I'm not sure any existing manufacturer is a particularly good fit - the proposed skin and frame construction seems quite unlike modern aeroplanes.
Airliner wings are quite unlike what will be needed for this mach 5 'plane, and I would guess the scale of the wings also leaves fighter jet builders with little relevant experience.
While Airbus Group might seem to be the "obvious" choice, they're pretty invested in Arianne, so the politics could be interesting.
But this seems to be very much cart before the horse. While an awful lot of design work has gone into a craft to fly the SABRE, that work was needed to ensure SABRE was worth developing. Now a working engine is needed before it would be sensible to begin work on the craft.
We're in danger of talking past each other here. There are at least two points being argued for, which are fairly distinct:1] If REL is looking for an airframer to build Skylons, Lockheed Martin is not an obviously good choice.
2] If REL is looking to license some of its recently patented technologies (multiple), then Lockheed Martin is a likely customer as they deal in products that could potentially benefit from them, e.g. military jet/UAV/cruise missiles, etc.
Quote from: francesco nicoli on 07/11/2015 05:54 pmok, so we can exclude LM from the picture. Who else should be dropped?Why are you assuming this technology is only for commercial/civilian purposes because if you are then you're being very, very naive.I'd put reasonable money on this seeing use in the military long before it has commercial use.
ok, so we can exclude LM from the picture. Who else should be dropped?
Well if you're the U.S. & want REL's technology for military use then I would think that's precisely what makes LM a strong choice.
I read that the Altas V was developed for a US Airforce program.
Are they the type of company to start a risky new venture that doesn't have a big guaranteed customer such as the government? e.g. there are people who say that about BAE.
https://twitter.com/patriciavmayes/status/620858977602154496
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/14/2015 07:39 amhttps://twitter.com/patriciavmayes/status/620858977602154496Now that injection plate is intriguing.
Point taken - I'm working on some major fixes for the website. It'll be a while yet, but watch this space! (excuse the pun...)
update from REL website.looks like production is ramping uphttp://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_14july2015_vacfurnace.html(edit)morever, if it works and pre-coolers are in fact requested by the market, they could easily build a second furnace to sell the precoolers to other customers and so finance part of the engine development
Curious comment from the UK space conference;https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/621009703066279936?s=17Anyone know what this is about? The only proposal I know of on that scale is REL's Blue Boomerang...http://sec.kingston.ac.uk/uklaunch/docs/Reaction%20Engines%20Blue%20Boomerang%20-%20Light%20Launcher.pdf
This is actually what going to make it hard for other people to copy Reaction Engine technology even with the patents in the public, the technology to actually manufacture the pre coolers, some of it was developed perfected by Reaction Engines themselves and I very much doubt we will see those being patented anytime soon.
I'm not sure any existing manufacturer is a particularly good fit - the proposed skin and frame construction seems quite unlike modern aeroplanes. Airliner wings are quite unlike what will be needed for this mach 5 'plane, and I would guess the scale of the wings also leaves fighter jet builders with little relevant experience.
I agree they're an unlikely partner, however the SR-71 gives them some relevant experience - the skin, and supporting engines on low thickness wings.
If nothing else, a revenue stream would get them closer to their goal. I'm sure there is a large element of investor palatability, but Reaction Engines as a company was set up to sell heat exchangers. See also their wholly owned subsidiary "Skylon Enterprise Ltd"
Quote from: http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.htmlThe A2 airframe also has technology commonality with the SKYLON launch vehicle. [...] it is anticipated that the A2 airframe would be constructed as a similar multi-layer structure to SKYLON [...] once a company was building *that* sort of aeroplane, slipping a Skylon into the mix would be a lot easier.
The A2 airframe also has technology commonality with the SKYLON launch vehicle. [...] it is anticipated that the A2 airframe would be constructed as a similar multi-layer structure to SKYLON [...]
Will hypersonic airliners be too hot to handle . . . literally? The issues involved in ground handling of a Mach 5-plus transport still simmering after its intercontinental hypersonic hop are among the unique challenges being considered as researchers address the potential operation of future high-speed airliners. While most hypersonic transport projects have focused on the basic design and aerodynamic, propulsion, structures and systems technologies required, the operational aspects are ...
Hello all, Long-time lurker, first time poster.
I would imagine that it is probably easier to build Skylon before getting into anything like the A2, for a number of reasons:1. Skylon is designed for a lifetime of 200 flights, spending only minutes each in hot "hypersonic cruise" (ie re-entry) conditions. this also goes for airframe loading cycles. This is compared to the requirement of at least thousands of hours (if not tens of thousands) and cycles for a civil airliner. therefore one would expect the sklyon airframe design to be a better first one to try.
2. There is a proven, existing market for Skylon - in fact, Skylon has been designed specifically based on the GEO comsat market. whereas, Lapcat is really a feasibility study, without the robust business case required to support investment/ development.
3. The amount of new cryogenic fuel supply infrastructure required for Skylon is far less than for something like an A2 - Skylon only needs it at enough launch sites to get to the right orbits, whereas a useful passenger plane will need supply at every place that people actually want to go.
As for the temperature of a just-landed A2, I imagine in normal aircraft operations you would have at least half an hour of subsonic flight before landing during which to cool down (getting in the runway queue for one thing), plus any active cooling if run at subsonic would bring the temperature down pretty fast, plus a low heat-capacity skin material, so i wonder if this might be a bit of a non-problem. Can anyone tell me if there were/ are heat handling issues with the Shuttle/ X37B post-landing?
I hope these are valid points and am very happy to be corrected on them, just pleased to be part of the discussion