XB-70 a prototype for Mach 3 SST?

I was comparing the airframes of the Concorde and the XB-70 aircraft;

Due to the advanced design of the GE YJ-93 engines - the XB-70 is
faster and carries more payload, has more interior volume, has greater
range - with about the same fuel per payload mile!

The XB-70 was not designed for supercruise. The afterburners however
were designed to be very very efficient at Mach 3 (2,000 mph) through
an innovative inlet design. This could be repeated or improved with
modern design and materials.

So, its reasonable for an aerospace engineer, or someone who took a
few aerospace engineering courses on the subject to ask, could a
modified updated version of the XB-70 be built to replace the Concorde
at a cost that is affordable?

I think so.

The aircraft could fly the same corridors across the ocean as the
Concorde, and fly the 3,170 miles from London to New york at 2,000 mph
in 1 hour and 35 minutes at an altitude of 75,000 feet.

With 125 passengers each paying $15,000 a total revenue of $1.87
million per flight would be generated assuming 100% loading each
flight.


Fuel cost - 120 metric tons x $725 per metric ton - $87,000

Not such a large part of the ticket price!

Flight cycles/life cycle - 9,300

Maintenance cost: $100,000/flight
Consumables/passenger services: $125,000/flight

Cash flow per flight $1.558 million per flight

Vehicle life cycle revenue @ 100% - $14.49 billion/vehicle

A fleet of four vehicles providing twice daily service between London
and New York would perform 730 flights per year and generate $1.137
billion per year in free cash flow. This is a longevity of the fleet
of 51 years.

Assuming half of this revenue stream supports debt at a discount of 8%
per annum over this period, and 1/4 for spare parts and support
infrastructure, and 1/4 for insurance and taxes - then the fleet of
four vehicles have a present value of $13.91 billion.

The question then is, could four XB-70C (for commercial variants)
using the GE YJ-93 (with updates) and modern materials and structures,
be built, along with all support and maintenance infrastructure, for
less than $13.91 billion?

If so, a group of investors may be found to support the costs, and
then refinance this cost at system start-up, to realize immediate
profit when the system began flying.

That is, say Lockheed or Boeing would come aboard and guarantee
production of the four aircraft (with a spare fifth aircraft for test,
training and backup) for say $10 billion in say 3 years. So,
investors would put up the $10 billion, and then go to the banks for
say $14 billion (which is half the value of the cash flow) and pocket
the $4 billion in 3 years.

Not VC rates of return, but something that might be worth doing.
Especially if there were a population of early adopters with the means
to support such an investment.

There were 1,000 people who were frequent fliears on the Concorde.
Those who used it one or more times per month over its life. Thos
folks spent well over $10 million each on the aircraft. Those folks
would be the early adopters who might be persuaded to pay $10 million
each to fund a Super-Concorde - and who would then enjoy a discounted
price, as well as a 40% return on investment in 3 years. As well as
playing a part to restore something wonderful in human history, and
take the next feeble step forward in commercial flight.

And also, in the modern age, to wrest control, just slightly away from
the statist who would tell us all what to do and how to live.

William Mook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-70

CONCORDE General characteristics
Crew: 9
Capacity: 92-120 passengers (128 in high-density Layout[63])
Length: 202 ft 4 in[64] (61.66 m)
Wingspan: 84 ft 0 in (25.6 m)
Height: 40 ft 0 in (12.2 m)
Fuselage internal length: 129 ft 0 in (39.32 m)
Fuselage max external width: 9 ft 5 in (2.88 m)
Fuselage max internal width: 8 ft 7 in (2.63 m)
Fuselage max external height: 10 ft 10 in (3.32 m)
Fuselage max internal height: 6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)
Wing area: 3,856 ft² (358.25 m² )
Lift/drag ratio: Low speed- 3.94, Approach- 4.35, 250 knots, 10,000
ft- 9.27, Mach 0.94- 11.47, Mach 2.04- 7.14
Maximum fuel load: 210,940 lb (95,680 kg)
Maximum taxiing weight: 412,000 lb (186,880 kg)
Empty weight: 173,500 lb (78,700 kg)
Useful load: 245,000 lb (111,130 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce/SNECMA Olympus 593 Mk 610 afterburning
turbojets
Dry thrust: 32,000 lbf dry (140 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 38,050 lbf (169 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.2[65] (2,164 km/h)
Range: 3,900 nm (4,500 mi, 7,250 km)
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,300 m)
Rate of climb: 1,525 m (5,000 ft) /min (25,41 m/s)
Wing loading: lb/ft² (kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: .373
Fuel consumption for max. range (max. fuel/max. range): 46.85 lb/mi
(13.2 kg/km)
Maximum nose tip temperature: 260 °F (127 °C)


[edit] Specifications (XB-70A)
Data from XB-70 Fact ***[1]

General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length: 185 ft 10 in (56.6 m)
Wingspan: 105 ft 0 in (32 m)
Height: 30 ft 9 in (9.4 m)
Wing area: 6,296 ft² (585 m²)
Airfoil: Hexagonal; 0.30 Hex modified root, 0.70 Hex modified tip
Empty weight: 210,000 lb (93,000 kg)
Loaded weight: 534,700 lb (242,500 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 550,000 lb (250,000 kg)
Powerplant: 6× General Electric YJ93-GE-3 turbojet, 28,000 lbf
(133 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 3.1 (2,056 mph, 3,309 km/h)
Cruise speed: Mach 3.0 (2,000 mph, 3,219 km/h)
Range: 4,288 mi (7,900 km) combat
Service ceiling: 77,350 ft (23,600 m)
Rate of climb: ft/min (m/s)
Wing loading: 84.93 lb/ft² (414.7 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.314

.

Quantcast