This makes perfect sense and I doubted the authenticity of the picture for the following reasons:

1. The profile area of that vertical stabilizer seems awfully small. If the real aircraft was like that, then it would have serious problems with its directional stability, especially at high angles of attack where the fuselage and engines could affect the airflow to the vertical stabilizer.

2. The horizontal stabilizer (as depicted) would have a very limited range of motion without contacting the fuselage or blocking rudder deflection. Every supersonic aircraft that has a horizontal stabilizer, has it movable throughout a wide range. This is necessary to have enough pitch authority to combat the "Mach Tuck" due to shock induced boundary layer separation. The lack of this capability prior to the Bell X-1 led to many aircraft entering a vertical dive from which recovery was impossible. Also, even with a fully movable horizontal stabilizer, the aircraft tends to be a bit more sluggish about the pitch axis immediately after breaking Mach 1. In fact, supersonic aircraft (except for delta wing types) move their entire stabilizers and do not even have elevators.

Note: Number 2 may be a broad generalization but I have not seen an exception yet.

Though it resembles the F-104, a closer look shows some important differences.

1. The fineness of the body is even bigger.
2. It is a 2-engine.

It is questionable whether a civilian aircraft has a desperate need for a stabilator, and it seems to me there´s enough room for stabilizer/rudder motion.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

heh, now you got me thinking, did he not get the joke, or is he continuing the joke! Everything about the wired picture is "wrong" when compared to a one-oh-four, except the sleek shape.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Control authority decreases significantly at supersonic speeds, so in order to have sufficient authority simply to maintain control, the surfaces must be significantly larger and more effective than would be required for a similar subsonic aircraft. In addition, looking at the design a little more closely, I agree that the vertical stabilizer looks a bit small (though it could probably be made to work).

__________________
WANTED:

Schroedinger's Cat

Dead And Alive

After seeing these pictures of the business jet, it does make much more sense to me now. Although the tail surfaces are small, their extremely long moment arm combined with the reduced stability requirements (due to the fly by wire system) would work.

One reason for my initial skepticism is that just about all of today's (subsonic) jetliners have movable horizontal stabilizers to combat the Mach Tuck problem (although they also have elevators). In addition, I know from experience that the horizontal stabilizers of the B-737, B-757, and the B-767 have wide ranges of motion.

With a length of over 148 ft, this supersonic business jet should have plenty of space for fuel and cargo.

In addition, anyone who can afford $80 million for a private jet is probably not very concerned about fuel costs (already 1 order placed for this aircraft).

I admit that in my skepticism, I was dead wrong on this one.

Agreed, but a stabilator is not the only answer [as Adapa mentions (long moment arm)] depending on the placement of the CG. Their introduction on combat aircraft has more to do with flight performance than control. I think a sufficiently well-designed stabilizer-elevator set could make up [within the requirements of civilian flight].

Movable stabilizers are used in civilian aircraft for trimming.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

One reason for my initial skepticism is that just about all of today's (subsonic) jetliners have movable horizontal stabilizers to combat the Mach Tuck problem (although they also have elevators). In addition, I know from experience that the horizontal stabilizers of the B-737, B-757, and the B-767 have wide ranges of motion.

I think one of the reasons why those airliner control surfaces are so large and have such a wide range of motion is to allow for more flexibility in center of gravity location. Each of those airliners can carry well over 100 passengers of widely varying weights. They also carry a lot of luggage and even cargo. Large tail surfaces allow for a bigger CG envelop. You might not have to worry as much about that with a 12 passenger business jet.

I know that (I have a type rating in all three aircraft that I mentioned). I am also saying that once you get above certain speeds, it takes nose up trim to maintain a trimmed condition as you go faster. Also, although there is a wide range of acceptable CG's, the cargo load is generally planned for the most fuel efficient condition without sacrificing stability.

Those pictures help a lot. The first one gave me a very different (wrong) impression of the thing's shape.

I know that (I have a type rating in all three aircraft that I mentioned). I am also saying that once you get above certain speeds, it takes nose up trim to maintain a trimmed condition as you go faster. Also, although there is a wide range of acceptable CG's, the cargo load is generally planned for the most fuel efficient condition without sacrificing stability.

From what I've read. the center of pressure shift aft as the speed approaches Mach 1. That would make the plane progressively more stable but require more nose up trim resulting in greater trim drag. Loading a plane so that the CG is towards the aft limit will lower trim drag and reduce fuel consumption but the plane won't be as stable.

When I look at this image, the plane reminds me of the X-3 Stilleto, a wickedly cool looking but poor performing (due to weak engines) research plane from the early days of the jet age.

Yeah, a more suitable comparison.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

That is correct. That is why there is an aft CG limit on conventional aircraft. You are also correct about the center of lift moving aft. Also, shock induced boundary layer separation on the horizontal stabilizer will significantly reduce its effectiveness as well as the pitch authority. One thing to remember is that the active stability augmentation systems of today does allow designers to get away with CG's that would be totally out of limits for a conventional aircraft.

One thing to remember is that the active stability augmentation systems of today does allow designers to get away with CG's that would be totally out of limits for a conventional aircraft.

And then there are the military aircraft that are completely unstable and unflyable without the assistance of fly-by-wire systems. The F-16 is unstable in pitch for increased maneuverability and aerodynamic efficiency. Some stealth designs are unstable in pitch, roll, and yaw. Of course, military aircraft have the benefit of ejection seats, too.

It doesn't really appeal to me. More interesting is business class flights leaving from smaller airports for the transatlantic run, such as BAs new service out of London City.

Frankly, the flight across the atlantic is one of the few times that you get to relax, and have a drink, without having to worry about whether or not you should be somewhere else, so the idea of shortening it to three hours, and of spending that time in a narrow-bodied small plane doesn't seem like a good one.

Innovations that have actually made business travel better are the in-flight massages, on demand media, a proper bar on board, and a car picking me up from the office and depositing me at a private terminal entrance from where I'm escorted directly to the lounge.

Less techy, I know, but for me, a much better choice.

I like the idea of getting to Paris, or London, in 7 hours [instead of 10 -11 today]. Concorde flew that route in 6 hours from Rio. But maybe the cost-benefit ratio is not that favorable, given the price of the ticket.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

Not at Mach 1.6. If they could ratchet things up to Mach 3.3, however, things become dramatically more efficient, even though the technology required to get there becomes quite expensive...

...although it also becomes quite durable.

Jet A is $5 a gallon. And they use many many many gallons. But if you write it all off, I guess you don't really care too much. Why not just buy a used Concorde ? All ready certified. Turnkey.

Dan

You can't. Virgin Airways tried to buy one, but was told that they couldn't be had for any amount of money. BA had decided that the surviving planes would be going to museums and that was that.

__________________
We want our children to go to the planets. Burt Rutan 6/21/04 K.I.L.L. S.M.U.R.F.S.
Tuckers! Automotive Oddities! Building my hot rod with the help of the intarwebs Those who would delay scientific progress for a little temporary prosperity shall have neither. MachineCast Save the planet, by leaving it! "To be second in space is to be second in everything," LBJ.

Great Pity, what. Rust, bust and collect dust . A sad end for great birds.
And Virgin is just the right group to do the job.

Dan

I would guess that the type certificate for the Concorde has been pulled. A great pity, although it's arguable that since it was vulnerable to a single catastrophic failure, perhaps it should not have been certified in the first place.

__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

The problem which brought down the Concorde was a known issue, and BA was supposed to do something about it. For whatever reason, they didn't get it done before one crashed. Given that the plane flew for well over a decade with only 1 fatal accident, that's a pretty good safety record. My understanding was that Virgin was there with checkbook (or since they're British, I suppose I should say chequebook) in hand and was prepared to do any and all modifications necessary to keep the planes in the air, if BA would sell them. BA wouldn't.

Now, given that Sir Richard Branson presently has a partnership with one of the most successful aircraft designers today, I wonder . . .

__________________
We want our children to go to the planets. Burt Rutan 6/21/04 K.I.L.L. S.M.U.R.F.S.
Tuckers! Automotive Oddities! Building my hot rod with the help of the intarwebs Those who would delay scientific progress for a little temporary prosperity shall have neither. MachineCast Save the planet, by leaving it! "To be second in space is to be second in everything," LBJ.

I would have loved to have seen it fly side by side with A380

Well, you can't beat Oban's on the rocks at mach 1.5 . And it gives you more time for golf.

Well over a decade? First flight was already in 1969, first trans-atlantic in 1971. Flights continued until 2003 with 1 fatal accident. Otherwise only some incidents (worst must have been loss of half the vertical tail, though without consequences). Excellent safety record. But, as stated, with a dangerous failure mode nonetheless.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

WWW.sparklingtech.com has a story on "son of concorde" called the A 2 .
Higher mach is mentioned.

Dan

Eh, I couldn't be bothered to look up the dates.

__________________
We want our children to go to the planets. Burt Rutan 6/21/04 K.I.L.L. S.M.U.R.F.S.
Tuckers! Automotive Oddities! Building my hot rod with the help of the intarwebs Those who would delay scientific progress for a little temporary prosperity shall have neither. MachineCast Save the planet, by leaving it! "To be second in space is to be second in everything," LBJ.

I often wonder how the Concorde would have scaled up. That's to say...
275 passengers at 1200 KTS. Was there ever such a proposal?
Hmmm...

Best regards,
Dan

3 decades is well over a decade

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

I often wonder how the Concorde would have scaled up. That's to say...
275 passengers at 1200 KTS. Was there ever such a proposal?
Hmmm...

NASA and Boeing spend a lot of time and money on trying to develop a larger SST with greater range but they phased out the effort about 10 years ago. They said the technology just wasn't there to make it economically viable. Years ago, there was talk of developing the Concorde II but it seems nothing ever came of it.

Hi Larry,
I had wondered if scaling up would have brought it further in line with
something like a profit. But as it was, it did make a lot of good paying jobs
in it's day.
Thanks for the reply.
Best regards,
Dan