Brad Mottier, VP of GE’s business and general aviation, and integrated systems business enterprise units, said here Sunday that GE has signed a “definitive agreement” with Aerion for a joint study to define requirements for the three turbofan engines that will power the Mach 1.5 AS2 business jet. The agreement culminates two years of discussions.

http://aviationweek.com/ebace-2017/supe ... -ge-engine

Big news for those of us who'd like to see supersonic travel again in our lifetimes. If it does happen it'll start with bizjets - studies have suggested bizjet owners will pay a 70% premium for speed, vs only 30% for the rest of us. And the Aerion AS2 looks to be the best bet of the current crop of concepts to make it. They have an engineering partnership with Airbus, and Flexjet have ordered 20. The worry was the length of time they were taking over engine selection, it was repeatedly pushed back. This looks hopeful.

Well ain't that a coincidence. Weren't you just talking about it in the other SS jet thread?

Yes, lol. I was wondering if an announcement might come at EBACE which starts tomorrow, but they've announced it earlier. My guess was RR though, so shows how much I know! I wonder if the presence of an engine (if indeed it does come to fruition) will solidify Gulfstreams efforts? Exciting times.

Indeed it is. I've always maintained that supersonic travel will arrive in the business jet world before to be shown "it can be done" before making a reappearance in commercial airlines. I genuinely feel that there would be a strong market for it as there was for the BA Concorde. Never underestimate the lure of SST, the prestige of it and how easy people part with their money.

Partnering Airbus and GE? Very impressive, best hope for the return of SST.

Wow... I'd like to know more about the engine. This is the best chance of a supersonic business jet.

Lightsaber

ZeeZoo wrote:

I've always maintained that supersonic travel will arrive in the business jet world before to be shown "it can be done" before making a reappearance in commercial airlines.

I guess the next question is (if I understood the article correctly) what justifies a trijet solution for a business aircraft but not for an airliner

Devilfish wrote:

I guess the next question is (if I understood the article correctly) what justifies a trijet solution for a business aircraft but not for an airliner

The proposed design was switched from a twin in 2014. The reasons given were runway performance and noise.

Just Mach 1.5? Why not push it to Mach 2 or higher? 1.5 is not even twice as fast as many of the competitive jets today.

Will Mach speed be restricted to over water areas due to the sonic boom on acceleration?

ZeeZoo wrote:

Indeed it is. I've always maintained that supersonic travel will arrive in the business jet world before to be shown "it can be done" before making a reappearance in commercial airlines. I genuinely feel that there would be a strong market for it as there was for the BA Concorde. Never underestimate the lure of SST, the prestige of it and how easy people part with their money.

Partnering Airbus and GE? Very impressive, best hope for the return of SST.

I don't think the agreement with GE is the same kind of partnership as with Airbus (My understanding is that Airbus has put $ into Aerion). I suspect this is just that GE was chosen as the preferred vendor to get the contract to study what could be done. I believe that this is a contract "agreement" not a partnership where GE is investing into the project.

As much as I applaud Aerions progress (although this is only a study to see what can be done for engines).

While there are numerous other "supposed" other projects, the only one with teeth is Boom.

https://boomsupersonic.com/

They are currently building a 1/3 scale prototype demonstrator aircraft using existing engines (the XB-1), which should be flying within a year in test mode.

It is my opinion that once the demonstrator returned reasonable numbers that they will have the investors necessary to build the full size passenger aircraft. Of course, if GE has developed a suitable engine... (although I think a derivative of the F22 engine would be the right size range for Boom).

Have a great day,

2175301 wrote:

ZeeZoo wrote:

Indeed it is. I've always maintained that supersonic travel will arrive in the business jet world before to be shown "it can be done" before making a reappearance in commercial airlines. I genuinely feel that there would be a strong market for it as there was for the BA Concorde. Never underestimate the lure of SST, the prestige of it and how easy people part with their money.

Partnering Airbus and GE? Very impressive, best hope for the return of SST.

I don't think the agreement with GE is the same kind of partnership as with Airbus (My understanding is that Airbus has put $ into Aerion). I suspect this is just that GE was chosen as the preferred vendor to get the contract to study what could be done. I believe that this is a contract "agreement" not a partnership where GE is investing into the project.

GE has to be putting some money on this or it wouldn't have taken years to negotiate.

Devilfish wrote:

I guess the next question is (if I understood the article correctly) what justifies a trijet solution for a business aircraft but not for an airliner

They answered that in a previous article:
For ideal supersonic thrust output, they need a 2:1 bypass ratio or less... but there's no engine on the market that can be modified to do that WHILE still developing the thrust they want AND able to run in compliance with 2020s noise/emissions standards.

Since getting a custom one developed would inflate the program's costs beyond an acceptable level, the solution was to have a tri. Three smaller-thrust engines at the lower bypass ratios needed. Still doesn't get them where they want to be (not 2:1), but closer.

For Aerion, it's not about just power, its about exhaust speed within noise regulations. For aircraft 40yrs ago, it wasn't about exhaust flow, it was about hard thrust limitations. Once those limitations were exceeded by engines like the GE90, TrentX00, PW4000-112; there was just no more need for widebody TriJets; just as the CFM56, V2500, RB211 and PW2000 did away with the need for narrowbody trijets.

Okcflyer wrote:

Just Mach 1.5? Why not push it to Mach 2 or higher?

Because it's not as simple as just giving it more thrust then calling it a day.

Operating at speeds beyond the transonic drag zone (M1.8+) requires significantly more exotic materials to handle the heat, as well as higher mtx costs, a complex ramping system for airflow intake (the Soviet Union spent more than a decade, with full government resources, and still couldn't quite get it right), etc.

And of course, all of this greatly increases the overall program development cost, quite possibly beyond a level which their budget (and targeted sales profile) would tolerate.

Wasn't Aerion (or maybe it was Boom) looking at a design that reduced the sonic boom, in hope of obtaining certification to fly over land while supersonic?

A Mach 1.5 design you can use over land would be much more useful than a Mach 2+ design that can only go fast over water and would need to be no faster than a Gulfstream anywhere else while burning twice the gas...

Francoflier wrote:

Wasn't Aerion (or maybe it was Boom) looking at a design that reduced the sonic boom, in hope of obtaining certification to fly over land while supersonic?

Was also the QSST program, and several others

BaconButty wrote:

Brad Mottier, VP of GE’s business and general aviation, and integrated systems business enterprise units, said here Sunday that GE has signed a “definitive agreement” with Aerion for a joint study to define requirements for the three turbofan engines that will power the Mach 1.5 AS2 business jet. The agreement culminates two years of discussions.

http://aviationweek.com/ebace-2017/supe ... -ge-engine

Big news for those of us who'd like to see supersonic travel again in our lifetimes. If it does happen it'll start with bizjets - studies have suggested bizjet owners will pay a 70% premium for speed, vs only 30% for the rest of us. And the Aerion AS2 looks to be the best bet of the current crop of concepts to make it. They have an engineering partnership with Airbus, and Flexjet have ordered 20. The worry was the length of time they were taking over engine selection, it was repeatedly pushed back. This looks hopeful.

I'm not sure I'd say a definitive agreement for a study sounds all that hopeful. I'm not sure I'd say an agreement for a study culminates discussions. Lots of sizzle, not much bacon.

16k lbs thrust requirement per engine I believe (flight int).Is that dry or wet thrust?

parapente wrote:

16k lbs thrust requirement per engine I believe (flight int).Is that dry or wet thrust?

Very unlikely that afterburners will be used on a future SST, even an SSBJ. Apart from the effect on fuel consumption, they dramatically increase takeoff noise (already a problem) and IIRC were a meaningful contributor to Concorde's high maintenance costs. Both Concorde B and the 2707-300 would have dropped afterburners in favor of increased dry thrust had those programs continued.

Thx.I was thinking (hoping) that the aircraft could t/o on dry thrust but use wet thrust only to take then through the gray/barrrier.But yes if not they would need the whole 9 yards within the engines dry thrust.
If the answer is a whole new engine then sadly I fear one can 'forget it'.

Francoflier wrote:

Wasn't Aerion (or maybe it was Boom) looking at a design that reduced the sonic boom, in hope of obtaining certification to fly over land while supersonic?

A Mach 1.5 design you can use over land would be much more useful than a Mach 2+ design that can only go fast over water and would need to be no faster than a Gulfstream anywhere else while burning twice the gas...

NASA has such a program. Reducing the boom by 90% is easily doable, but that still makes a noticeable boom.

The rule is a law, not an FAA rule, so it would take an act of congress to change. Which congresspeople are going to vote for "sonic booms" so the 1% can fly even faster in their business jets? I'm all for it, but imagine the more creative headlines.

I also suspect bans on supersonic flight over land will remain- no politician will ever support removing those bans.

Which politician is going to allow the sleeping young son/daughter of his/her voters to be woken up by some wealthy person who is too precious to travel at the same speed as everyone else?

I think I've just written someone's campaign slogan there.

kitplane01 wrote:

Which congresspeople are going to vote for "sonic booms" so the 1% can fly even faster in their business jets?

The same ones who just voted to take health insurance from 24million of the poorest people, so that the 0.01% can have a $200K/each tax cut.....