GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12968 posts, RR: 79 Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1380 times:
They've been talking about supersonic business jets for 10 years, Grumman and Russian companies produced the first proposals in 1991.
I don't think ANY boom will be acceptable overland, look at the opposition quiet conventional aircraft increasingly encounter.
Also, the lack of a suitable engine, not to mention noise/emission issues.
It might happen, but I doubt it for the near term.
Mark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1347 times:
Yup be great to see, but.. lotta issues, to tackle. Not least of which huge development budgets, even for a small-sized jet! Lot of risk, maybe the Europeans or Russians might go for it though, with some overt or covert state backing and a fairly courageous attitude stuck to, by the design teams.
For guys in the States, seems there's an ongoing priority for development of just the X-33 prototype, which apparently the Air Force has now taken over, from Lockheed-Martin.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12968 posts, RR: 79 Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1351 times:
What an airliner? They could not wait to pull out of the HSCT project with NASA in 1999, when they realised that they may build an aircraft that met stage 3 noise requirements, but by the time it would enter service, stage 4 would be in force.
Plus the huge costs, and likely major objections from enviromentalists. (Hundreds of SST's at 60-70,000ft would not be good for the ozone layer, and Boeing, or anyone else, are not going to start a project unless they think they can build at least 300).
People bitched about Concorde, just 14 in service at most, even 20% less emissions than Concorde, which is what the HSCT team were looking at, would not be sufficent.
Then there's the sonic-boom problem, and it's a problem however much it's reduced.
Maybe this is a reference to a developed SC doing Mach 1.2?
Every few years the manufacturers produce SST proposals, I'll belive it when they start cutting metal.
AlaskaMVP From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
Alright! Go Dassault!!! With their vast experience this project should be a piece of cake for them. I know their is concern about noise, but a sonic boom from a small plane 12 miles above your head can't bother too many people.
If worse comes to worse, maybe they can compromise and fly supersonic only over relatively unihabited regions. Perhaps the US and Canada can designate supersonic corridors for travel cross country?
AlaskaMVP From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1337 times:
One other point, Exec Jets, the world wide leader in fractional jet ownership (owned by Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet's investment company) has already announced they would order several hundred supersonic exec jets from the first company to develop them. That should show what the level of demand is among existing executive airplane owners is, I'm guessing that Paul Allen alone will probably buy 3 or 4 for his air force...
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12968 posts, RR: 79 Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1275 times:
Europe, led by EADS France and BAE Systems still produce proposals for SST's, but that's all they are.
Airbus a few years ago had the choice between a new SST and the A380, no matter what you may think of the superjumbo, who would doubt that Airbus has made the safer, more practical choice?
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1204 times:
Wasn't the reason that Boeing pulled out of the HCST program was because of the differences between two market studies done in 1996 and in 1999 where the first one said that passengers were willing to pay 25% more to fly faster and then later said that they wouldn't pay more?
Wasn't this 25% increase in fare the base for the entire research program? What makes a plane fly, money, right?
I like the idea of smaller SST's. Smaller size means a smaller mass to push, less fuel burn for less force required and since fuel makes up for most of the fare, there wouldn't be a need to increase it.
BTW: I'm sure the SC will either be cancelled or conservitized within a few years tops, that Valkyre-ski shape isn't going to last.
peace out dudes,
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29520 posts, RR: 59 Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1203 times:
The supersonic Biz-jet is probably the most likely aircraft catagory to be developed as a supersonic aircraft.
That is because time is money and there are quite a number companies that will be willing to spend the money on the aircraft and the fuel burn to get their executives back and forth as quickly as possible.
Since the Gulfstream/Sukhoi deal fell through, the Dassault team is the one with the best experience to develop this aircraft.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.