5 ms·

New supersonic passenger jet being designed

11 points by edw519 16y ago

fondue 16y ago
I vaguely remember that after the concorde was in service a few years some engineer said that there was no way it could be repeated. He was asked, "Because of the technology?" and replied, "No, there are so many regulations now it would be impossible to complete a design."
nitrogen 16y ago
I felt like a small part of humanity died when we lost commercial supersonic transit, as I hate seeing our race lose any kind of technological capability. Though I doubt I'd use it myself, I'm glad to see someone is trying to bring supersonic flight back, and targeted at those who will benefit most: executives whose time costs more than plane tickets.
jameskilton 16y ago
The "fate of the Concorde" was a massively stupid design flaw where the engine intake was BEHIND the rear wheels. Looking at one up close it's very easy to see why the thing exploded. The tires blew during take-off (expected to happen on any airline at some point) which sent rubber and metal shrapnel into the engine, causing a catastrophic explosion. This new design "avoids the fate" simply because the engines are on top of the wings. Why there's so much regulation behind "wanting to go faster" is mind boggling. The Concorde had some technical flaws, but the plane did a great job at what it was built for: getting people places faster. I hope this plane is able to bring back what we lost.
- gmac 16y ago
  Do you have a reference for that? I recalled it being a fuel tank problem, and Wikipedia seems to agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
- varjag 16y ago
  No, the fate of Concorde was sealed decades before that catastrophe. It's when FAA banned supersonic flights in USA in an act of protectionism.
hugh3 16y ago
Important information missing from the article: who is bankrolling this? As far as I can tell, Aerion Corp is a rather small-looking company based in Reno which has never actually built a jet. They have a website which says "Copyright 2007", some renderings of what a jet might look like, and a few photos of people meeting with each other. I can't figure out who is funding them. So I'm really not going to get my hopes up for the success of this project. Wake me when they have a working prototype, or even enough money to build a working prototype.
- _delirium 16y ago
  This article from 2004 has some early information on the company, though it's still not a lot: http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/04nbaa/topstor02.htm http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/04nbaa/topstor02.htm As of 2007 they were soliciting preorders: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SUPE11147.xml http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SUP... From what I can dig up on them, I'm vaguely suspicious that the company doesn't really exist yet, though, or at least hasn't started engineering in earnest. In that 2004 piece, they estimated it'd take 5 years from launch to service entry, and the linked article here is estimating service entry... 5 years from now. Edit: Though this article claims they had (as of 2008) 20 letters of intent secured by $250k deposits each: http://www.avweb.com/news/acrossthepond/across_the_pond_12_new_year_196807-1.html http://www.avweb.com/news/acrossthepond/across_the_pond_12_n...
philwelch 16y ago
With only a dozen passenger capacity, this is less of a supersonic airliner and more of a supersonic business jet. Regional jets (50-100 passengers), Concordes (92-128 pasengers), and even Concordskis (70-140 passengers) carry a lot more people. A supersonic business jet is a better idea than a supersonic airliner, because executives and billionaires are generally better customers than airlines--less bureaucratic, more spending power, and just enough desire for high status to cover price-performance gaps.
bosch 16y ago
That's the kind of thing I'd love to work on. Not only is it cutting edge tech but you would probably learn a ton of new things! The one thing I have learned reading articles about aviation is the fact that wing design makes a huge difference - not only in speed but also in fuel consumption which is pretty crazy.
SkyMarshal 16y ago
"If you look at the straight wings of the new jet and those on the Lockheed F-104 “missile with a man in it" of the late ‘50s and early ‘60s you’ll see a family resemblance." The F-104 Starfighter was the first thing I thought of when I saw the pic in the article. Another of Kelly Johnson and the Skunkworks' triumphs, still informing aerospace design half a century later.

11 points by edw519 16y ago

I vaguely remember that after the concorde was in service a few years some engineer said that there was no way it could be repeated. He was asked, "Because of the technology?" and replied, "No, there are so many regulations now it would be impossible to complete a design."

nitrogen 16y ago

I felt like a small part of humanity died when we lost commercial supersonic transit, as I hate seeing our race lose any kind of technological capability. Though I doubt I'd use it myself, I'm glad to see someone is trying to bring supersonic flight back, and targeted at those who will benefit most: executives whose time costs more than plane tickets.

jameskilton 16y ago

The "fate of the Concorde" was a massively stupid design flaw where the engine intake was BEHIND the rear wheels. Looking at one up close it's very easy to see why the thing exploded. The tires blew during take-off (expected to happen on any airline at some point) which sent rubber and metal shrapnel into the engine, causing a catastrophic explosion. This new design "avoids the fate" simply because the engines are on top of the wings. Why there's so much regulation behind "wanting to go faster" is mind boggling. The Concorde had some technical flaws, but the plane did a great job at what it was built for: getting people places faster. I hope this plane is able to bring back what we lost.

gmac 16y ago
Do you have a reference for that? I recalled it being a fuel tank problem, and Wikipedia seems to agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
varjag 16y ago
No, the fate of Concorde was sealed decades before that catastrophe. It's when FAA banned supersonic flights in USA in an act of protectionism.

hugh3 16y ago

Important information missing from the article: who is bankrolling this? As far as I can tell, Aerion Corp is a rather small-looking company based in Reno which has never actually built a jet. They have a website which says "Copyright 2007", some renderings of what a jet might look like, and a few photos of people meeting with each other. I can't figure out who is funding them. So I'm really not going to get my hopes up for the success of this project. Wake me when they have a working prototype, or even enough money to build a working prototype.

_delirium 16y ago
This article from 2004 has some early information on the company, though it's still not a lot: http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/04nbaa/topstor02.htm http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/04nbaa/topstor02.htm As of 2007 they were soliciting preorders: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SUPE11147.xml http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SUP... From what I can dig up on them, I'm vaguely suspicious that the company doesn't really exist yet, though, or at least hasn't started engineering in earnest. In that 2004 piece, they estimated it'd take 5 years from launch to service entry, and the linked article here is estimating service entry... 5 years from now. Edit: Though this article claims they had (as of 2008) 20 letters of intent secured by $250k deposits each: http://www.avweb.com/news/acrossthepond/across_the_pond_12_new_year_196807-1.html http://www.avweb.com/news/acrossthepond/across_the_pond_12_n...

philwelch 16y ago

With only a dozen passenger capacity, this is less of a supersonic airliner and more of a supersonic business jet. Regional jets (50-100 passengers), Concordes (92-128 pasengers), and even Concordskis (70-140 passengers) carry a lot more people. A supersonic business jet is a better idea than a supersonic airliner, because executives and billionaires are generally better customers than airlines--less bureaucratic, more spending power, and just enough desire for high status to cover price-performance gaps.

bosch 16y ago

That's the kind of thing I'd love to work on. Not only is it cutting edge tech but you would probably learn a ton of new things! The one thing I have learned reading articles about aviation is the fact that wing design makes a huge difference - not only in speed but also in fuel consumption which is pretty crazy.

SkyMarshal 16y ago

"If you look at the straight wings of the new jet and those on the Lockheed F-104 “missile with a man in it" of the late ‘50s and early ‘60s you’ll see a family resemblance." The F-104 Starfighter was the first thing I thought of when I saw the pic in the article. Another of Kelly Johnson and the Skunkworks' triumphs, still informing aerospace design half a century later.