The modifications to the Busemann's Biplane design reported in this article have proven that it is possible to design a modified Busemann's Biplane wing design that actually produces lift at supersonic speeds. Is it then possible to fly the same plane at hypersonic speeds of say Mach 10 (and ground speeds of above 10,000 km/h)? What are the other technical limitations?

The engines can achieve it and the air frame could be cooled, is noise once again an impediment at those speeds? Are there any effects on the human body for flying that fast given gradual acceleration? What about fuel, is it fuel efficient? Do we have a type of fuel that could power today's engine designs at those speeds given the complexities of using hydrogen?


Why Mach 10? Would Mach 3 or 4 not be enough? See here and here for the complications which arise at higher speeds.

The linked article is full of misrepresentations - of course will the Busemann biplane create lift at sub-supersonic speed (what is that, anyway? I read it as subsonic speed). Give it a proper subsonic airfoil and it will do so just like any other biplane, and even with the trapezoidal airfoil it will do so, albeit with more drag. It will also create lift and drag if operated at a proper angle of attack below its design speed (maybe that is meant by sub-supersonic speed, but the author never clarifies that).

Busemann biplane

Busemann biplane as shown in the linked article (source)

Did you note that the shock lines in the graph only occur between the two wings? That means that on the outer surfaces you will only see ambient pressure. The pressures internally cancel each other, and the result is that the Busemann biplane will not create any lift at its supersonic design speed in order to do its magic. As soon as it starts to create lift, it needs to create shock waves on the outside which will invariably be audible. That the researchers at Tohoku claim them to be 85% weaker is easy if they omit to mention to what they compare it.

Now look at the bulky passenger compartment on the top wing. This is clearly not optimised for supersonic travel (please compare it to the fuselages of the Concorde or the Tu-144 to get an idea what works).

No, this article is just utter nonsense.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Most things are 85+% quieter than the Tunguska event. $\endgroup$ – UIDAlexD Sep 20 '17 at 17:59
  • $\begingroup$ 85% of all statistics are made up... oh, never mind. $\endgroup$ – FreeMan Sep 20 '17 at 20:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.