Supersonic private jet | FerrariChat

Supersonic private jet

Discussion in 'Aviation Chat' started by F SPIDER, Mar 9, 2014.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. F SPIDER

    F SPIDER F1 Rookie
    Owner

    Jan 30, 2002
    2,873
    NYC, A'dam, W'stock
    Full Name:
    rijk rietveld
    There seem to be about eight supersonic private jets under development. One of our clients is considering this. Does anyone here have some insight in these developments, so that we don't look like complete idiots when it comes up in the discussion.
     
  2. F SPIDER

    F SPIDER F1 Rookie
    Owner

    Jan 30, 2002
    2,873
    NYC, A'dam, W'stock
    Full Name:
    rijk rietveld
    We saw that one, because the media picked up on that detail. But that doesn't mean they are the closest to production. Does anybody know who is the front runner? It is not a budget issue, but more availability driven. The earliest date we have seen is 2018, but how realistic is that?
     
  3. thecarreaper

    thecarreaper F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Sep 30, 2003
    17,564
    Savannah
  4. solofast

    solofast Formula 3

    Oct 8, 2007
    1,773
    Indianapolis
    Money pit....

    There isn't much of a market for these. If one company got it right and did it, then they might make a go of it. If there are two or more real competitors the market will fracture and there won't be enough sales for any of them to survive.

    If your client is just thinking about it now, he's way too late to market.
     
  5. Tcar

    Tcar F1 Rookie

    Being able to do it doesn't seem to be the problem...

    The sonic boom over land is the big issue.

    If you can't do the boom over land (US, Euro, etc. etc.) then it has almost no viability at present.

    Unless you solve that (spike?, or?) it probably won't happen.
     
  6. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    23,988
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    If you don't want to look like an idiot, then tell your client not to waste his or her time until at least one is flying, preferably one from someone like Gulfstream or Dassault, who has experience building and certifying airplanes.

     
  7. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    23,988
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    Wait, is your client wanting to buy one, or start a business building them?
     
  8. F2003-GA

    F2003-GA F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Nov 2, 2003
    13,066
    Sunbelt
    Full Name:
    Bro
    IMO - Gulfstream would be the company in the best position for success
    Not seen any public statements from them concerning any projects in the
    Pipeline but I can't help but think their up to something big
     
  9. Mozella

    Mozella Formula Junior

    Mar 24, 2013
    905
    Piemonte, Italia
    I know nothing about these airplanes, but back in the day I made my living by flying a supersonic fighter. Guess what. I have very little flight time above Mach 1. Why? Because the penalty to fly faster than the speed of sound is astoundingly large. So large, in fact, that the average person doesn't have a very good understand of it, sort of like the national debt.

    First of all there are the design considerations of the aircraft. The rules of aerodynamics actually change quite drastically right around Mach 1 and in fact, some flow and pressure relationships actually reverse. An efficient design for high sub-sonic speeds (like most airliners and biz-jets) is not suitable for higher mach numbers. And a supersonic airframe nearly always suffers less than optimum performance below Mach 1. The F-14 with it's very complex (and expensive) wing sweep mechanism is one such example.

    Engines too must be different. In simple terms, high bypass fan engines are great for subsonic flight. Non-fan engines with after burners are best for supersonic flight. Adding an afterburner to a high bypass fan engine is a real engineering challenge requiring a very sophisticated variable inlet design, something current biz-jets don't require.

    Then there is the pure drag problem. Drag goes up, WAY WAY up, when you force anything to supersonic. This translated directly into fuel use and the cost of fuel isn't going down any time soon. There is not a true "sound barrier" as such, but the aerodynamic issues one must face in order to exceed Mach 1 are so large that from a practical point of view, the "sound barrier" was very real for a long time.

    And now, many many years after man exceeded the speed of sound, ask yourself who is going faster than Mach 1? The answer is almost nobody. Nobody in the private sector is and only a tiny tiny fraction of military folks exceed Mach1 and then only very occasionally and for very short periods of time and in highly restricted areas.

    And, as mentioned previously in this thread, you essentially can't go supersonic over land. Fighters have a very good reason for needing supersonic speeds but for a biz-jet owner/renter the only reason is to save time. You have to ask yourself how much is that small time saving worth given the HUGE downsides to building and operating a supersonic private aircraft.

    Tell your client to keep his wallet closed............... tightly closed.

    And if he says, "Yes..... but...................." remind him that the flying car was supposed to be in everyone's garage by the late 1960s because it would save so much time that everyone, even the typical housewife, would have to own one.
     
  10. F SPIDER

    F SPIDER F1 Rookie
    Owner

    Jan 30, 2002
    2,873
    NYC, A'dam, W'stock
    Full Name:
    rijk rietveld
    Commuting between NY and London. Cutting 50% of flying time is invaluable. Especially if you can go up and down in one day.
     
  11. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    23,988
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    Then tell them to check back with you in about 2 years, and see if any progress has been made by then.

     
  12. alexD

    alexD F1 Rookie

    Oct 1, 2006
    4,670
    sunnyvale
    Full Name:
    alex d
    Or tell them to buy a 2-seat fighter on the open market and hire a pilot to fly him back and forth :p I bet you can find some Russian migs on Ebay
     
  13. F2003-GA

    F2003-GA F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Nov 2, 2003
    13,066
    Sunbelt
    Full Name:
    Bro
    High risk of getting shot down when travelling to foreign destinations :)
     
  14. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    23,988
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    Make sure he gets a KC-135 (or the Russian equivalent) to go along with them, so he can make it nonstop.

     
  15. James_Woods

    James_Woods F1 World Champ

    May 17, 2006
    12,755
    Dallas, Tx.
    Full Name:
    James K. Woods
    Provided that about 10 minutes of supersonic flight on a less than transatlantic subsonic range would be of any help...
     
  16. F SPIDER

    F SPIDER F1 Rookie
    Owner

    Jan 30, 2002
    2,873
    NYC, A'dam, W'stock
    Full Name:
    rijk rietveld
    There are two planes now, two planes in the pipeline. This is about after that....
     
  17. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    23,988
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    If they're not flying now, they won't be certified in two years. And, as far as I know, none of them are flying now, or even close. Has anyone even started building a flyable prototype?

    Just to give you some perspective, Gulfstream first taxied the G-650 in September of 2009. It wasn't certified until September of 2012, and the first one was delivered just at the end of 2012.

    Keep in mind that this is Gulfstream, highly experienced manufacturer, building an airplane which is essentially a derivative of airplanes they've been building for 40 years.

    So a supersonic business jet before 2020? I don't see it. And by then, I think suborbital will be a possibility instead.

     
  18. alexm

    alexm F1 Veteran

    Sep 6, 2004
    5,223
    Coast up from Sydney
    Full Name:
    Alex
    Why is everyone in such a damned hurry?

    Kick back and relax and enjoy some extra timeout and the leg room you can so obviously afford with all the options already out there :)
     
  19. F SPIDER

    F SPIDER F1 Rookie
    Owner

    Jan 30, 2002
    2,873
    NYC, A'dam, W'stock
    Full Name:
    rijk rietveld
    The Concorde took less than 3.5 hours, from which 2 hours at Mach 2+. And, at 18km (54,000 Ft) cruising height, I think, still sub-orbital.
     
  20. Jeff Kennedy

    Jeff Kennedy F1 Veteran
    BANNED Owner Silver Subscribed

    Oct 16, 2007
    6,546
    Edwardsville, IL
    Full Name:
    Jeff Kennedy
    Rijk,

    There is no aircraft currently for supersonic. Aerion has been developing something for more than 10 years but their plan is to find an OEM that will take it to production as they will not. Gulfstream and Dassault have all been doing "studies" with some amount of testing for years but there is nothing for a buyer to get in line for.

    There will be no program by anyone until flying over land is solved.

    IF that occurs figure that the only manufacturers that will be anywhere close for their announced delivery schedule are Gulfstream, Dassault and Cessna. They will lie but it will be far, far smaller amounts than the others.

    Don't take an early position on any new aircraft and especially on a category like this. You will be a development guinea pig whether you want it or not.

    You do have 2 current choices for high speed but neither is supersonic. The Gulfstream 650 and the latest iteration of the Citation X. Both can do incrementally more than .9 mach. There is a big fuel burn penalty for going these speeds but for distances of your sort there will be real time savings. If you like altitude then both can do 50,000 too.

    Jeff
     
  21. F SPIDER

    F SPIDER F1 Rookie
    Owner

    Jan 30, 2002
    2,873
    NYC, A'dam, W'stock
    Full Name:
    rijk rietveld
    Jeff,

    Thank you for your knowledgeable reply. I guess you will never get permission to break the sound barrier over land. The only solution would be to fly into the stratosphere, like the Scramjet. But, I'm told, you need two different sets of engines, and then you might as well go Mach 30. And, once in the stratosphere, you might as well take 500 passengers.

    My FIL worked on the Scramjet for NASA for 20 years, but, even though it can be done technically, the regulatory hurdles were deemed insurmountable.

    I had some hopes for a mini Concorde, but I guess not yet....
     
  22. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    23,988
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    Why do you say that?

    Virgin Galactic is going sub-orbital with a nice 9 seat (I think?) vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that repurposed for corporate transport at some point.

    Certainly before any supersonic business jets get off the drawing board.

     
  23. Jeff Kennedy

    Jeff Kennedy F1 Veteran
    BANNED Owner Silver Subscribed

    Oct 16, 2007
    6,546
    Edwardsville, IL
    Full Name:
    Jeff Kennedy
    "Never" may not be the correct term on supersonic over land. The better statement is more like "remains unresolved although it continues to be worked on." The sonic boom is the issue and no one is saying they are on the verge of having it resolved. Testing has been done with a nose spike that moves in and out but it must not have been truly successful or there would have been a lot of words in the aviation press on that achievement.

    Jeff
     
  24. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 19, 2008
    37,986
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    Don- Most people really overestimate the range on rocket trajectories. Virgin Galactic is only going to about mach 3.5 on a really steep trajectory and range will be less than 100 nm. A suborbital rocket trajectory at mach 10 will only go about 200 nm. You have to get up to mach 15 to go 1000 miles and after that velocity, range starts to increase pretty rapidly. Non-rocket hypersonic flight is still at the basic research stage, with AFRL working towards a hypersonic, air-breathing cruise missile right now.

    NASA has done some work on suppressing sonic booms, but again still basic research.
    There are efficiency regions for aircraft in the mach 0.8 and mach 3 regimes, which is where you would like to operate a supersonic passenger aircraft, but off the shelf mach 3 engines are hard to find. Supersonic flight in the mach .92-2.5 regime is very inefficient.

    Aerodynamically, we no longer need to sweep wings like we did on the F-111, F-14, and Tornado. Cranked wing designs are much more efficient throughout the low speed to mach 2.5 and above regimes.

    There are supersonic corridors in the US but, surprise, none of them go where anybody wants to go except the military on test runs. Socorro, NM south to the Mexican border is not a really heavily used route for civilians.
     

Share This Page