Boeing backs medium SUPERSONIC business jet for 2023

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,289
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.
 

Aerowerx

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
5,535
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.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,289
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.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,289
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.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,289
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.
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,722
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.
 

don january

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
2,797
Location
Midwest
Home built super sonic jet? that will fit in my budget. Great hanger talk tho. o_O
 

litespeed

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
1,557
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.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,289
Location
Everywhere USA
Ya, it’s probably better off in the hanger section.

But still concerns me they are copying a known defective design.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,073
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
But still concerns me they are copying a known defective design.
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
 

Aerowerx

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
5,535
Location
Marion, Ohio
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
Well, Cessna almost made it, with the Citation X. Mach 0.95, IIRC.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,833
Location
US
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.
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:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,823
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.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,289
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.**
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
7,426
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.
 

litespeed

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
1,557
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.
 

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
3,133
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.
 
2
Top