuselage slimming - besides being placed awkwardly right on the high-drag area of the wing root.

BTW - I can only assume that the slanted intake and outlets are stylistic touches on the rendering...

 

Lot more 'artistic interpretation' in that renderning than engineering.

Area Rule issue.

Nacelle shape.

Head height in the aisle.

Window head height at chin height.

20 or so pax????

 

Why no swept wing (or horizontal stab for that matter)? Don't all supersonic planes have swept wing designs?

 

Well, the X-1 didn't - but virtually everything else since has had more sweep than this shows. You could make the argument that the F-105 Starfighter had about as little sweep.

I would think that this too is inadequate for high mach (mach 2) as illustrated in the picture.

 

Silly question, but why not a scaled down version of concorde with only 2 engines?
Anywho, talk of supersonic bizjets is nothing new.

 

This another Bugatti T100. Artist dreaming. The angle of the intakes would divert air rather than ingest it. Any shock wave from the outboard lip would never reach the engines. I can see monster interference drag between the intakes, wing root , and body flow unless the shock wave is blended out to the engine intakes that couldn't take it in anyway. Straight wings will require super thin section and F-104 knife-like leading edges, leading edge droop, blown flaps, and 85 % power in order to make a 165 MPH landing. A screwy design to me. Why are the exhaust outlets angled? I can see no reason for that other than to look racy. Just my uneducated impression.

 

And to that response I say, "Uneducated, my a$$"

Ya can't deny that it is a sexy looking beast, though.

 

?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

What length runway and what size hangar will be needed to support that aircraft.

 

SSBJ = Money Pit...

Unless some company with a really big wallet and even bigger stones is willing to bet it's future on it, it isn't going to happen.

 

These pics have been floating around for years. Anyone can draw a picture of an airplane.

 

That somehow reminds me of the Douglas X-3 Stiletto (except that the Stiletto was also a non-sweep design; I mean the ludicrously long nose).

It was said that the X-3 looked like it was doing Mach 3 sitting on the ground, but it actually could not legitimately achieve Mach 1 in the air.

 

Digging into my limited experience in supersonic aircraft configuration I noticed several things that are questionable to me. 1. The abrupt slope of the windshield. Heating and generating a shock wave. 2. Engine intakes. All previous supersonic designs deal with directing air into the engines at high Mach with variable geometry spikes and fences or variable geometry throats. Slanted intakes and exhaust outlets are counter to feeding the engines. Location of nacelles close to and over the wing root look draggy as heck. 3. Tiny empennage. Useless in an asymmetrical thrust situation. 4. Wing shows nothing to deal with slow flight and landing configuration. Straight (or almost straight leading edge) is counter to all that has been learned about high speed flight and should be swept back inside the shock wave.

Having been assigned to the Boeing SST project for a year exposed a subsonic guy to some of the battles that must be faced in designing something that goes really fast. I just don't think that this airplane even comes close.

 

Seems like it would be easier to take an existing military design and turn it into a transport.... For instance the B-1 has a ton of space once you get rid of the bomb racks and all the military electronics gear in that big room area aft of the WSO seating section. From what I have read the B-1 lost a lot of its supersonic ability due to low observable radar stuff in the intakes which wouldn't be necessary.

 

Just as a side remark, this seems to be a pretty tough crowd for new speculative airplane designers.

 

The world of supersonic flight is very tough. Criticism is always a healthy response and often forces viability.

 

Exactly - look how many failures the Soviet Union had - besides their supersonic transport, the Myasischev M-50 Bounder:

It had horrible drag because two of the four engines were mounted right on the end of the wings like wing tanks. It only achieved Mach 0.99 in the initial versions - western analysts later said that it showed an embarrassing lack of understanding of supersonic aero design.
The Myasischev design bureau was broken up as a result of this failure.

Or, the Tupolev TU-22 Blinder:

This had the engines mounted high on the rear fuselage, right beside the rudder at the root. Rushed into production by the government, it was widely regarded as basically unflyable. About 20% were lost in accidents.

One lesson which should be clear by now is that weird engine locations are not the answer.

 

The Aerion version does have swept wings.

It has a swivel wingset.

At full swivel, the Port wing is swept forward, the Stbd wing is swept aft.

 

Can it do the opposite, for the return trip back across the Atlantic?