Blogging In Formation is at it again! But we have redesigned our format.
Each month one pilot will pick a topic of their choice, and we will discuss the issue on their site. One month, eight pilots, and we all have an opinion.
Today, join me at: The House of Rapp where Ron has written an incredible post on supersonic planes in the corporate world. Hear what the team has to say. We've got quite the discussion going, and I hope you'll join in!
But before you go...
What do you think?
Safety... Expense... Feasibility....
If they build it, will they buy it?
Enjoy the Journey!
I'll write a comment depending what you're going to say.ReplyDelete
Oh... you have to write your comment then go see what I said. Lol. I played devil's advocate on this one.Delete
Okay, I feel this subject has parallel lines. So I'll write some points. Thus I haven't made up my mind yet. Ready? Here we go:
1- There is an alternate source of energy. It lays on the sea-bed covering an area of 56% of Earth's ocean floor. Much more calorific than oil, but a bit more pollutant.
2- We don't intend to use pollutants anymore. Otherwise, there would be no point on ensuring a sustainable growth to aviation.
3- There is a magna list of issues to implement on the modus operandi of today's current aviation industry model. A task that should be done before creating supersonic jets in production line scale. Perhaps we should first develop better aviation corporate leadership concepts, better safety developments, more centralized and unified aviation authority bureaus, cut regulations fragmentation... This and that... First things first.
4- Corporate Supersonic Jets? Why? Is this Steve Ballmer's newest investment? I hope he realizes the "research part" will cost him 10 times the price he payed for the Dodgers.
Humor apart, I think we can look forward to supersonic jets. But I don't think we should put a deadline on developments right now. We just cannot afford to.
I love this! Okay... cut, and paste on the discussion on Ron's post. You're thoughts are brilliant as always.Delete
Wouldn't the money be better spent on the safety of existing aircraft and better training for future pilots.ReplyDelete
For the very select of certain passengers who could afford the prices it doesn't make sense to build these planes.
Airlines around the world are struggling, and with higher fuel prices make it improbable, at this time anyway.
Didn't we already go through this with the Concorde ?
Kevin, I so agree with you. But ventures like this are about big money, and wanting the newest and fastest. I don't think they think about where money could be better spent, because safety doesn't make a profit. Thanks for your comment.Delete
Yeah, we wish this industry was that innocent... :/Delete
Would be nice.Delete
As I said previously on twitter, we need a new Concorde. We need a form of SST which will not gulp the fuel like Concorde did before. Before AFR4590, Concorde was a profitable plane, and had it not been for AFR4590, I believe it would have continued to be such, for another few years. However, I believe if we have another SST, Concorde 2 perhaps, that was light on the fuel, as long as it could hit in excess of Mach 2.2 then I believe we could have something. Yes, it might not be for the general traveller going on holiday, but this would be great for those going for business reasons. How many times, have you heard somebody say that they hate long flights? It's a common feeling, yet how many said they hate to fly on Concorde? London to New York in 3 and half hours is something we can just dream about again...ReplyDelete
Think about it, in February 96, G-BOAD took just shy of 3 hours to fly from KJFK to EGLL. Takes double that in 2014. Step backwards?
This is a great comment Darren. We sure don't want to step back. Have you clicked on the link to the House of Rapp? Read what everyone is saying. There is such a debate for and against. All valid. Thanks so much for your comment!Delete
Interesting proposition. I don't know that much about it, but if the demand (along with deep pockets) is there, I can't quarrel with Rapp's logic.ReplyDelete
You're right...the question lies in the cost benefit analysis of the demand and the pockets for sure. But then... they will have to buy off some government officials for noise allowance too.Delete
Interesting you should post this. My last flight in the F-15 was supporting this precise Gulfstream project. I flew NASA 837, the F-15 with the canards on my last flight.ReplyDelete
My role on that flight was to fly the highly instrumented NASA 837 into the shock wave at vary particular spots (positions) from the test aircraft, NASA 836. It was a fantastic flight which is awesome since it happens to be my last in the F-15.
I really don't have an opinion if super-sonic travel will expand beyond the military. It's not easy though I think it can be affordable in the same sense that cars could be affordable after a lifetime of horse travel. My personal belief is commercial aviation hasn't had a revolution since the 747, or the 707 before it. All aircraft have been relatively close variations on the same theme. Whether aircraft manufacturers have the courage to embark on such a thing, I have no idea. I think issues with the Concord--i.e. supersonic down wave on the surface--has been substantially reduced from the 60's technology. The result should be more routes being available for supersonic travel. With more routes, more potential revenue.
Having lived many years in places that can be "legally" boomed, and don't like it. The bottom-line is once you get past the patriotic "sound of freedom thing," it's a pain in the rear not to mention the pain in the wall plaster, window, painting, yadayadaya. I think "they" have the "boom the ground" problem solved, however. Beyond that, it's a matter of engine technology to make the travel cost effective enough. We'll see, I guess.
Thanks for bringing up a great memory.
You are so welcome for the great memory. I had not thought about technology in the planes not changing much...and you're so right. Little evolutions but nothing earth shattering.Delete
And love your two cents on the boom. That's something we might not get over.
Thanks so much for your comment!