Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Rejeter
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.
Rejeter
Back to Squawk list
  • 27

Airbus to help develop first supersonic business jet

Soumis
 
How would you like to trim three hours off the current commercial jet flight time between Paris and Washington, D.C.? (www.cnn.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


sflso
David Kay 2
Sounds good. I'm all for advancing technology.
bighoss81
bighoss81 1
Call me crazy but I don't there's huge market for that.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Hard to say. The Concorde was just across the Atlantic and back. Hard to say now about the Pacific rim and South America. The 100 million price tag ain't all that trashy but just how much is somebody's time worth. This is the type of thing that you'll have a breakfast meeting in Tokyo, lunch in Hong Kong and back home that night for supper with the wife and kids. That's kinda figuratively speaking and I sure can't see any reason for the seats to berth out at that kinda speed.
Bernie20910
Bernie Behling 2
One thing I'm not seeing, and which they probably can't give until they decide on engines, is what the estimated range will be. If it has the legs to do LAX to SYD, then yeah, berth seats could come in handy.
preacher1
preacher1 1
At that speed?
Bernie20910
Bernie Behling 2
Well, it's about 8,500 miles in a direct line. At 1,200 mph that's about 7 hours, so a nice 4-5 hour nap would be refreshing and help get acclimated to the time zone change. And that's a direct, straight line route, which probably isn't going to happen.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, when they get engines on it, besides the range, they'll also get the exact speed. That is a fair ways. LOL
yr2012
matt jensen 1
I would love it, and have someone else pay for it
preacher1
preacher1 1
I'll pay for it for you when my rich uncle gets out of the poorhouse. LOL
nasdisco
Chris B 1
I don't get Airbus. The A380 just seems to big for most airlines. Now this. Willing to bet Boeing responds with an all new composite 73X7
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, they seem to be grasping at straws and looking for niches. When you got all that government subsidy that can do crap like that.
jrbeejay
John Beech -2
Another two stupid answers by silly americans who cannot see beyond the end of their nose especially over goverment subsidies.
devsfan
ken young 0
I suppose in the EURO world people are so used to handouts, that government (taxpayer) subsidies are as common as toilet paper.
jrbeejay
John Beech 0
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and it also not worth getting into a futile argument with you.
Bernie20910
Bernie Behling 1
...but you will anyway, because you can't resist a good bashing.
Bernie20910
Bernie Behling 0
And another American bashing attack by a non-American, who has nothing whatsoever to say that would be of value and contribute to the subject discussion, but who couldn't pass up a chance to flaunt their own anti-American bigotry and hatred.
jrbeejay
John Beech 4
I am very pro american, having lived in your country for over 3 years, but I get fed up with stupid comments from airbus bashers and the really stupid "if it's not boeing I'm not going" idiots. This is a site for aircraft enthusiasts, act like an enthusiast. I am a retired aircraft engineer who had nearly 50 years experience working on all types of aircraft, my favourite being the DC10 and L1011. With the exception of the BAe146 and BAC1-11 everything else I worked on was american and I enjoyed my work. I also would bash boing bashers as well because it is all so childish and meaningless.
Bernie20910
Bernie Behling -2
Ah, and obviously anyone who likes the Boeing brand and dislikes the Airbus brand MUST be American. I suggest that you take your own advice. This is a site for aircraft enthusiasts, act like an enthusiast, discuss the planes and the brands, and leave your national bigotry at the door.
jrbeejay
John Beech 0
You are worse, I like all brands of aircraft, and I dislike both Boeing and Airbus bashers and I had a lot to say which you have ignored. I happen to know the two were americans from reading many letters on this forum. I would like to see constuctive critism about airbus plans not the old chestnut about subsidies which both Boeing and Airbus get in different ways.
Bernie20910
Bernie Behling 0
Exactly how is a person's nationality germaine to the discussion of this proposed aircraft, and/or the discussion of the two companies? How does their expressed opinion entitle you to attack their nationality, and how do those attacks of yours advance this discussion? In what way is attacking someone's nationality "acting like an aviation enthusiast"? You seem to want to hold others to a code of conduct that you yourself seem incapable of following, but, most of all, you sir are a bigot, no matter how you might try to deny it, and I doubt there is any person here reading what you have written, save yourself, who would say otherwise. You are not "pro american", someone who actually is would at least capitalize the word, you are "pro American paycheck", then go home. I am done with you and your narrow, anti-American viewpoint.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Thank You, Bernie
preacher1
preacher1 0
Well, if you are Pro American, then you should gain a little National Pride and get behind the HOME BOYS (namely Boeing).
anthony96
anthony96 1
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 1
Read the whole article, not just the headline! If it actually sells, the plane will be built by Aerion Corporation, based in Nevada, USA.
lwr
lwr 1
I did read the article. I don't believe any of the 3 jets in the article will ever fly. Aerion may be the most credible, but I doubt even they will ever fly. HyperMach is a total joke, but they're not the only ones.
lwr
lwr 1
These paper airplanes will never fly. Mach 4 for the HyperMach jet?!? Even the SR-71 had a reported max speed of Mach 3.3-ish...

Interesting that there is no mention of Gulfstream's Quiet Supersonic Jet (QSJ) project... I guess they're keeping that one... Ahem... Quiet? ;)
skylab72
skylab72 1
The article simply announces and "sells" the new entrant, Aerion and Airbus, into the QSSBJ market. Interesting technology and business one-upmanship, but not very informative. Doubts as to the viability are reasonable in the near term, ten to twenty years. In the long term, I suspect it is inevitable.

I do see major obstacles. First, to be useful over land it will require a rewrite of the regulations on supersonic flight all over the world. Second type certification, and third actually delivering real ROI for the customer(s).

That last one is not easy. Fuel consumption goes up on a nasty looking curve above Mach1. The specific technical areas likely to impact that, are airfoil design, and engine nacelle and inlet designs. Great strides have been made since a quarter century ago, but the numbers still do not look good to me. Specifically to get a similar mass to a big Gulfstream, and and assuming fuel capacity as a design priority, one might expect a sub-sonic range just over 4000 miles. Dial it up to a Mach1.4 and your range is down in the mid two thousands.

Just for reference NYC to London is about 3500, (the 4k with a nice reserve). What do you do with an airplane that can only fly supersonic over water, but does not have the range to do intercontinental above Mach1? Regulations, and red tape will keep this in the dream stage for quite a while yet.
lwr
lwr 1
Google "Sonic Whisper" and "Quiet Spike", and/or check out this link: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/noise_emissions/supersonic_aircraft_noise/media/BaltimorePublicMeeting-Gulfstream.pdf
CaptJohn1
CaptJohn1 1
As has been mentioned Gulfstream has been working on this for years. And on the "QT" I've been told they have had the technology for several years now. Two problems, restrictions still in place on super sonic flight over land, and size of the market. Airbus doesn't have the same issues with profitability that other manufactures have. Gulfstream's not going to build it if it's not going to be a money maker. They have stockholders to deal with.
cfaflyboy
cfaflyboy 1
Sounds awesome! Hopefully it doesn't end up like Concord.
ftldave
Dave Underwood 0
Get a grip. It won't be Americans cruising at Mach 2. Rich Russian and Chinese oligarchs will be the ones riding in SST BBJ's, duh. It will complement their mega yachts. Both "namby pamby pro labor" and greedy American business suits will get to watch them fly by overhead.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx -1
The 0.1% need a faster way to take our money.
devsfan
ken young -1
At $100 million per, no business will go oit alone on a purchase.
Plus, every namby pamby pro labor nutcase will be whining to the media about "CEO Extravagance"
preacher1
preacher1 2
I don't know if I'd go that far or not. The BBJ market and all the executive stuff has put some high rollers in the market that think a lot of themselves. It will all be interesting, especially if Boeing comes out with something. They are all going to have to overcome that sonic boom though, otherwise the speed won't matter that much.

[This poster has been suspended.]

mattwestuk
Matt West 2
At $64 an hour, wow at that rate she'll be able to afford this $100M jet in only 178 years!
Bernie20910
Bernie Behling 1
She was lying to him anyway. She charged my buddy's son $100 for an hour.
paultrubits
paul trubits 1
Well played!

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!