"Version 3.0, June 1998"

This thing is really fucking old!

>>5662
>1998
Holy shit!
Will it even run on Win7? Is it 16-bits?

>>5663

I have vista and it works fine for me.

Wing sweep: -25 degrees
Wing area: 2000 square feet:
Wing aspect ratio: 10
Tail type: canard
Tail area: 20%
Tail aspect ratio: 6
Engine type: turbofan
Engine layout: 2 aft engines
Seating layout: 3/3
Max speed: 447 knots (mach 0.78)
Cruising altitude: 36000 feet
Fuel capacity: 48,000 pounds

Take off distance: 8546 feet
Landing distance: 4541 feet
Lift/drag: 17.7
Engine sfc: 0.57 lb/lb/hr
Thrust/drag: 1.11
Empty weight: 118919 pounds
Operating cost: 3.55 cts/seat-mi

Has anyone managed to design one that can break the speed of sound?

>>5683
Not without shockwaves forming on the wings.
.98 is the closest one can get with the options available to us there.

>>5684

I don't even wanna know how much fuel that thing of yours takes. In fact, none of us can even come CLOSE to the fuel efficency of actual airliners.

The Boeing 757 takes roughly 11,500 gal and has a range of up to 4500 miles. And on top of all that it's engines only use 72,000 lbs of thrust and can cruise at 42,000 feet.

Using this applet i can't design a plane that uses less than 40,000 gallons of fuel (the one pictured to the left of this post uses 41K gal), compared to 11,500 for the 757. Let's face it, Boeing is kicking our ass.

oops

It looks so cool it must work

Would you look at that, I was wrong.
650kts ; 26lbs of fuel ; 4115 ft
Just 2 knots shy of a mach.

>>5709

Haha, nice! But the main thing that allows supersonic flight (that this applet lacks) is afterburners. No supersonic aircraft lacks afterburning engines, (although the F-22, though it does indeed posess afterburners, can actually cruise at supersonic speeds without them), the Concorde, and Tu-144 both had afterburners, and they were the only two supersonic civil transports ever built.

Another note, do not confuse propfan engines with turboprops. They are completely differenet. A propfan (properly reffered to as an "unducted fan") is basically the same as a turbofan except, the fan blades are on the outside instead of on the inside (the compressor blades are still on the inside). A Turboprop is again like a turbofan or turbojet, but it has no fan blades, it has a true propeller attached to a gearbox and a shaft that are attached to the internal compressor blades.

No commercial airliner currently uses unducted fans, McDonell Dougless tested them on a modified MD-80; they determined that they were much more fuel effiecnt than any other jet engine, but they were very loud. So they were never used.

how the hell this gets there and at that price I dont know, the wings are falling of the front.

From your explanation, a turboprop and a propfan are very similar

>>5727
I thought ramjets were the main thing that allowed supersonic flight.

>>5755

Actually, no they're not. While some supersonic aircraft do indeed use ramjets, the majority of supersonics use afterburning turbojets, in fact, some even use afterburning turbofans. Most new fighters use burning turbofans now.

>>5703

A gallon and a pound are two completely different things. Assuming jet fuel weighs as much as gasoline, a gallon of it weighs 6.15lbs, according to yahoo answers. So a 757's 11,500 gallons would weigh 70,725 pounds, OP's first plane get's 6725 lbs less and can acheive mach 0.93, as apposed to mach 0.8. So this applet can design shit much better than real designers.

How are you guys saving the picture?

Fuck yeah I am awesome.

>>5844

You press the print screen key on your keyboard, go to paint and press control v (or click edit; paste). It automatically prints all the contents on your screen.

Alright then

I love this thread.

Mach 0.88 @ 44,000 feet.

just got xplane 9

it's the cosest you can get to the real thing

Yes folks, I finally did it, abeit just barely. 652 knots at 4150 feet, exactly the sound barrier at that altitude.

Wing span 154 feet, sweep 40 deg, 4000 sq feet, aspect ratio 6

Conventional tail, 20% wing area, aspect ratio 6

2 aft turbojets

3/3

652 knots, 4150 feet, 22,000 pounds fuel

Destination Baltimore.

>>6104
Awesome!

>>6080
Xplane is REALLY good. I love how it models fluid dynamics. I fucking want to fly the Piaggio Avanti P180 so bad. They're fucking beautiful

>>6107
We have a couple that fly over regularly here: a really beautiful aircraft, but it sounds really odd going over thanks to the pusher props.

>>6114
Actually, I'd ascribe the odd sound to it being a turboprop more than a pusher configuration.

>>5727
I have to commit a faux pas and double post.

>they determined that they were much more fuel effiecnt than any other jet engine, but they were very loud. So they were never used.

Fucking people are so goddamn anal about this shit. Some airports have right hand patterns for landing approaches purely because of "noise pollution." I'm not talking jets, either. I'm talking Cessnas with 100 horse power engines. They're not that loud.

It's ridiculous, really. Though, there are some aircraft that I would understand such measures. Pic very very related.

>>6116

You forget that some airports are literally in the middle of a city, as in there are apartment blocks on the edge of the airport grounds, such as Amsterdam (NL) and Birmingham (UK) - with B'ham having windows break when a concord landed there once.

Companys want their planes to go to most locations as possible, noisy planes get restricted access.

>>6118
Like I stated, the airports I'm talking about get no such traffic. An aircraft like the Concorde is a helluva lot louder than a Cessna 152. All the complaints I've heard from those wanting modified patterns all come down to "baww baww it is annoying" instead of there actually being a safety issue like with the Concorde. I think we can all agree that shattering glass is a very bad thing. I'd completely agree that such restrictions must be made.

But again, I'm talking about airports with 2000 foot runways. Tiny ones.

>>6118
>>6120

The Concorde, nor the Tu-144, do not go supersonic upon take off or landing, so it should be impossible to break windows. Furthermore, supersonic flight is banned over land so that completely rules it out.

I agree with >>6116 , the little itty-bity Cessnas are definately not loud enough to complain about, unless of course you're standing right next to one when it throttles up.

>>6122
The TU-95 and it's derivatives may not exceed the speed of sound in flight, but it's prop tips do. They actually travel faster than the speed of sound, and there is a whole cluster of 'em. Something that hellaciously abusive to the eardrums I could understand some rules in regards to.

>>6122
You dont need supersonic flight to break windows, Trucks driving past houses at high speads and heavy loads can cause windows to crack and break from vibration.

Concorde is LOUD, the engines are LOUD, Heathrow got in trouble when in the first 4 month service 'Concorde often exceeded 110PHdB' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3581192.stm) - Hearing damage is possible from 120dB, from 78dB if continuous (think someone living next to a main road having this aircraft going above often?).

Heathrow and other sites which are planned full time service routes have 'Noise Abbatment' plans, tactics for the pilot to lower noise levels from the aircraft by thoughtful flying, one off sites such as the 2 I mentioned don't have these plans in place, They still try to use plans and technics from other sites, but they can cock up (Sorry if I made out it was a full time problem, its an error occationally made problem.).

I'm on the flight path out of Lindbergh field, and even older turbojet aircraft (MD-80's for example) are loud enough to make conversation outside impossible occasionally.

Of course not far from here is North Island NAS, and those Super Hornets in afterburner are seriously loud even several miles away.

>>6115
Nah it's actually because of the pusher/canard configuration, the engine exhaust and airflow over the wings going into the props.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P180_Avanti

>The P180 makes a distinctive square wave noise when passing overhead, similar to the Beech Starship, due to the wing wake and engine exhaust effects on the pusher propellers.

It's just an odd sound, not a particularly loud one. I always look up when I hear it, they're beautiful planes.

i aet too much lul

My design is the best...it has a cockpit window.

>>6354

Ah, the wonders of MSpaint.

>>6354
Fuck that noise, we fly by braille on this side of the Atlantic.

When you see it...

>>6534
Cutting it awful close there. I dunno if you'd even be able to fly a pattern.

>>6534

Hey, what's that behind the plane's left horizontal stabilizer?

>>6563

Goddamn it, how did i not see that earlier?

Wow, its been a long time since i've seen this thread.

I liek mine :3

Yeah, I dont think mine will work...

i dont get it whats wrong with my design

>>7752

It needs moar cowbell.

My goals:

[x] Reach at least mach 0.8.
[x] Fly at an altitude of at least 30,000 feet.
[ ] Get the ticket prices down to $700 or below.

I DARE you to try and do it. There is no possible way you can make it to Melborne and have it cost less than $703.3.

Note the mission range and maximum range. Hopefully they won't have to circle the airport. lol.

Oddly enough, adding more passengers to a flight doesn't bring the cost per fare down.

>>6534

FFFFUUUU

Welp, apparently a hercules shouldn't be able to fly according to this game.

>>5642
sup