Jump to content

No supersonic jet for you

philiplane
 Share

Recommended Posts

A64Pilot Grand Master

A64Pilot

Posted
Posted

What no giant F-104?

I think Embraer may be the first, I would have said Gulfstream but their head of their Supersonic project got killed at Sun-N-Fun a decade or so ago?

It will happen, there are quite a few astonishingly wealthy people out there that would pay for it as the ultimate display of wealth

  • Like 1
aviatoreb Grand Master

aviatoreb

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

The Russians were trying to sell their TU-144 ON EBay a few years ago. They said they would make it airworthy for like 10,000,000 bucks. A bargain!

It would likely be some kind of exhibition experimental category though.

So much for my dreams of buying a general use supersonic.

Maybe I can buy a virgin Atlantics space ship?

Mark89114 Experienced

Mark89114

Posted
Posted

It amazes me that they are able to raise that kind of funding on unproven concepts, management team, market studies, etc....unless they are complete BS'ers....

You know what they say to get a small fortune in aviation, start with a large one.

 

Raptor05121 Grand Master

Raptor05121

Posted
Posted

I may have overlooked it, but I always thought the hurdle of supersonic was A.) the EXTREME cost and B.) The FAA's decision to limit overland flight due to noise pollution from supersonic booms. How much of that $1bn is going to wax the Administrator's pockets?

EricJ Grand Master

EricJ

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Raptor05121 said:

I may have overlooked it, but I always thought the hurdle of supersonic was A.) the EXTREME cost and B.) The FAA's decision to limit overland flight due to noise pollution from supersonic booms. How much of that $1bn is going to wax the Administrator's pockets?

Supposedly these were "boomless", so they avoided the issues.    There are other aircraft claiming to be boomless as well.   I don't know whether it's been demonstrated or not.

carusoam Grand Master

carusoam

Posted
Posted

it’s all rockets these days...  

For boomless flights they were discussing flying extremely high up...

Air is thinner,  distance to ground further away...

 

Silliness is the cost of flying... gobs of excess power required...

Tough to get investors on board...   where ESG is often part of the package.... (environmental, social, Corp governance)

 

competition is tough...  the other teams have behemoths of industry... Musk, Bezos, Branson, Palihapitya

 

Find an available behemoth of industry (or become one yourself)... get this plane back on the line....

PP thoughts only, not a behemoth...

Best regards,

-a-

A64Pilot Grand Master

A64Pilot

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don’t think boomless is even close, I think it’s reduced signature, there is still a shock wave and therefore noise, just less noise

There has been quite a bit of work done on reducing the boom, as I said earlier Gulfstream was studying it, and NASA

 

Edited by A64Pilot
irishpilot Proficient

irishpilot

Posted
Posted

It's all about supersonic airfoil design and not making so many compromises that the plane doesn't have an abnormally high stall/landing speed. Current airfoil/military jet design requires a lot of fuel to get through the boundary layer and above 1.0M. Once super, most 4th and 5th gen US fighters really accelerate. Reduced boom signature is good enough vs "boomless". Booming is primarily a trajectory thing, so going super level at FL450 vs going super at 10,000' and pointed at the ground are two very different signatures.  

I think with enough R&D, we'll see new supersonic passenger aircraft. However, with the renewed focus on carbon footprint and the pressure on civil carriers, it will be tough to make a business case. We'll see what the total amount of Jet-A/mile of travel ends up being. 

BTW, Boom Aircraft is going to have to get better engines than the J-85 if they want efficiency to compete. I assume they're using the J-85 just to propel their demonstrator. 

 

A64Pilot Grand Master

A64Pilot

Posted
Posted

There have always been transportation choices for the Uber wealthy, Check what a Pan Am clipper ticket cost, or a Zeppelin. By comparison the Concorde was a bargain.

There certainly won’t be SST for the masses in my lifetime or my children I don’t believe, but I am sort of surprised it’s not already here for the Billionaires of the world.

‘The energy expenditure to go that fast is just enormous.

WilliamR Community Regular

WilliamR

Posted
Posted

I find the quote about not being able to raise capital in this environment very interesting.  My perspective is the market is awash in money.  I mean Q2'21 GDP is expected to be 10%.  I haven't seen debt structures like this since 2007 and don't think I have ever seen the high yield markets as hot as they are now.  Btw, I've also seen some pretty nice equity (private and public) raises over the last 3 months.  I wonder who their advisor is. 

I guess, if you can't raise money then it's easier to say it's the market rather than the business plan just isn't right....yet.  Sometimes it hurts to be on the bleeding edge.  Where's Elon Mush when you need him?

William

flyboy0681 Grand Master

flyboy0681

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Competition in the supersonic arena is getting tougher...

The weak hands may be getting flustered...

In today’s news...

-a-

https://www.vox.com/recode/22508975/united-supersonic-plane-concorde-boom-hermeus-virgin-nasa

This I have got to see. All that and "Carbon Free"? I suppose it's going to use electric motors.

I'll file this one next to the Uber Flying Taxi, which should have been in service by now.

N201MKTurbo Grand Master

N201MKTurbo

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, flyboy0681 said:

This I have got to see. All that and "Carbon Free"? I suppose it's going to use electric motors.

I'll file this one next to the Uber Flying Taxi, which should have been in service by now.

They say they are using carbon neutral fuel, which is BS BTW. If they use biofuel they may claim to be carbon neutral, but there is no such biofuel available. All biofuels use large amounts of fossil fuel to plant, harvest, transport and process. There has never been a biofuel with a net positive energy production.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.