lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

Which Company *can* Make An SST Now?

Tue May 17, 2005 2:56 am

Let's try ths again shall we? Embarrassment

Humor me for a bit: had there been a need for a supersonic within a few years that the project should launch and thereby go into service in 10 years, is there any company that exists right now that can do it?

I'm talking about a completely different class of airplane, this isn't an A350 or 747Adv, that said could either Boeing or Airbus do it had they had only what they have now, their 787 and A380 in the works? Airbus more or less sustained Concorde before her death, and Boeing has a military division as well as Phantom Works. In your opinion, who is more qualified? Or any other company anywhere in the world that may have the knowledge, the expertise and the investment opportunity PROVIDED the need arose?

I guess my question, is anyone ready? For A/B's case, I would assume A350 and 747Adv were not on the table as they would hinder funds. But if they can go ahead on 737/A320 replacements, I donno.

Again I want you to humor me by thinking for the sake of it. You may assume all variables of current controversy to be moot and state them so we know what to reply to.

Thank you all!
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2121
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: Which Company *can* Make An SST Now?

Tue May 17, 2005 3:02 am

Either Boeing or Airbus would be capable from a technology basis, but there is no viable market for the plane, so the question is moot as far as which could do it "better".
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Which Company *can* Make An SST Now?

Tue May 17, 2005 3:05 am

This is just an example of "could" versus "should".

No doubt that either company have the technical finesse produce a pax SST, the doubt is whether the "need" you profess might arise would be tolerant of the supersonic market's shortcomings.


Hell, if they wanted an aircraft that zipped 100pax at barely-TransATL-capable range, all Airbus would need do is dust off Concordes old blueprints.

If, however, the demand was for a larger/faster aircraft with 777-range and the cargo capability to match.... then that could pose a problem, as the R&D would no doubt require financing on a scale neither company could justify expending privately.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
TomFoolery
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 9:10 am

RE: Which Company *can* Make An SST Now?

Tue May 17, 2005 3:12 am

I would say Lockheed-Martin, of hand, but would they want to get back into the commercial aircraft market?
Paper makes an airplane fly
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Which Company *can* Make An SST Now?

Tue May 17, 2005 3:14 am

Quoting Lehpron (Thread starter):
had there been a need

Boeing, Locheed, and Airbus IMO.

Quoting Lehpron (Thread starter):
In your opinion, who is more qualified?

Given the nature of the project, I think the 3 are about as much qualified (Airbus may have an upper leg because of the Concorde, however, it's still an old design)

Quoting Lehpron (Thread starter):
Or any other company anywhere in the world that may have the knowledge, the expertise and the investment opportunity PROVIDED the need arose?

Neither BBD nor EMB have much, if any, experience with supersonics.

Quoting Lehpron (Thread starter):
But if they can go ahead on 737/A320 replacements, I donno.

That's a lot more likely

Cheers,
PPVRA
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
MKEdude
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Which Company *can* Make An SST Now?

Tue May 17, 2005 3:19 am

Boeing tried this a few years ago, a plane that flew slightly below the speed of sound...nobody bit. The question isn't weather anyone can build one, the question is if there is a market for one. At the moment nobody has the $$$ to plow into R&D to come up with a 2-300 seat supersonic aircraft capable of ETOPS, that has the same sticker, and operational costs of a 777.

Someday we will see one, just not anytime soon.
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline." Frank Zappa
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Which Company *can* Make An SST Now?

Tue May 17, 2005 3:26 am

A key part of any future supersonic aircraft would be the engines, I'd say Rolls Royce have the greatest experience in this regard, with the Olympus 593 which is still the most efficient engine at Mach 2.0....past or present.

Also, the RB-545 "Swallow" design could come in handy, that's the scramjet that RR were developing before the UK government slapped a secrecy order on it....
 
Kempa
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 2:47 am

RE: Which Company *can* Make An SST Now?

Tue May 17, 2005 3:27 am

Is Tupolev still around? Big grin
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Which Company *can* Make An SST Now?

Tue May 17, 2005 4:04 am

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 1):
but there is no viable market for the plane, so the question is moot as far as which could do it "better".

humor me guy.  Smile Though I agree the current market is not viable, but it is there, per se.

I'd like to think I know how there is no market, the key is the break this cycle:
  • if no one asks for it there is no market, if no market why invest?
  • if no investment people think it probably does not work, so why risk investment on unprovables if no one is asking for it?


The reason every plane appears to be a 2 holer is because there is a hell of a lot of money going into it; that is your clue to break this cycle when you choose.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 2):
This is just an example of "could" versus "should".

No doubt that either company have the technical finesse produce a pax SST, the doubt is whether the "need" you profess might arise would be tolerant of the supersonic market's shortcomings.

Hmm, sound like a talk I had with one of my AE proffessors, Ph.D. from Texas and not a fan of metric.  Wink He said there is a difference between need and desire, that the need for an SST is not there but that the desire was massive. But desire cannot hold up daily operations, like maybe an amusement park. No one person needs to ride roller coasters everyday, they can try though it will be a desire by that point. He also mentioned that a very large porportion of investment goes into the subsonic field rather than supersonic from government and private organiations.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 2):
Hell, if they wanted an aircraft that zipped 100pax at barely-TransATL-capable range, all Airbus would need do is dust off Concordes old blueprints.

Haven't those originals been lost or destroyed despite being 40 years old? Might as well make the muesem pieces operational, again, despite being 40 years old.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 2):
If, however, the demand was for a larger/faster aircraft with 777-range and the cargo capability to match.... then that could pose a problem, as the R&D would no doubt require financing on a scale neither company could justify expending privately.

So if it costed too much for a niche market they won't do it, just like Boeing not making a VLA even though Airbus went ahead?

I like how TomFoolery and PPVRA thought of Lockheed. IMO they are the best qualified for a 3rd gen machine with whatever they got out of QSP. I think their current military study asks for a 150,000 lbs transport. I have no clue how many pax could fit in that, sucker has got to be long and thin it may not be as wide as a 737, for example. IMO, Lockheed and the other company Northrop need to do much more research because I do not think a 150,000 lb bomber can carry much either. A B-2 flying wing has similar mass to 763 and Concorde, for reference.

Quoting TomFoolery (Reply 3):
would say Lockheed-Martin, of hand, but would they want to get back into the commercial aircraft market?

I figure if Lockheed got a contract to build theses things they make the frame and engines but then contract out the interior and pax issues to maybe Boeing as an airliner and use whatever remains for the primary mission of troop carrier or bomber. That way Lockheed and Boeing spread the costs around. Still though, a 150,000 lbs transport is too small for mass transport unless it uses way less fuel than compared to Concorde scaled down to that MTOW.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 4):
Neither BBD nor EMB have much

Um, who are they? Also, I've seen it so many times, what does IIRC (i think) mean?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Which Company *can* Make An SST Now?

Tue May 17, 2005 4:05 am

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
Um, who are they? Also, I've seen it so many times, what does IIRC (i think) mean?

Bombardier and Embraer?

PPVRA
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat