787 vertical climb?
Discussion
Just seen this on the BBC website. Can a 787 really get so close to vertical so soon after take off? Or is it camera angles?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33115944
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33115944
Hah, lets see you try that in an A380! Oh, wait... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJxnwF-MPi0
I'd say it is more a demonstration of the engines than anything else (and camera angles). Even standard take-offs get pretty steep at times for noise abatement.
I'd say it is more a demonstration of the engines than anything else (and camera angles). Even standard take-offs get pretty steep at times for noise abatement.
Unladen 787s are *massively* over engined with the T1000s and hell, they even work these days! Having said that though, you should see the next gen of RR engines, they are wonderful and more importantly - actually have 21st C FADEC architecture on the control system, so you can *really* play with them.
We have reached a point with engine development where B or Airbus *will* re-look at the "Concorde" concept and go down the whole cost efficiency of passenger load v speed again and someone will think "you know what, f
k it, lets build this bugger" because the engine advancement in terms of efficient power output is getting silly for pushing tin cans along at below 700mph.
Designing an airplane to go fast is easy. We've done it for years. Designing an airplane to go fast and efficiently is a lot more difficult and relies almost entirely on engine aspects v airframe. The cost to operate imperative is about 90% engine related. Under B's current modus operandi of multi p to p "sub node" flight networks as opposed to Airbus and their hub to hub big bus plan, I can well see it being B that goes first, esp with the Yank QSP experience.
You will see a new faster than sound commercial airliner developed in the next 20yrs.
We have reached a point with engine development where B or Airbus *will* re-look at the "Concorde" concept and go down the whole cost efficiency of passenger load v speed again and someone will think "you know what, f
k it, lets build this bugger" because the engine advancement in terms of efficient power output is getting silly for pushing tin cans along at below 700mph.Designing an airplane to go fast is easy. We've done it for years. Designing an airplane to go fast and efficiently is a lot more difficult and relies almost entirely on engine aspects v airframe. The cost to operate imperative is about 90% engine related. Under B's current modus operandi of multi p to p "sub node" flight networks as opposed to Airbus and their hub to hub big bus plan, I can well see it being B that goes first, esp with the Yank QSP experience.
You will see a new faster than sound commercial airliner developed in the next 20yrs.
DJRC said:
Unladen 787s are *massively* over engined with the T1000s and hell, they even work these days! Having said that though, you should see the next gen of RR engines, they are wonderful and more importantly - actually have 21st C FADEC architecture on the control system, so you can *really* play with them.
We have reached a point with engine development where B or Airbus *will* re-look at the "Concorde" concept and go down the whole cost efficiency of passenger load v speed again and someone will think "you know what, fk it, lets build this bugger" because the engine advancement in terms of efficient power output is getting silly for pushing tin cans along at below 700mph.
Designing an airplane to go fast is easy. We've done it for years. Designing an airplane to go fast and efficiently is a lot more difficult and relies almost entirely on engine aspects v airframe. The cost to operate imperative is about 90% engine related. Under B's current modus operandi of multi p to p "sub node" flight networks as opposed to Airbus and their hub to hub big bus plan, I can well see it being B that goes first, esp with the Yank QSP experience.
You will see a new faster than sound commercial airliner developed in the next 20yrs.
Let's hope so. We have reached a point with engine development where B or Airbus *will* re-look at the "Concorde" concept and go down the whole cost efficiency of passenger load v speed again and someone will think "you know what, f
k it, lets build this bugger" because the engine advancement in terms of efficient power output is getting silly for pushing tin cans along at below 700mph.Designing an airplane to go fast is easy. We've done it for years. Designing an airplane to go fast and efficiently is a lot more difficult and relies almost entirely on engine aspects v airframe. The cost to operate imperative is about 90% engine related. Under B's current modus operandi of multi p to p "sub node" flight networks as opposed to Airbus and their hub to hub big bus plan, I can well see it being B that goes first, esp with the Yank QSP experience.
You will see a new faster than sound commercial airliner developed in the next 20yrs.
Simpo Two said:
jjones said:
Low pass so a lot more airspeed than rotate speed, zoom climb then as the speed is bleeding off lower the nose. Get him to try the same trick from a standing start.
Loks like he's on the runway to me.What is the undercarriage limiting speed on the 787??
Edited by Mojocvh on Saturday 13th June 13:22
DJRC said:
Unladen 787s are *massively* over engined with the T1000s and hell, they even work these days! Having said that though, you should see the next gen of RR engines, they are wonderful and more importantly - actually have 21st C FADEC architecture on the control system, so you can *really* play with them.
Assuming the basic numbers on Wikipedia are at least in the ball park, a min operating weight 787 is around 125 tonnes with a small fuel load, and two T1000's push out 680Kn peak thrust, so ignoring all other factors, and empty 787 has a thrust to weight ratio of about 0.55.So, no, you can't "prop hang it" (or what ever the equivalent is for jets ;-) but carry through in a bit of KE into the maneuver and i'd imagine it'll climb pretty well.......
The angles closer to 30 deg
Just search YouTube for Farnborough 2014 and you'll see the same stunt from several different angles.
Not something you will generally find your stock 787 doing and it's probably short of a few seats inside as well as galley equip etc.
Just search YouTube for Farnborough 2014 and you'll see the same stunt from several different angles.
Not something you will generally find your stock 787 doing and it's probably short of a few seats inside as well as galley equip etc.
Edited by whyohwhy on Saturday 13th June 15:13
ecsrobin said:
DJRC said:
Unladen 787s are *massively* over engined with the T1000s and hell, they even work these days! Having said that though, you should see the next gen of RR engines, they are wonderful and more importantly - actually have 21st C FADEC architecture on the control system, so you can *really* play with them.
We have reached a point with engine development where B or Airbus *will* re-look at the "Concorde" concept and go down the whole cost efficiency of passenger load v speed again and someone will think "you know what, fk it, lets build this bugger" because the engine advancement in terms of efficient power output is getting silly for pushing tin cans along at below 700mph.
Designing an airplane to go fast is easy. We've done it for years. Designing an airplane to go fast and efficiently is a lot more difficult and relies almost entirely on engine aspects v airframe. The cost to operate imperative is about 90% engine related. Under B's current modus operandi of multi p to p "sub node" flight networks as opposed to Airbus and their hub to hub big bus plan, I can well see it being B that goes first, esp with the Yank QSP experience.
You will see a new faster than sound commercial airliner developed in the next 20yrs.
Let's hope so. We have reached a point with engine development where B or Airbus *will* re-look at the "Concorde" concept and go down the whole cost efficiency of passenger load v speed again and someone will think "you know what, f
k it, lets build this bugger" because the engine advancement in terms of efficient power output is getting silly for pushing tin cans along at below 700mph.Designing an airplane to go fast is easy. We've done it for years. Designing an airplane to go fast and efficiently is a lot more difficult and relies almost entirely on engine aspects v airframe. The cost to operate imperative is about 90% engine related. Under B's current modus operandi of multi p to p "sub node" flight networks as opposed to Airbus and their hub to hub big bus plan, I can well see it being B that goes first, esp with the Yank QSP experience.
You will see a new faster than sound commercial airliner developed in the next 20yrs.
Note nobody is even buying the supersonic business jet and that is a aimed at a much less cost sensitive market than scheduled airlines.
Business jets flying slower, with luxury and modern entertainment and flying when the passenger wants and from near where they live are a more pleasant experience than a supersonic scheduled flight.
For airlines business and first class on conventional aeroplanes are much more profitable than operating a supersonic aircraft.
If I were going to speculate on when mass market supersonic flight is going to return I think it is linked to the abundance of a low cost, carbon free electricity source. This could lead you down a few technology paths:
1: With lithium air or similar batteries a supersonic electric airliner is feasible
2: Hydrogen could feasibly be generated relatively cheaply (hydrogen cars aren't happening IMHO no infrastructure and batteries more convenient) making LAPCAT type aircraft more economically feasible.
3: Hyperloop type systems could replace aircraft on most overland uses. Precisely what speed they will go at would depend on how far they go and is likely to go up over time.
I'd be surprised if any of those things happen before 2050 though.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff