An Idea Whose Time Has Come? Supersonic Bizjets

SUPERSONIC BIZJETS INCH CLOSER TO REALITY
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.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.

On Oct 10, 8:19 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
SUPERSONIC BIZJETS INCH CLOSER TO REALITY
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.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)

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

There'll always be a market for SSBJs

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

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

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.

On Oct 11, 2:02 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:27:13 -0700, Kingfish
wrote in om:

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.

Kingfish wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:02 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:27:13 -0700, Kingfish
wrote in om:

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.

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 om:

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.

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 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