Got the bug to build a supersonic transport airliner.

[Dave_67]

While continuing to work on my Dixie-7 world, I found myself wanting to go down another rabbit hole and work on putting together an SST airliner - ala the Concorde, Tupolev Tu-144, Boeing 2702, or Lockheed L-2000 - for the DC-25 stratoliner in Dixie-1. However, I'm waffling on HOW to build it.

I've looked around the forums, but haven't found anyone else who has put one together with GURPS Vehicles - or maybe someone has, but has not bothered posting the specs here. I'm thinking the following:

-STOL wings
-Superior or Excellent streamlining with a lifting body
-4 turbo-ramjet engines

Thoughts?

[Pursuivant]

Assuming that you just wanted GURPS 4E stats:

https://gurps.fandom.com/wiki/Vehicl...assenger_Plane

I haven't found any GURPS 3E Vehicles-type stats, however, so I can't help with the design process.

A fictional SST might come close enough to being a spaceship that you could use GURPS Spaceship design rules. Eric B. Smith has done lots of good work using this system to design non-space craft. Examples are included in the Spaceship Design Spreadsheet.

[Dave_67]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Assuming that you just wanted GURPS 4E stats:

https://gurps.fandom.com/wiki/Vehicl...assenger_Plane

Thanks for the link. Mind you, I feel that those stats for the Concorde seem WAY off, even when compared to the 747-400. I think that if I ever do get around to playing with the numbers I'll stick with what I thought about. (I've been sticking with 3e rules for the time being.)

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Dave_67

Mind you, I feel that those stats for the Concorde seem WAY off . . .

They are. It's a lot faster, heavier, and larger that that, carried more than 21 passengers, has much more range . . . those aren't stats for a Concorde at all. You can do better with the stats from Wikipedia.

[Sam Baughn]

Originally Posted by Dave_67

I feel that those stats for the Concorde seem WAY off

They are way off because whoever transcribed them to the wiki used the stats for the Douglas DC-3 from the vehicle collection, not the Concorde. Check the actual PDF for more accurate numbers.

[Dave_67]

Originally Posted by Sam Baughn

They are way off because whoever transcribed them to the wiki used the stats for the Douglas DC-3 from the vehicle collection, not the Concorde. Check the actual PDF for more accurate numbers.

Oh yeah, those seem more accurate.

[Dave_67]

Originally Posted by johndallman

They are. It's a lot faster, heavier, and larger that that, carried more than 21 passengers, has much more range . . . those aren't stats for a Concorde at all. You can do better with the stats from Wikipedia.

I often use Wikipedia as my initial data source, then if I can I will try and find other sites, including official airline sites if possible, to cross-check data.

[Fred Brackin]

If you do use Ve2 to make a Concorde you'll have to be up on the afterburners rules. Concorde used 1960s (TL7) fighter jet engines with the afterburners running all the way. If you calculate fuel use that way you'll probably get a ridiculous number but Concorde really did carry that much fuel. That's why it went out of business.

I remember you had said something about turbo-ramjets and that might get around the afterburner problem though the SR-71 gulped fuel too. TL8 technologies generally might be necessary to make this thing more sensible.

I'm not sure about STOL wings with a Lifting Body. It makes an odd picture in my mind's eye. It might not be necessary anyway. Ve2 loves lifting bodies.

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I remember you had said something about turbo-ramjets and that might get around the afterburner problem though the SR-71 gulped fuel too. TL8 technologies generally might be necessary to make this thing more sensible.

While the SR-71 certainly gulped fuel a contributing factor was that until it reached full cruising speed (and importantly temperature) it leaked. This occurred mainly on the ground.

Since the SR-71 was designed with Mach 3+ cruising speeds in mind the airframe and skin was designed to expand. Some fuel loss was expected between the hangar, taxiing, and climbing/accelerating to operational speed/altitude.

Certainly a small percentage of the overall fuel consumption on the average mission...but a measurable factor.

Anyway since the Blackbird was planned with Air to Air refueling as part of it missions fuel economy was never really a factor for that plane.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Witchking

While the SR-71 certainly gulped fuel a contributing factor was that until it reached full cruising speed (and importantly temperature) it leaked. .

Concorde used something similar only at Mach 2 with its' aluminum skin (and of course without the mid-air refueling).

Both planes used their fuel as a coolant before burning it for thrust but Ve2 doesn't quite deal with skin temperature issues..