You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Civil Aviation

Airbus To Assist Aerion For New SST

All about Airlines and Airliners.
 

ConcordeBoy 24 Sep 14, 23:05Post
This is BIG news!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/24/travel/airbus-supersonic-jet/index.html

Image

Until now, many have dismissed Aerion as "just another hype seeker" in terms of developing a bizjet SST.

But now with the de facto manufacturer of Concorde formally putting their clout behind the AS2's "design, manufacturing, and certification," this may very well come to fruition!!

**************
At $100Million per unit, I'm sure most people will never have to worry about getting anywhere near one of these. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few airlines order/contract some for premium clientele, in the same vein as "Delta Air Elite" and others operate now. So in a sense, supersonic passenger service would be restored!
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy
JLAmber (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 25 Sep 14, 15:13Post
ConcordeBoy wrote:At $100Million per unit, I'm sure most people will never have to worry about getting anywhere near one of these.


I'm not sure many will sell either. Communications technology means there is no need to dash over the pond in 3 hours, and there are very few people who can afford to fly one for the novelty value. Might be a useful test-bed for future tech though, something I'm sure Airbus will have considered.

There was a magazine article about this company in the mid-nineties, so old I can't find it online. Their first design was essentially a stripped down Dassault Falcon with a pointy nose and uprated engines. Not to sound too disparaging but they haven't exactly gone a long way from that design with their latest plan.

It would be a great thing to see, but my money would be on this never leaving the drawing board.
A million great ideas...
Queso (netAirspace ATC Tower Chief & Founding Member) 25 Sep 14, 15:43Post
ConcordeBoy wrote:This is BIG news!

Sorry to dash your enthusiasm, but no, it's not.

JLAmber wrote:It would be a great thing to see, but my money would be on this never leaving the drawing board.

{check}

The days of exciting, high-energy aerospace projects have come and gone. They have been replaced by bottom-line economics in private industry and governments that cannot provide the technology through research because they are overburdened by compliance with their own regulations and having to support more and more people aided by government assistance programs.

Yeah, it's highly political, but it's true. Look at the incredible aerospace advances in the 1950's and 1960's, Concorde being one of them. We can't do that any more because there's too much dead weight (governmental of course).

Image
Slider... <sniff, sniff>... you stink.
AndesSMF (Founding Member) 25 Sep 14, 15:52Post
JLAmber wrote:Communications technology means there is no need to dash over the pond in 3 hours

But it helps in order to avoid jet lag and save time. 'IF' they can make it somewhat work economically, then it could succeed. Recall that for a company like Netjets, the speed of travel translates to less airplanes required. This is what helped jets (forgive the pun) take off, airlines need less airplanes to maintain the same schedule.
JLAmber wrote: Might be a useful test-bed for future tech though, something I'm sure Airbus will have considered.

As they should.
Queso wrote:Concorde being one of them.

Don't forget how politically charged the Concorde project was, with a direct ban on it flying to the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Berman
Einstein said two things were infinite; the universe, and stupidity. He wasn't sure about the first, but he was certain about the second.
ShyFlyer (Founding Member) 25 Sep 14, 18:52Post
I wouldn't get excited until an actual production prototype takes flight. Anyone can announce plans to build...anything.
Make Orwell fiction again.
ConcordeBoy 26 Sep 14, 22:13Post
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

I'm under no delusion that this will ever find its way into direct scheduled commercial service with legacy carriers or anything, but I could definitely see a small private market for them, perhaps even chartered by the airlines for HVCs-- as they do even now.

Queso wrote:Sorry to dash your enthusiasm, but no, it's not.

Says you. {sarcastic}
Anyway, I was speaking more in terms of aircraft development, not in terms of travel for the average Joe.

ShyFlyer wrote:I wouldn't get excited until an actual production prototype takes flight. Anyone can announce plans to build...anything.

Agreed. Then again, that's pretty much how everyone's treated Aerion and its ilk for the last half-decade or so. With Airbus throwing their hat into the ring, there now might be a halfway decent chance for this to actually come to fruition. We'll see.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy
Fumanchewd 27 Sep 14, 05:52Post
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/
"Give us a kiss, big tits."
CO777ER (Database Editor & Founding Member) 27 Sep 14, 05:58Post
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/

Cessna is probably the closest with the Citation 750.
ConcordeBoy 27 Sep 14, 07:19Post
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??
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy
ShanwickOceanic (netAirspace FAA) 27 Sep 14, 11:26Post
CO777ER wrote:Cessna is probably the closest with the Citation 750.

Closest in terms of Mach number, sure. But how much effort would it take to go from just-subsonic to just-supersonic, as opposed to from just-supersonic to very-supersonic? Is there a development barrier at the sound barrier?
My friend and I applied for airline jobs in Australia, but they didn't Qantas.
JeffSFO (Photo Quality Screener & Founding Member) 27 Sep 14, 12:42Post
ShanwickOceanic wrote:Is there a development barrier at the sound barrier?


Yes: Increased drag and sonic booms. The first is both technical and economic while the second is regulatory.

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.


Aerion's design approach is to go for fuel efficiency at both high subsonic speeds for overland flight and supersonic speeds for trans-ocean flights.

http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/beyond-boom
Fumanchewd 27 Sep 14, 21:08Post
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??


So you are stating that there haven't been many SST projects? {laugh}

Again, we have seen some very reputable companies with a long history of aircraft making look into this and it went nowhere.

How many aircraft has Aerion developed?

I'm not saying that it can't be done (many companies have the technological and manufacturing knowhow), just that I don't think it will be done as it won't be a profitable business venture. I've seen several SST projects from capable companies come and go with not even a prototype getting made.

Again, I won't get excited until I see it actually made.

There is no need to get upset at that statement.
"Give us a kiss, big tits."
ConcordeBoy 01 Oct 14, 08:53Post
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.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy
ConcordeBoy 01 Oct 14, 09:04Post
ShanwickOceanic wrote: But how much effort would it take to go from just-subsonic to just-supersonic

The thing that I've always found puzzling about the Aerion proposal, is that much of its operation is aimed at the transonic zone...

...the problem with that though, is that above 0.93M, drag increases exponentially, not linearly.

That's why Concorde would bring in its afterburners at that speed, and maintain wet-flight until reaching around M1.7, where drag begins to flatten out. 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?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy
ShanwickOceanic (netAirspace FAA) 01 Oct 14, 09:20Post
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.

You'd think that committing to an SST project would warrant a press release from Airbus, but there is none that I can see; putting "aerion" into the search box on Airbus' site returns no results. "supersonic" returns 3 results, all pertaining to Concorde.

Here's what appears to be the original press release, from Aerion:

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releas ... 06091.html

In all that wall of text, this is all Airbus said:

"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.

Which sounds to me less like "We'll help them build an SST" than "They might have some cool stuff we might be interested in".

There's no doubt in my mind that having the two sets of engineers talking to each other will benefit both. It may bring this project a little closer to reality. But I don't see Airbus committing to anything except rummaging through Aerion's filing cabinet. I'd like to be proven wrong.

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?

A very good question...
My friend and I applied for airline jobs in Australia, but they didn't Qantas.
Fumanchewd 08 Oct 14, 09:40Post
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.


You are flogging a dead horse. What sort of exactitude does "publically committing" to certification entail? A press release and some money at this point. The same thing that every other company has done. Again, and your fabricated condescencion gets quite tiresome, show me when they have a flying airplane. This magically finalized "public committment" that you seem to be flouting as the basis for a milestone project is nothing more than air and money at this point, both of which can easily be canceled or forgotten as it has been by companies who have acutally made aircraft before, unlike Aerion.

I hope it gets made and sold...but I doubt it. We know you like the Concorde but that's no reason to dismiss history and the many reasons why the Concorde didn't last, namely economics. The technology has always been there but it hasn't been pursued for a reason. Its not just convenience that Aerion is there to take a fall rather than Airbus Group taking the program, which they could do if they really felt it was to be so successful.
Last edited by Fumanchewd on 08 Oct 14, 10:15, edited 1 time in total.
"Give us a kiss, big tits."
ConcordeBoy 08 Oct 14, 19:12Post
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." ;)

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.

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.

Fumanchewd wrote:Its not just convenience that Aerion is there to take a fall rather than Airbus Group taking the program

"taking the program"?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy
Fumanchewd 09 Oct 14, 03:44Post
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." ;)


Despite your smiley wink that doesn't fit (you aren't really kidding), no. Like I stated, condescending.

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.


Sure. But you are stating that this is some type of game changer in the history of SST's when in fact we have gotten no farther than previous programs (a press announcement and some cash) with the exception of the TU144 and Concorde. Others here have mentioned that as well with the excellent point that there seems to be no corresponding evidence from Airbus Group besides the statement from Aerion and the 1000 blogs and news sources who are using that as the source.

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.


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. Lets also not forget that the Concorde and TU144 came from government enterprises (or at least heavily subsidized) and no company will be receiving that amount of asssitance again unless it comes from a country like China. I just don't think its economically viable and a half dozen companies that have a long history of making aircraft have come to the same conclusion.

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"?


Its quite common for companies, particularly ones with a decent amount of R&D budget or sitting liquidity, to finance a seperate company developing a questionable technology or product. This removes them from accountability in prestige and liability. A recent example of this is, a company that I had mentioned in another thread, GT Advanced Technologies and Apple. If this was such a viable and potent product that they were so sure of, they would acquire Aserion and "take the program". However, they have not, and they are enjoing a seperation of liability and name to see what may come.

We can dwell in the rhetoric more, but the simple fact is that I do not see this being developed to a full size prototype and the only thing (despite the condescending rhetoric) that will change my mind is when I see it flying.
"Give us a kiss, big tits."
ConcordeBoy 09 Oct 14, 06:45Post
Fumanchewd wrote:But you are stating that this is some type of game changer in the history of SST's

Those are your words, not mine. I've only stated that I think this may give it a better chance of coming to fruition, than Aerion alone. Nothing more.


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.

Yet AGAIN, did you read what was actually written?

It doesn't appear so. So let's review:
"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"

Thus who, other than you, is talking about airlines in relation these?
Do you understand that they're aimed at private operation, and not scheduled commercial service? The cost/elasticity dynamics are entirely different.


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".

Quite a hefty bit of presumption there....
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy
ShanwickOceanic (netAirspace FAA) 09 Oct 14, 10:35Post
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.

{scratch}
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.
My friend and I applied for airline jobs in Australia, but they didn't Qantas.
ConcordeBoy 09 Oct 14, 18:23Post
^...???

Pretty sure that if they're going to have "a better chance of coming to fruition," then they're going to need "a plan to see it through to certification."

You find that contradictory somehow?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy
ShanwickOceanic (netAirspace FAA) 09 Oct 14, 19:01Post
Contradictory, no. Equivalent, no again. Airbus could lend them an engineer for a year, and it would give the project a "better chance of coming to fruition", but it's still a damn sight short of "seeing it through to certification". Hence my post above.

And, where have Airbus "publicly locked onto [this] design/model with a plan to see it through to certification" anyway? Post a link to the press release.
My friend and I applied for airline jobs in Australia, but they didn't Qantas.
ConcordeBoy 09 Oct 14, 22:03Post
You don't really need to look any further than the OP:
"The Airbus group's Defence {sic} and Space Division will provide technical and certification support"

...is "certification support" vague? Sure. But it's just a basic statement that they're jointly developing plans/strategies (which is what I said, not any implied "guarantee" as you seem to be contending).

You also have the Airbus Group's Chief Technical Officer giving statements as to their collaboration as well.

And let's not overlook that this was just made public slightly over a week ago? What are you really expecting, a detailed analysis?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy
ShanwickOceanic (netAirspace FAA) 09 Oct 14, 23:36Post
I'd expect a press release from Airbus (who, after all, have investors of their own to answer to). Not a breathless line of BS from some journo who swallowed Aerion's press release hook, line and sinker.

Once again, whatever CNN thinks, this is the sum total of Airbus' comment:

"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.

How you get "publicly locked onto a particular design/model with a plan to see it through to certification" from that is beyond me. Or, to use your own words from earlier in this thread:

Yet AGAIN, did you read what was actually written?

It doesn't appear so.
My friend and I applied for airline jobs in Australia, but they didn't Qantas.
ConcordeBoy 10 Oct 14, 01:26Post
ShanwickOceanic wrote:I'd expect a press release from Airbus

Sure, I would too. I'm surprised they haven't.

I'm equally surprised that you (as implied by repetitive mention of that one issue) seem to believe that Airbus would, for even an instant, tolerate their name being included for widespread public release about something with which they're not associated/involved as claimed.

I mean, let's cut to the chase-- that's basically what you're getting at. If not, then what's the point of continuing to bring that up?


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.

...probably because it's not from that. Did you miss the quote directly above it? Seems so.

But here, if we must, let's do the elements:
Public?
Well, we're talking about it aren't we?

Model lock?
AS2.

Collaborative PLAN (which again, does not equal "guarantee") to work together for certification?
Says it right above in the statement you ignored.

...so again, where's your issue with this? That unless Airbus (who's no stranger to litigation) expressly issues a specific release, then it can't possibly be? That Airbus would just stand around and do nothing if multiple sources were reporting inaccurate information?

Seems to be what you're suggesting.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy
 

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

LEFT

RIGHT
CONTENT