Will SST make a comeback?
02-02-2019, 05:17 PM
#13
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,253
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Extremely doubtful. May make it for the elite for some bizjets, but the fuel per passenger is still outrageously more than a modern high bypass turbofan.
Unless the government throws the BS flag for environmental reasons (or not, the progressive elite like their bizjets too...)
02-02-2019, 06:49 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,177
Originally Posted by rickair7777
There are people who will pay for that. Maybe the fractionals will buy them.
Unless the government throws the BS flag for environmental reasons (or not, the progressive elite like their bizjets too...)
Unless the government throws the BS flag for environmental reasons (or not, the progressive elite like their bizjets too...)
In any case, getting a return on bizjet investment by manufacturers is hard enough at current production rates and a 1,000 $100 million SSBJ is ambitious, to say the least.
GF
02-02-2019, 07:21 PM
#15
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,253
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
Assuming the designers can overcome environmental issues (rich guys and gals creating sonic booms might be a hard sell), money is unlikely a showstopper. Global 7500 is $65-70 million and selling. Range and cabin room could be showstoppers. If it has to stop every 3000nm, it could be a harder sell-non-stop is a big seller. NYC-HKG could be a two stop trek and that would be a hard sell, IMO. If the cabin turns out to be EMB-145 size, they could be a killer.
In any case, getting a return on bizjet investment by manufacturers is hard enough at current production rates and a 1,000 $100 million SSBJ is ambitious, to say the least.
GF
In any case, getting a return on bizjet investment by manufacturers is hard enough at current production rates and a 1,000 $100 million SSBJ is ambitious, to say the least.
GF
The pricing and production plan might be unconventional. If you only build 200, there would be an ultra elite aura about the thing. Might be able to charge several hundred million... the thing would provide a luxury not attainable elsewhere. Exclusivity carries a premium... that might scale.
02-02-2019, 09:18 PM
#16
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Originally Posted by rickair7777
They can probably do that for the bizjets. There are way more than 50 billionaires out there, and they'd all like to have one. There are very few more unique toys to spend that kind of money on.
Agreed. Gazillionares will not bat an eye at $150m for a plane.
But... it is one thing to take a G2, stretch and bulk it out to make a G5. But to start from scratch with either a compound delta wing or (dog forbid) a sweep wing, would mean a HUUUGE investment. And that may kick that $150m up several times. No current aircraft producer would touch it: it ain't worth the risk.
Here's an idea for the mega rich....
Pull a B-58 out of mothballs. Strip it down. Put a nice, cozy lounge in the bomb bay. It has a ferry range of 4000 miles which gets across the pond. But if longer range or mach 2 full flight is needed, pick up a KC-135 in addition. Problem solved.
01-25-2021, 09:35 AM
#17
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,253
This is the best articulated case for new supersonic airliners that I've seen.
Fuel cost aside, it does have some economic efficiency because the plane and crew can fly significantly more RPMs per day at high supersonic speed. And many or most pax would pay some sort of premium to cut a ten hour flight down to four hours... I certainly would.
NRT turns anyone?
https://www.digitaltrends.com/featur...rplane-travel/
Fuel cost aside, it does have some economic efficiency because the plane and crew can fly significantly more RPMs per day at high supersonic speed. And many or most pax would pay some sort of premium to cut a ten hour flight down to four hours... I certainly would.
NRT turns anyone?
https://www.digitaltrends.com/featur...rplane-travel/
01-28-2021, 04:59 PM
#18
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Yes, technology is enabling more efficient aircraft, especially airframes and engines.
Actually not so much, they haven't bothered. Bombers and attack aircraft are mostly subsonic, or in the case of F/A aircraft they would typically do the attack phase of the mission subsonic. Even if they were supersonic the plane would be on egress before ground forces heard the boom... by definition.
If a deep penetration mission was flown supersonic, the route might be selected to minimize exposure to sites which might detect a boom.
Actually not so much, they haven't bothered. Bombers and attack aircraft are mostly subsonic, or in the case of F/A aircraft they would typically do the attack phase of the mission subsonic. Even if they were supersonic the plane would be on egress before ground forces heard the boom... by definition.
If a deep penetration mission was flown supersonic, the route might be selected to minimize exposure to sites which might detect a boom.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
