Some pretty cool aircraft designs.

Also "Their five-decker A380 replacement is even crazier."

I want to see that.

5 deck! wth they going to put on it? Swimming pool?

I doubt it, the water would go EVERYWHERE

But by all means, a SHIT tonne of passengers probably

The Turbo Prop canard design looks AWESOME. As does the delta wing concept!

Forward swept wings are teh win.

i like it, but as the guy said on that site, will it be as good as/better than concord?

also here is what the 5 deck craft will look like

It's a moot point to compare to concord, as it's unlikely we will see another similar plane for a long time.

I do not like these concepts.

*agrees*

Concord was awsomes but cost way too much and wasnt worth it once the internet poped its head above the water, which meant that the high business people didnt have to go to america/france all the time.

Seeing as Concorde was really a one off, I doubt we will ever create something as Iconic again. If only it had had military funding as a Supersonic bomber.... THEN we would of seem something special.

The military have supersonic bombers that are far more suitable for the task than concord would be.

I present you;

They probably didn't have something as amazingly well designed as Concord. With military specs, Mach 3 or 4 might of been possible with Concorde. That would of been a frightening concept as a Nuclear bomber

It wouldn't be able to reach Mach 3, the SR71 barely managed that, and was designed from the start to go super fast.

Anyway, they did actually develop a high speed supersonic bomber, the XB-70 Valkyrie, which (if you read the fact sheets) is far more capable as a bomber than Concorde.

It even resembles Concorde.

Also:

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/g ... bus_01.jpg

The containers in the centre make me think of stasis pods.

The SR-71 CRUISED at 3.2... and could make 3.6 with ease...

Those are tables

Actually, the SR71s speed is still classified, but is usually reported (max) speed is 3.2-3.5(+).

They look like tanks to me, possibly fuel or water.

As for the XB70 it looks like Concorde because that's a good supersonic wing shape. SR71 has a similar shape (though also has stealth concepts). The B-1B has a swept wing design, so it can assume that shape for supersonic speed. Most fighter jets also have that kind of shape (see Eurofighter for a classic example).

Tbh they'll all look the same, but in different colours, like normal planes do today, all the same...

this

No matter how stream-lined you make it, I am sorry to disappoint you, but with our current level of engine technology Star Destroyers will not fly (think falling pointed brick).

Unless they moved at an incredible speed. Like Hypersonic speeds.

ANYTHING will fly given enough momentum (and is semi the right shape) The Lift co-efficient of the Space Shuttle is roughly equal to that of a falling brick so

*waits for skillers to go nuts at that*

That's hypersoar i posted above

Mmmm, HyperSoar, tasty.

Flight is simply attained by overcoming the force of gravity by whatever methods you deem necessary, or reducing the overall force such that the rate of decent is acceptable.

A space shuttle is just a glorified glider, it's intention is never sustained flight, just reusable reentry. However, I must say, a brick has no flight properties, whereas the shuttle has atleast some.

Also, similarly, when you get to space, flight in the conventional sense becomes obsolete. In near-space (where the gravitational pull of the Earth is consequential) all you need to do is travel fast enough to not fall to Earth, which is fairly easy considering the speed required is pretty damn easy to obtain in a (near) vacuum. I will remind you that satellites have aerodynamic and lift properties that equate to completely nothing, simply because they do not need them, they do not generate lift, they just travel fast enough "away" from the Earth to be in equilibrium with the force of gravity. As for far space, it becomes even easier, for there are no (significant) forces to overcome, therefore you just need to be able to move, a feat achieved my any form of propulsion that doesn't require a medium (ie, rocket power or ion drives). The physics of space flight are actually simpler than the physics of atmospheric flight, until you consider the huge distances involved require you to travel at ridiculous speeds (near light) to be of any use, and then you've got that pesky relativity.

As for HyperSoar (McWill's pic), it's a concept that is designed to fly on the very edge of our atmosphere at very high speeds, closer to a satellite than a conventional plane. It would work simply by using the concept of satellites combined with a bit of lift generated by the atmosphere (it's shape would easily create some lift). Launching it would probably require a rocket or piggybacking on a larger plane.

Also, MC just ninja'd me, and yeah, skipping in and out sounds right, imagine a dolphin.

Warning: The above text is very poorly thought out, live with it