Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Supersonic Business Jet  
User currently offlineSean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4424 times:

Two Groups Vie to Build
A Supersonic Business Jet

Key Is to Lower the 'Boom'
And Expand Route Map
For Globe-Trotting CEOs
By J. LYNN LUNSFORD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
October 11, 2004; Page A1

Two separate groups with deep pockets have begun an expensive, speculative race for one of the most sought-after but elusive goals in aerospace: Supersonic business jets without the window-rattling boom.

One group is led by Michael Paulson, the son of the late founder and chief executive of Gulfstream Aerospace, a General Dynamics Corp. unit that makes some of the world's most luxurious private jets. The other is headed by Robert Bass, the Fort Worth, Texas, billionaire investor.

Each is expected to announce its plans during this week's National Business Aircraft Association convention in Las Vegas. The groups hope to use recent advances in research to develop 10-12-seat business jets that would "shape" sonic booms in such a way that they are less annoying -- and allow the jets to fly over land, which is something the Concorde couldn't do.

Aviation experts say these two groups aren't as far out on the fringe as they might have been a decade ago, but they still must overcome skepticism and pierce technical and regulatory barriers that have stymied the brightest minds in aviation for decades. On top of that, each project is expected to cost more than $3 billion -- a financial hurdle that will be difficult to clear unless an existing jet maker joins in to provide services such as detailed engineering work and manufacturing capability. At best, such a plane might be ready for service sometime between 2010 and 2012.

For all the obstacles, the temptation of such a plane in an increasingly global business world would be tremendous for the wealthiest executives and companies. Such a plane could cut the time for most trips roughly in half. The appetite for such a jet may be even greater since the retirement last year of the Concorde. Despite its jet-setting glamour, the Concorde scared off most airlines because of its high operating costs and limited routes. The plane's sonic boom restricted its high-speed capability to transoceanic routes.

British Airways and Air France retired their last planes to museums last year after nearly three decades of service. Boeing Co. briefly flirted with developing a high-speed subsonic plane in 2001 before opting to pursue plans for a fuel-efficient craft instead.

The Teal Group, a U.S. aerospace and defense consultancy based in Fairfax, Va., estimates a potential total demand for around 300 supersonic business jets, provided they sell for no more than $80 million each and are capable of flying at well above the speed of sound without rattling the china in every cabinet from New York to Los Angeles. The speed of sound, or Mach 1, varies with altitude and temperature, but it's about 740 miles per hour at sea level and 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Both groups are talking about airplanes that cruise around Mach 1.8, or about 1,330 mph in those conditions.

It's generally believed that if entrepreneurs can solve the sonic-boom problem, the money needed for commercial development will follow, probably through a consortium of two or more manufacturers.

( Graphic )
HIGH HOPES
An artist's renderings of Supersonic Aerospace International's proposed Quiet Small Supersonic Transport jet, which the company hopes will corner the supersonic business-jet market.

• Capacity: 12 passengers

• Speed: Mach 1.8 (Roughly 1,300 mph at cruising altitude)

• Maximum takeoff weight: 150,000 lbs.

• Range: 4,000 nautical miles (4,600 statute miles)

• Estimated development costs: Around $3 billion

• Proposed list price: About $80 million

• Entry into service: 2012

• Source: the company




Because of the relatively limited demand and the enormous costs of development, however, there probably is room for only one player in any market that may develop. "The best chance for either of these groups is to put a stake in the ground and hope that the existing jet manufacturers rally to the flag," said Teal Group aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia. "Two manufacturers in this market would be a recipe for financial failure."

Nearly all of the existing business-jet makers have supersonic research projects, but they have so far been unable to crack the code for making the planes quiet enough to fly at top speeds over land. "We believe the technology is foreseeable in the next five to 10 years," said Jack Pelton, president and chief executive of Textron Inc.'s Cessna Aircraft Co., which currently produces the fastest subsonic civilian jet in service. A spokesman for Gulfstream said the luxury-jet maker has been studying its own concept for a swing-wing supersonic aircraft, "but what's the point in going to all of the expense if you couldn't fly it from New York to L.A.?"

Researchers say it probably will be impossible to do away with a sonic boom altogether. The phenomenon occurs when an airplane travels so fast that the air flowing around it begins to form a spike-shaped pressure wave. That wave travels outward from the airplane like a boat wake, creating the sound heard on the ground. The hope is that those pressure waves can be smoothed out enough that they don't startle people and set off car alarms.

Existing engines can easily provide enough power for supersonic flight. The trick is to tweak the fuselage design so that the noise produced is more of a whoompf and less of a crack.

Michael Paulson, founder of Supersonic Aerospace International, said he took on his project to fulfill the last wishes of his father, Allen Paulson, who died in 2000. The former Gulfstream founder "always believed that we have been stuck flying subsonically too long," Michael Paulson said.

In 2001, he signed a confidential $20 million contract with Lockheed Martin Corp.'s advanced-aircraft-design bureau, known as the Skunk Works, to develop designs for an aircraft that could seat 12 passengers in executive comfort and be powered by the latest-generation engine. Lockheed confirmed that it had done the work for Mr. Paulson, but the company says it has no plans to enter into the commercial supersonic-jet business.

In wind-tunnel tests and computer simulations, the resulting Quiet Small Supersonic Transport made a noise comparable to somebody softly shutting a door, even though in the simulations it was racing above populated areas at more than 1,200 mph. Mr. Paulson said he has since applied for more than 20 patents to protect the design. "We think we have a spectacular, jaw-dropping aircraft," said the 49-year-old Las Vegas investor and real-estate developer.

Officials with Mr. Bass's Aerion Corp. declined to discuss their proposed aircraft, saying they preferred to unveil the details at a news conference today in Las Vegas. People familiar with the plans say that Aerion is talking about a jet that would be somewhat smaller than Mr. Paulson's. Among those participating in Aerion are former Learjet Chief Executive Brian Barents, who most recently was the president of Galaxy Aerospace, which was acquired by General Dynamics in 2001. Aerion also includes Dr. Richard Tracy, a noted researcher who holds several patents in the field of supersonics.

Aerion has already raised eyebrows by deciding that it will power the plane with a Pratt & Whitney JT8-D engine, a decades-old design that is widely used on jets such as the McDonnell Douglas MD-80. A spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp., declined to comment about the company's relationship with Aerion, but he said the company had the capability of modifying the JT8-D so that it could "easily" power a supersonic aircraft.

Aerion began a 20-month feasibility study in January. The first phase is nearly complete, and the results were promising enough that Aerion has decided to continue more detailed work through 2005, people familiar with the situation say. The company is said to be relying on a special wing and other fuselage modifications to achieve a reduced sonic boom. The 12-passenger Aerion jet would sell for about $65 million, about $15 million less than Mr. Paulson's larger aircraft, these people say.

During a study conducted during late 2003 and early 2004 by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, researchers were successful in reducing the sonic boom of a Northrop F-5 fighter by modifying its nose to resemble that of a pelican. Mr. Paulson said his aircraft would use similar fuselage modifications, but the noise-minimizing shape has been carried "the entire length of the airplane." Drawings of the plane depict a twin-engine craft with an elongated pelican bill, gull wings and an inverted V-shaped tail.

Peter Coen, manager of supersonic research for NASA's Langley Research Center said he is encouraged by recent progress, but believes the problems hobbling high-speed travel will take years to solve. "A significant step has been taken, but it's the first of many."



8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4349 times:

- The smaller the plane, the smaller the boom, so making a quiet supersonic bizjet is easier than building the new Concorde.

- Increasing wing dihedral and changing the shape of the nose can increase the area of the boom, giving in effect less noise per area.

- Keeping it to M1.8 and below significantly decreases fuel burn and surface heating. Concorde and the Tu-144 were really a bit too fast.

- As long as the intakes are variable geometry (as on Concorde) the engines can be optimized (up to a point) for both supersonic and subsonic flight.

- The droop nose, which adds a lot of weight and complexity, can be avoided by either having an airfoil which allows much lower angle of attack at low speeds or by an artificial vision system (cameras and displays).



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26714 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4314 times:

Sign me up. Anyone have 80 million I can borrow? Seriously, the Citation X cruises at M.92 and regularly tests supersonic, so this is something that really is possible


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4300 times:

Search in Tech Ops for posts on future supersonics. There is lots of interesting discussion, normally involving Lehpron.

I think it's important to remember that although the noise issue can be solved, fuel burn is another matter. Tricky, especially since our belowed high-bypass turbofans are maybe not so well suited for supersonic flight. These move large masses of air slowly, while supersonics need to move smaller masses of air quickly. Of course I am generalizing but one of the biggest problems once you get well past M1 is optimizing engines for both subsonic and supersonic regimes. An option is of course to go scramjet and thus have two separate sets of engines, or even hybrids like the Turboramjet of the SR-71, where the afterburner became, in essence, a ramjet at high speeds.

My speculation is that perhaps the vaguely supersonic commercial jet will never take off (haha) and that we will jump directly to suborbitals. Just look at SpaceShipOne. The technology is definitely in place. If you were lucky enough to watch "Black Sky - The Race for Space" on Discovery yesterday, you saw that Rutan already has plans for significant scaleups of White Knight/SpaceShipOne, some with orbital capability. By going suborbital most noise problems are solved since the aircraft is only supersonic when well away from the ground. Also, speeds are way up, giving LHR-SYD in at most an hour and a half.

For further reading, I recommend the excellent "Firestar" series by Michael Flynn. Granted, this SciFi series is not really about this sort of thing per se, but aerospace features very prominently, especially in the first book.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8031 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4247 times:

Actually, the jet engine issue is not as great a hurdle as some people think. Remember the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition that resulted in the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor? Well, the engine competition between Pratt & Whitney and General Electric resulted in a new generation of jet engine technologies that could be just as quiet as today's latest engines but can operate in supersonic flight without having to resort to fuel-guzzling afterburners (reheat).

These new engine technologies will likely be used on the supersonic business jet of the future; indeed, the latest issue of Popular Mechanics talks about a secret Lockheed Martin research project for such a plane.


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4038 times:

Concorde and the Tu-144 were really a bit too fast. - but isn’t drag on M2 less than on M1.8? Or did they find a way not to struggle but “to co-operate” with the supersonic flow to reduce the drag?

Interestingly, another SST discussion, but with way less skepticism than it used to be, no “not in our lifetimes if ever” either… Indeed what if this one is for real? As for sub orbital flights – they are hardly to replace the idea of SST. Huge acceleration (normal for test pilots but absolutely inadmissible for regular passengers) after release, then very strong vibration during re-entry to atmosphere (“normal” for such a flight, unlike turbulence which is still rarely that shaky)… While SST is “just an aircraft”. Way less expensive to fly anyway. Still not to be around in a few years but if the engines are really “around there”, then…


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3960 times:

Actually, the jet engine issue is not as great a hurdle as some people think. Remember the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition that resulted in the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor? Well, the engine competition between Pratt & Whitney and General Electric resulted in a new generation of jet engine technologies that could be just as quiet as today's latest engines but can operate in supersonic flight without having to resort to fuel-guzzling afterburners (reheat).


IIRC the F-22 can do supersonic but not M1.8 without reheat. Or I may be wrong...



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3749 times:

To be perfectly honest, I can't say if either will be successful, it's not my immediate can of worms. Rich citizens and corporations do not behaive like the general commercial indutry nor do they follow trends. It's a start, I'll say that much knowning how many times the SSBJ has been attempted.

While these shapes may satify the FAA and anyone purchasing the plane, it is not enough for those living underneath the boom's path. If these planes still produce a boom not worth tolerating and they simply fly overland subsonic, what has changed? Nothing, think about it, we are back to the same argument of overland sonic flight. The point of a commercial sonic, IMO, is to go overland sonically. Otherwise there is no business sense, we are back to 1990 when the supposed next gen HCST was being studied, without boom tech -- it is a guaranteed failure!

If these jets can't go sonic overland, they are late because we've seen this argument before and since nothing resulted from them, they're probably useless. In my opinion, they have to do this right, they have to go all the way, otherwise it just doesn't matter and not worth their risk investment, IMO.

Who the hell deals in commercial supersonic flight half-ass??  Angry


>>"- As long as the intakes are variable geometry (as on Concorde) the engines can be optimized (up to a point) for both supersonic and subsonic flight."<<

The F/A-22 can do up to just under 1000 knots without reheat, I want to know it's turbofan bypass ratio, it could be a magic number. Then there is the Raptor's shape, not entirely something you'd shape an airliner. On the other hand, the blending is nice.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3709 times:

Because of the relatively limited demand and the enormous costs of development, however, there probably is room for only one player in any market that may develop. "The best chance for either of these groups is to put a stake in the ground and hope that the existing jet manufacturers rally to the flag," said Teal Group aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia. "Two manufacturers in this market would be a recipe for financial failure."

One company? Sounds good to the eggheads but then again this is normally a recipe for disaster. No competition=bad for the consumer. It is not in the nature of the market to produce good products and well priced without competition.


Supersonic overland is quite possible by decreasing the boom. This would not mean decreasing the boom area, but increasing it, so that you get the same amount of sound energy, but spread over a larger area. So at every individual point below the plane, the sound intensity is decreased to tolerable levels.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Meet The TU-444 Supersonic Business Jet... posted Sat Dec 10 2005 08:07:31 by Beaucaire
Supersonic Business Jet posted Tue Oct 12 2004 02:38:55 by Sean1234
Will They Make A ERJ 190 Business Jet?! posted Thu Aug 31 2006 16:21:15 by Gh123
Supersonic Business Travel? Qsst posted Tue Aug 1 2006 00:11:19 by EmiratesA345
Did Kingfisher Order A Business Jet? posted Fri Jul 14 2006 12:44:16 by Manni
Sir Ralph Makes Plea For Supersonic Business Jets posted Thu May 4 2006 10:24:08 by Leelaw
Honda Business Jet posted Tue Apr 11 2006 01:11:48 by Mlglaw
The Large Business Jet Market posted Wed Mar 22 2006 19:21:30 by Egghead
Business Jet Milan - NYC posted Tue Mar 21 2006 23:36:48 by Amirs
Business Jet Lease Rates posted Fri Feb 3 2006 23:29:25 by J41