small mach 3 airliner concept

[djc206]

nikaiyo2 said:

I think anything close to supersonic, at the moment is an order of magnitude more costly. My old boss had/has a number of large widebody jet liners (among other jets,) I think it comes to a choice of would you rather fly with a double bed and shower with all your advisors, chef and security in absolute luxury for 5 hours or in a standard biz jet in 3?

I am not saying you a wrong, some would pay the premium, but not enough to make it worth building the jet.

Reading about the Aerion AS2 they seemed to think they could go 4750nm at M1.4 vs 5300nm at M0.95 those could well be pie in the sky figures for all I know but they suggest it's not that big a fuel penalty to travel that much faster.

You're right about taking your entourage and being on a better equipped plane but if Aerion are right the fuel penalty being so low might appeal for actual business travel?

[tommyjj]

Zad said:

It's a PH meme, started in the Bloodhound thread I think. "The fin's all wrong"

haha, I see.

What happened to Bloodhound anyway?

[RizzoTheRat]

tommyjj said:

Zad said:

No different to any number of car / helicopter / plane / submarine / rocket designs most of us drew as a kid, except it has the benefit of a glossy rendering.

Couldn't you say that of any design concept out there?

Depends who's designed it. A design concept from Lockheed is a little different from a design concept from a one man band who does building design as a day job and sketches aircraft and cars as a hobby.

[tommyjj]

RizzoTheRat said:

.... a little different from a design concept from a one man band who does building design as a day job and sketches aircraft and cars as a hobby.

bit harsh

[Dr Jekyll]

RobDickinson said:

IMO supersonic passenger jets will go nowhere until NASA (or someone) successfully discovers how to remove or minimise the sonic boom whinging enviromentalists.

EFA

But seriously, the economics of SST might actually be easier to justify for a passenger service than a business jet. For one thing the time saving of a few hours is a lot more worthwhile for the passenger if it makes there-and-back-in-a-day possible, which will only apply to certain routes. Also being able to do more trips per day potentially means effectively higher utilisation for the same number of flying hours, thereby offsetting the costs to some extent. Again more relevant for an airline.

Does anyone know how significant airliner purchase cost is to an airline? I know the fuel bill is about 1/3rd of total costs.

Edited by Dr Jekyll on Sunday 28th May 10:47

[Evanivitch]

I think another thing to realise is that time in the air is becoming more and more productive.

Honeywell reckon you can even video conference from a G650 these days. So I get that you might want to get there faster, but if you can work in the air too then it's not dead time.

I highly doubt we'll see supersonic overland flights either, so there's few routes you can fly where you won't see a supersonic capable aircraft travelling (relative) inefficiently at subsonic speeds for significant periods (like clearing Ireland or over the States).