How fast could we make a jet aircraft today?

So I was thinking about the SR-71, which holds records for being the fastest air-breathing jet aircraft in level flight. Right behind it is the Mig-25. Both of these aircraft were built to be fast, but it is obvious from looking at them that they were built with different priorities.

The SR-71 was built for reconnaissance, so it was trying to fly high and have a small radar cross section to avoid enemy fire. The Mig-25 was built to be an interceptor.

What if our ONLY goal was to make a new speed record for level flight air-breathing jet aircraft? What would it look like and how fast could it go?

Some rules:

  1. We are using jet engines here, so no rocket engines are allowed.
  2. It must be able to take off and land under its own power like “normal” aircraft.
  3. It must carry an alive human pilot.
  4. In needs to use current technology of today. Maybe a few advances would be needed, but I am trying to rule out futuristic technologies which would make this discussion too complicated and nebulous. In other words, we need this thing built and flying in the next 8-10 years (We don’t need to have big production lines. You only need one to break a record!).
  5. Money is no object, but in reality #4 makes this less relevant. Huge budgets tend to develop from trying to successfully implement unknown/untested technologies.

Remember this is not a military or commercial plane, so it doesn’t have to function properly in all kinds of different situations. We don’t care about its maintainability. It doesn’t need triple and quadruple redundancy. Heck, if you don’t like the test pilot, you don’t even have to include an ejection system.

We just want a fast plane!

I heard Mach 5 was about the limit of material science, friction on the skin and getting air into the intakes . To go faster, you do need rockets (scram jets) and you do need to be in the low earth orbit regime.

Declan

**Declan **pretty much nailed it in one. (nitpick: scramjets are not in any sense rockets.)

We’ve been trying to make hypersonic engines for 50 years now without more than incremental progress up from “it lasted 10 seconds before it blew up/melted.” Here’s an example of the bleeding edge of current hypersonic research tech Waverider - Wikipedia

So something in the Mach 4.0 range is about it. And those are for jet engines which are ramjets or scramjets, not conventional turbojet/turbofan engines.

The intermediate case of sustained Mach 2.5 - 4 operations will probably require a so-called combined cycle engine which is a conventional turbojet/turbofan and a ram/scramjet in one package. e.g. Air turborocket - Wikipedia

Reaction Engines SABRE engine, potential Mach 5.5 speed.

Debatable if this counts for the OP, since it’s an air-breathing rocket rather than a jet.

A jet is, for all intents and purposes, an “air-breathing rocket”. Whether the SABRE combined-cycle (from engine proposed for use in the Skylon rocket (and the HOTOL before that) is actually workable is another question (and one for a separate discussion).

A pure jet aircraft takes in air to use as both oxidizer and propellant (e.g. it pushes the resulting fluid out the back in order to generate thrust). In order to develop the pressure necessary to accelerate the incoming fluid, it has to combust it with fuel (usually some kind of liquid petrocarbon, but cryogenic hydrogen, various alcohols and ethers, and other complex fuels have been tried). The problem therein lies in getting enough time for the incoming fluid to combust with the fuel so as to get close to complete combustion and generate net thrust. When moving at supersonic speeds, the incoming air has to be slowed to subsonic speed before entering the combustion chamber so that complete combustion can occur within the combustion chamber, while still being compressed enough to combust efficiently. In turbofan and turbojet engines, the compression is done by driving a turbine with some of the exhaust to drive the compressor (and the fan in a turbofan).

In a ramjet engine, the speed of the aircraft and shape of the incoming duct are sufficient to compress the fuel without the complexities of a turbine and compressor; however, because the pressure at the inlet changes with speed, the duct has to be able to change size or shape (typically done by moving the inlet cone in/out or pitching ramps), but they don’t function efficiently at lower speeds, and essentially not at all at subsonic speed. At higher speeds (around Mach number of 4.5 to 6, depending on air density) it is just not possible to slow down the flow without creating too much drag, so a supersonic ramjet (hence, scramjet) is used; however, because of the high speed of the fluid this requires a really long combustion chamber. Some tricks are used to amplify the combustion rate, but generally speaking scramjets (which are still only in demonstration phase) are terribly inefficient in combustion terms. So practically speaking, from a propulsion standpoint, we’re limited to the speeds at which a ramjet can function.

Heating, at the air intakes and the wing leading surfaces is certainly a problem. If cryogenic fuels or oxidizers are used, they could be routed to provide some amount of active cooling, but at hypersonic speeds there just isn’t going to be enough active convection (the transfer of heat to the ambient environment) to expel excess heat. In conventional vehicles this has required the use of high temperature ‘superalloys’ and ceramic liners to protect against heating in critical locations, but controlling the heat paths, figuring out how to attach and maintain thermal protection systems, and dealing with coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatches are all complex engineering problems that often defy good solution. (Due to CTE issues, the SR-71 would leak fuel on the ground and had to be fully fueled in flight prior to engaging in missions, which is expensive and risky.) If safety and functional utility are of no concern, then we could probably figure out a way to make the plan survive for at least a short duration to any degree of aerodynamic heating it would see, if by no other means than just making the skin really thick and providing heat sinks. So again, the ability to propel the vehicle is the real limitation.

Stranger

I was thinking more along the lines of suborbitals, once in the lower vacum your going to need a rocket of some sort, doing the parabolic phase. The NYC>Tokyo in 3 hours deal.
Declan

I understand a fully fueled SR-71 leaks like a sieve sitting on the ground or flying at slow speed. When they break Mach air friction heats up the metal in the aircraft and it expands. at which point the aircraft stops leaking. So, I guess my point is that if you’re building a super-fast jet airplane, you’ll have to arrange for in-flight refueling.

Not necessarily. If building an aircraft like the SR-71 today, the fuel tank would be made in a way that would allow controlled expansion of the tankage without overstressing mounting points in the fuselage.

Stranger

Would putting the fuel in an expanding bag of some sort fix this? Sort of like the fuel bags (tanks) on F1 race cars?

So it sounds like around Mach 4-4.5 is as good as we could get?

If you have all the parts pre-staged, you can probably make one in a couple of days…

The US military is working on bomber that can take of and be any where in world in less than one hour.But the problems with the prototypes when they go very fast they lose control and crash.

The primary goal of the US military is to have manned and unmanned bombers that can get any where in the world in less than one hour.

There is much research and develop into this.

We already have these; they’re called intercontinenal ballistic missiles. Unfortuantely, regardless of what payload you have on them, they tend to look like nuclear weapon delivery systems and set off a host of various early warning detection systems that get a lot of people very nervous, and are generally a poor idea for delivering conventional weapon payloads or pizza. There is an interest in maneuverable reentry vehicles (MaRVs) to be able to more finely guide and target areas that could not normally be directly struck by a purely ballistic reentry vehicle, but none of these are manned, nor could a crew survive the dynamic environments and loads experienced on these trajectories. The US Air Force is not currently working on any kind of crewed vehicle nor expressed an interested in restarting an astronaut training corps since the failed “Blue Shuttle” program, rightly considering it a massive waste of funds. They do seem very pleased with the performance of the unmanned X-37C uncrewed vehicle, but it is clearly not intended for any kind of terrestrial bombardment capability.

Stranger

As a specific example of this, some early ballistic missiles used a giant slug of copper at the top to provide protection against reentry heating. Such missiles have to survive the atmosphere at very high mach numbers, but obviously for only a short period of time. So a big copper heatsink was a crude but reasonably effective design.

Eventually they switched to ablative materials and other techniques. I suppose one could have an ablative skin on an aircraft as well, though I’m not sure I’d want to ride in it…

There was an interceptor variant of the SR-71, the YF-12, but it never went into mass production (they made three and all were eventually converted for research use).