An Idea Whose Time Has Come? Supersonic Bizjets

[Larry Dighera]

SUPERSONIC BIZJETS INCH CLOSER TO REALITY
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/975-full.html#196352)
Gulfstream, Supersonic Aerospace International and Aerion Corp. are
all whittling away at their supersonic bizjet models as the market for
such designs leaps closer to credibility. The Teal Group, through Vice
President of Analysis Richard Aboulafia, believes that demand for
supersonic travel is significant -- over 20 years of production, the
Teal Group sees a market for up to 400 jets and Aerion aims to make
its jet the first available offering. Aerion expects to spend time and
$2.2 billion to land its jet in the market by 2014, citing a lack of
available talent (a shortage of engineers) as a primary obstacle.

[Kingfish]

On Oct 10, 8:19 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> SUPERSONIC BIZJETS INCH CLOSER TO REALITY
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/975-full.html#196352)
> Gulfstream, Supersonic Aerospace International and Aerion Corp. are
> all whittling away at their supersonic bizjet models as the market for
> such designs leaps closer to credibility. The Teal Group, through Vice
> President of Analysis Richard Aboulafia, believes that demand for
> supersonic travel is significant -- over 20 years of production, the
> Teal Group sees a market for up to 400 jets and Aerion aims to make
> its jet the first available offering. Aerion expects to spend time and
> $2.2 billion to land its jet in the market by 2014, citing a lack of
> available talent (a shortage of engineers) as a primary obstacle.

There'll always be a market for SSBJs - probably the folks flying BBJs/
G550/Globals might make the leap.

BTW, Aboulafia is a loud-mouth who makes outrageous statements to
generate media buzz. (just ask Vern Raburn, amongst others)

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:27:13 -0700, Kingfish >
wrote in m>:

>There'll always be a market for SSBJs

They wouldn't useful today for domestic travel. Doesn't that
significantly impact their marketability?

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:27:13 -0700, Kingfish >
> wrote in m>:

> >There'll always be a market for SSBJs

> They wouldn't useful today for domestic travel. Doesn't that
> significantly impact their marketability?

The inability to fly supersonic over most land masses certainly
impacted the Concorde's marketability.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Kingfish]

On Oct 11, 2:02 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:27:13 -0700, Kingfish >
> wrote in m>:
>
> >There'll always be a market for SSBJs
>
> They wouldn't useful today for domestic travel. Doesn't that
> significantly impact their marketability?

It sure does, but I've recently read about new nose spike technology
being tested to reduce the sonic boom. If it's successful (and can be
applied to a SSBJ) maybe the FAA might reconsider. I can see them
being successful for trans-Atlantic/Pacific use though, range
permitting.

[[email protected]]

Kingfish > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2:02 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:27:13 -0700, Kingfish >
> > wrote in m>:
> >
> > >There'll always be a market for SSBJs
> >
> > They wouldn't useful today for domestic travel. Doesn't that
> > significantly impact their marketability?

> It sure does, but I've recently read about new nose spike technology
> being tested to reduce the sonic boom. If it's successful (and can be
> applied to a SSBJ) maybe the FAA might reconsider. I can see them
> being successful for trans-Atlantic/Pacific use though, range
> permitting.

You have to convince more than the FAA to allow supersonic flight
in general.

At one time, supersonic flight over CONUS without prior arrangement,
and especially if coming from outside CONUS, was an automatic shoot down.

I have no idea if that has changed.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Big John]

Jim

I spent many years in the Air Defense Command (from fighter pilot on
alert to Cmd and Control in a SAGE Block House) and never heard about
any authority to shoot down an aircraft going super sonic as the
criteria.

During the cuban Missile crisis I ran a shift on the Dias in a SAGE
center and we controlled all the fighters in the sector, launching
them and giving them shoot down authority.

Where did you get your shoot down info?

Big John
************************************************** *****************

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:15:03 GMT, wrote:

>Kingfish > wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 2:02 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:27:13 -0700, Kingfish >
>> > wrote in m>:
>> >
>> > >There'll always be a market for SSBJs
>> >
>> > They wouldn't useful today for domestic travel. Doesn't that
>> > significantly impact their marketability?
>
>> It sure does, but I've recently read about new nose spike technology
>> being tested to reduce the sonic boom. If it's successful (and can be
>> applied to a SSBJ) maybe the FAA might reconsider. I can see them
>> being successful for trans-Atlantic/Pacific use though, range
>> permitting.
>
>You have to convince more than the FAA to allow supersonic flight
>in general.
>
>At one time, supersonic flight over CONUS without prior arrangement,
>and especially if coming from outside CONUS, was an automatic shoot down.
>
>I have no idea if that has changed.

[[email protected]]

Big John > wrote:

> Jim

> I spent many years in the Air Defense Command (from fighter pilot on
> alert to Cmd and Control in a SAGE Block House) and never heard about
> any authority to shoot down an aircraft going super sonic as the
> criteria.

> During the cuban Missile crisis I ran a shift on the Dias in a SAGE
> center and we controlled all the fighters in the sector, launching
> them and giving them shoot down authority.

> Where did you get your shoot down info?

Army Air Defense Command.

I was oversimplifying.

We were authorized to track, lock on, and arm warheads for unannounced
supersonic traffic.

Final authority to launch came from ARADCOM or, within certain guidelines,
the battery Commander.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Big John]

Jim

Went to the Army missile school at Fort Bliss and never heard about
that there either.

When I went super sonic never got a warning in cockpit that a missile
radar had locked on to me back when we could go SS over the US.

And that leads to a war story.

Oxnard had F-89's (carried 104 2/75 FFAR's). The Commander at Oxnard
and the Navy commander at China Lake were good drinking buddies.

Oxnard got a call from Navy one day that a drone had got away and was
drifting toward Los Angles. Oxnard was asked to shoot it down, so a
pair of F-89's were scrambled.

They were vectored up and closed very close behind the drone (filled
the windscreen) and the first fired his full load of rockets (104 of
them in salvo) and punched some holes in the drone and it kept on
flying. The 2nd F-89 came up and did the same thing. None of the 208
heads that hi the drone exploded. It kept on circling and drifted
south of LA and ran out of gas and bellied in with no damage to anyone
on ground.

The FFAR's that were fired impacted a county road north of LA and blew
big holes in it :o) as the heads had armed well before they hit the
ground.

The report went up channels to Washington and 2 things took place.

1. All 89 pilots were again briefed that the heads of the FFAR's did
not arm for several seconds after they were fired to give them time to
clear the launch airplane.So not to try to fire them very close to a
target. Let the radar fire them which would give proper separation.

The second thing that happened was that in any future case like this,
authority to fire had to come from Washington.

6 months after this, another Navy drone got loose around Seattle. ADC
launched alert birds and tailed it all the way down the coast until it
crashed north of LA again not hurting anyone on the ground. Washington
would not let anyone fire on it over the US :o(

End of true War Stories for today :o)

Big John

*********************************************
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:35:02 GMT, wrote:

>Big John > wrote:
>
>> Jim
>
>> I spent many years in the Air Defense Command (from fighter pilot on
>> alert to Cmd and Control in a SAGE Block House) and never heard about
>> any authority to shoot down an aircraft going super sonic as the
>> criteria.
>
>> During the cuban Missile crisis I ran a shift on the Dias in a SAGE
>> center and we controlled all the fighters in the sector, launching
>> them and giving them shoot down authority.
>
>> Where did you get your shoot down info?
>
>Army Air Defense Command.
>
>I was oversimplifying.
>
>We were authorized to track, lock on, and arm warheads for unannounced
>supersonic traffic.
>
>Final authority to launch came from ARADCOM or, within certain guidelines,
>the battery Commander.

[[email protected]]

Big John > wrote:
> Jim

> Went to the Army missile school at Fort Bliss and never heard about
> that there either.

I went to the Army missile school at Fort Bliss and never heard about
that there either.

It wasn't until I was on an actual missile site.

> When I went super sonic never got a warning in cockpit that a missile
> radar had locked on to me back when we could go SS over the US.

Not surprising. In most of CONUS, most of the time the radars weren't
even turned on, much less was there someone looking at them; that was
someone else's job.

> And that leads to a war story.

A new pilot arrived at Osan AFB and decided to go take a ride in his
F4 before he got the ROK SOP briefing. How he managed to do that,
I have no idea, but I'm sure some procedures changed after that.

One of the missile sites spotted him (there were always hot sites
in the ROK unlike CONUS) going places he shouldn't be.

The guano hit the rotary impeller, every site in the ROK went hot,
and Osan sent fighters.

The fighters found him quickly (not surprising since there were so
many people tracking) and before he did anything dumb enough to get a
missile laundhed up his ass and escorted him back to Osan.

There he found the base Commander waiting to escort him to a transport
back to the States. You might call it a career limiting move on his
part.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Big John]

Jim

Can remember when Army missles in CONUS were placed under NORAD for
operational control. While ADC kept birds on 5 minute alert 24/7 there
was no requiremant to keep the missles hot until the early warning
radar picked up in bounds (or during exercises).

Over seas the rules were different.

Back to Bizjets. I prog them to be operational within 10 years with
just a little more technical work and change of FAA rules.

Big John
************************************************** ********

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 06:35:03 GMT, wrote:

>Big John > wrote:
>> Jim
>
>> Went to the Army missile school at Fort Bliss and never heard about
>> that there either.
>
>I went to the Army missile school at Fort Bliss and never heard about
>that there either.
>
>It wasn't until I was on an actual missile site.
>
>> When I went super sonic never got a warning in cockpit that a missile
>> radar had locked on to me back when we could go SS over the US.
>
>Not surprising. In most of CONUS, most of the time the radars weren't
>even turned on, much less was there someone looking at them; that was
>someone else's job.
>
>> And that leads to a war story.
>
>A new pilot arrived at Osan AFB and decided to go take a ride in his
>F4 before he got the ROK SOP briefing. How he managed to do that,
>I have no idea, but I'm sure some procedures changed after that.
>
>One of the missile sites spotted him (there were always hot sites
>in the ROK unlike CONUS) going places he shouldn't be.
>
>The guano hit the rotary impeller, every site in the ROK went hot,
>and Osan sent fighters.
>
>The fighters found him quickly (not surprising since there were so
>many people tracking) and before he did anything dumb enough to get a
>missile laundhed up his ass and escorted him back to Osan.
>
>There he found the base Commander waiting to escort him to a transport
>back to the States. You might call it a career limiting move on his
>part.

[[email protected]]

Big John > wrote:
> Jim

> Can remember when Army missles in CONUS were placed under NORAD for
> operational control. While ADC kept birds on 5 minute alert 24/7 there
> was no requiremant to keep the missles hot until the early warning
> radar picked up in bounds (or during exercises).

When I was in, and in CONUS, the system was normally in standby (this
was the tube days and it took a while for things to warm up) but the
radars weren't on unless there was a drill, exercise or an alert.

It was NORAD that scanned the skys on a daily basis.

There was a difference between a hot battery and a hot missile.

In a hot battery, everything was turned on, operational, and manned,
but the missiles are not necessarily hot.

In a hot missile, the missile is fully armed and ready to fire; I only
say that happen once in CONUS.

> Over seas the rules were different.

Very much so, partly because there was no NORAD and partly because
batteries still had some HE warheads.

> Back to Bizjets. I prog them to be operational within 10 years with
> just a little more technical work and change of FAA rules.

Unless someone finds a way to totally eliminate the sonic boom, I
don't think that's going to happen, at least not over the US mainland.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

<jimp> wrote

> Unless someone finds a way to totally eliminate the sonic boom, I
> don't think that's going to happen, at least not over the US mainland.

I'm not so sure. If they get the sonic boom down in decibels, to where it
is not very loud, I would not find them objectionable, at least in the
daytime.

They say that the new boom management may make the boom barely audible.
Weight is a big help, or lack of it, in making the boom with smaller
pressure spikes, at least that is what they say.

I expect the ssbj (did I just coin a new term, or is that already in use?)
to be developed, and to start flying the oceanic routes. After it is in
use, if the booms are really small, then, perhaps the powers that be may
start to allow continental ss flights.

Even if they don't allow ss continental flights, if they flew at .98 mach,
it would still cut down on the time to cross the country.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Morgans > wrote:

> <jimp> wrote

> > Unless someone finds a way to totally eliminate the sonic boom, I
> > don't think that's going to happen, at least not over the US mainland.

> I'm not so sure. If they get the sonic boom down in decibels, to where it
> is not very loud, I would not find them objectionable, at least in the
> daytime.

What you or I would accept will most likely not be the official acceptance
level.

> They say that the new boom management may make the boom barely audible.
> Weight is a big help, or lack of it, in making the boom with smaller
> pressure spikes, at least that is what they say.

> I expect the ssbj (did I just coin a new term, or is that already in use?)
> to be developed, and to start flying the oceanic routes. After it is in
> use, if the booms are really small, then, perhaps the powers that be may
> start to allow continental ss flights.

The Atlantic is such a big deal, but the Pacific is as the Concorde showed.

> Even if they don't allow ss continental flights, if they flew at .98 mach,
> it would still cut down on the time to cross the country.

AIR, the fuel burn goes up enourmously as you approach MACH 1 then goes
down after you pass it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> AIR, the fuel burn goes up enourmously as you approach MACH 1 then goes
> down after you pass it.

Yep, but the guys that are going to be using a ssbj don't care about cost
as much. To them, time is money, and the quickest way across the country is
the way to go, and cost be damned.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Morgans > wrote:

> > wrote

> > AIR, the fuel burn goes up enourmously as you approach MACH 1 then goes
> > down after you pass it.

> Yep, but the guys that are going to be using a ssbj don't care about cost
> as much. To them, time is money, and the quickest way across the country is
> the way to go, and cost be damned.

There weren't enough people with that attitude to keep the Concorde
flying, but it was a bigger AC.

We'll see...


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Kingfish writes:

> There'll always be a market for SSBJs - probably the folks flying BBJs/
> G550/Globals might make the leap.

How useful can they be as long as supersonic flights are prohibited over land?
They would be useful only for transoceanic flight, and usually aircraft
designed for supersonic flight are not very practical for subsonic flight, so
owners would have to have two or more aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> I'm not so sure. If they get the sonic boom down in decibels, to where it
> is not very loud, I would not find them objectionable, at least in the
> daytime.

I never found sonic booms particularly objectionable, especially compared to
so many other types of noise that one encounters in urban settings. The
objections to them were overblown.

> I expect the ssbj (did I just coin a new term, or is that already in use?)
> to be developed, and to start flying the oceanic routes. After it is in
> use, if the booms are really small, then, perhaps the powers that be may
> start to allow continental ss flights.

Only if the powers that be are flying the SSBJs themselves, which they
probably will be.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Morgans writes:
>
>> I'm not so sure. If they get the sonic boom down in decibels, to
>> where it is not very loud, I would not find them objectionable, at
>> least in the daytime.
>
> I never found sonic booms particularly objectionable, especially
> compared to so many other types of noise that one encounters in urban
> settings. The objections to them were overblown.


That's because you've neve heard one up close, moron.


Is there any subject you know anything about?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Kingfish writes:
>
>> There'll always be a market for SSBJs - probably the folks flying
>> BBJs/ G550/Globals might make the leap.
>
> How useful can they be as long as supersonic flights are prohibited
> over land? They would be useful only for transoceanic flight, and
> usually aircraft designed for supersonic flight are not very practical
> for subsonic flight, so owners would have to have two or more
> aircraft.
>

You're an idiot.

You have no idea of what you're talkinbg about.

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

<jimp> wrote
>
> There weren't enough people with that attitude to keep the Concorde
> flying, but it was a bigger AC.

I thought it was not going to be supported because it was too old to keep
being repaired, and the makers did not want to make that much effort. Was
it not still being used close to capacity? I thought it was.

Plus the fact that it was not being used for continental use. A fast US
cross country use would be an entirely new service. To be able to go from
many cities in the US, to many other cities would be a valuable service for
the big wigs of the country.

You are correct. We shall see! :-)
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Morgans > wrote:

> <jimp> wrote
> >
> > There weren't enough people with that attitude to keep the Concorde
> > flying, but it was a bigger AC.

> I thought it was not going to be supported because it was too old to keep
> being repaired, and the makers did not want to make that much effort. Was
> it not still being used close to capacity? I thought it was.

The Concorde was an economic losser for a bunch of reasons, but mostly
because it used too much fuel, nobody would let it fly supersonic over
their country, and it couldn't cross the Pacific.

About the only thing that kept it flying as long as it did was the
national prides of England and France.

> Plus the fact that it was not being used for continental use. A fast US
> cross country use would be an entirely new service. To be able to go from
> many cities in the US, to many other cities would be a valuable service for
> the big wigs of the country.

Lots of "ifs" in that and the US isn't the only potential market, so...

> You are correct. We shall see! :-)
> --
> Jim in NC

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.