Ultra-rapid air vehicle proposed in Airbus patent

Ultra-rapid air vehicle proposed in Airbus patent

Two inventors have had a vision of a hypersonic rocket-powered jetliner. A 17-page patent document has described that vision, titled "Ultra-rapid air vehicle and related method for aerial locomotion." Inventors are listed as Marco Prampolini and Yohann Coraboeuf.

Assignees were listed as European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), France and Astrium SAS. (Aviation Week reported in 2013 that EADS decided to make significant corporate structure changes and placed the company under the Airbus brand.)

The patent involves a point to point ultra-rapid , something that stands out from the CONCORDE and the Tupolev Tu-144, both of which are supersonic. Our ultra-fast vehicle, they said, enables the performance of both these aircraft to be improved "very considerably."

Popular Science listed the features of their invention: It is a plane powered by turbojets, ramjets, and a rocket.

The two ram-jets are under its delta wings, and a pair of Turbo-jets are under the fuselage. A is at the rear end of the fuselage, said PatentYogi.

These help to propel 2 or 3 tons of cargo, or 20 passengers, at speeds of up to Mach 4.5 over roughly 5,600 miles in three hours.

The inventors notably addressed the sound hurdle. Their proposed vehicle substantially reduces the noise when the sound barrier is broken. "The hypersonic Airbus makes the leap from subsonic to supersonic speeds vertically, while climbing like a rocket, which should dissipate the sound before it reaches the ground," said Kelsey Atherton in Popular Science.

PatentYogi said the patent suggests a revolutionary aircraft "that leaves every other supersonic jet far behind." After all, a cruising speed of Mach 4.5 puts "even the fastest Concorde to shame," he said. "At 4.5 mach, you can reach from London to NY in one hour. Currently it takes a seven-hours flight."

Deepak Gupta, founder of PatentYogi, helped to analyze what is behind the concept's higher . Once the aircraft climbs to a certain altitude, turbo-jets are retracted into the fuselage. The rocket engine is ignited at full power. This makes the aircraft travel vertically like a rocket, at supersonic speeds. With the vertical trajectory, the energy of the supersonic boom is dissipated in all horizontal radial directions and does not encounter the ground.

He said ingenuity lies in the pair of fins situated on the outer ends of the delta wings. "At speeds less than MACH 1, these fins are oriented horizontally. However, once the speed exceeds MACH 1, the fins are oriented vertically. This causes the center of pressure to be maintained at the same point and thus providing greater stability. After reaching a very high altitude, the aircraft curves into a horizontal trajectory at which point the rocket engine is powered off and closed by a door to make it streamlined. The ram jets are then ignited and the is propelled horizontally at supersonic speeds."

Commented Jane Wakefield, technology reporter, BBC: "A vast number of patent applications don't ever see the light of day as real products although technology described in it may find its way into some Airbus products."


Explore further

Air Force scientists are working on hypersonic air vehicle

More information: Patent

© 2015 Tech Xplore

Citation: Ultra-rapid air vehicle proposed in Airbus patent (2015, August 6) retrieved 19 March 2019 from https://techxplore.com/news/2015-08-ultra-rapid-air-vehicle-airbus-patent.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1271 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 06, 2015
That has to be the ugliest thing I've ever seen!
Why use a combination of Jet, Rocket and Ramjet when a Sabre engine be better? Yes its not ready yet but neither is the capability to put a jet, rocket and ramjet in to one aircraft.

Aug 06, 2015
Faster is less efficient, as the faster you go, in general, the more fuel it takes to travel the same distance.

In an age where we need to maximize efficiency, I don't think a race to make the fastest possible aircraft is really all that practical or relevant(except for military purposes).

Aug 06, 2015
All those different systems mean a lot of load to carry. Any passengers?

Aug 06, 2015
Have we forgotten what it takes go go hypersonic? I'll look up the account of Pete Knight's last hypersonic flight.

Aug 06, 2015
"Yes its not ready yet but neither is the capability to put a jet, rocket and ramjet in to one aircraft."
------------------------------------

The engines of the Blackbirds change from turbojets to ramjets in flight.

And we had rocket engines added to turbojets for decades, with the NF-104 Space Trainers of Test Pilot School ("Aerospace Research Pilot School" back then). That was in the mid '60's, when Pete Knight went Mach six or seven in the purely-rocket-powered X-15.

Aug 06, 2015
Want to go hypersonic?

Read this:
http://tacairnet....ht-ever/

Aug 06, 2015
The wingtips of the massive XB-70 would fold down in flight to trap and ride its own shock wave above Mach one. It could go Mach Three, over 2,000 mph. We only flew two of them.

Aug 06, 2015
Willie disagrees with me. I wonder how many Valkyries he saw in the air?

Aug 06, 2015
"The engines of the Blackbirds change from turbojets to ramjets in flight.

"And we had rocket engines added to turbojets for decades, with the NF-104 Space Trainers of Test Pilot School ("Aerospace Research Pilot School" back then). That was in the mid '60's, when Pete Knight went Mach six or seven in the purely-rocket-powered X-15"

-Why dont you just provide links to real experts who actually know what theyre talking about?

Your anecdotes are notoriously unreliable.

Aug 06, 2015
You have NO IDEA of what I speak, otto, being a wannabe-turned-neverwas.

Beg me, and I'll tell you the real story of what happened the very first time we went hypersonic.

And, . . maybe I'll send a little vignette to Ira about a flight of the XB-70.

Aug 06, 2015
You have NO IDEA of what I speak, otto, being a wannabe-turned-neverwas.

Beg me, and I'll tell you the real story of what happened the very first time we went hypersonic.

And, . . maybe I'll send a little vignette to Ira about a flight of the XB-70.
So... george went hypersonic?

Of course thats bullshit.

You can understand why the people here are demanding that you provide sources for everything you say.
And, . . maybe I'll send a little vignette to Ira about a flight of the XB-70
Oh thats all right - dont bother. Such things as prepared by real experts (not bullshit artists) are readily available on the INTERNET.
https://www.youtu...WfFJqaQc

Aug 06, 2015
Beg me, and I'll tell you the real story of what happened the very first time we went hypersonic.

gskam had a ringside seat, stuck to the bottom of someone's shoe.

Aug 06, 2015
And, . . maybe I'll send a little vignette to Ira about a flight of the XB-70.


Skippy, leave me the heck out this. I am trying to let all this go for the sake of all the other peoples here on the physorg. Don't send me nothing couyon. Don't tell me nothing couyon. Don't even bring me into your foolishment in any way couyon.

I am sure all the peoples on here are really tired of this all day every day. You can tell all the tales you want about all the wonderful things you done, but leave me alone with them.

Aug 06, 2015
Faster is less efficient, as the faster you go, in general, the more fuel it takes to travel the same distance.

While theoretically, this is true, in practice this is more subtile.
The kerosene that you consume to fly from point A to point B is used almost entirely to overcome the losses that the drag causes, few of it is actually used to make your plane move.
A hypersonic plane will fly much higher in the atmosphere (over 36000 feet IIRC) than conventional airplanes where they experience less drag, thus will consume less fuel to overcome it.
Also, because it is flying faster, it spends less time in the atmosphere, so the total energy lost to the drag is lower.
Overall, such planes actually consumes the same or sometimes less fuel than a conventional plane.

Aug 06, 2015
The engines of the Blackbirds change from turbojets to ramjets in flight.

The SR-71 Blackbird had a special intake that slowed the intake air from Mach 3 to under Mach 1 making possible the use of a simple jet.

Why use a combination of Jet, Rocket and Ramjet when a Sabre engine be better?

The SABRE engine will require extensive testing before the first flight. On the other hand jet engines and rockets have proven flight records and are operating today. Placing the combination is just a matter of engineering unlike the SABRE which is a radically new engine with no flight demonstrator to date.

Aug 06, 2015
Returners,
You really can't see the benefit of that?
You may not have any reason to go to London, but we got business men with valuable time, this would undoubtedly be a boost to global finance.

Someday in the future it will be cheaper too, all of a sudden a European vacation (or American, Chinese, ect) won't seem like too far off of a place.

Also a smaller world and more travel means we understand each other better which means we'll get caught up in less political war mongering

Aug 06, 2015
"The SR-71 Blackbird had a special intake that slowed the intake air from Mach 3 to under Mach 1 making possible the use of a simple jet."
----------------------------------

What is a "simple jet"? Do you mean the standard turbojet?

The Blackbird engine then bypassed the turbines completely and transitioned into a ramjet.

Aug 06, 2015
What is a "simple jet"? Do you mean the standard turbojet?

Yes exactly, a standard turbojet. The Pratt & Whitney J58 to be exact.

The Blackbird engine then bypassed the turbines completely and transitioned into a ramjet.
Under Mach 3, the spike in front of the turbine is slowing the intake air to ensure that the turbine operates at subsonic flow. Over Mach 3, speed is sufficient to compress the air by itself and provides 58% of the thrust but it is not a pure ramjet because the turbojet is still running.
http://www.wvi.co...58~1.htm

Aug 06, 2015
The fastest aircraft which ever flew did so about 50 years ago, while I was at Eddie's Airplane Patch, but we certainly have done more than that, . . ,. haven't we?

But Groom Lake was a relatively small lakebed facility back then, with Blackbirds and their other air vehicles. Now, it is much larger.

Aug 06, 2015
"The fastest aircraft which ever flew did so about 50 years ago, while I was at Eddie's Airplane Patch"

-Unpacking boxes, plugging things in, and flipping switches as a gopher. Lets not forget your 'perspective' mr expert.

Aug 06, 2015
My perspective was much closer than yours, Mister Nobody.

Aug 07, 2015
Bring back the Hindenburg, match it to telepresence and why exactly does the suit need to get to London in 3 hours?
Faster and faster, more and more. We have been whinging about economic growth for 50 years. So tell me, how much growth is enough? How fast is fast enough? This insane carousel is spinnig out of control.
Bring back the Graf Zeppelin.

Aug 07, 2015
Maybe I am just old and cynical, but I believe in this case EADS is a patent troll and wants to compete with Skylon and the Sabre engine, not with better technology, but in the courts.

Aug 07, 2015
Bring back the Hindenburg, match it to telepresence and why exactly does the suit need to get to London in 3 hours?
Faster and faster, more and more. We have been whinging about economic growth for 50 years. So tell me, how much growth is enough? How fast is fast enough? This insane carousel is spinnig out of control.
Bring back the Graf Zeppelin.

Kind of like air cruise ships. If you gave them access to stabilized camera systems mounted on the ship, they could entertain themselves watching wildlife below as they move from point to point.

Aug 08, 2015
This is right up here with the every decade or so Pop Science new flying cars.

Aug 08, 2015
My perspective was much closer than yours, Mister Nobody
Gophers and janitors get to see things very close indeed but this doesnt mean they understand what theyre looking at.

You can pretend all you want.

Aug 08, 2015
Translation of otto:

"Whine!!" (stomp, . kick, . . )

(sniff, . . whimper, . whimper, . . . )

Aug 08, 2015
That's very professional of you gkam.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more