I am willing to believe that this may have actually been developed…
But a better source sure would be neat.
Interesting/Wonderful Engineering both claim this was posted on ‘Social Media’ by the Chinese Academy of Sciences… with no link.
South China Morning Post also claims a video posted by CAS on social media… with no link, no video.
The english version of the CAS website is updated every couple of days, but this isn’t on it.
Granted, they could be taking their time doing a proper translation.
Does anybody know where to see this video?
I mean sure, thats a related research paper, but that isn’t the same thing as an official press announcement or video saying ‘Hey we actually built this thing, it works, take a look.’
I know that the CAS has specifically been researching/developing a hypersonic, passenger liner sized craft for around a decade… and the US has been doing the same with the SR 72, both attempting to develop … something like turbo ramjet that transitions to scramjet at high speeds/altitudes.
But a link to a research paper from 6 years ago is not actually a primary source to what your original link claims, but does not actually source.
Sure, and if it works I’m sure we’ll get videos and announcements at some point.
Ok so 24+ hours later and I now see a few different websites I’ve never heard of before that basically have the same article as this:
https://scienceinfo.net/chinese-hypersonic-aircraft-prototype-reaches-mach-6-speed.html
Still no actual link to the apparently original source somewhere on some social media site.
Now whats being said is that this was a flight test that actually occured 3 years ago, and was classified until now.
And they do provide an image, and credit it to CAS (without an actual link, I still can’t find this on CAS’ english site, but again maybe they are still writing a proper English post?)
This is a test article, that doesn’t appear to have any intakes for scramjet. I think I can make out two small rocket bells inside the thing, but the image quality is very low.
It’s just a test article, launched by a rocket, that Inwould guesstimate to have a wingspan of about… 4 meters, ish?
This new article also mentions that Cui, the team lead, did not mention anything about the current status of the hypersonic passenger jet which this was a test article for.
So… this test article got up to mach 6.5, 3 years ago.
Absolutely nothing about whether or not a successful test flight of a passenger jet sized craft achieved hypersonic speeds with an air breathing turbo ramjet / scram jet or something like that.
Completely different than the originally report.
… This is why I wanted an actual source.
If this very poorly sourced article from this random, clickbait style website is more accurate than the OP article (another poorly sourced article from another clickbait style website) is more accurate, that would mean SCMP, and everyone in this thread saying China has built an air breathing hypersonic jet liner is wrong, and everyone saying that this is basically comparable to the X15 is correct.
(Differences being the X15 was carried up to 45 thousand feet by a B52 instead of a rocket, and the X15 was manned, and this test article is presumably unmanned.)
Yeah, if they’re reporting on the test from three years ago then it is basically similar tech to X15.
So… then… you agree that this entire Interesting Engineering article you posted is wrong?
Are you going to apologize to Sarah Brown for calling her a ‘sad racist’ when she expressed doubt as to the veracity of the dubious article you posted?
That’s assuming that the random article you found is correct, the veracity of which I can’t verify any more than the interesting engineering article, and assuming they’re talking about the same test. Sarah Brown didn’t substantiate the doubts in any meaningful way, so no I’m not going to apologize for my assumption on what those doubts are based on.
Uhh OK, they’ve matched something the X-15 was doing 65 years ago. What’s the endgame here? Build a ludicrously inefficient passenger aircraft?
Seems like it. No mention of the fuel efficiency either, which leads me to assume it’s significantly worse than existing flights.
It probably is, the whole reason supersonic passenger flight looked feasible for a bit was that turbine technology hadn’t caught up so slower jets weren’t that much less efficient than supersonic jets.
But fuel concerns aside, it’s kinda silly to compare a billion dollar fighter jet built with 60s technology to a 747-sized aircraft built for passenger flight with modern technology. Just wildly different environments, purposes, and resources.
Based on the renderings (as there are no actual photos of this thing, other than the blurry-ass pic of what appears to be a rocket taking off vertically) it’s nowhere near the size of a 747. It actually looks rather like an elongated SR-71, which makes me very skeptical that it can actually hit Mach 6.5 because ramjet engines have a hard limit due to something called “physics”. That fact, plus the rocket-like takeoff, are why I think this is more like the X-15 and can’t sustain its top speed for long.
The rendering in interestingengineering article is a stock image. An older SCMP article gives a much weirder rendering which matches the whitepaper the lead researcher published on I-shaped hypersonic configurations.
So I have no idea what the blurry ass rocket pic is supposed to be, maybe it was a test vehicle for just the engine, maybe SCMP misattributed it, maybe the team dumped the whole “I-shaped configuration” thing.
Presumably any ram or scram-jet engine will require a rocket engine or other assist, assuming it’s not a hybrid like the SR-71.
Nice, thanks for this extra background! My first thought was scramjet too, but it would be nice of them to mention how it takes off and lands.
The original rendering looks awesome, in a bonkers sci-fi kind of way.
The X-15 was a rocket propelled aircraft. This is an air breathing aircraft.
My phones Google feed has been feeding me story’s about how China and Russian fighters are better than the f35 lately. Kind weird considering I’m in the UK.
Never read any of them fully but I remember one about a week ago claiming some Chinese fighter with a drone or somehing wins 90percent of simulated engagements or similar.
Edit:
Found the story actually in my browser history they claimed a 95percent win rate against the F22 (my bad)
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/taiwan-war-chinas-j-20-defeats-u-s-f-22/?amp
@yogthos Did it though?
It did
@yogthos And I’m the queen of England.
Just a sad racist.
@yogthos No, just someone who can smell obvious bullshit. SCRAMjets basically don’t work for any real world application, and can’t. They inherently have utterly useless power to weight performance.
None of this shit works on anything that’s not a scale model.
I guess we’ll see won’t we. Pretty much same thing was confidently said about lots of technology in modern use, like the high speed train network in China. Plenty of western geniuses derided it as not being cost effective.
High speed rail can be cost effective. High speed planes however cannot.
The amount of air resistance at higher speeds is insane. Instead of relying on wing lift for efficiency the entire aircraft has to remove all wings and it literally becomes a missile.
Efficient planes have long wings to create lift and cruise at lower speeds. This is the opposite where all lift is generated from the fuel.
Given that China has high speed rail all across the country, I suspect that there’s going to be little market for short flights. I would expect this sort of a plane would go all the way to the edge of space where it doesn’t need to worry about air density.
@yogthos Oh, their rail network is impressive and I wish it was being copied elsewhere.
But this … is not credible.
Well since you obviously must be an aeronautics engineering expert, perhaps you can explain what aspects of the paper aren’t credible for a dumdum like me
Their high speed train network is impressive, but none of it was new technology when they built it. The first train sets they bought were Siemens Velaro D, a mature high speed train system that has been around in Europe for almost a decade prior.
It ISN’T cost effective, but in China that doesn’t matter: what the state wants the state gets. No matter the cost. And I’m willing to bet that in 10 years time a lot of the stuff just doesn’t work anymore, line speeds get reduced and stops cancelled due to infrastructure not being maintained.
We have seen chinese prestige projects fall into disrepair time and again, and their extensive transport network will see the same fate.
China absolutely has done a lot of innovation in HSR tech. Building stuff is how we develop and improve technology. It’s absolutely incredible that you think China hasn’t innovated in this area.
It ISN’T cost effective, but in China that doesn’t matter: what the state wants the state gets. No matter the cost. And I’m willing to bet that in 10 years time a lot of the stuff just doesn’t work anymore, line speeds get reduced and stops cancelled due to infrastructure not being maintained.
That shows just how utterly clueless you are. The reason China wants to have the whole country connected by rail is because it stimulates the economy. It makes it easy to transport goods across the country, and for people to move around. To suggest that China would abandon its rail network is sheer idiocy.
We have seen chinese prestige projects fall into disrepair time and again, and their extensive transport network will see the same fate.
It’s not a prestige project, it’s critical infrastructure. You’re gonna be doing a lot seething and coping in your future.
