Drop test of Airbus' spaceplane

[Winter Man]

So here's the first drop test of a quarter scale model of SpacePlane, Airbus' foray into the field of cool.

http://www.space.com/26196-european-space-plane-drop-test-video.html

Appropriately, it looks like the mildly deformed offspring of an F104 Starfighter.

edit: suborbital, I should add, but single stage unlike SpaceShipTwo.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Winter Man

[astropapi1]

Looks like a Learjet!

[phoenix_ca]

So here's the first drop test of a quarter scale model of SpacePlane, Airbus' foray into the field of cool.

Let's not kid ourselves. The Airbus Group has been firmly in the field of cool at least since the A380.

This is still pretty awesome though.

[Nibb31]

Wow! I didn't think they were serious about their spaceplane project. The video doesn't show the model gliding or splashing down. I wonder why?

It's a competitor for the SpaceShip2 in the suborbital tourism business, but Airbus does not operate airlines and they usually don't go into developing an aircraft without having some firm orders. I wonder who will be buying this?

Edited June 11, 2014 by Nibb31

[Seret]

They do develop some aircraft without firm orders if it's a special project. Their all-electric trainer they've got in the pipeline springs to mind.

[Red Iron Crown]

It looks like they're using separate jet engines and rocket engine, seems like a simpler solution than developing a hybrid like the sabre.

[PakledHostage]

Let's not kid ourselves. The Airbus Group has been firmly in the field of cool at least since the A380.

You mean the B747-400's DUFF?

Just look at them when they're parked beside one another... One is pretty, the other is pretty ugly.

[astropapi1]

It looks like they're using separate jet engines and rocket engine, seems like a simpler solution than developing a hybrid like the sabre.

They're trading simplicity for efficency in my opinion. Unlike Skylon, which is an unmanned orbital delivery SSTO vehicle, this plane will only carry four guys and a pilot on a suborbital trajectory. It's like a bigger Spaceshiptwo that takes off from the ground.

Kinda makes sense to have a simple system, even if it's not the most efficent one.

[phoenix_ca]

You mean the B747-400's DUFF?

Just look at them when they're parked beside one another... One is pretty, the other is pretty ugly.

They're both pretty planes. The A380 is the shiny-new juggernaut of the skies though...to say nothing of the sheer beauty of the engineering of that behemoth.

Except for the exploding engine. But that was fixed!

Edited June 11, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[PakledHostage]

this plane will only carry four guys and a pilot on a suborbital trajectory. It's like a bigger Spaceshiptwo that takes off from the ground.

The more I think about it after looking at the video, I find myself wondering if they could be playing around with the idea of a hypersonic business transport? There might be a market for it if they could get a couple thousand miles range out of it using a sub-orbital trajectory.

[Winter Man]

Except for the exploding engine. But that was fixed!

The 747 had the same problem. It took Boeing taking some guy high up in Pratt & Whitney up and forcing several engines to blow before he got off his arse and had his guys fix it.

[phoenix_ca]

The 747 had the same problem. It took Boeing taking some guy high up in Pratt & Whitney up and forcing several engines to blow before he got off his arse and had his guys fix it.

I didn't know that. Thankfully the A380 engine problem was resolved immediately after the issue was discovered/determined/found-out/demystified/words. Gotta love those air worthiness directives. That system of investigation in aviation is what made it so goddamn safe in only a few decades. ... Science wins again.

[PakledHostage]

The 747 had the same problem. It took Boeing taking some guy high up in Pratt & Whitney up and forcing several engines to blow before he got off his arse and had his guys fix it.

***coughbullshizzlechough***

First world airlines (and most third world airlines that operate first world aircraft) are required to have reliability monitoring programs as a condition of their being allowed to operate¹, and any engine "explosion" or in flight shutdown must be reported to the manufacturer and the regulatory authorities. There's no room for coverups. The regulators would crack down very hard indeed if a manufacturer or operator attempted to sweep a problem under the rug.

In the event that enough in-flight shutdowns occur, the airline may even have operating restrictions imposed by the regulatory authority until they can prove that the inflight shutdown rate wasn't a consequence of their maintenance program. Similarly, if a problem emerged with an engine design, the manufacturer and the regulatory authorities would work together to design a fix and to mandate that fix with an airworthyness directive. Depending on the severity of the problem, an emergency AD may even be issued that could be as severe as to ground the whole fleet world-wide until certain maintenance action was taken.

Further, only some B747 aircraft are powered by Pratt & Whitney engines. PW4000s, GE CF6-80s and Rolls Royce RB211s series engines are all certified for installation on B747-400 aircraft.

¹ Most airlines lease their aircraft and leasing companies will make it a lease condition that the aircraft be maintained to FAA or some other first world standard so that they can more easily lease their aircraft to a new operator after the first operator's lease expires.

[Dodgey]

They're both pretty planes. The A380 is the shiny-new juggernaut of the skies though...to say nothing of the sheer beauty of the engineering of that behemoth.

Except for the exploding engine. But that was fixed!

Come now, the 747 is much more pretty than the A380, I mean the wings are so ugly, and that giant forhead!. But the Dash 8-400 takes the cake, either that or the 717. Also the exploding engine had nothing to do with Airbus, it was all on Rolls Royce.

[Winter Man]

snip

I'm talking about during the 60's here, when it was initially being built and tested. They only used P&W engines, the JT9D, on the original.

[PakledHostage]

I'm talking about during the 60's here, when it was initially being built and tested. They only used P&W engines, the JT9D, on the original.

Engines and airframes each have their own type certificate. I am not familiar enough with the history of the JT9D and B747-100 certification programs to know which obtained its type certification first, but it wouldn't really matter. Boeing would be obligated to notify P&W and the regulatory authorities about their flight testing findings so that any problems that emerge with the engine's type design could be fixed. Again there would be no room for sweeping anything under the rug.

And I sincerely doubt that it played out the way that you described it. If they did find a problem with the JT9D engine in flight testing, Boeing would very likely have worked closely with GE P&W at that time to determine if the problem was a consequence of a problem with aircraft systems or with the engine itself. Engineers and mechanics on both sides would have worked together to address the problem. In my professional experience, engineers and mechanics in the airline industry pride themselves on their commitment to safety and cooperation. It isn't uncommon for companies to help a competitor out, let alone a partner.

Edited June 11, 2014 by PakledHostage
Fixed a typo

[phoenix_ca]

Come now, the 747 is much more pretty than the A380, I mean the wings are so ugly, and that giant forhead!. But the Dash 8-400 takes the cake, either that or the 717. Also the exploding engine had nothing to do with Airbus, it was all on Rolls Royce.

I think the wings are beautiful. Seeing all that metal bend gracefully under its own weight. It's a fantastic sight. It reminds me of the time I saw an An-225 Mriya at an airport. Just, looked out the window and there it was. And the thing FLIES.

[78stonewobble]

Well, I still think the B-1 has the best curves.

[Dodgey]

I think the wings are beautiful. Seeing all that metal bend gracefully under its own weight. It's a fantastic sight. It reminds me of the time I saw an An-225 Mriya at an airport. Just, looked out the window and there it was. And the thing FLIES.

Oh yes. The 225 is an amazing aircraft, made in the 80s as well! My main gripe with the wings of the A380 is the extent to which the wings bend up from the root before going down again. That's one of the reasons why I love the look of high wing aircraft. What's your opinion of the look of the cockpit being on the lower level add opposed to the cockpit on the 737 and 225?

If we are bringing military aircraft into this I vote for the F18

[phoenix_ca]

Oh yes. The 225 is an amazing aircraft, made in the 80s as well! My main gripe with the wings of the A380 is the extent to which the wings bend up from the root before going down again. That's one of the reasons why I love the look of high wing aircraft. What's your opinion of the look of the cockpit being on the lower level add opposed to the cockpit on the 737 and 225?

If we are bringing military aircraft into this I vote for the F18

I actually kinda like the cockpit placement. But then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

And the CF-188 is indeed a gorgeous plane. (Yes I must mention Canada everywhere.)

[Dodgey]

I'll allow it

[Iskierka]

Engines and airframes each have their own type certificate. I am not familiar enough with the history of the JT9D and B747-100 certification programs to know which obtained its type certification first, but it wouldn't really matter. Boeing would be obligated to notify P&W and the regulatory authorities about their flight testing findings so that any problems that emerge with the engine's type design could be fixed. Again there would be no room for sweeping anything under the rug.

And I sincerely doubt that it played out the way that you described it. If they did find a problem with the JT9D engine in flight testing, Boeing would very likely have worked closely with GE P&W at that time to determine if the problem was a consequence of a problem with aircraft systems or with the engine itself. Engineers and mechanics on both sides would have worked together to address the problem. In my professional experience, engineers and mechanics in the airline industry pride themselves on their commitment to safety and cooperation. It isn't uncommon for companies to help a competitor out, let alone a partner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Development_and_testing

The flight test program was hampered by problems with the 747's JT9D engines. Difficulties included engine stalls caused by rapid movements of the throttles and distortion of the turbine casings after a short period of service.

However, this is a slight understatement. The engine had passed all airworthiness requirements, such as maximum thrust, sustained thrust, endurance, etc. However, when Boeing attempted to actually use the engine in the aircraft, they found that certain routine engine movements involving changing the thrust would repeatedly cause the engines to explode, particularly with the distorted casings. P&W insisted the engine was fine, as it had passed all tests, so the senior engineers grabbed the main guy and dragged him out to a test stand, where he couldn't blame aircraft systems. And then they started performing that failure condition, again, and again, and again, blowing up many engines in front of this guy, until he eventually conceded that yes, the certification wasn't everything, and the engine did need improving before it could be allowed to fly.

This of course ignores a few problems the 747 itself had during development, such as landing gear being torn off during taxiing, but the whole engine debacle did occur as described. Nowadays manufacturers are smart enough to not try pass off an easily broken engine as working - back then, things were more lax.

[Nibb31]

I think the wings are beautiful. Seeing all that metal bend gracefully under its own weight. It's a fantastic sight. It reminds me of the time I saw an An-225 Mriya at an airport. Just, looked out the window and there it was. And the thing FLIES.

I think the new A350 XWB is probably the most elegant plane to come out of Airbus.

[Seret]

If we are bringing military aircraft into this I vote for the F18

F-14 all day long. Hugely aesthetic design, you can see it echoed by artists in things like Macross and Battletech.

[Dodgey]

F-14 all day long. Hugely aesthetic design, you can see it echoed by artists in things like Macross and Battletech.

Oooooo, forgot about the F-14. I'm torn between the two, I guess it's the dual exhaust/engines that really get me, as well as the dual tail fin.