CM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (5 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4024 times:
I find the technology interesting, but the aesthetics of the "whisper jet" to be absolutely atrocious. In all of aviation, no market segment is more concerned with the looks of aircraft than biz jets. This design may have a great deal of utility, but you can't be successful with a product that looks this ridiculous.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 3, posted (5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3843 times:
Quoting CM (Reply 1): This design may have a great deal of utility, but you can't be successful with a product that looks this ridiculous.
I wouldn't put much stock into patent drawings at all, especially when the thing being patented has little to do with the parts of the drawing we're interested in. As I read the article, the actual patent the drawings were extracted from is about a particular design of inlet. Therefore only those parts of the drawings that actually pertain to the inlet (or any other claims of the patent) have any validity at all...the rest is just filler and may have zero relationship to the actual configuration.
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 611 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (5 months 3 days ago) and read 3765 times:
I too wouldn't put much trust to a picture in a patent. Particularly when the patent itself is not related to the shape of the supersonic jet.
But in any case.... I find the commentary about the looks in this thread interesting. FWIW, I would do anything to be able to fly on such an aircraft. I think it has mean, sexy looks. Form follows function -beauty. Perhaps a bit too straight lines, but if this is an indication of the real form they are contemplating, I'd guess the patent engineer used straight rules and the actual aircraft would have slightly softer lines. And that would make it look even better. In any case, it looks very different from anything that exists today. I'd be very proud to park this at the airport. Or the death star or anything really that differs wildly from the boring G650s all the Joneses have in the parking lot.
So if you are not taking it, that just means that I'll get mine sooner. I have already decided to stop drinking coffee from that machine at the office, saving 0.50€ every day for my personal hypersonic jet fund. By year 1100913 I'll have enough money to buy the thing.
comairguycvg From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 304 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3055 times:
Quoting CM (Reply 1): you can't be successful with a product that looks this ridiculous.
Maybe it has to look this ridiculous to be able to have the proper shape to be able to fly supersonic over land? It is just a sketch though. Maybe in the final product, if they do it, it will look different/better.
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 611 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2995 times:
Quoting CM (Reply 1): you can't be successful with a product that looks this ridiculous
...
Quoting comairguycvg (Reply 8): Maybe it has to look this ridiculous to be able to have the proper shape to be able to fly supersonic over land?
Exactly. If (a very big if) this drawing would be the final form, it would look exactly the same as all the other supersonic yet quiet business jets. Because there would be no others. How do we know what shape is needed for that? An airplane looked very funny compared to trains, initially. Over time people learned to realize that they are different beasts.
sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1779 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2931 times:
Quoting CM (Reply 1): In all of aviation, no market segment is more concerned with the looks of aircraft than biz jets. This design may have a great deal of utility, but you can't be successful with a product that looks this ridiculous.
But the only thing that all the other biz jet owners will see is the A$$ end as it leaves them in the dust. And that my friends, makes up for a lot of ugliness when sitting on the ground. When it comes to bragging rights, SPEED trumps BEAUTY everytime.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16819 posts, RR: 57 Reply 14, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2359 times:
Quoting CM (Reply 1): I find the technology interesting, but the aesthetics of the "whisper jet" to be absolutely atrocious. In all of aviation, no market segment is more concerned with the looks of aircraft than biz jets. This design may have a great deal of utility, but you can't be successful with a product that looks this ridiculous.
Yes you can. The fact that it looks like a spaceship and flies supersonic far outtrumps the fact that it's fugly.
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2296 times:
Quoting CM (Reply 1): no market segment is more concerned with the looks of aircraft than biz jets
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 10): When it comes to bragging rights, SPEED trumps BEAUTY everytime.
This is only true for a very small percentage of business jet customers ... if it were true for most, then Cessna wouldn't be selling 10's of CJs and Mustangs a month, and struggling to sell even one Citation X (with 100kts more cruising speed)!
Most business jet purchases are based on mission, price, and operational cost ... then perhaps how it looks.
It's worth noting that most business jet flights are less than 90 minutes long, with the majority being around an hour ... you could argue even the difference between a turboprop and a jet is negligible for those distances.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
mrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1645 posts, RR: 51 Reply 16, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1912 times:
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 5): I'd guess the patent engineer used straight rules and the actual aircraft would have slightly softer lines.
Straight lines actually are pretty good in the supersonic realm (well defined shock waves are easier to manage)
Sponsor Message: 
From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1674 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
), which is a Gulfstream "quiet boom" technology, is specifically what I was referring to.
From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 611 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4787 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
