Civil aircraft of the future. Aviation of the future: passenger drones, supersonic and biodesign. Airbus Vahaha aircraft

, ,

What will the next generations fly? This question interests many. It is clear that the aircraft of the future will consume less fuel, produce less noise, and the use of new materials will expand on them. Today we can lift the veil of mystery and introduce you to some of the concept models that NASA has developed.

Lockheed concept. Reverse arc over 4 motors will reduce noise.

In the Northrop Grumman concept, the prototype of the B-2 strategic bomber is clearly guessed.

D8 concept at the University of Massachusetts. The wide fuselage, swept wings should allow this model to be both the maximum load-lifting and economical.

Another project from the University of Massachusetts. He is able to fly 14 thousand kilometers and take on board 354 passengers.

This is a Lockheed supersonic passenger aircraft.

This is a project from Boeing. Also a "flying wing" with more rounded shapes. Looks like X-48.

Several projects from NASA.

This project is also from the company "Lockheed" The unusual shape of the wing and the use of new materials will improve the controllability of air flow.

This is a joint concept from NASA and several institutes. Connecting the wings to the tail will reduce fuel consumption and improve handling.

This is a project from GE Aviation. It does not differ in revolutionary design, but wins in economy and streamlining.

This is a joint project between AMELIA and California Polytechnic University. Possesses hybrid wings.

This is a project of Boeing and the designers of the Volt company. He is able to fly 6 thousand kilometers without refueling. It has a hybrid power plant with gas turbines and electric motors.

This project has reduced noise.

NASA has introduced environmentally friendly aircraft concepts. These stunning, innovative models have been unofficially named the Green Aircraft of 2025.” The concepts were developed by three American companies. The company's goal is to create aircraft to replace modern aircraft that would consume 50% less fuel compared to modern aircraft, 50% less pollute the environment, and which would reduce noise pollution near airports by 83%.

The project is funded by Environmentally Responsible Aviation (NASA) under the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate in Washington DC.

Here are three aircraft concepts that were developed during 2011. Also in the selection are projects announced in 2010.

Aircraft models of the future are designed by research teams from Huntington Beach-based Boeing, Palmdale-based Lockheed Martin and El Segundo-based Northrop GrummanNorthrop Grumman. All companies are from California, USA. Researchers, designers, company engineers during 2011 studied the question: what technologies can meet the requirements of NASA to create an aircraft by 2025 that consumes 50% less fuel, gives 75% less harmful emissions and 83% less noise around airports . All these figures are based on the 1998 level, which is taken as a starting point.
Image source: NASA

Concept from Lockheed Martin. Designers in the new concept use a closed wing. Work on the concept has been going on for three decades, but only today, with the creation of new composite structural materials, new landing gear, hybrid laminar flow, etc., the corporation hopes to turn this bold project into a viable design. Lockheed Martin also plans to use the Rolls Royce Liberty Works Ultra Fan Engine in this aircraft. This new turbofan engine, according to the developer, has a bypass ratio five times higher than existing products.

Design of a possible model of a civil supersonic aircraft. Its shape should reduce drag.
Image Source: NASA/Lockheed Martin

Boeing advanced aircraft concept. It is a "flying wing" version of the X-48, which first flew in 2007. The Boeing version has a big difference from the X-48: the turbofan engines are located on top of the "flying wing" and are protected on both sides by a vertical tail, represented by two developed rudders.

Aircraft design developed by NASA with a team of researchers from the aviation industry and universities. This shape of the wings should significantly reduce fuel costs.
Image Source: Boxed-Wing Reduces Drag

Boeing advanced aircraft concept. It is a "flying wing" version of the X-48, which first flew in 2007. Among the innovations are the stability control system, a large wingspan, leading to a decrease in the specific load on the wing and an increase in aerodynamic quality.
Image source: NASA/Boeing

Computer visualization AMELIA (Advanced Extreme Climb Model with Enhanced Aeroacoustics) is a hybrid wing subsonic aircraft model that requires a short takeoff and landing distance. The model was developed by NASA in conjunction with the California Polytechnic State University. The improved characteristics of the device should reduce noise pollution during its landing and takeoff. Model testing was scheduled for autumn 2011.
Image Source: NASA/Cal Poly

Part of NASA's supersonic research program, the aircraft, dubbed the "Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Volt concept" (or SUGAR), is equipped with a propulsion system that was designed to reduce fuel burn by more than 70 percent and power consumption by approximately by 55 percent. Conceived as the air transport of the future, NASA's new aircraft has stretched wings and electric batteries for a gas turbine hybrid propulsion system. The concept was presented in April 2010 to NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate for research into what aircraft will look like in 2030-2035.
Image source: NASA/The Boeing Company

Double Bubble D8. The concept was developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Its main idea is that a very wide fuselage provides additional lift, and a thin wing significantly reduces the weight of the device and drag. It is capable of transporting 180 passengers at a speed of Mach 0.74 over a distance of 3,000 nautical miles. The concept was presented in April 2010 to NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate for research into what aircraft will look like in 2030-2035.

Classic configuration aircraft from NorthropGrumman, the embodiment of SELECT (Silent Efficient Low Emissions Commercial Transport) technology, designed for medium-haul routes. Designed for flights at Mach 0.55 over 800 nautical miles. The concept was presented in April 2010 to NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate for research into what aircraft will look like in 2030-2035.
Image Source: NASA/GE Aviation

Supersonic aircraft concept developed by a team led by Lockheed Martin Corporation. The concept was presented in April 2010 to NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate for research into what aircraft will look like in 2030-2035.
Image Source: NASA/Lockheed Martin Corporation

The Hybrid Wing Body H-Series is a wide-body wing designed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The aircraft is capable of transporting 354 passengers at a speed of Mach 0.83 over a distance of 7,600 nautical miles. The concept was presented in April 2010 to NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate for research into what aircraft will look like in 2030-2035.
Image Source: NASA/MIT/Aurora Flight Science

The era of aircraft construction, which began more than a century ago, may change dramatically in the near future, and this will be due not to the creation of any unique aircraft, but to the refinement of existing designs. To date, the cost of an aircraft flight from one point of the globe to another is determined mainly by the amount of fuel consumed, and although the world's largest aircraft manufacturers, in particular, we are talking about the Airbus and Boeing corporations, are actively investing in the creation of more efficient engines, however, if flights can be made cheaper, then by no more than 10-12%. However, not everyone realizes that the future of aviation has already arrived, in particular, today there are five different models of electric aircraft that can travel over long distances, while consuming 40-50% less fuel.

Airbus E-Fan

The greatest success in the creation of electric aircraft has been achieved by the European aircraft manufacturing corporation Airbus. This is primarily due to the fact that the European manufacturer is well aware that not all regions of the globe have enough hydrocarbon fuel, and given the constant demand for it, in the future, the cost of oil, as well as the fuel created on its basis, will just continue to grow. Based on this, the Airbus corporation has been working on the creation of electric aircraft for several years, and we are talking about both private aircraft and full-size airliners capable of carrying up to 180-150 passengers on board.

An excellent example of the engineering thought of aircraft designers from the Airbus Corporation is the Vahana project, which is a single-seat aircraft that can be used for flights both in urban areas and at fairly impressive distances. It is assumed that such aircraft will replace ordinary cars in the near future, since with the help of this aircraft it is possible to move freely at distances of up to 150 kilometers at a maximum flight speed of 120 km / h.

Airbus Vahaha aircraft

An equally interesting project of the Airbus corporation is the CityAirbus electric aircraft, which is one of the types of public transport, in particular, with the help of this aircraft, it will be possible to move within a radius of 50 kilometers, with a maximum capacity of up to 14 people on board. It is assumed that after the start of mass production of these aircraft, the cost of a flight in them will be about $ 20 for every 10 kilometers of the route, which is very acceptable.

CityAirbus project

Equally successful was the American aircraft manufacturer Zunum Aero, which since 2013 has been developing two models of electric passenger aircraft, one of which is focused on operation in the commercial transportation sector, and the other is aimed at business transportation. The implementation of the Zunum AeroJet business jet is scheduled for 2020, and it is likely that this 10-seat aircraft will be able to successfully compete with the largest aircraft manufacturers currently engaged in the production of administrative aircraft. As for the Zunum Aero CRJ model, the timing of this project will depend on the success of the creation of a business jet, but, according to experts, this aircraft will be able to successfully take to the air by 2022.

Airplane Zunum Aero CRJ

Israeli engineers from the Eviation company were also able to make great progress in the implementation of the project to create an electric aircraft designed to carry people on board. According to representatives of the Eviation company, the Eviation Aircraft aircraft will be able to fly at distances of up to one thousand kilometers, with a maximum capacity of up to 12 people on board. At the moment, the project is still underway, however, it is expected that by 2023 the aircraft will be able to make its first flight.

Eviation Aircraft

The Wright Electric commercial passenger liner is a rather interesting project being implemented by American engineers and scientists. As follows from official data, this aircraft allows you to carry up to 186 passengers on board at distances up to 900 kilometers, which is quite suitable for flights on local, regional and even international routes, while, compared to conventional aircraft, the cost of the flight can be reduced by 50-60%.

Aircraft Wright Electric

In fact, aircraft manufacturers are actively introducing new technologies, and we will be able to see and feel the future of aviation in the next decade.

- Evgeny Aleksandrovich, how did the role of military aviation change in armed conflicts?

Back in 1909, Academician Boris Golitsyn at a meeting of the Presidium of the Imperial Academy of Sciences made a report on the role of aviation in combat operations. We didn't even have aviation back then. Golitsyn himself was a specialist in the field of meteorology. But he immediately saw the possible scope of aircraft in military affairs. And above all, to influence air and ground targets. He said that countries that lag behind here could come to tragic results. His call was heard. Having entered the First World War, Russia already possessed an aviation group of more than two hundred aircraft - then one of the largest air fleets in comparison with Germany or England. True, from the original Russian cars there was, perhaps, only the Ilya Muromets bomber. The rest is French aircraft or their modifications. They were used primarily as a means of reconnaissance. Over enemy territory, aircraft could reveal the location of enemy troops and targets. Moreover, there were no air defense systems at that time. Over time, aircraft began to acquire the functions of a fighter and a bomber. But so far they have not had a fundamental impact on the conduct of operations. The bombs were small caliber. At first, they were manually thrown from the aircraft. The prototype of the first stationary aircraft weapon is a cavalry saber mounted on an aircraft, which, in the process of any maneuvers, was supposed to cut the guys of the enemy biplanes. Then they put a machine gun on board - the usual "Maxim". It was installed on the Ilya Muromets, and later on other aircraft.

- Did the rapid development of military aviation begin already in Soviet times?

Yes. Stalin personally devoted a lot of time to the development of the aviation industry and his favorite branch of the armed forces. In the 1930s, the concept of heavy bombers dominated in our country. Il-4, TB-3 bomb carriers were created. They were slow-moving, but had a large combat load. But the events in Spain, the Soviet-Finnish war, the appearance of the Messerschmitt-110 in Germany fundamentally broke the concept - we realized that we had gone the wrong way.

- And we had to rebuild?

Yes. In the Second World War, the concept was already clearly defined: any ground operation is won only when air supremacy is ensured. Confirmation of this is the battle near Moscow in December 1941, when, despite the huge fleet, the Luftwaffe was unable to ensure air supremacy. One of the reasons for this is that German planes were refueled with gasoline that could not withstand the cold. So the mobility of their bomber aircraft was not too high. And then we already had very good air defense and a fairly large fleet of fighters. But it was only a partial success. German aviation dominated the air everywhere for a long time. Then it became clear to everyone: without air supremacy, a ground operation cannot achieve the expected effect. The situation began to change in the spring of 1943, when we were able to break the back of the Luftwaffe in the air battle in the Kuban. This was confirmed by the Battle of Kursk, and all ten so-called "Stalinist strikes", up to the Battle of Berlin. Troops have always gone on the offensive with the numerical dominance of Soviet aviation. In World War II, the doctrine of the Italian General Douai, born in the 1930s, was largely confirmed. He said: in the future, aviation will be the only type of aircraft and all combat operations will be decided in the air. The enemy will be inflicted such unacceptable damage from the air, which will crush him politically, he will only have to surrender, accepting the demands of the enemy.

- The Italian general guessed ...

Not really. Here I see what Syria has shown: we dominate the air there, but without ground forces and correct actions on the ground, not everything is solved very well. But the fact that the role of aviation in armed conflicts will only increase is indisputable. Therefore, the structure of aviation is also changing. Previously, we had specialized aircraft: fighters, attack aircraft, bombers - front-line, long-range ... But recent local conflicts have shown the advantage of multifunctional aircraft. For example, front-line aviation - tactical in the American classification - has become multifunctional. The concept of "fighter-bomber" appeared. At the same time, air reconnaissance tasks are being solved. And all this is a basic aircraft of a single design. The trend has been marked since the “four plus” generation. And the fifth generation aircraft are already being built exclusively according to the concept of multifunctionality. This is important when the depth of combat operations - especially if we consider the Middle East, the European theater - captures the entire territory of the enemy. The concept of "front", "front line" in its pure form no longer exists - our country is an exception here, it is big. Hence the role of aviation, which operates to the full depth, is growing.

- But if earlier reconnaissance was considered the leading task of aviation, then today what is it?

Attack from the air: strike operations against ground, surface and underwater targets, the struggle for air supremacy. But intelligence also remains. Moreover, with the advent of the concept of "network-centric hostilities", there has again been a tendency to strengthen this function. It has become multi-echeloned: space, air, ground. It is technically improving, mastering the entire spectrum of electromagnetic waves, conducted at night, with low visibility ... Now reconnaissance is to some extent correlated with electronic warfare (EW). All aircraft are equipped with radars, radio systems, reconnaissance equipment.

How in front-line aviation? It is believed that each aircraft must both defend itself and use all kinds of radiation in order to "dazzle" the enemy.

Yes, but the Americans, from my point of view, act smarter. They make specialized systems. That is, special equipment is placed on a conventional multifunctional aircraft to provide electronic countermeasures. For the Americans, this began with the appearance of specialized electronic warfare aircraft based on the F-4 Phantom specifically for breaking through enemy air defenses.

That is, in the construction of electronic warfare systems, is there a division into our and American philosophy? What is the fundamental difference?

I would say that our philosophy is this: to have a large radiation power, that is, a “club”, which creates an electromagnetic effect in the widest possible spectrum and from all directions. Such complexes "blind" the enemy almost completely. But for this it is necessary to provide greater energy capacity, and this means weight, dimensions, costs. The Americans, the Israelis have a different approach to electronic warfare. They try to reveal the structure of the enemy signal as much as possible and form deceptive retaliatory interference that lead him away from the real target. That is why in Vietnam, in the Middle East, they very well studied the theater of possible hostilities and everything that radiates there. This is already a struggle between the intellects of the attacking and defending sides. And in this struggle of concepts, I am for the "club". Simply because in our not the most operational system, we still do not know how to flexibly adjust to a possible theater of military operations. We are more inertial. This means that we need to follow the path of maximum versatility of interference, greater power in order to try to "choke" the enemy in all ranges.

Combat aviation is undergoing a generational change. What are the trends here? Compare our fifth generation aircraft to the American F-22 and F-35.

We are carefully analyzing this topic at GosNII-AS. Each new generation marks the emergence of fundamentally new fighting qualities. The first generation of our jet aircraft - the MiG-15, MiG-17 - is a transition to a jet engine, which provides a qualitative leap in speed. The Americans then had F-86s, and ours were in no way inferior to them, which was shown by the war in Korea, where our and their planes fought each other for the first time. The second generation of aviation is associated with the development of supersonic speeds. We were the first to go supersonic on the MiG-19, and the MiG-21 was already being built as supersonic. We reached speeds of Mach 2, which revolutionized the appearance of the aircraft. Delta-shaped wings appeared, sweep - supersonic aerodynamics. Plus there was a change of weapons. At such speeds, it was necessary to increase its range, so air-to-air guided missiles appeared.

The MiG-21 received a very good missile, the prototype of which was the American Sidewinder. Its broken original was handed over to our institute by the Chinese after the armed conflict with the USA. We solved it like a charade. It turned out to be a very elegant solution. And at that time we built the K-8 rocket - the first self-guided "air-to-air". Compared to the Sidewinder, the K-8 was one and a half times heavier. Its ballistic range was longer, but its controllable range with target acquisition was less than that of the Sidewinder. We reproduced this American missile, adapted it and put it into service. Later, she played a very important role in the development of other types of missiles: anti-tank, some guided anti-aircraft missiles. This trophy proved to be very useful for us. I don’t know what the fate of the author of the rocket is, but I would think that a monument should be erected to him during his lifetime for such a beautiful revolutionary decision.

- That is, in the development of aviation, we and the United States went in parallel?

In principle, in the field of combat aviation, the USSR and the USA by that time had established parity. But then there was a crash. Nikita Khrushchev caused great harm to our front-line aviation when he said that the war would be nuclear missile, everything would be decided by missiles, so why spend money on tactical weapons? There was a short period of time when we suspended development. He got sick. At that time, the Arab-Israeli wars began and the Americans got a third-generation aircraft - the F-4 Phantom, and we only had the MiG-21 - a second-generation aircraft. Our MiG-21, by the way, did not lose much to the F-4. They even outperformed in terms of speed. But on the "phantoms" there was already a medium-range missile with an extended-range radar homing head. The locator worked against the background of the earth, that is, for aircraft that flew below. Our homing heads could only work in contrast, against the sky. But then work began on our third-generation aircraft, the MiG-23, which was superior to the Phantom in flight properties. By the way, the F-4 is a two-seat aircraft. Crew - pilot and weapons operator. And on the MiG-23 there was only a pilot, the main operations were automated. At this time, a captured American Sparrow missile was again brought to our institute. There were enthusiasts to copy it. They insisted that it should be played like Sidewinder. And at that time we were building our own X-23 for the MiG-23. And when we compared all the properties of Sparrow and X-23, we realized that we had overtaken the Americans. The X-23 turned out to be more advanced, including the homing head.

- That is, in the third generation, the gap from the Americans was eliminated?

Yes, on the MiG-23 we somehow caught up with the enemy fighter. We built the Kh-60 close combat missile, which was much smaller than the Sidewinder and very maneuverable. By the way, the Americans could not do the same. Then we built the K-73 rocket on its basis, which to this day has no foreign analogues. So we are guaranteed to win in close combat, including on fourth-generation aircraft - the MiG-29 and Su-27. They were sold a lot to India, China, Vietnam. Indians, by the way, are very meticulous. Their Air Force conducted a whole series of comparative tests of our and American aircraft, including 27 training air battles. In almost all close air battles, the Americans lost. They only won one fight. Probably the pilot on our plane gaped. The MiG-29 and Su-27 are super-maneuverable compared to the American ones. And in close combat, this plays a decisive role. As a result, the Americans issued instructions to their pilots: not to engage in close combat with MiG-29s and Su-27s.

- These aircraft were developed in the generation "four plus", "four plus-plus" and even the fifth?

- Did the Americans want to outperform our Su-27s and Su-30s?

In general, I think that the Americans made a huge mistake. The F-22 Raptor was conceived as an aircraft that was superior in performance to the Su-27. There were no cost restrictions, so the Raptor "flew" for $100 million - our planes cost $30-40 million - being too expensive even for the United States. I had to limit its purchase to a batch of 180 pieces. Almost all of them were placed in Alaska, to cover the airspace from the Arctic Ocean. Actually, they do not carry other functions. The Raptor never became multifunctional. In his performance characteristics, the conditions for working on ground targets are also recorded, but the grouping in Alaska is designed only for the air-to-air mode. And now, taking into account the events in Syria, it suddenly became clear that the United States cannot use the F-22 there - in Syria, you have to work on the ground. I had to finish a batch of vehicles so that they could destroy ground targets. So the Raptor, from my point of view, has not achieved superiority over our aircraft, the Su-35 surpasses it.

- And the F-35?

With him, the Americans generally made a strategic mistake. We decided to build a universal aircraft for the Air Force, and for the naval aviation, and for the Marine Corps. To work from the deck, the aircraft must have a short takeoff, vertical landing. In this case, it must be arranged as a basic structure. When the United States was building the fourth generation, they also set this task, but it did not work out. There was a line of F-18s, a line of F-15s, and another F-16 - three different aircraft. F-16s were built for NATO, for sale to their allies. F-15 mostly for myself. F / A-18 - carrier-based aircraft. And suddenly, in the fifth generation, they again decided to create a universal machine.

- But this is logical, you yourself are talking about multifunctionality?

They tried to combine the incompatible. As a result, we lost the volume of weapons and fuel compartments, and due to this, the range and combat load. The plane came out single-engine, unlike our twin-engine ones. For deck takeoffs and landings, an increased power-to-weight ratio and additional side nozzles for stabilization are needed. The engine occupied almost the entire volume of the aircraft - cuttlefish turned out. Worse than a fourth generation aircraft. 11 years, if not more, have been working on this aircraft, and there are still a lot of restrictions. And this despite the fact that the total cost of the project exceeded a trillion dollars. A consortium was created for this aircraft, which included the main NATO countries and Israel. But some countries began to refuse purchases. Most likely, this program will be stopped.

- We on the T-50 managed to get away from these shortcomings, take into account their experience?

And we never set our sights on such impossible tasks - we understood the possible limitations. We still had experience in creating vertical takeoff and landing aircraft - Yak-38 and Yak-141. We understood that these are incompatible things - ground-based and deck-based aircraft. In addition, the "ship" is not so relevant for us, given the fact that we have one aircraft carrier with a group of 30 aircraft, and the United States has over a dozen aircraft carriers, each of which has more than a hundred aircraft. So we just didn't go that route. The T-50 has compatible qualities: stealth, super maneuverability, plus a radar with an active phased antenna array. The aircraft meets the requirements of network-centric warfare. This is what distinguishes the T-50 from the fourth generation machines. But while it is still unfinished, and it is difficult to say what it will be like finally. There are difficulties. Just like any new car.

Photo: Russian Ministry of Defense, Vadim Savitsky Russian Ministry of Defense

For more than a year (he flew out on March 9, 2015) he has been “completing” his round-the-world trip, you might think that the development of passenger aviation has stopped or even goes in the opposite direction. Of course, Solar Impulse 2 is not the future of aviation, but modern aircraft are slower than supersonic ones. conchords flying 30 years ago. New aircraft models basically differ from the old ones only in greater fuel efficiency. Airbus is not even going to develop a new aircraft for the 2020s. However, everything is not so hopeless. The most promising projects in aeronautics are described below, demonstrating that the development of aviation still continues.

electric planes

Airbus is testing a small but all-electric Airbus-E-Fan aircraft. The latest achievement of the aircraft is the flight across the English Channel. So far, this model cannot be used for any long flights, even by one person.

But many aircraft manufacturers have no doubt that electric aviation is the future. To begin with, it is planned, as in cars, to make a hybrid engine. Airbus intends to test a "more electric aircraft" as part of the DISPURSAL project in 2022. The contribution of the electric fan motor to the total thrust should be 23%.

NASA in 2016 announced the start of development of the X-57 Maxwell aircraft equipped with 14 electric motors. It will be a small four-seat aircraft. According to engineers, the introduction of electric motors will significantly reduce operating costs. The agency does not say when the aircraft will be created.

German startup Lilium Aviation has received funding to build an electric private jet that can take off and land without an airport. For takeoff and landing, the aircraft will need only 225 meters. The company has already created a prototype and plans to introduce a full-size version at the end of 2018.

supersonic aircraft

The Aerion AS2 is the first supersonic aircraft in a very long time from Airbus. This is a private jet designed for 12 passengers. $4 billion will be invested in its development, and the release is planned for 2023.

In early March, NASA announced the development of the QueSST, a near-silent supersonic aircraft. The main reason for the prohibition of supersonic passenger aircraft (besides fuel economy) was too much noise during the transition to supersonic speed. NASA has developed methods to get rid of the noise and plans to build a prototype around 2020.

Aviation startup Boom backed by Virgin Galactic is working on supersonic aircraft. The startup is going to use the new aircraft to fly over the Atlantic 2.5 times faster than conventional aircraft. The $2 billion investment should allow the company to build a prototype by the end of 2017.

According to its creators, the Skylon aircraft will be able to get to any point in 4 hours at a speed 5 times faster than the speed of sound. To create it, British engineers are testing a new type of engine. They announced the first tests for 2019. However, this project, despite an investment of 60 million euros from the British government, is the longest and most difficult to implement of all

New passenger aircraft

Plane-table