3 ms·

Yes, it seems like all the sonic boom shaping demonstrators so far have required quite long aspect ratio designs. However that's not really incompatible with pr

Yes, it seems like all the sonic boom shaping demonstrators so far have required quite long aspect ratio designs. However that's not really incompatible with private jet class aircraft. Shooting from the hip (I have not looked up the stats), but I suspect one major difference now from when Concorde was being developed and flown is just how developed the private (and chartered) jet market is. Oh, and obviously a government subsidized SST project like Concorde cannot possibly be a private jet. It has to be an airliner for optics sake. While the the bulk of the commercial market is in a race to the bottom, it's clear that there's a significant appetite for premium - look both to first class suites in typical airliners, and the size of the private jet market itself. I think supersonic private jets actually have a reasonable value proposition, if one assumes that a reasonable amount of private jets use is motivated by minimizing the transit time of high value individuals. There are reasonably successful private jets (with hundreds of sales per model) that can only carry 4-10 passengers. I think that shows that private jet usage can scale down to the level which isn't such a huge leap in a scale from the current demonstrators. I have no idea how big of an market supersonic private jets would actually be, but it does seem like there's plausibly something there.

sokoloff 3y ago
i feel like the value proposition for most private jet legs is "getting to an airport the airlines either don't serve or don't serve directly, and leaving whenever the passengers want". That's a lot of cases in the Continental US and a fair amount in Europe. Transoceanic travel by private jet is far less common than the 1-2 hour legs within a continent. Most private jets have fewer amenities than a 777/787/A330+ Buying an entire private jet primarily for trans-oceanic travel seems like something where I'd probably rather just suck it up and fly on one of the majors in first class suites.
- icegreentea2 3y ago
  I'd agree with your characterization for "most", but the fact that something like the G650 series exists (~20 passengers, Mach 0.95, 10k+ km range) and sells implies that long range, high speed is also a viable niche.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    That, plus the Global Express, BBJ, and others exist (and Falcon 10X is coming next year). Those are also very usable within the US plus on inter-continental trips. If a supersonic-capable jet can only operate subsonic over the US, a lot of the utility drops off (and the compromises required to permit it would become annoying).
    - icegreentea2 3y ago
      Right, the entire point of the X-59 is to support enabling commercial supersonic flight over land.
panick21_ 3y ago
Call me crazy, but I think government shouldn't waste a huge amount of money so rich people can have even better private jets, specially private jets that are even more disruptive and even energy inefficient. And at the same time drop electric planes that have actual practical utility. A better plan for private jets would be to raise fuel prices for them by 10x.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Raising jet fuel prices via taxes has my support. Raising jet fuel prices only on a specific segment of jet fuel usage does not.

sokoloff 3y ago

i feel like the value proposition for most private jet legs is "getting to an airport the airlines either don't serve or don't serve directly, and leaving whenever the passengers want". That's a lot of cases in the Continental US and a fair amount in Europe. Transoceanic travel by private jet is far less common than the 1-2 hour legs within a continent. Most private jets have fewer amenities than a 777/787/A330+ Buying an entire private jet primarily for trans-oceanic travel seems like something where I'd probably rather just suck it up and fly on one of the majors in first class suites.

icegreentea2 3y ago
I'd agree with your characterization for "most", but the fact that something like the G650 series exists (~20 passengers, Mach 0.95, 10k+ km range) and sells implies that long range, high speed is also a viable niche.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  That, plus the Global Express, BBJ, and others exist (and Falcon 10X is coming next year). Those are also very usable within the US plus on inter-continental trips. If a supersonic-capable jet can only operate subsonic over the US, a lot of the utility drops off (and the compromises required to permit it would become annoying).
  - icegreentea2 3y ago
    Right, the entire point of the X-59 is to support enabling commercial supersonic flight over land.

panick21_ 3y ago

Call me crazy, but I think government shouldn't waste a huge amount of money so rich people can have even better private jets, specially private jets that are even more disruptive and even energy inefficient. And at the same time drop electric planes that have actual practical utility. A better plan for private jets would be to raise fuel prices for them by 10x.

sokoloff 3y ago
Raising jet fuel prices via taxes has my support. Raising jet fuel prices only on a specific segment of jet fuel usage does not.