EADS Zehst Hypersonic Passenger Transport

FutureSpaceTourist

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
589
Reaction score
16
EADS has a design for a Zero Emission Hypersonic Transportation (Zehst) rocketplane.

[quote author=http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/commercial_aviation/ThingsWithWings/]
Passengers will be able to fly between Paris and Tokyo in 2.5 hours, at least that is the picture of the future EADS paints as it unveils its idea for a hypersonic passenger aircraft.

The hypersonic commercial aircraft, aimed at the premium passenger sector, should be able to transport 50-100 people.

[...]

Zehst would use three different propulsion systems. The aircraft would take off powered by two turbofans and undertake a steep climb reaching around Mach 0.8 at which point two rocket boosters would kick in to propel the vehicle to Mach 2.5 at which point two underwing ramjets would kick in to reach speeds above Mach 4. Cruising altitude would be just above the atmosphere. The aircraft would glide during decent, with the turbofans powering up again in the final stage of flight.
[/quote]

Of course there's an animation too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e33aPdoUxc

I really don't get what EADS think they'll achieve publicising such designs that no one (not even the EU) will ever fund ...
 

Attachments

  • zehst.jpg
    zehst.jpg
    968.9 KB · Views: 657

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,858
Reaction score
6,465
The magic words are 'Zero Emission'. With all those idiotic proposals currently floating around to tax airlines on their emissions, that might get this project a fair bit of funding from certain quarters. Not to mention that even now there are still those in the upper echelons of the EU that like to pretend that it is an up and coming superpower. Whether all that would be enough to shake loose the resources required to build an actual prototype is another matter altogether.
 

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
220
And here is their holey display model. Ooooh! Aaaah!
 

Attachments

  • EADS Green Dream.jpg
    EADS Green Dream.jpg
    71.2 KB · Views: 601

FutureSpaceTourist

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
589
Reaction score
16
Grey Havoc said:
The magic words are 'Zero Emission'. [...] Whether all that would be enough to shake loose the resources required to build an actual prototype is another matter altogether.

Funding for zero emission technologies maybe, but not IMHO for the development of a niche high-end rocketplane.
 

Nik

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
523
Reaction score
179
Perhaps they're hoping to 'steal a march' on Reaction Engines' (et al) LAPCAT ??
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,212
In Japanese site, it's flying altitude will be 32,000m, cruising speed will be Mach 4. Basically it's LH2 mixed fuel ramjet SST(HST?).
Rocket engine works as only second stage compact booster(compared with supersonic fan engine) which accelerate this transport toward ramjet working speed Mach 2.5.
How about sonic boom? No problem because of high altitude cruise and rather small plane size?
The ticket of this transport will be very expensive. I hope early realization of this super transport.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,274
Reaction score
1,790
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8585139/Hypersonic-jet-to-travel-from-Paris-to-Tokyo-in-two-and-a-half-hours.html
 

pathology_doc

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
443
FutureSpaceTourist said:
I really don't get what EADS think they'll achieve publicising such designs that no one (not even the EU) will ever fund ...


You've hit the nail on the head here. It's pretty, but the British (BSP:4) were thinking about the same sort of thing years ago and it hasn't happened yet. And if they want to believe they're a superpower (as Grey Havoc suggests), they should bloody well pull their fingers out and just build the damn thing instead of showing off pretty models.


I suspect that at the end of the day Branson, Rutan and co. will do it better and cheaper - even if somewhat "dirtier". NASA may have dragged its heels to a near-treasonous degree on the Shuttle replacement, but at least American ingenuity and can-do aren't completely dead (though it's sad that they need so much of Sir Richard's British money).
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,274
Reaction score
1,790
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw5g3M_EBP4&feature=related
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,816
Reaction score
3,219
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Also... would it have been such a chore to co-ordinate the CGI teams? The external view shows great big huge passenger windows. These windows are wider than they are tall, and are angled in at the top twenty or thirty degrees. The internal view shows strictly vertical windows that are quite small and taller than they are wide.

In any event... passenger windows on a Mach 5 cruiser? Not bloody likely.
 

InvisibleDefender

ACCESS: Confidential
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
152
Reaction score
4
I somehow missed this and just saw the video EADS put out. No bucks, no buck rogers....

According to the Voice of Russia, EADS is just borrowing from an old Soviet design ;)
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/06/24/52356742.html

"The Soviet specialists put forward the idea and it has been perceived and developed. The future will show whether it will be successful or not."
 

dannydale

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
547
Reaction score
377
mr_london_247 said:
For some reason that file makes my foxit barf. I think the file is trying to forcibly resize the window. I still maintain those podded engines will be a major source of shock-interaction headaches as well. Also, *three* different kinds of engine? That's probably going to be trouble!
 
S

sublight

Guest
After they kill the first planeload of passengers and/or take out a small village, vactrains will get a serious boost of interest.
 

Pat Flannery

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
14
Reaction score
2
The two turbofans shown in the overhead cutaway don't look like they would be powerful enough to get something that big with delta wings into the air without a very long takeoff run, even with the lightweight LH2 fuel.
Also, trying to keep the LH2 cool at Mach 4 is going to be fun, just ask the Lockheed CL-400 "Suntan" designers.
The big problem though is that EADS is assuming there will be a big demand for passenger flight at Mach 4, much as the Concorde's designers thought there would be a big demand for passenger flight at Mach 2.
This makes very funny reading from the point of view of hindsight:
http://www.concordesst.com/history/eh6.html
Why not commute to work across the Atlantic?
Remember, supersonic flight is better flight.
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,858
Reaction score
6,465
Would the current state of affairs in Europe make this project any more viable I wonder, if only from a 'prop up our industries' viewpoint?
 

Wyvern

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
910
Reaction score
1,186
Would the current state of affairs in Europe make this project any more viable I wonder, if only from a 'prop up our industries' viewpoint?
Would the research generated from this project benefit other programs? Yes. Would it help the European Space Agency? Probably. Will it help generate industry in Europe? Yes. Will it move Europe forward scientifically? Yes. Is the funding there? Nope.

The problem I find is its use. Airlines are going for efficiency and cost-effectiveness, rather than speed, so unless they have a justification to do so, and use it like Concorde was used; high speed transport for the rich and famous. I highly doubt that would justify its development, especially in these trying times.

I can't think of any other uses outside of research and possibly military, and I doubt whether any of them would justify such a platform.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,933
Reaction score
5,795
The problem I find is its use. Airlines are going for efficiency and cost-effectiveness, rather than speed, so unless they have a justification to do so, and use it like Concorde was used; high speed transport for the rich and famous. I highly doubt that would justify its development, especially in these trying times.

The sound barrier (sonic boom) and the heat barrier (thermal nightmare beyond mach 2) readily agree with that opinion. They remain giant PITAs today, just like they were even before Concorde. Courtesy of flying airbreathing - thus inside Earth atmosphere - and by necessity, below 100 000 feet.
The only way to get around those many plagues is going suborbital / ballistic : screw the atmosphere, go into space if only briefly. Of course this has its own share of issues, make no mistake.

This is why I impatiently wait SpaceX Starship suborbital P2P flights. We will see whether this kills (or not) that "hypersonic airliner" recurring hype.
Remember: Starship-without-a-booster is still worth 6 km/s (potentially with 200 to 300 passengers); and 6 km/s is approximately Mach 18. Hopefully this will make Mach 4 / 5 / 8 / 10 "hypersonic airliners" projects unuseful or pathetic, pick your choice.
 
Last edited:
Top