Geneva, Switzerland, EBACE
–
May 19, 2014
--
Aerion Corporation, the leader in
commercial supersonic technology, today introduced a larger configuration for the first in
a family of supersonic business jets. The company is growing its technical organization
and preparing to enter into industrial collaborations aimed at launching a new era of
supersonic flight
Your link goes to some summary page regarding the wing design/technology on the company site. Here is the company web page from the start with the fancy albeit cheesy imho intro video.
The SSBJ idea is a joke. It has been going on as long as I can remember and never proceeds, yet the industry magazines cover it like it is something serious. Why don't they just ignore it like we all should. Who is really willing to invest in this? Maybe no one is but I assume that at least one persons money is paying for displays, an employee or two etc.
I think the wings should be a little bit more swept if it's to go supersonic then again I'm no engineer. Also 3 engines isn't really economic or necessary today, when 2 engines can easily do the job.
pelmet wrote:Almost everything looks ridiculous on this aircraft supposedly being created soon. The engines in the way they are mounted, the tail, the wings.
Out of curiosity, (not making a "dig" at ya!) are you an aeronautical engineer?
pelmet wrote:Almost everything looks ridiculous on this aircraft supposedly being created soon. The engines in the way they are mounted, the tail, the wings.
Over-wing mounted engines are actually a lot more efficient than podded.
pelmet wrote:
Over-wing mounted engines are actually a lot more efficient than podded.
For the second time this evening (and again not making a "dig")....
Are you an aeronautical engineer?
All the best,
TPC
I never made this quote. Could you tell me why you made it a quoted statement by me?
Flying magazine unfortunately has an article on this proposal. It is an idea backed by a billionaire named Robert Bass, so that explains how a few million can be spent on marketing and some sort of design. Apparently they have some sort of patented technology called a supersonic laminar flow wing.
As the article says, they have wanted a manufacturer to pick up the idea of an SSBJ of which none have because it would be a huge money loser no doubt.
They actually wanted to use JT8D engines originally( ) but now don't have a stated engine.
Pelmet wrote:
I never made this quote. Could you tell me why you made it a quoted statement?
Dear Pookiebear,
Are you kidding me? I quoted Krimson who had previously quoted you. If that's not awfully clear or obvious to a guy such as yourself whom posts so frequently....
Pelmet wrote:
I never made this quote. Could you tell me why you made it a quoted statement?
Dear Pookiebear,
Are you kidding me? I quoted Krimson who had previously quoted you. If that's not awfully clear or obvious to a guy such as yourself whom posts so frequently....
Love,
TPC
All I know is that I never stated "Over-wing mounted engines are actually a lot more efficient than podded.", yet it was later shown to be quoted by me in post #8. Not a big deal as I believe it is a true statement but I shouldn't be given credit where it is not due. Just found it odd that it came to be shown as my quote. Hopefully that is now awfully clear and obvious to you.
As for the subject, I'm willing to give 10 to 1 odds on any bet that this won't see the light of day. Would be easy money for me. We all know that famous quote credited to PT Barnum don't we. I just wish the mainstream aviation media would stop covering like it is something realistic.
Pelmet wrote:
I never made this quote. Could you tell me why you made it a quoted statement?
Dear Pookiebear,
Are you kidding me? I quoted Krimson who had previously quoted you. If that's not awfully clear or obvious to a guy such as yourself whom posts so frequently....
Love,
TPC
All I know is that I never stated "Over-wing mounted engines are actually a lot more efficient than podded.", yet it was later shown to be quoted by me in post #8. Not a big deal as I believe it is a true statement but I shouldn't be given credit where it is not due. Just found it odd that it came to be shown as my quote. Hopefully that is now awfully clear and obvious to you.
As for the subject, I'm willing to give 10 to 1 odds on any bet that this won't see the light of day. Would be easy money for me. We all know that famous quote credited to PT Barnum don't we. I just wish the mainstream aviation media would stop covering like it is something realistic.
Pelmet,
Not sure what occurred there, but I used the quote button previously and did not re-write what had been said manually.
As for your later comment, I agree that it sounds far fetched and the idea seems to be played as a "pitch" for potential investors?
As for my last post, I am glad that you saw through my sense of humor!
Ok, I ain't no rocket surgeon, but when I see that aircraft, I wonder how the tailplane can keep the massive moment ahead of the wings up at lower speeds.... Is it a lifting body, like with Viagra maybe?
Slick looking plane..
Edit- it's just the perspective of that image that makes the wings look like they're right on the plane's ass. Different angles show a bit more meat back there with the rear engine and tail section.
There will always be the trade-off. Speed vs. performance. Sure you can go mach 3 but you need tons of power and tons of fuel, also some LONG runways. From a design standpoint, it's all possible but from a cost and practicality standpoint it's just a big waste.
I read somewhere that the person backing all this is very, very wealthy. So, as long as he is willing to pump money into it, it will proceed at some sort of pace without the standard business case being required. Airbus help is obviously credible and I am sure they are being paid for their help as long as the person behind this is willing to pay. I do hope it succeeds despite what I have previously said. I would like to fly the certified version.
But I don't see any of the main manufacturers jumping in to join the SSBJ race. And they do analyze these things.
I do not see why pilots are so negative minded about a SSBJ. Almost 50 years ago, we got our first supersonic airliners. Politics killed them. Both of them were not born in the USA.
But now, Asia is pushing the boundaries, and the new jet may just happen there. And the Middle East is just the place to have buyers for them.
It would be cool to operate jets that are faster then the interceptors that could be sent to intercept it!
---------- ADS -----------
Success in life is when the cognac that you drink is older than the women you drink it with.
politics might well have played a part in Concorde's demise (lack of routes due to sonic boom issues) but the price of fuel was the final blow. IIRC, she used twice the fuel as a 747 to go LHR-JFK, while only carrying 1/4 the load.
There is a fascinating thread about Concorde over on Pprune in the Tech Log section. A few of the design engineers, F/Es and pilots are answering questions about her.
Count me in as skeptical that this SSBJ will ever see the light of day. The development costs would be huge, even for billionaires, and I can't see the market being that large...
---------- ADS -----------
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
x-wind wrote:Your link goes to some summary page regarding the wing design/technology on the company site. Here is the company web page from the start with the fancy albeit cheesy imho intro video.
Not sure how I navigated to it initially, but those with a bent for aeronautical engineering and perhaps slot machines and the Bunny Ranch, they also have a careers page, detailing openings at their Reno facility.
And yes, that is one cheesy and annoying video. Sound effects like what that video starts out with are grating enough to drive most anyone to click out of any webpage.
Of the SSBJ projects currently on the table, I give Aerion the best chance of bringing an airframe to production. Just because the major manufacturers haven't jumped in with both feet doesn't mean there isn't a place in the market. It just means it isn't in their current business focus. I can easily see a strategic partnership with either General Dynamics or more likely, Dassault where FBW technology already exists. Of course the tri-jet configuration and alliance with Airbus ties nicely into Dassault as well.
The tri-jet design byw, has been proven optimal for the design performance specifications. This project has been in the works a long time so changes in powerplants should be expected over a 20 year development timeframe.
I have known Brian Barrents since his Lear Jet days and have no doubt in his ability to push the project through to completion. For now, it is a dream, but one that holds several patents, has overcome some significant barriers and has been well funded from idea to the proof of concept and second design stage.
For the nay sayers, remember Dassault claimed the market was too small for three manufacturers of ULRBJ's and they walked away from their initial project. Now, they have placed it as their main area of development and production. The airlines all fly to save money, business flies to save time. The SSBJ is the logical next step.
