ConcordeBoy wrote:At $100Million per unit, I'm sure most people will never have to worry about getting anywhere near one of these.
ConcordeBoy wrote:This is BIG news!
JLAmber wrote:It would be a great thing to see, but my money would be on this never leaving the drawing board.
JLAmber wrote:Communications technology means there is no need to dash over the pond in 3 hours
JLAmber wrote: Might be a useful test-bed for future tech though, something I'm sure Airbus will have considered.
Queso wrote:Concorde being one of them.
JLAmber wrote:I'm not sure many will sell either. Communications technology means there is no need to dash over the pond in 3 hours
Queso wrote:Sorry to dash your enthusiasm, but no, it's not.
ShyFlyer wrote:I wouldn't get excited until an actual production prototype takes flight. Anyone can announce plans to build...anything.
Fumanchewd wrote:I'll believe when I see it.
Boeing and Airbus have had several SST projects that have never gone anywhere.
On the smaller jet side Dassault, Gulfstream, Sukhoi, and Cessna have also had SST projects that have never gone anywhere. Dassault went so far as to announce the project as inevitable but it never happened.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... jet-23836/
Fumanchewd wrote:Boeing and Airbus have had several SST projects that have never gone anywhere.
CO777ER wrote:Cessna is probably the closest with the Citation 750.
ShanwickOceanic wrote:Is there a development barrier at the sound barrier?
The challenges surrounding supersonic flight can be traced back to basic aerodynamics: how air flows around the plane. Managing that airflow is especially troublesome as a plane approaches the speed of sound. As air rushes over and under an aircraft’s wings, it provides the lift the plane needs to get off the ground. But air also creates drag as friction builds up between it and the plane’s exterior. Drag increases with velocity. The faster the plane travels, the more difficult it is to push the craft through the air and the more fuel the plane’s engines need to fly a given distance.
As an aircraft surpasses Mach 1.0, a second problem arises: Compounding pressure waves on the plane’s nose and tail produce thunderous explosions of sound—sonic booms. Contrary to popular misconception, sonic booms do not occur solely when an aircraft crosses the sound barrier; a plane generates these pressure waves as long as it’s flying at supersonic speeds. Although an individual hears the boom only once as the aircraft passes overhead, it’s audible to anyone underneath the entire flight path of the jet for up to 25 miles on each side.
ConcordeBoy wrote:Fumanchewd wrote:Boeing and Airbus have had several SST projects that have never gone anywhere.
There have been studies of all sorts of concepts, but I don't recall either of them publicly committing to the manufacturing and/or certification of such.
So other than the obvious 2707 (from more than 40yrs ago), which "several projects" are you referring to??
Fumanchewd wrote:So you are stating that there haven't been many SST projects?
Fumanchewd wrote:Again, we have seen some very reputable companies with a long history of aircraft making look into this and it went nowhere.
ShanwickOceanic wrote: But how much effort would it take to go from just-subsonic to just-supersonic
ConcordeBoy wrote:I'm aware, but to review, the question posed was: when has Boeing or Airbus publicly committed to the certification development of any other SST than the 2707?
Because from what I can see, they (and just about everyone else) have tossed around tons of ideas, novel concepts and proposals at airshows and IR publications, but this is the first time since the '60s where either of them has publicly locked onto a particular design/model with a plan to see it through to certification.
"Aerion's pioneering work has broad applications for both performance and efficiency. We are looking forward to a fruitful cooperation," said Jean Botti, Airbus Group Chief Technical Officer.
ConcordeBoy wrote:It was actually less fuel-intensive to use re-heat and GTFO of the transonic zone, than to stay in it for any prolonged length of time.
Yet the Aerion is proposing to spend most of its operational portfolio right within the heart of that range. I'm wondering how they plan to overcome/counter/deal with that?
ConcordeBoy wrote:Fumanchewd wrote:So you are stating that there haven't been many SST projects?
Apparently, you didn't read what I ACTUALLY wrote...Fumanchewd wrote:Again, we have seen some very reputable companies with a long history of aircraft making look into this and it went nowhere.
I'm aware, but to review, the question posed was: when has Boeing or Airbus publicly committed to the certification development of any other SST than the 2707?
Because from what I can see, they (and just about everyone else) have tossed around tons of ideas, novel concepts and proposals at airshows and IR publications, but this is the first time since the '60s where either of them has publicly locked onto a particular design/model with a plan to see it through to certification.
Fumanchewd wrote:Again, and your fabricated condescencion gets quite tiresome
Fumanchewd wrote:both of which can easily be canceled or forgotten
Fumanchewd wrote:We know you like the Concorde but that's no reason to dismiss history and the many reasons why the Concorde didn't last
Fumanchewd wrote:Its not just convenience that Aerion is there to take a fall rather than Airbus Group taking the program
ConcordeBoy wrote:Fumanchewd wrote:Again, and your fabricated condescencion gets quite tiresome
*whispers*
"PSST... if you're going to accuse of condescension, then it's probably a good idea to at least spell it correctly; otherwise it sort of lends credence to that very thing."
ConcordeBoy wrote:[Fumanchewd wrote:both of which can easily be canceled or forgotten
You've just described the outcome potential for every aviation production program in history.
ConcordeBoy wrote:[Fumanchewd wrote:We know you like the Concorde but that's no reason to dismiss history and the many reasons why the Concorde didn't last
How exactly do you come to the conclusion that I'm "dismissing history?"
Concorde "didn't last" when its cost to operate overcame revenue its potential. Not exactly surprising for a 1960s design, in the 2000s.
In fact, it's something that happens to all aircraft, eventually. What's the relevance?
I'm not comparing this proposal to Concorde in terms of logistical merit, as the market proposal for both are completely different. This, if it ever comes to fruition, would be a niche product specifically designed (physically, operationally, etc) for a very small (but well-financed) specific market from the onset; unlike Concorde, which was designed for general use, and basically had to default to a niche, along the way. The latter is the same for essentially every SST proposal that's arisen since, which is why I'm raising the question of whether it's a more solid proposition than even the recent Japanese, Australian, etc proposals.
The ratio between operational cost and revenue potential is less tangible and far more subjective in the private market, which could (but is in no way guaranteed) to be the key to sustaining limited number of SST operations.
ConcordeBoy wrote:[Fumanchewd wrote:Its not just convenience that Aerion is there to take a fall rather than Airbus Group taking the program
"taking the program"?
Fumanchewd wrote:But you are stating that this is some type of game changer in the history of SST's
Fumanchewd wrote:The simple fact is that developing cost and the cost to maintain the small amount of aircraft and corresponding maintenance support (as the onus of current airlines and manufacturers is on fuel conservation) have not been feasible when fuel and manufacturing were cheaper, let alone now.
Fumanchewd wrote:If this was such a viable and potent product that they were so sure of, they would acquire Aserion and "take the program".
ConcordeBoy wrote: I've only stated that I think this may give it a better chance of coming to fruition, than Aerion alone. Nothing more.
Magic server leprechauns corrupted the database and ConcordeBoy never actually wrote:I'm aware, but to review, the question posed was: when has Boeing or Airbus publicly committed to the certification development of any other SST than the 2707?
Because from what I can see, they (and just about everyone else) have tossed around tons of ideas, novel concepts and proposals at airshows and IR publications, but this is the first time since the '60s where either of them has publicly locked onto a particular design/model with a plan to see it through to certification.
"Aerion's pioneering work has broad applications for both performance and efficiency. We are looking forward to a fruitful cooperation," said Jean Botti, Airbus Group Chief Technical Officer.
Yet AGAIN, did you read what was actually written?
It doesn't appear so.
ShanwickOceanic wrote:I'd expect a press release from Airbus
ShanwickOceanic wrote:How you get "publicly locked onto a particular design/model with a plan to see it through to certification" from that is beyond me.