Supersonic private jet

Mixed cycle engines like that are still at a very low technology readiness level. Ideally you would want turbine for low speed ops, and then a ramjet for low hypersoni flight, followed by either a scramjet or rocket for high hypersonic flight. Integrating all those airflows, and even shutting off the airflow for the rocket cycle, is difficult to do, with many technology challenges.

SF- Affirmative, you cruise efficiently with high bypass fanjets, but supersonic fanjets are low bypass and not as efficient for cruise. On the F-111 when penetrating the mach, we would sweep the wings forward to 45 degress to get the AoA down for mach barrier penetration, and then sweep them gradually to 72 degress once up past mach 1.05. Unless you were low level, in which case AoA was already pretty low.

 

The Aardvark, you manually sweep the angle, correct?

Unlike the Tomcat (I think) where it's all automatic, no pilot control of the sweep.

(It's remotely possible that I'm dead wrong, tho).

 

Thanks for the information.

If cost and regulation were no object, and given reasonably current technology, what would you suggest for the fastest possible means of getting from, say, New York to Beijing?

Sub-orbital? SR-71 type high mach aerodynamic flight? 777-200LR?

 

T- The F-14 could manually control wingsweep, too. The F-111 was all manual sweep. F-14 drivers telegraphed their energy state if they always let the system sweep the wings. In DACT (dissimilar air combat tactics (or training)), that was a decided disadvantage in a dogfight. The F-15s used to call them Turkeys when they first started fighting them. That changed when the late models with the big engines came out. Those B and D models could out accelerate just about anything.

Don- For long hauls like that, we have the technology to build a mach 3 SST as long as you can keep it away from populated areas. Would need to seat 200-300 pax to make it economically viable.

A suborbital rocket powered commerical vehicle is currently economically unfeasible because of size and likely the requirement for auxiliary turbine power to allow for some loiter and divert capability for weather or airfield emergencies. No current airport could accept the noise signature of such a rocket-powered vehicle on take-off, either. A turbine cruise to overwater and then transition to rocket power would at least double the weight (and cost) of the vehicle.

 

Noise and emissions laws and regulations are changing worldwide. In my classes for Embry-Riddle I read that there are more restrictive regulations that are going to pass in Europe through EASA oversight. FAA regulation are also addressing noise, and emissions for aircraft. So future aircraft need to be quiet(er) and more "green".