Supersonic Business Jet -- A Matter of When, Not If
45 replies, posted
[quote]In 2004, the world was introduced to no fewer than two supersonic business jet (SBJ) programs. Aerion Corp., an advanced engineering group formed to re-introduce the concept of commercial supersonic flight, took the wraps off one of the designs, and J. Michael Paulson, son of Gulfstream founder Allen Paulson, unveiled the other. The venue was the National Business Aircraft Assn.’s annual meeting in Las Vegas. Reno, Nev.-based Aerion’s target date for placing its SBJ into service was 2011, while Paulson was a bit more conservative; he thought service entry in 2012 was more realistic.
You have to admire visionaries, since they are responsible for the incredible advances that general, commercial, and military aviation have made since the Wright Brothers. Looking back on the standing-room-only press conference I attended back then, however, the impression that springs to my mind is: how overly ambitious. I’m not referring to the concept, because an SBJ most definitely is in business aviation’s distant future—but rather the timing.[/quote]
[url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/businessaviation/2014/03/28/supersonic-business-jet-a-matter-of-when-not-if/]Source[/url]
[QUOTE]The purpose of the X-plane is to demonstrate the feasibility of shaping techniques developed to reduce the sonic boom problem.[/QUOTE]
The problem will still exist though, to some degree.. You can make the effect of the bow-shock smaller, but it will still exist, and be compounded with speed.
When will we have suborbital business jets?
[I]"Hello this is the Los Angeles Offices. Meeting in Paris? In one hour? I'll be there in 30."[/I]
[QUOTE=OvB;44398155]When will we have suborbital business jets?
[I]"Hello this is the Los Angeles Offices. Meeting in Paris? In one hour? I'll be there in 30."[/I][/QUOTE]
Thirty hours from LA to Paris? Holy crap, a liner would be faster
Why did we end Concorde?
Oh right, a single crash caused by something falling off another plane.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;44399114]Why did we end Concorde?
Oh right, a single crash caused by something falling off another plane.[/QUOTE]
It was an ecological nightmare (guzzled fuel like there was no tomorrow AND caused unprecedented noise pollution) and wasn't really economical anymore either. The crash was more of last nail into it's coffin.
[editline]30th March 2014[/editline]
I am all for a new supersonic airliner but Concorde wasn't really a good design.
[QUOTE=OvB;44398155]When will we have suborbital business jets?
[I]"Hello this is the Los Angeles Offices. Meeting in Paris? In one hour? I'll be there in 30."[/I][/QUOTE]
re entry in [I]style[/I]
[editline]30th March 2014[/editline]
scramjet business planes.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44399137]It was an ecological nightmare (guzzled fuel like there was no tomorrow AND caused unprecedented noise pollution) and wasn't really economical anymore either. The crash was more of last nail into it's coffin.
[editline]30th March 2014[/editline]
I am all for a new supersonic airliner but Concorde wasn't really a good design.[/QUOTE]
As if noise pollution matters 60000ft above the Atlantic
[QUOTE=download;44399189]As if noise pollution matters 60000ft above the Atlantic[/QUOTE]
It mattered when coming in to land.
I used to live in London, it would wake us up without fail at like 4am.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;44399114]Why did we end Concorde?
Oh right, a single crash caused by something falling off another plane.[/QUOTE]
being redirected around the skies of angry countries kinda made it pointless too
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44399137]It was an ecological nightmare (guzzled fuel like there was no tomorrow AND caused unprecedented noise pollution) and wasn't really economical anymore either. The crash was more of last nail into it's coffin.
[editline]30th March 2014[/editline]
I am all for a new supersonic airliner but Concorde wasn't really a good design.[/QUOTE]
It was a really good design for its time (supercruising in the 70s and all), but it simply costed too much so only a handful of people could fly with it.
In the later years the airlines only kept it flying because of prestige, and they couldnt really change the original destinations to something better (London-Hong Kong for example) because they could only fly over water. NY-London wasnt making much profit but NY-Paris was so ridiculously underused that it wasnt uncommon to have more flight attendants on board than passengers.
The accident had pretty much nothing to do with the retirement, it was just pure economics.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44399137]It was an ecological nightmare (guzzled fuel like there was no tomorrow AND caused unprecedented noise pollution) and wasn't really economical anymore either. The crash was more of last nail into it's coffin.
[editline]30th March 2014[/editline]
I am all for a new supersonic airliner but Concorde wasn't really a good design.[/QUOTE]
But it was fucking gorgeous
[QUOTE=lazyguy;44399114]Why did we end Concorde?
Oh right, a single crash caused by something falling off another plane.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't from another plane, the Concorde had problems where the tires would explode so they kept making them thicker, during the accident the tires exploded during take off and a slab of thick rubber smashed up against the wings rupturing fuel lines and getting inside the engine.
[QUOTE=SataniX;44399364]It mattered when coming in to land.
I used to live in London, it would wake us up without fail at like 4am.[/QUOTE]
My family has always lived in Filton, where the Concorde UK fleet were born. They would frequently fly in when the airfield was still operational for maintenance and test flights. I remember hearing it waking me up too - but I can't remember a single person in the area complaining about it. I suppose because so many people in Filton worked at the BAC plant and were involved in the production of the plane, it was the child of their labor which flew overhead and woke everyone up - not a loud, fuel-burning airplane. There was - and still is - a lot of love for Concorde in Bristol and the surrounding suburbs. I don't think the decision to take it out of service hit any harder than it did here.
There are so many ghosts surrounding the reasons for taking it out of service - and for not flying it as a display aircraft - its a bit of a touchy subject. Nobody talks of the Concorde fleet in the BAE/Airbus plant now, despite the last Concorde to ever fly is parked on their doorstep - gathering dust and slowly rusting away. If anyone ever flew in/flew out of Filton when it was operational and looked to the north of the runway, you will know exactly what I mean.
There are rumors that BAC workers who went to Airbus when the BAE merger came were actually threatened with having their jobs taken from them - because of information they held surrounding the politics of Concorde programme. If you dig hard enough on the web (PPrune has some juicy titbits) there are plenty of people citing politics for the reason behind the Concorde being long forgotten..
[editline]30th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Life On Mars;44399722]It wasn't from another plane, the Concorde had problems where the tires would explode so they kept making them thicker, during the accident the tires exploded during take off and a slab of thick rubber smashed up against the wings rupturing fuel lines and getting inside the engine.[/QUOTE]
[del]No it didn't. Concordes tires were fine. The wings held absurd amounts of fuel and weren't properly protected prior to the accident. A departing flight ahead of the Concorde left debris on the runway, that when the Concorde rolled over ruptured a tire and threw shrapnel into the wing - igniting the fuel.
The Concorde - other than not having proper fuel tank protection - had nothing wrong with it regarding that event.[/del]
Actually having just Googled it now, there were tire problems on the Concorde - I stand corrected- but the original facts of the incident still stand. Debris from a departing aircraft caused the tires to rupture in this accident and that in turn led to fuel tanks being punctured. I believe the AAIB report actually cites this.
Not going to lie. I am genuinely terrified at the prospect of a supersonic aircraft being hijacked.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;44399768]Not going to lie. I am genuinely terrified at the prospect of a supersonic aircraft being hijacked.[/QUOTE]
Uh, why exactly?
[QUOTE=download;44399845]Uh, why exactly?[/QUOTE]
We are barely able to scramble fighters to intercept a commercial airliner. A supersonic aircraft is effectively a missile.
According to my dad and uncle a concorde once landed in my local airport and it actually broke glass windows in the city.
[editline]31st March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=WhyNott;44398817]Thirty hours from LA to Paris? Holy crap, a liner would be faster[/QUOTE]
29 hours in traffic jams.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;44399892]We are barely able to scramble fighters to intercept a commercial airliner. A supersonic aircraft is effectively a missile.[/QUOTE]
[Citation Needed]
Either way a small business jet is less than 1/20th the mass of a passenger jet. That's a lot less energy
i don't think the amount of destruction a supersonic hijacked jet would cause would be much greater in terms of actual destruction because of the huge amount of power that non-supersonic jets already have
[QUOTE=lazyguy;44399114]Why did we end Concorde?
Oh right, a single crash caused by something falling off another plane.[/QUOTE]
That, and the growth of the internet. We can share files, co-operate on projects and even talk face to face nigh-on instantaneously over huge distances.
There is always going to be a need to meet people in actual person, but the need for a businessperson to be somewhere very rapidly for a meeting has diminished.
[QUOTE=download;44400071][Citation Needed]
Either way a small business jet is less than 1/20th the mass of a passenger jet. That's a lot less energy[/QUOTE]
Kinetic energy= (mass)(velocity^2)
The speed of sound, 760 mph, is about 200 mph faster than the cruising speed of a normal commercial airliner. Even if it's smaller, it'll be going so much faster It will likely cause a similar amount of damage, perhaps even more.
[editline]30th March 2014[/editline]
what I'm trying to say is you can make up loss of mass with just a bit more velocity since it's exponential
[QUOTE=download;44400071][Citation Needed]
Either way a small business jet is less than 1/20th the mass of a passenger jet. That's a lot less energy[/QUOTE]
Speed matters a lot more than mass when it comes to energy.
[QUOTE=Amaurus;44401373]Speed matters a lot more than mass when it comes to energy.[/QUOTE]
not that much [URL="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=330^2+*+(250%2C000*(1%2F20))+*+0.5&oq=330^2+*+(250%2C000*(1%2F20))+*+0.5&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.16239j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=(262%5E2+*+250%2C000+*+0.5)+-+(330%5E2+*+(250%2C000*(1%2F2))+*+0.5)"]more[/URL],
[QUOTE=Eltro102;44401421]not that much [URL="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=330^2+*+(250%2C000*(1%2F20))+*+0.5&oq=330^2+*+(250%2C000*(1%2F20))+*+0.5&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.16239j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=(262^2+*+250%2C000+*+0.5)+-+(330^2+*+(250%2C000*(1%2F10))+*+0.5)"]more[/URL],[/QUOTE]
Uh someone just posted a formula which clearly shows that velocity is squared while mass is not, you're wrong.
did you see the link i mean you clearly didnt ke may be (fish symbol) v^2 but its also (fish symbol) m so even if v is a bit higher if mass is a lot higher it cancels out like in this case of a business jet vs a 787 or similar??
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;44401307]Kinetic energy= (mass)(velocity^2)
The speed of sound, 760 mph, is about 200 mph faster than the cruising speed of a normal commercial airliner. Even if it's smaller, it'll be going so much faster It will likely cause a similar amount of damage, perhaps even more.
[editline]30th March 2014[/editline]
what I'm trying to say is you can make up loss of mass with just a bit more velocity since it's exponential[/QUOTE]
It's 1/2 mv^2 actually
[QUOTE=Altimor;44402215]It's 1/2 mv^2 actually[/QUOTE]
which doesn't matter in a discussion of proportionality
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;44403507]which doesn't matter in a discussion of proportionality[/QUOTE]
Never said it did just stating a fact.
You also have to factor in drag, and density.
Not to mention, that the aircraft, along with the wading through air at high velocity, is also changing its altitude, so the high-stress regions change on the aircraft as it gets higher.
It's also getting lighter as the flight goes on, and the mass is still pretty important when it comes to this.
This is going to be a epic feat of engineering; wouldn't be surprised if we don't see a commercial one until 2024.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.