New Long Range Bomber/Attack Aircraft With Shape Shifting Hull and Wings

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

Wing sweep is fairly irrelevant in this case, as the wing is optimized for high subsonic speeds. If you actually look at a supersonic aircraft, they all have a supercritical wing. The 747 has a high lift, subsonic wing. You can't go supersonic with that type of wing, as it would create too much drag, and the stress would damage the wing. Even if they had gone with a 40 degree sweep, it still wouldn't be able to go supersonic.

---

If the wing was still made of aluminum I would DEFINITELY AGREE WITH YOU on that!
It would be able to stay supersonic for only a very short period before breaking up!

...NOW if that same type of composite wing that the B787 Dreamliner uses could be
swept back a bit to 40 degrees and put on a B747 THEN I think the drag problem and
resulting wing stress could be minimized!

And to anticipate your reply, I do PERSONALLY THINK that someone in
the USAF would have asked Boeing how much it would cost to go fully
composite build on a B747 ... !!!! It would be INTERESTING to have seen
the cost-to-build and aerodynamic calculations of that reply from Boeing!

a reply to: StargateSG7

It doesn't matter if it's composite or aluminum. You can't make a brick go Mach 7, which is what you're trying to do. An aircraft that is optimized for high subsonic flight isn't going to go Mach 1 for longer than a few seconds, no matter how hard you try. The 747 is a very high drag fuselage, once you start getting even close to Mach 1. You can get it into the transonic regions, but that's as close as it's going to get. Once you get near Mach 0.9, drag is exponential. The 747 is designed to cruise about 0.84, and you're not getting much faster than that.

The 787 is in the same boat. They're optimized for super efficient, slow flight. Yes, it's incredibly fast compared to say 40-50 years ago, but it's still slow. You can't take a Ford fullsize van, put a Corvette engine in it, and hit 130 mph with it.

As for a composite airframe, it would have cost more than a fleet of 747s to build an all composite airframe in the numbers the Air Force would buy. They wouldn't even consider it, because the cost would be so high.

a reply to: Zaphod58

"....You can't take a Ford fullsize van, put a Corvette engine in it, and hit 130 mph with it. ..."

Oh yes you can....!!!
Old 1953 Panel Van with Corvette Engine:
www.youtube.com...

Silverado truck with Corvette Engine --- 150 MPH+
www.youtube.com...

pushing it a bit here .... BUT still....150 MPH+
Ford Supervan Cosworth V8 Revs, Exhaust and Engine:
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: StargateSG7

And do it in a 747, and see what happens. See how long your airframe remains intact. You can argue all you want, the simple fact of aerodynamics is that a 747 isn't going supersonic.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

And do it in a 747, and see what happens. See how long your airframe remains intact. You can argue all you want, the simple fact of aerodynamics is that a 747 isn't going supersonic.

---

Don't get me wrong I actually AGREE WITH YOU!

It can't go supersonic without a hull and wing redesign
but I should note that someone somewhere had an
IDEA/REQUEST for a supersonic B747-type aircraft....
so who knows where such a request ended up.... :-) ;-)

a reply to: StargateSG7

At this point, prove it.

It would have required a complete redesign of the entire fuselage, wing, and engines. It would be a completely different aircraft and wouldn't have been able to do what the 747 can.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

At this point, prove it.

It would have required a complete redesign of the entire fuselage, wing, and engines. It would be a completely different aircraft and wouldn't have been able to do what the 747 can.

Like I said earlier there SHOULD BE a copy
in the GAO (general Accounting Office) or
also likely within Congressional Records
of just such a request. I will take a look
to see where such a letter is and get
a copy of it.

It would definitely be an interesting
academic exercise to find it. Give me
a few weeks and I will see what I can do!
I've got contacts at the GAO and Congress
staff, we'll see what I can find!

Keep looking here for updates or I'll send
you a U2U with further info on what I find!

a reply to: Zaphod58


Just did an FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request to the USAF
a few minutes ago. Should have an answer in a few days or weeks.

My business partners decided to add in a few extra requests
for information about HUGE supersonic-capable jet craft information
which they want to know about and when I get any or all such
information, I will pass it on to you.

So soon we will know the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE and WHY
of Boeing 747's or other extreme sized jet craft that can go supersonic!

I hope it helps!

originally posted by: StargateSG7

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

And do it in a 747, and see what happens. See how long your airframe remains intact. You can argue all you want, the simple fact of aerodynamics is that a 747 isn't going supersonic.

---

Don't get me wrong I actually AGREE WITH YOU!

It can't go supersonic without a hull and wing redesign
but I should note that someone somewhere had an
IDEA/REQUEST for a supersonic B747-type aircraft....
so who knows where such a request ended up.... :-) ;-)

Sorry Stargate but I don't get your point. If you completely redesign the wings and the fuselage it is no longer a 747, so that seems a pointless argument! A 747 of any construction and type cannot and will not maintain supersonic speeds due to it's entire design from the ground up.

If you are suggesting that requests for designs of supersonic transport craft have been submitted to the defence contractors then of course they have. This has nothing to do with a 747 though.

I'm sure you are convinced that a 747 can "go faster than many people think" unfortunately you're absolutely wrong.

In case you are wondering what qualifies me to say this so matter of factly, I'm an Aeronautical Engineer, with a Phd from Bristol University, FIMechE, working for a major UK defence contractor for the last 13 years, and I'm getting really fed up with all the pseudo science and utter rubbish that's creeping in to the aviation forum!

Cheers
Robbie

originally posted by: stratsys-sws

originally posted by: StargateSG7

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

And do it in a 747, and see what happens. See how long your airframe remains intact. You can argue all you want, the simple fact of aerodynamics is that a 747 isn't going supersonic.

---

Don't get me wrong I actually AGREE WITH YOU!

It can't go supersonic without a hull and wing redesign
but I should note that someone somewhere had an
IDEA/REQUEST for a supersonic B747-type aircraft....
so who knows where such a request ended up.... :-) ;-)

Sorry Stargate but I don't get your point. If you completely redesign the wings and the fuselage it is no longer a 747, so that seems a pointless argument! A 747 of any construction and type cannot and will not maintain supersonic speeds due to it's entire design from the ground up.

If you are suggesting that requests for designs of supersonic transport craft have been submitted to the defence contractors then of course they have. This has nothing to do with a 747 though.

I'm sure you are convinced that a 747 can "go faster than many people think" unfortunately you're absolutely wrong.

In case you are wondering what qualifies me to say this so matter of factly, I'm an Aeronautical Engineer, with a Phd from Bristol University, FIMechE, working for a major UK defence contractor for the last 13 years, and I'm getting really fed up with all the pseudo science and utter rubbish that's creeping in to the aviation forum!

Cheers
Robbie

Just because you have a degree doesn't really mean that the
B747 hull and wing shape cannot do Supersonic. It kinda depends
upon the ability of the aluminum in the current design to WITHSTAND
torsion, compression, tension and shear stresses in the hull and wing structures.

Until that design is TESTED under an Aerodynamics Analysis,
Finite Element Analysis, Materials and Hull Stress Analysis
and about only 20 other simulations I can run on this ridiculously
expensive computing system I have access to, so I think I will take
your advice in obeyance BUT WILL VERIFY YOUR SUPPOSITION with
an aerodynamics simulation and trust the output of that data stream.

I'm not knocking your credentials, but the PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING
and based upon the scientific method of experimentation, simulation
and replication I THINK we can offer a validated response as to whether
or not the design of a B747 AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS TODAY (747-400 or 800 models)
hull and wing structures can withstand the stress of transition to supersonic speeds.

I CERTAINLY DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ...BUT... WE CAN CERTAINLY FIND OUT !!!

---

And one question I personnally have, if the actual hull shape,
internal structural members design and shape and wing design/sweep
were to be SIMPLY CHANGED TO ALL-COMPOSITE material (i.e. carbon fibre),
would THAT have ANY effect on flight characteristics, weight, carrying capacity,
top speed, etc. --- Like I said earlier, I sure don't know for any certainty,
but I wouldn't mind finding out for myself!

So let the data fall where it may!

a reply to: StargateSG7

And regarding my FOIA request this is what I sent to the USAF
for which we should be getting an answer anytime soon within
the next few weeks....

====


Tuesday, April 5th, 2016

...
Wolfpack Aerospace Group

RE: FOIA Request -- Extremely Large Supersonic Cargo Lifter Jet


Dear Sirs,

As per the statutes outlined under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
and as a small technical systems and data information provider, we are asking for
your welcome assistance in providing "All Releasable Information" that pertains
to any report, technical document or audio/video/powerpoint presentation and/or
recorded audio/video meeting specifically relating to any engineering and/or design
study or request made by any contractor, staff member, officer or executive within
any sub-branch or office of the USAF (or its sub-units and related services!) that
pertain to using or manufacturing Boeing 747 series aircraft or any other derivative
extreme-sized aircraft models from any other jet aircraft manufacturer in a
Supersonic-capable configuration.

The key questions we wish answered via available documents are:

1) Were any models of the Boeing 747 since pre-production (1968) up to now 2016
ever asked by the USAF to be modified or re-designed or evaluated/tested such that
the aircraft type in question would be ABLE TO or HAS BEEN TESTED in any way possible
to go supersonic (greater than the speed of sound -- MACH 1)?

2) When and To Whom the USAF did make any verbal or written request to Boeing for a
cost-study or a design study as to whether or not the Boeing 747 (any model or derivative)
could be built using all-composite or partial-composite materials (i.e. anything other than
simple aircraft aluminum in whole or in part)?

3) When and to Whom has the USAF ever requested or commissioned any design study,
cost outline or conducted any actual test or flown any evaluation jet aircraft, of any type
or configuration, from any manufacturer that was/is AS LARGE AS or LARGER THAN the
Boeing 747 that actually could go or potentially go supersonic and faster?

4) When and From what person or office (i.e. what plant/office/base)
did the USAF ask for or receive such documents from Boeing or
Boeing sub-contractor or even ANOTHER aircraft manufacturer about
costs and technical requirements for a Supersonic-capable 747 aircraft
(or any comparable extremely large supersonic aircraft of ANY type)
that is used for USAF-directed mission requirements that is the same
size as or larger than a 747?

5) Are there ANY type of Extremely Large cargo aircraft currently flying,
or in the past has flown, or is being proposed to fly within the USAF inventory
(jet-powered or otherwise!) that is (by dimensions, weight or cargo capacity)
the same size as or larger than the Boeing 747 or Lockheed C-5 Galaxy aircraft?
Are any of them actually Supersonic or potentially supersonic capable?
What are their current designations (i.e. codenames, model numbers, etc),
approximate dimensions and approximate lifting capacities in tons.
(actual images/drawings of such craft would be nice to get!)

---

We specifically request all such releasable information
that answers the above questions as electronic format
documents preferably in PDF form if text data or simple
scanned images...AND...if the information is in audio/video
format, then produce a Windows Media File or Apple Quicktime
file or MPEG/MP4 file format.

We are specifically making this request to the USAF so that
we may confer to and prove to aerospace industry technical
and engineering personnel that such an aircraft is not only
possible to manufacture, but was actually requested by
and/or flown by the USAF during the years 1968 to 2016.

If the information we have requested contains
classified information, please redact or cover-over
only the classified portions of any such text or imagery
so that we may have as much information as permissible
and releasable to us.

...
...
...

As per your handbook which we have reviewed,
we have estimated this information request could
be satisfied for a cost of $500 US or less.

Link to USAF FOIA Handbook we reviewed:
www.foia.af.mil...

If you have an easily obtainable list of documents available
please first send us that list (i.e. a line item list of document
names with title and description) via email so that we can
decide which to order based upon a list of costs for such
document retrieval.

Please direct a reply to our request to this email address:

...

that contains any document listings and their associated
retrieval costs. We will then conduct a technical meeting
with our personnel to make a decision as to which
documents to order.

If your response is that you have no such records or that
the documents you have in your possession are all classified,
we do wish that you acknowledge that fact via email to us.

We thank you for any help we may receive from your office.

Sincerely,


...
Technical Systems Researcher
Wolfpack Aerospace Group

a reply to: StargateSG7

And what do the Tu-144, Concorde, US SST, new SST, and B-1 all have in common that the 747 doesn't? Really easy question there.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I bet he doesn't get it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

And what do the Tu-144, Concorde, US SST, new SST, and B-1 all have in common that the 747 doesn't? Really easy question there.

You mean other than the engines and long, slim, narrow bodies?

Yes! I understand that the B747 is kinda a brick when
it comes to supersonic flight...BUT...just because it's
a brick doesn't mean it CAN'T fly supersonic!

Ironically, i've actually SENT a brick supersonic...SO IT CAN BE DONE!

And this being ATS, it can't hurt to ASK what has been done before!

So let the chips fall where they may and at least I'm gonna get
SOME KIND OF ANSWER as to my inquiry! You just might learn
something NEW...especially since those certain persons that
are reading this will hopefully throw us a bone or three!

I did ask politely!

a reply to: StargateSG7

And the stress of going supersonic would damage the airframe. If it was that easy why wouldn't they have more efficient wings and bigger than a sewer pipe fuselages?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StargateSG7

And the stress of going supersonic would damage the airframe. If it was that easy why wouldn't they have more efficient wings and bigger than a sewer pipe fuselages?

From an aerodynamics perspective and a current airframe
structures perspective, I agree with you the B747 as it stands
wouldn't survive for long at supersonic...But one KEY question
I asked in my FOIA inquiry was whether ANY OTHER aircraft
the size of or larger than a B747 is or was supersonic capable!

That is the REAL QUESTION I want answered...!!!

but if one was to really take a look at the technology
of the B747, I have a sneaky suspicion at least a few
designers of that baby had something in mind for it
that might work at supersonic speeds!

It was an intriguing fact finding out about the original
40-degree wing sweep. I am curious as to what else
was requested for but not put into the B747!

Anyways, we'll see what answers we get from the USAF!

And also like I said earlier, hopefully they will have
some pity on us and throw us a juicy bone more more!

---

Interesting note though:

Rumblings Of 747 At Mach 1 As Test Jet Nears Speed Of Sound:

"...Test pilots at an Israeli aircraft company successfully flew a
747 freighter at 98 percent of the speed of sound in a safety
demonstration for the Federal Aviation Administration.

But don`t expect supersonic cargo travel to become common.
The high-speed run was performed to prove how sturdy the
plane was-not how fast it could go. ..."

and

"....In addition, Boeing knows one case in which a 747 operated
by Evergreen International made an emergency descent at speeds
that exceeded Mach 1, he said. ..."

articles.chicagotribune.com...

...AND...

That was from an audio portion of a TLC video program from years back:

"...a Boeing designer engineer stated that the 747 was initially
design-tested at MACH 1.2 in early aerodynamic flight studies in the 1980's. ..."

I am assuming that must have been a 747-400 model study
if it was from the 1980's ... so who knows what else?

Sorry folks but I gotta know:

Go on then SG7- what happened with the supersonic brick?
And where do you find the time?

Just because you have a degree doesn't really mean that the B747 hull and wing shape cannot do Supersonic. It kinda depends upon the ability of the aluminum in the current design to WITHSTAND torsion, compression, tension and shear stresses in the hull and wing structures. Until that design is TESTED under an Aerodynamics Analysis, Finite Element Analysis, Materials and Hull Stress Analysis and about only 20 other simulations I can run on this ridiculously expensive computing system I have access to, so I think I will take your advice in obeyance BUT WILL VERIFY YOUR SUPPOSITION with an aerodynamics simulation and trust the output of that data stream.

Yeah, I mean who needs engineers if you can just build and test every idea that pops in to one's head no matter how flippin ridiculous it is and without the need to do 6 years at Uni. I'll be sure to tell the other 3,000 aerospace/mechanical engineers and physicists here that we're all redundant.

I give up

Cheers
Robbie

And....I would very closely question the sources of some of this information. The following quote is total and utter rubbish, perhaps the design engineer was designing the toilets, he certainly wasn't designing wings!

a Boeing designer engineer stated that the 747 was initially design-tested at MACH 1.2 in early aerodynamic flight studies in the 1980's

The aerofoil of the 747 was, until the -8, a non supercritical foil, anyone who knows anything about "aerodynamics" would understand that a foil of that shape would not permit stable flight at high transonic and supersonic flight. You need to look in to the principles of Critical Mach Numbers, Mach Tuck and drag divergence numbers. I'm sure your software will do that for you. No way was the 747 ever designed to achieve supersonic flight and no "design engineer" would have ever claimed that.

So yes a 747 could go supersonic if it had a new aerofoil, new control surfaces, new construction material, new fuselage design, new after burning engines with supersonic nacelles, new horizontal stabiliser, new nose design, a new longer, thinner body and massive fuel tanks. Sounds like Concorde to me.

Cheers
Robbie

originally posted by: StargateSG7
"...Test pilots at an Israeli aircraft company successfully flew a
747 freighter at 98 percent of the speed of sound in a safety
demonstration for the Federal Aviation Administration.

Boeing did that with the -100 early in the test program. Still not supersonic.

"....In addition, Boeing knows one case in which a 747 operated
by Evergreen International made an emergency descent at speeds
that exceeded Mach 1, he said. ..."

Emergency descent. They dove it. Kind of hard to do a sustained flight in a dive.

"...a Boeing designer engineer stated that the 747 was initially
design-tested at MACH 1.2 in early aerodynamic flight studies in the 1980's. ..."

Yeah, sure. Whatever.