Boeing backs medium SUPERSONIC business jet for 2023

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by Doggzilla, Jul 29, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jul 29, 2019 #1

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    403
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    Im surprised this doesnt have its own thread. We previously had a thread on the subject of what would be required to replace the concorde, which actually turned out to be somewhat accurate.

    The Aerion AS2 is a Boeing backed supersonic 20 seat business jet set to fly in 2023. It travels Mach 1.6 (Twice the Mach 0.8 of most airliners) and has a range of 4750nm or almost 5500 miles/8800km.

    This gives it the range requires to fly the entire Atlantic and much of the Pacific nonstop. Mach 1.6 also happens to be the exact number we had predicted for a Pacific capable supersonic airliner.

    The project has also previously worked with Airbus and Lockheed before Boeing picked up development. So its definitely a promising project.
     
  2. Jul 29, 2019 #2

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,009
    Likes Received:
    1,362
    Location:
    Marion, Ohio
    If it is a "promising project", why did Airbus and Lockheed drop it?

    Sounds more like something Cessna or Hawker would be interested in.
     
  3. Jul 29, 2019 #3

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    403
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    Their contract hit its expiration date. Boeing picked them up in the middle of the Max controversy so they probably saw some potential for their next generation aircraft.

    They have been on a massive hiring spree lately after being accused of being unable to innovate.
     
  4. Jul 30, 2019 #4

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    403
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    Honestly Boeing is probably trying to use them as a proxy so that they can test new techs indirectly without risking their own stock value.

    It’s far safer to risk a smaller company than to risk their name being tarnished by another failure.
     
  5. Jul 30, 2019 #5

    Hephaestus

    Hephaestus

    Hephaestus

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,185
    Likes Received:
    258
    Location:
    YMM
    Bought them for IP rights probably like most purchases.
     
  6. Jul 30, 2019 #6

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    403
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    Anyone else concerned after looking at this thing?

    You can tell it was designed with Lockheed because it’s basically a multi engine F-104. Same exact wings and tail and long nose.

    The F-104 was notoriously dangerous because of this. So was the SR-71, both of which were prone to nasty spins during stalls because the long noses cause sideways divergence that flips them backwards.
     
  7. Jul 30, 2019 #7

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Toobuilder

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    3,248
    Location:
    Mojave, Ca
    No concerns. It's not technically relevant to any homebuilt I'm going to work on in my lifetime.

    I'd also suggest this thread is moved to the hangar for the same reason.
     
    rv6ejguy and don january like this.
  8. Jul 30, 2019 #8

    don january

    don january

    don january

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2015
    Messages:
    2,647
    Likes Received:
    1,074
    Location:
    Midwest
    Home built super sonic jet? that will fit in my budget. Great hanger talk tho. o_O
     
  9. Jul 30, 2019 #9

    litespeed

    litespeed

    litespeed

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    295
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think it is a very wise investment on behalf of Boing, yes I spelt it that way.

    A very cheap way to garner some press and a convenient smokescreen.

    Don't worry about the 737, just look at this shiny thing.
     
  10. Jul 30, 2019 #10

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    403
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    Ya, it’s probably better off in the hanger section.

    But still concerns me they are copying a known defective design.
     
  11. Jul 30, 2019 #11

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,580
    Likes Received:
    6,349
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    Why? Do you actually expect it to be built?

    I think that there is a calendar somewhere, starting circa 1966, that schedules an announcement of a supersonic business jet.


    BJC
     
  12. Jul 30, 2019 #12

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Aerowerx

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,009
    Likes Received:
    1,362
    Location:
    Marion, Ohio
    Well, Cessna almost made it, with the Citation X. Mach 0.95, IIRC.
     
  13. Jul 30, 2019 #13

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Vigilant1

    Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,071
    Likes Received:
    1,812
    Location:
    US
    The F-104 was "dangerous" primarily because of the very high wing loading in the much heavier later models (with radar, etc). Accident rates also increased when the plane was pressed into service at low altitude/IMC rather than the high altitude intercept role for which it was designed. The phenomenon you are referring to is called "inertial coupling" and it can significantly impair stall recovery in some situations. As a practical matter, ease of stall recovery would be a very minor safety factor in any aircraft designed as a supersonic business jet.
    Regardless, the plane will be intrinsically safe because it will never be built.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
  14. Jul 30, 2019 #14

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,580
    Likes Received:
    6,349
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    That is not close.


    BJC
     
    pictsidhe likes this.
  15. Jul 31, 2019 #15

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,649
    Likes Received:
    3,281
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    All the DC8 lovers would chuckle at .95.
    When the F104 first flew, it was a plane for the time. The US had only operated jet airplanes for 12 years and after Korea, technology was hopping and people were willing to bet on new. Essentially until the F4 came out. Grading an F104 on today is like saying Greedo shot first. No one has the guts to design a one use design like the 104 today. Let’s see no flying 104s no US manned space flight. I think there is a correlation.
     
  16. Jul 31, 2019 #16

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    403
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    Ya, that’s the problem. Why would anyone in their right mind use that kind of design when it’s limitations are so well known, and there are safer and superior designs available?

    **It says it uses old Vietnam era engines, so I have to assume these numbers are only for a proof of concept. I highly doubt they would use them on a cutting edge design.**
     
  17. Jul 31, 2019 #17

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    6,873
    Likes Received:
    1,856
    Location:
    North Carolina
    The F-104s commercial rival, the slightly older but faster EE Lightning had superb handling. Below around 80,000' anyway. But nobody has copied its planform. There is more to aerodynamics than the planform... Yes, it had plenty of negatives. Very limited range. Turned into a brick if the non-redundant hydraulics failed... Like the 104, it lacked anywhere to put a mouse, let alone passengers. It was designed as an interceptor, at which it excelled.
     
  18. Jul 31, 2019 #18

    litespeed

    litespeed

    litespeed

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    295
    Location:
    Sydney
    Why would they?

    I think that is the wrong question, going on their current form and love of retro designs with obvious flaws.

    If I said a few years ago "the Max is fundamentally deadly the way the designed it" no one would believe the god Boeing would do any such thing.
     
  19. Jul 31, 2019 #19

    Tiger Tim

    Tiger Tim

    Tiger Tim

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    2,876
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    Location:
    Thunder Bay
    Has anyone ever used a supersonic jet for business before? Seems to me if there really was a strong case for this that some weirdo would have had a private F-104 or something by now to scream back and forth across the Atlantic. Maybe the available surplus jets don’t have the legs to pull it off, or maybe the Internet has rendered really high speed commercial flight an expensive redundancy.
     
  20. Jul 31, 2019 #20

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    403
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    Not enough range. Only the Concorde had the range. The B-58 Maybe if the speed was kept down.
     

Share This Page



arrow_white