New Supersonic airliner
Discussion
Shame Concorde "B" never flew. The estimated range was 5,000 miles.
http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html
http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html
I was just about to post this ...
http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/15/richard-bransons-new...
... when I noticed someone had already started this thread.
I bet the windows won't be that large on the real thing.
http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/15/richard-bransons-new...
... when I noticed someone had already started this thread.
I bet the windows won't be that large on the real thing.
Nanook said:
NordicCrankShaft said:
I liked the bit that said affordable followed by $5000.
That's more of less what a return on BA, in business class, from Heathrow to JFK costs.This is the "prototype" that they aim to have flying in 2017
QUOTE:
XB-1 SUPERSONIC DEMONSTRATOR
Our XB-1 demonstrates the key technologies for efficient supersonic flight: advanced aerodynamic design, light-weight materials that can withstand supersonic flight, and an efficient super-cruise propulsion system.
Engineering development of XB-1 ("Baby Boom") is proceeding rapidly, with aerodynamics defined, systems ground tested, and initial structural components in fabrication. Vehicle assembly starts shortly, with first flight planned for late 2017.
I know its only a render but no sign of ejector seats!
QUOTE:
XB-1 SUPERSONIC DEMONSTRATOR
Our XB-1 demonstrates the key technologies for efficient supersonic flight: advanced aerodynamic design, light-weight materials that can withstand supersonic flight, and an efficient super-cruise propulsion system.
Engineering development of XB-1 ("Baby Boom") is proceeding rapidly, with aerodynamics defined, systems ground tested, and initial structural components in fabrication. Vehicle assembly starts shortly, with first flight planned for late 2017.
I know its only a render but no sign of ejector seats!
joshleb said:
Is there as much need nowadays for the rapid trip across the world?
With wifi now being accessible on planes, does it not make more sense to go in luxury and able to do work and chill if required?
Use of video conferencing has surely revolutionised international companies meetings and reduced importance of face-to-face interaction?
Video conferencing.... oh my. We've used it all from Skype for Business to some custom Polycom thing that had cameras that zoomed into your face when speaking and microphones all over the room. All have been characterised by intense faffing to get a connection, followed by 2 hours of people sounding like they're under water and occasionally having their ugly mugs being censored by the pixelator.With wifi now being accessible on planes, does it not make more sense to go in luxury and able to do work and chill if required?
Use of video conferencing has surely revolutionised international companies meetings and reduced importance of face-to-face interaction?
Still no replacement for having them in the same room as you, physically.
It's unfair comparing Concorde to a 787. Concorde's rivals were expected to be 707 or DC-8 derivatives - aircraft of the same era in which Concorde was designed.
However, as I keep saying, I don't think that we will see a supersonic airliner again for at least a generation. What we WILL see are supersonic business jets.
However, as I keep saying, I don't think that we will see a supersonic airliner again for at least a generation. What we WILL see are supersonic business jets.
Bigger objects will make a bigger boom. But the boom can vary a lot no matter what size the aircraft is due to atmospheric and weather conditions. Many aircraft create a double boom as you get shock cones coming off the nose and the tail.
Famously, the Space Shuttle almost always laid a double boom as it approached Cape Canaveral or Edwards Air Force Base to land.
43 seconds in on this video you will hear the two bangs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6r8wU2tDrc
Famously, the Space Shuttle almost always laid a double boom as it approached Cape Canaveral or Edwards Air Force Base to land.
43 seconds in on this video you will hear the two bangs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6r8wU2tDrc
Dr Jekyll said:
It's also roughly what they charge for London City to JFK in an airbus carrying around 32 passengers, all business class. It's difficult to see how a supersonic aircraft made in much smaller numbers could have remotely comparable costs. Unless they work on the principle of spreading the purchase cost of the aircraft across 2 return trips a day instead of one.
It's much smaller than a 737. Working on the assumption that it'll pack 40 passengers in seats like an economy class it'll be about the same size as a Bombardier CRJ200 - 20 tonnes empty. A Boeing 737 MAX is 62 tonnes empty. Looking at fighter jets the F-22 is about the same weight as the Bombardier CRJ200; it has roughly similar dry thrust to the 737 and is capable of supercruise in a military configuration.
So assuming that this new jet can be made to be as efficient through the air as an F-22 (and I would think it would be possible since the war fighting considerations can go out of the window) it shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to build a 40 seat airliner that can exceed the speed of sound using about the same amount of fuel as a 737.
The devil will be in the detail of course - maintenance of the airframe and engines will no doubt be very expensive. But look at it this way. Entrepreneurs have built space rockets that are more cost effective than anything that "big aerospace" ever managed - if the same trick can be repeated for supersonic air travel things could be very interesting indeed.
What you can get as a smaller company is the opportunity to design and build a product, and then sell the customer one or more visions of how to use that product.
Huge organisations suffer from stakeholder input that results in endless delay and highly contradictory specifications.
This project hinges on the supersonic drag coefficient, the fuel consumption in supercruise and the sonic boom. A lot of the work will/should take place in a supersonic wind tunnel before anyone starts trying to build an aeroplane. They're likely already well on with this. The prototype will be more about proving the drag numbers and therefore fuel consumption work in practise. If key elements of the aircraft's shape work as intended, it's fairly scalable.
Notice how in the late 40s and early 50s the UK and US were building single seater aircraft in weird and wonderful shapes to gather performance data and prove / disprove theories.
Although the pace of new aircraft rolling out has slowed significantly in latter years, researchers have never stopped experimenting and producing data. The immediate application is not always clear until someone has a particular specification in mind. What is certain is that more information is available now than to Concorde's designers which applies not only to aerodynamics but propulsion and materials technology as well.
Huge organisations suffer from stakeholder input that results in endless delay and highly contradictory specifications.
This project hinges on the supersonic drag coefficient, the fuel consumption in supercruise and the sonic boom. A lot of the work will/should take place in a supersonic wind tunnel before anyone starts trying to build an aeroplane. They're likely already well on with this. The prototype will be more about proving the drag numbers and therefore fuel consumption work in practise. If key elements of the aircraft's shape work as intended, it's fairly scalable.
Notice how in the late 40s and early 50s the UK and US were building single seater aircraft in weird and wonderful shapes to gather performance data and prove / disprove theories.
Although the pace of new aircraft rolling out has slowed significantly in latter years, researchers have never stopped experimenting and producing data. The immediate application is not always clear until someone has a particular specification in mind. What is certain is that more information is available now than to Concorde's designers which applies not only to aerodynamics but propulsion and materials technology as well.
And computer modelling too.
I was watching a series of lectures on the Space Shuttle recently and one lecturer was saying that there were many aspects of the Orbiter that they would have designed differently if they had had modern computer modelling techniques available to them in the period 1972-74.
I was watching a series of lectures on the Space Shuttle recently and one lecturer was saying that there were many aspects of the Orbiter that they would have designed differently if they had had modern computer modelling techniques available to them in the period 1972-74.
davepoth said:
It's much smaller than a 737. Working on the assumption that it'll pack 40 passengers in seats like an economy class it'll be about the same size as a Bombardier CRJ200 - 20 tonnes empty. A Boeing 737 MAX is 62 tonnes empty.
Looking at fighter jets the F-22 is about the same weight as the Bombardier CRJ200; it has roughly similar dry thrust to the 737 and is capable of supercruise in a military configuration.
So assuming that this new jet can be made to be as efficient through the air as an F-22 (and I would think it would be possible since the war fighting considerations can go out of the window) it shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to build a 40 seat airliner that can exceed the speed of sound using about the same amount of fuel as a 737.
There's a huge error in this logic - a 737 and an F22 may have similar dry thrust at sea level static, but 1) they will have very different max dry thrust to each other around the flight envelope, and 2) the 737 will be throttled back at cruise whereas the F22 will still be at max dry to supercruise.Looking at fighter jets the F-22 is about the same weight as the Bombardier CRJ200; it has roughly similar dry thrust to the 737 and is capable of supercruise in a military configuration.
So assuming that this new jet can be made to be as efficient through the air as an F-22 (and I would think it would be possible since the war fighting considerations can go out of the window) it shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to build a 40 seat airliner that can exceed the speed of sound using about the same amount of fuel as a 737.
davepoth said:
Entrepreneurs have built space rockets that are more cost effective than anything that "big aerospace" ever managed - if the same trick can be repeated for supersonic air travel things could be very interesting indeed.
I'd be very careful with the equivalency there, the customers are very different as is the market.Aero engines and airframes are a very optimised product in a competitive market. The level of optimisation is such that a new entrant would be like Manor F1 vs Mercedes F1 in % terms not that far behind in practical terms unlikely to ever win a race.
So it's true that the big aero companies are not radically innovative and carry a high cost base but they aren't the launch alliance with a sole supplier with a non price sensitive customer.
In short I'm unconvinced by Boom since they have a boom. If they didn't have one I could see the utilisation model working provided that they could sell enough aircraft.
CanAm said:
This is the "prototype" that they aim to have flying in 2017
QUOTE:
XB-1 SUPERSONIC DEMONSTRATOR
Our XB-1 demonstrates the key technologies for efficient supersonic flight: advanced aerodynamic design, light-weight materials that can withstand supersonic flight, and an efficient super-cruise propulsion system.
Engineering development of XB-1 ("Baby Boom") is proceeding rapidly, with aerodynamics defined, systems ground tested, and initial structural components in fabrication. Vehicle assembly starts shortly, with first flight planned for late 2017.
I know its only a render but no sign of ejector seats!
Forget a Veyron. I'll have one of these !QUOTE:
XB-1 SUPERSONIC DEMONSTRATOR
Our XB-1 demonstrates the key technologies for efficient supersonic flight: advanced aerodynamic design, light-weight materials that can withstand supersonic flight, and an efficient super-cruise propulsion system.
Engineering development of XB-1 ("Baby Boom") is proceeding rapidly, with aerodynamics defined, systems ground tested, and initial structural components in fabrication. Vehicle assembly starts shortly, with first flight planned for late 2017.
I know its only a render but no sign of ejector seats!
robinessex said:
CanAm said:
This is the "prototype" that they aim to have flying in 2017
QUOTE:
XB-1 SUPERSONIC DEMONSTRATOR
Our XB-1 demonstrates the key technologies for efficient supersonic flight: advanced aerodynamic design, light-weight materials that can withstand supersonic flight, and an efficient super-cruise propulsion system.
Engineering development of XB-1 ("Baby Boom") is proceeding rapidly, with aerodynamics defined, systems ground tested, and initial structural components in fabrication. Vehicle assembly starts shortly, with first flight planned for late 2017.
I know its only a render but no sign of ejector seats!
Forget a Veyron. I'll have one of these !QUOTE:
XB-1 SUPERSONIC DEMONSTRATOR
Our XB-1 demonstrates the key technologies for efficient supersonic flight: advanced aerodynamic design, light-weight materials that can withstand supersonic flight, and an efficient super-cruise propulsion system.
Engineering development of XB-1 ("Baby Boom") is proceeding rapidly, with aerodynamics defined, systems ground tested, and initial structural components in fabrication. Vehicle assembly starts shortly, with first flight planned for late 2017.
I know its only a render but no sign of ejector seats!
Talksteer said:
davepoth said:
Entrepreneurs have built space rockets that are more cost effective than anything that "big aerospace" ever managed - if the same trick can be repeated for supersonic air travel things could be very interesting indeed.
I'd be very careful with the equivalency there, the customers are very different as is the market..
Take the shuttle for example, a remarkable feat of engineering, but a financial pit. It would have been significantly more cost effective to use single use systems in nearly all instances. It did sell the idea of "routine" space concept, but it never really was used frequently because of the overhead of test and commissioning before every flight.
Supersonic air travel will return, but I will wager a lot of money that it will be in the corporate sector, and in minuscule numbers.
Remember, the vast, vast majority of business jets are to move teams around from a time and place of the team'a choosing. Only a tiny fraction of them are like Lakshmi Mittal's personal machine, with a king bed and oak desk.
The simple fact is that even a decent business class seat offers as much comfort as most 'company travel' business jets, not to mention first class. I used to fly them, and their interior fit is, in most cases, underwhelming.
As a consequence, business jets have been favourable due to their flexibility with schedules, and the fact that if you put a few people in them, it isn't necessarily more expensive than sending a team in first class on a decent carrier.
This leaves a tiny market - those whose time is that critical, supersonic travel is beneficial. Advances in connectivity and communications erode that benefit further, and these people already have far more comfortable, better equipped aircraft that travel at M0.9 - so it's hard to find a compelling argument for 99.999% of the private jet market.
Remember, the vast, vast majority of business jets are to move teams around from a time and place of the team'a choosing. Only a tiny fraction of them are like Lakshmi Mittal's personal machine, with a king bed and oak desk.
The simple fact is that even a decent business class seat offers as much comfort as most 'company travel' business jets, not to mention first class. I used to fly them, and their interior fit is, in most cases, underwhelming.
As a consequence, business jets have been favourable due to their flexibility with schedules, and the fact that if you put a few people in them, it isn't necessarily more expensive than sending a team in first class on a decent carrier.
This leaves a tiny market - those whose time is that critical, supersonic travel is beneficial. Advances in connectivity and communications erode that benefit further, and these people already have far more comfortable, better equipped aircraft that travel at M0.9 - so it's hard to find a compelling argument for 99.999% of the private jet market.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff