Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Fractional > NetJets
Netjets Purchase Rights for 20 Aerion AS2s >

Netjets Purchase Rights for 20 Aerion AS2s

Search
Notices
NetJets Fractional Operator

Netjets Purchase Rights for 20 Aerion AS2s

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-07-2021, 05:57 AM
  #11  
Speed, Power, Accuracy
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: PIC
Posts: 1,702
Default

Originally Posted by MinRest View Post
I hope it comes to fruition. As a plane geek, this has always been a cool concept. I really don’t see a domestic market for it though if the idea is to fly it subsonic. The acquisition cost is going to be much higher I would assume, than a similar class cabin. Hell, modern Gulfstreams fly above .95. Now if the AS2 can really sustain 1.4 that will be impressive. If it can only do 1.1, 1.2 I’m not sure it will be as mind blowing to consumers as they think it will, after the novelty wears off.
The G650 is certified to .925 which is the fastest civil airplane flying (okay, the "new" Citation X bumped from .92 to .93 - in a tube half the size) A buddy flies the G650 and he says the fuel suck escalates dramatically to go from their normal cruise of .86 to high speed at .92 although it's nice to have that speed in your back pocket when you're late for a slot.

I've followed the Aerion project since well before it's current form. 4200-4500 mile range at 1.4 was the number they settled on for the balance point where the time on the tech stop for North America to/from Asia could be sufficiently overcome by cruise speed and North America to/from most of Europe would be doable.

Aerion claims the current design can be "boomless" to 1.2 but that would still require a regulatory change. There have been hearings in DC on the regulations and the environmental Gretas turned out to decry "raping the environment" yet again to benefit the uber-rich. Difficult optics and a tough sell in cancel-culture America. I don't see the rules changing for over land supersonic flight. Ever.

Ultimately, I see it coming down to the powerplant being flexible enough and efficient enough to make the numbers work. Safran couldn't do it but maybe GE can with the Passport.
GeeWizDriver is offline  
Old 03-07-2021, 06:00 AM
  #12  
Gets Everyday Off
 
TransWorld's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,945
Default

Originally Posted by Flyfalcons View Post
Aerion is advertising that a speed of M1.0-1.2 will prevent the sonic boom from reaching the ground. Will that come to fruition, anyone's guess. M1.2 vs M.8 will save appreciable time on a transcon but will have no impact when slowed on departure and arrival procedures. M1.4 over water will be a big time savings.
Is there data to prove that?
TransWorld is offline  
Old 03-07-2021, 06:03 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,063
Default

Originally Posted by TransWorld View Post
Is there data to prove that?
To prove what?
Flyfalcons is offline  
Old 03-07-2021, 06:12 AM
  #14  
Gets Everyday Off
 
TransWorld's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,945
Default

Originally Posted by Flyfalcons View Post
To prove what?
Mach 1.2 has no boom on the ground.
TransWorld is offline  
Old 03-07-2021, 06:19 AM
  #15  
Speed, Power, Accuracy
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: PIC
Posts: 1,702
Default

Originally Posted by TransWorld View Post
Mach 1.2 has no boom on the ground.
Over the years, multiple flight test experiments to reduce sonic boom have been conducted, mostly by NASA through the Dryden Research group. Search "Quiet Spike." The data gleaned from those experiments and others have given the pocket-protector crowd a pretty good data set to make predictions about transonic and supersonic noise signatures.

But the regulation refers to the SPEED. Not the level of noise. It will STILL take a regulatory change to enable over land supersonic flight. I just don't see that happening with the growing political influence of the Greens.
GeeWizDriver is offline  
Old 03-07-2021, 06:32 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,063
Default

Originally Posted by TransWorld View Post
Mach 1.2 has no boom on the ground.
I literally said this is their advertisment and who knows if it will come to fruition. I know this because I said "Aerion is advertising that a speed of M1.0-1.2 will prevent the sonic boom from reaching the ground. Will that come to fruition, anyone's guess. "
Flyfalcons is offline  
Old 03-07-2021, 09:40 AM
  #17  
Mmmm wine
 
MinRest's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2020
Position: A220 FO
Posts: 945
Default

Originally Posted by Flyfalcons View Post
Aerion is advertising that a speed of M1.0-1.2 will prevent the sonic boom from reaching the ground. Will that come to fruition, anyone's guess. M1.2 vs M.8 will save appreciable time on a transcon but will have no impact when slowed on departure and arrival procedures. M1.4 over water will be a big time savings.
Yea, over water ops will be where this really shines. Flying 1.0 from SFO to TEB is all but pointless when you get slowed down over Ohio lol.
MinRest is offline  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:32 AM
  #18  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,281
Default

Originally Posted by MinRest View Post
Good luck flying it supersonic over the US…
There is research, in both industry and government, to reduce the boom to acceptable levels. Even restricted to over-water, it still has a lot of utility for trans-atlantic and trans-pacific. With a max altitude of FL600, it can probably just go VFR-direct over the top of the NATS.

If they can make it quiet enough to get authorized to fly supersonic over CONUS, bonus.

I think the .gov is pretty open to changing the hard ban to a specific noise standard, ie decibels, frequency, and waveform, whatever is ultimately deemed to be not very annoying to folks on the ground. As far as the gretas, they may be able to deflect that by using SAF, etc. Also consider that the environmental elites in government (ex Gore, Kerry) surely enjoy their private jets.

https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets...m?newsId=22754

Ultimately, reasonably assuming that aviation will be made fairly green one way or another, commonly-available supersonic flight will open up travel (and commerce) in a manner not seen since the advent of the jet age.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 03-07-2021, 11:49 AM
  #19  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,281
Default

Originally Posted by Flyfalcons View Post
I literally said this is their advertisment and who knows if it will come to fruition. I know this because I said "Aerion is advertising that a speed of M1.0-1.2 will prevent the sonic boom from reaching the ground. Will that come to fruition, anyone's guess. "
It's been demonstrated (by NASA IIRC), what they have to do is apply it to a commercial application. It may not be that zero noise reaches the ground but rather no sharp boom (N-wave), so maybe more like a low rumbling (similar to distant thunder).
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:58 AM
  #20  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 45
Default

Your guess is wrong. Flex made that deal over 5 years ago. If you think Kenn Ricci, as a visionary, is going to abandon the Aerion, you are mistaken.

I am not aware of any layoffs and I work there. Every fleet has been flying balls to the wall.

According the FlightAware, we have 10 G-450s and 4 G-650s (two more G deliveries this year). So it appears that program hasn’t been abandoned either.

Originally Posted by ASACapt View Post
My guess is the Flex Aerion deal was all PR hype and Flex never had the money in the first place to make the deal happen. Flex loves the headlines and can make a PR flash headline from any good news. Remember the big G650 and G400 order? How many do they really have on property years later? How many unencumbered aircraft do they have now?

I take a lot of pride that NetJets has never taken a dime of PPP or CARES money. Meanwhile Flexjet and a combo of its companies (DAC, Nextant, etc) took over $80 million and still laid off employees that the money was supposed to protect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fly Dog is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Cubdriver
NetJets
29
10-01-2011 11:09 AM
jetlag7
NetJets
13
11-08-2010 04:11 PM
UCLAbruins
Fractional
9
12-17-2007 07:32 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices