Overture: presentato il prototipo del successore del Concorde


indaco1

Utente Registrato
30 Settembre 2007
3,726
418
.
Comunque sono delle lumache a confronto della Starship di Elon Musk, se non disintegra i passeggeri e i vicini non si lamentano per il rumore :)


La versione piu' conservativa a un solo stadio potrebbe avere un range di 10,000 km (6,200 mi) avvicinandosi a Mach 20.

Visto che non lo scriveva nessuno l'ho scritto io, almeno SpaceX fa roba che vola veramente e ha fatto vedere i sorci verdi a Boeing, ULA, Arianespace ecc. in altre aree.
 

13900

Utente Registrato
26 Aprile 2012
10,148
7,751
Stiamo entrando in un mondo dove l'attenzione alle emissioni di CO2, e al rumore, e' in aumento crescente. Possiamo discutere quanto vogliamo su come il mondo dell'ambientalismo si focalizzi troppo sugli aerei quando ci sono centrali a carbone che emettono 10x volte Ryanair, quando le navi sono ancora alimentate a clinker e ci vorra' IMO 2030 a cambiare le cose... ma il trend e' quello. Gli aerei devono essere meno rumorosi, meno 'assetati', meno 'emittenti' (e ci stiamo arrivando, l'altro giorno ero a fare loops intorno a LHR e mi sono reso conto di un A350 solo quando ce l'ho avuto in testa, praticamente)

In tutto questo, che senso ha parlare di aerei supersonici? Possiamo menarcela quanto vogliamo, parlare di tecnologie mirabolanti che eliminano il sonic boom e quant'altro, ma rimarranno sempre e comunque piu' rumorosi e piu' assetati di un moderno turbofan. Concorde staccava i quadri in decollo...
 

A345

Socio AIAC
Utente Registrato
15 Novembre 2007
2,346
492
Piacenza, Emilia Romagna.
Stiamo entrando in un mondo dove l'attenzione alle emissioni di CO2, e al rumore, e' in aumento crescente. Possiamo discutere quanto vogliamo su come il mondo dell'ambientalismo si focalizzi troppo sugli aerei quando ci sono centrali a carbone che emettono 10x volte Ryanair, quando le navi sono ancora alimentate a clinker e ci vorra' IMO 2030 a cambiare le cose... ma il trend e' quello. Gli aerei devono essere meno rumorosi, meno 'assetati', meno 'emittenti' (e ci stiamo arrivando, l'altro giorno ero a fare loops intorno a LHR e mi sono reso conto di un A350 solo quando ce l'ho avuto in testa, praticamente)

In tutto questo, che senso ha parlare di aerei supersonici? Possiamo menarcela quanto vogliamo, parlare di tecnologie mirabolanti che eliminano il sonic boom e quant'altro, ma rimarranno sempre e comunque piu' rumorosi e piu' assetati di un moderno turbofan. Concorde staccava i quadri in decollo...
Concordo, ma soprattutto credo che sia venuto quasi completamente meno la domanda .
Il vero "guadagno" si avrebbe su rotte XLR (es. Australia), dove risparmiare 5-6 ore di viaggio farebbe la differenza, ma credo che in numeri sarebbero quasi nulli.
Sulle direttrici su cui già operava il Concorde, quanti sceglierebbero il supersonico al posto della flessibilità dei millemila voli giornalieri già presenti?
 

Seaking

Moderatore
Utente Registrato
1 Febbraio 2012
12,393
2,514
Stiamo entrando in un mondo dove l'attenzione alle emissioni di CO2, e al rumore, e' in aumento crescente. Possiamo discutere quanto vogliamo su come il mondo dell'ambientalismo si focalizzi troppo sugli aerei quando ci sono centrali a carbone che emettono 10x volte Ryanair, quando le navi sono ancora alimentate a clinker e ci vorra' IMO 2030 a cambiare le cose... ma il trend e' quello. Gli aerei devono essere meno rumorosi, meno 'assetati', meno 'emittenti' (e ci stiamo arrivando, l'altro giorno ero a fare loops intorno a LHR e mi sono reso conto di un A350 solo quando ce l'ho avuto in testa, praticamente)

In tutto questo, che senso ha parlare di aerei supersonici? Possiamo menarcela quanto vogliamo, parlare di tecnologie mirabolanti che eliminano il sonic boom e quant'altro, ma rimarranno sempre e comunque piu' rumorosi e piu' assetati di un moderno turbofan. Concorde staccava i quadri in decollo...
Ho incontrato quelli di Boom Supersonic un paio di anni fa e al momento delle domande gli ho chiesto se prevedevano di poter usare le medesime SID e STAR degli altri aerei o se era necessario pensare a procedure ad hoc: non mi hanno saputo dare una risposta. The devil is in the detail...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13900

belumosi

Socio AIAC
Utente Registrato
10 Dicembre 2007
14,948
3,168
Ottima analisi di AIN.

Elusive Funding Unravels Expansive Ambitions at Aerion
by Kerry Lynch
- May 28, 2021, 9:21 AM

Aerion Corporation shocked the aviation world when on the evening of May 21 the company confirmed it had ceased operations.
Aerion had appeared to be on the precipice of realizing its 18-year dream of building what many anticipated would be the first purpose-built supersonic business jet, the AS2. The company had decided on a final design that had been proved out in wind tunnel tests, and dozens of patents had been secured.
Aerion had sought to de-risk development with well-established suppliers. Many of the industry’s giants had signed on to the program, including Boeing, GE Aviation, Spirit AeroSystems, Honeywell, and Collins Aerospace.
The company had held a groundbreaking ceremony in December for a $300 million, two-million-sq-ft headquarters complex at Florida’s Orlando Melbourne International Airport (MLB) that was to have housed facilities for research, design, production, and interior completions of the AS2 supersonic and future aircraft.
As the progress was being made, the AS2 had generated enthusiasm regarding the possibilities for the market, with established operators such as Flexjet and NetJets publicly coming on board. In fact, Aerion claimed its order backlog had ballooned to $11.2 billion.
Meanwhile, the company had already teased its next product, a near hypersonic AS3 airliner that was to incorporate technologies developed through a joint research product with NASA.

And importantly, Aerion had helped convince regulators and lawmakers that the time was ripe to consider a fresh approach to certifying and accepting new-generation, more environmentally friendly supersonic aircraft.
DRAMATICALLY RAMPED-UP SPENDING
But while Aerion appeared to be moving forward with much momentum, it was also on the precipice of a dramatically ramped-up spend rate as it transitioned from being a design firm to an aircraft developer. At that critical juncture, the company's investors decided that was too much for them to bear without significant outside support.
Aerion knew from the beginning that its venture would be expensive, figuring it would take upwards of $5 billion to bring its supersonic business jet to market. Fort Worth financier Robert Bass—the key investor who backed the project, enabling it to launch in 2003—had early on set a limit on what he would spend, according to officials close to the company.
Aerion knew it would have to line up other partners. It was able to attract the likes of Airbus, Lockheed Martin, and ultimately Boeing. Airbus was not the right fit, however, because while interested in the technology, sources say, it was not as interested in building a business jet. The relationship proved fruitful while it lasted but ultimately was not going to get the AS2 to the finish line. Similarly, Lockheed Martin had different priorities.
After two wrong fits, Boeing appeared to be the right match. But the timing proved wrong. Aerion announced its partnership with Boeing in February 2019, just a month before the second of two Boeing 737 Max airliner crashes set off a global grounding of the manufacturer’s cornerstone new program. That grounding lasted more than a year, until December 2020.
In the interim, the pandemic set in, causing airlines to cancel numerous aircraft orders; in 2020 Boeing logged one of its worst years, posting a nearly $12 billion loss. Slogging through a double-whammy, Boeing in late 2020 shuttered its NeXt innovation division, which had focused on emerging technologies.
Even so, Boeing had ostensibly continued its involvement in the Aerion program. It had reportedly already invested several hundred million dollars for a 40 percent stake in the company and was appointed to two of the five positions on the Aerion board. However, its ability to continue at that level of investment was in question.
A SEARCH FOR INVESTORS
Meanwhile, the search for outside investment continued. Aerion reportedly was in talks earlier this year to go public through a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), Altitude Acquisition Corp. But as the SPAC market seemed white-hot this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission has given notice that it is stepping up oversight in this arena.
Aerion was said to have been “agonizingly close” to arranging for outside capital that would have provided the necessary push into production, said another source close to the company. However, during a pandemic that had already taken a heavy toll on one of Aerion’s key partners, Boeing, and on major suppliers such as GE Aviation, that outside capital proved elusive.
“Investors are fickle,” said one observer, noting that the eVTOL sector has been attracting heavy investments, particularly from the risk-takers in Silicon Valley, while a company such as Aerion has failed to secure the same.
Joshua Ng, a director with Singapore-based Alton Aviation Consultancy, said that the investment proposition for eVTOL aircraft is significantly different from that for supersonic aircraft. “With eVTOLs there is the aim to democratize air travel, but that is not the case for supersonic business jets, which will only ever be used by the super-wealthy,” he told AIN. “So, the overall addressable market for supersonic aircraft is much smaller. The question is whether existing business aircraft owners will trade up to supersonic. I’m not sure about that, especially given the range limitations.”
With no deal in hand, Aerion executives faced the difficult decision to cease operations and informed suppliers and employees of their fate. The company held a meeting on May 21 that was described as “bleak.”
That evening, Aerion issued a statement: “In the current financial environment, it has proven hugely challenging to close on the scheduled and necessary large new capital requirements to finalize the transition of the AS2 into production. Given these conditions, the Aerion Corporation is now taking the appropriate steps in consideration of this ongoing financial environment.”
FALLOUT FROM THE SHUTDOWN
The fallout was swift. Its anchor supplier, GE Aviation, discontinued development work on the twin-shaft, medium-bypass Affinity engine that was to have powered the Mach 1.4 AS2. GE Aviation also confirmed to AIN it was redeploying its Affinity team to other programs.
The engine-maker had announced plans in October 2018 to move forward with the development of the Affinity specifically for the AS2 and later revealed plans for the engine to be part of a family in the 16,000- to 20,000-pound-thrust range.
While widely believed to have borrowed from the CF56 core and to have adopted features from its new Passport business jet engine, the Affinity program had lost its launch platform after a year in which GE Aviation had to lay off at least 13,000 workers.
Other suppliers were forced to quickly move on past the AS2. Spirit AeroSystems, which had been selected to design and supply the aircraft’s forward fuselage, also was notified of Aerion’s decision to cease operations on May 21, a spokeswoman for the Wichita-based supplier told AIN. Employees working on the AS2 program were moved to other roles within the company to support its defense work and growing commercial aircraft production rates, she said. “Spirit is committed to working with other companies in the future on new and innovative technologies in the aviation sector,” she added.
Boeing expressed similar sentiments: “While we are disappointed Aerion could not secure additional funding to continue their work, we remain committed to working with innovative and creative partners who, like Aerion, continue to push limits on groundbreaking technology.”
Meanwhile, at least in the immediate aftermath, Aerion remains a going entity. The word “bankruptcy” has not been mentioned but to all those involved, it is clear that the company is taking steps to shutter.
High-level employees gave notice of their availability for other opportunities, and Aerion chairman, president, and CEO Tom Vice was believed to have been reaching across his network to make sure his staff was taken care of to the extent possible.
The fate of the company's intellectual property and some four dozen patents remains unclear, meanwhile.
A LONGTIME DREAM
Aerion began as a dream of keeping civil supersonic travel alive at a time when the Concorde had retired and with it most hopes for that form of flight. Dr. Richard Tracy, the noted aerodynamicists who worked for companies such as Lockheed and Douglas, formed Asset Group in 1991 to pursue his research in supersonic natural laminar flow. He teamed with Bass in the founding of Aerion in the early 2000s to use that research to form a foundation for a new supersonic aircraft.
Tracy remained with Aerion and Bass throughout its time.
Aerion slowly worked to flesh out the concept and developed a company with seasoned industry executives that brought credibility and interest to the possibilities of supersonic.
These included, over the years, former Learjet president Brian Barents, who retired from Aerion in 2018 as executive chairman, and former Gulfstream president Bryan Moss, who joined the Aerion board in 2018. As Barents retired, Vice, a former Northrop Grumman executive, took the helm of Aerion and brought with him an expansive view of a transportation network.
Under Vice’s stewardship, Aerion moved away from that original natural laminar flow design to a more traditional supersonic design that would be easier to industrialize and bring to market in a timelier fashion.
And a little over a year ago, he laid out a concept in which the AS2 would be just the beginning. Aerion would become a company that facilitated door-to-door travel through partnerships and use of novel air transportation modes such as the emerging eVTOL platforms.
PARTNERSHIPS AND TESTING
In addition to building a supplier base, Aerion had also begun to form partnerships to go down that road, including with eSTOL developer Electra, as it had launched its “Aerion Connect ecosystem.”
Aerion also had matured its more conventional approach with wind tunnel tests late last year and appeared to be ahead of a growing pack of would-be supersonic developers, some of which were close on its heels.
Critical to moving ahead with the technology were environmental approvals. Fully cognizant that the environmental community would never permit the return of a noisy Concorde, Aerion took a more practical approach, designing an aircraft that could be efficient at high subsonic speeds over land and supersonic over the ocean. This could serve as a starting point as it worked to convince regulators of a concept of accepting a sonic boom that still occurred but didn’t reach the ground with the same impact as the Concorde. Aerion was targeting just over supersonic in the Mach 1.2 range for that “boomless cruise” mode, while top speed could be Mach 1.4.
With a growing field of supersonic developers, Congress and the international regulatory community have begun to discuss such alternative concepts, and Lockheed Martin is planning noise trials with a demonstrator over land to test a softer thud or supersonic aircraft that do not produce the same noise or emissions profile. When Aerion began, this conversation was a nonstarter at the regulatory level. It was told to demonstrate that there was sufficient interest before regulators would consider evaluating noise requirements.
Beyond tackling the conundrum surrounding noise regulations, Aerion also recognized that clean emissions were critical in gaining acceptance of a supersonic aircraft and promised its model would fly on 100 percent sustainable fuel—a promise that all of the supersonic developers have made.
As this continued, analysts clearly saw a market for supersonic, but not for all of the players.
“The market is clearly there,” said Rolland Vincent, president of Rolland Vincent Associates and JetNet IQ creator/director. “Pricing has been established. The technology does not require any leaps of faith. Capital is cheap and [I thought] generally available.”
JetNet had forecast a 10-year market for 300 supersonic business jets, which incidentally was the forecast production rate Aerion projected for its AS2.
While it is unclear how much of Aerion’s backlog was backed with significant deposits, companies such as Flexjet appeared eager to move into that sector. Flexjet was to have been a launch customer, jumping onto the program as early as 2015 with an announced order for 20. More recently NetJets placed options for 20.
“Flexjet ordered its AS2’s from Aerion Supersonic in 2015 and the company has been a supporter of the program since then," said Kenn Ricci, principal at Flexjet parent Directional Aviation. "We were particularly impressed with the recent design changes and innovations generated by Tom Vice and his current team. While we are disappointed to hear from the company that they are ceasing operations, we understand the vast investment required by such programs to bring them to fruition and the inherent risks involved.”
INTEREST IN SUPERSONIC REMAINS
Flexjet remains interested in that market segment. Gulfstream, which has long been exploring supersonic possibilities but has never felt the timing was right, has long maintained that speed is among the top attributes that its customer base seeks.
But the next company in line to reach the supersonic market, Boom, initially has set its sights on an airliner. Unlike Aerion, though, Boom has built a demonstrator that it will first fly later this year or early next.
However, analysts such as Richard Aboulafia, v-p of analysis for Teal Group, have questioned the viability of commercial supersonics because of the costs. He noted that business jets and commercial airliners operate in very different economic models and said he believes there is more hope on the business jet side than for a commercial variant. “The prospects for supersonics exist with business. They do not exist with commercial,” he said.
Like Vincent, Aboulafia believes “there was indeed a reasonable level of market demand” and feels Aerion provided reasonable guidance at a $120 million price rather than a lower price that would be dependent on unlikely production numbers. He also recognizes the seasoned aerospace professionals Aerion brought on board.
But he conceded, “I don’t see a Plan D,” for Aerion after Boeing, and unfortunately, “The closer you get to the finish line, the bigger you are, the harder the collapse.” He also wondered whether the more recent suggestion of the AS3 was a “plea for help.”
Despite the market, he questioned whether the financial market may have made its statement on supersonics. “Aerion may be a category killer,” he said, adding that supersonic business jets “were the only appealing form of civil supersonics, and Aerion was always ahead of the pack. What are the chances that anyone will eagerly acquire Spike, Boom, or any of the others?”
Vincent agreed, questioning whether others could have success in that space. Others have questioned whether an established player, such as Gulfstream, would step into that spot.
Meanwhile, as Aerion announced its end of operations, it touted its successes. “The Aerion Corporation has assembled a world-class team of employees and partners, and we are very proud of our collective efforts to realize a shared vision of revolutionizing global mobility with sustainable supersonic flight. Since our company’s formation, our team has created disruptive new innovations plus leading-edge technologies and intellectual property.“
The company further said its aircraft met “all market, technical, regulatory, and sustainability requirements” and that the market for a new supersonic segment was validated by its order base.
—Contributing to this article were Charles Alcock, Jerry Siebenmark, and Chad Trautvetter

 

belumosi

Socio AIAC
Utente Registrato
10 Dicembre 2007
14,948
3,168
Due anni e mezzo fa avevo fatto due conti confrontando l'Aerion con il G500.
L'inefficienza del supersonico, era risultata evidente.

Per approfondire la questione "supersonico", ho fatto un confronto tra i dati (preliminari) dell'Aerion AS2, con quelli del nuovo Gulfstream G500, che ha autonomia comparabile. I dati di quest'ultimo sono tra parentesi.


Dimensioni esterne (m):
Lunghezza 51.8 (27.8)
Apertura alare 23.5 (26.3)

Dimensioni cabina (m):
Lunghezza 9.1 (12.65)
Larghezza 2.2 (2.41)

Già dai dati sulle dimensioni, emerge chiaramente l'inefficienza del format supersonico: pur essendo lungo quasi il doppio del concorrente, l'AS2 ha una cabina molto più piccola (circa 20mq contro i 30 del G500).

Pesi (t)
MTOW 60.3 (36.1)
Fuel 26.8 (13.7)

Dalle dimensioni (e dai consumi) non può che derivarne una stazza molto differente. Ne consegue una dotazione di carburante vicina al rapporto 2/1.

Autonomia (NM)
Subsonica 5.400 a mach 0.95 (5.200 a mach 0.85)
Supersonica 4.200 a mach 1.4

Da notare che a dispetto della velocità relativamente bassa (M 1.4), i consumi salgono parecchio rispetto al volo subsonico, per il quale peraltro l'AS2 non è ottimizzato.

Prezzo (M.USD)
120 (43.5)

Considerazioni finali.
L'A2 è un aereo che, viaggiando in subsonico, consuma il doppio del G500 (in supersonico ancora di più), offre una cabina molto più piccola del rivale, rispetto al quale ha un prezzo di acquisto quasi triplo.
Il tutto per poter guadagnare al massimo 2.5h nel percorso più ottimizzato possibile, cioè quello lungo circa 7.000km tutti sopra al mare.
Pur immaginandolo come un giocattolo per super-ricchi, non riesco a trovare una logica in questo aereo.

Credo che il rapporto costo/benefici tra supersonico e subsonico sarebbe abbastanza simile anche negli aerei di linea, rendendo quindi molto, molto remota la possibilità di vedere un erede del Concorde.

https://www.aerionsupersonic.com/

http://www.gulfstream.com/aircraft/gulfstream-g500
 

Casa

Utente Registrato
26 Novembre 2011
724
22
Domanda sul volo super-sonico, vediamo se riesco a farmi capire.
La resistenza di un aereo con l'aria è direttamente proporzionale alla velocità a livello sub-sonico, giusto? Ma superata la velocità del suono è sempre proporzionale o c'è un aumento maggiore della resistenza? O è la pressione che cambia?
 

D960

Utente Registrato
19 Aprile 2014
1,530
135
Domanda sul volo super-sonico, vediamo se riesco a farmi capire.
La resistenza di un aereo con l'aria è direttamente proporzionale alla velocità a livello sub-sonico, giusto? Ma superata la velocità del suono è sempre proporzionale o c'è un aumento maggiore della resistenza? O è la pressione che cambia?
Non c'è un rapporto di diretta proporzionalità fra resistenza e velocità in regime subsonico così anche come nel supersonico.

Nel subsonico la resistenza totale in generale è data dal contributo della resistenza parassita e quella indotta dalla portanza nelle ali. La resistenza parassita è dovuta alla geometria del corpo - resistenza di forma - , alla superficie del corpo - resistenza di attirito, all'assemblaggio dei corpi - resistenza di interferenza.
Nel supersonico idem e bisogna aggiungere il contributo delle onde oblique e normali che sono a tutti gli effetti discontinuità termodinamiche ed energetiche tali da rallentare il flusso - resistenza d'onda.
 

OneShot

Utente Registrato
31 Dicembre 2015
3,907
3,008
Paris
Non c'è un rapporto di diretta proporzionalità fra resistenza e velocità in regime subsonico così anche come nel supersonico.

Nel subsonico la resistenza totale in generale è data dal contributo della resistenza parassita e quella indotta dalla portanza nelle ali. La resistenza parassita è dovuta alla geometria del corpo - resistenza di forma - , alla superficie del corpo - resistenza di attirito, all'assemblaggio dei corpi - resistenza di interferenza.
Nel supersonico idem e bisogna aggiungere il contributo delle onde oblique e normali che sono a tutti gli effetti discontinuità termodinamiche ed energetiche tali da rallentare il flusso - resistenza d'onda.
Esatto. Se non sbaglio il rapporto dovrebbe essere 60% parassita, 29%indotta, 20% onda d'urto.
 
  • Like
Reactions: belumosi and D960

D960

Utente Registrato
19 Aprile 2014
1,530
135
Sono percentuali abbastanza verosimili - 20 indotta? - anche perché la resistenza parassita aumenta con il quadrato della velocità in modo direttamente proporzionale, mentre la resistenza indotta diminuisce con il quadrato della velocità in modo inversamente proporzionale man mano che la velocità relativa aumenta. Questo non toglie che le tre resistenze siano separate: la resistenza d'onda cambia con la derivata seconda della superficie lungo l'asse longitudinale; tuttavia se modifico la superficie alare per diminuire la resistenza di forma ho modifiche all'intero sistema portante e quindi alla resistenza indotta.

Insomma, per eliminare la resistenza dovrei far sparire l'aereo ma non so quanto convenga :cool:.
 

Mandrake

Utente Registrato
24 Luglio 2018
177
32
Cd.jpg
Questo è un grafico che mostra la variazione della resistenza totale a variazione di Mach in VRO. Dal mach critico (MCr) i valori della resistenza d'onda (DM) e della resistenza totale (Dtotal) continuano ad aumentare poiché aumenta anche il valore di spinta richiesto per il regime supersonico.
 

indaco1

Utente Registrato
30 Settembre 2007
3,726
418
.
Anche in quel caso potrebbe non essere un'esperienza piacevole.
Se hai un mezzo pressurizzato si puo' fare.


Traiettoria balistica ovviamente, neanche le ali funzionano dove non c'e' aria. Era un velato riferimento al mio post piu' su di qualcuno che ipotizza di fare trasporti point to point con la SS (cosa a cui non credo per i pax civili almeno a breve e medio termine, ma magari al DOD interessa, anzi, hanno stanziato qualche soldo per approfondire. Rischia di essere meno inverosimile di alcuni aspetti dei progetti descritti piu' su.).
 
Ultima modifica:
  • Like
Reactions: D960

13900

Utente Registrato
26 Aprile 2012
10,148
7,751
Io il belly flop di Starship lo affronterei solo a stomaco vuoto però.
 

enzomatto

Bannato
Utente Registrato
20 Giugno 2018
305
80
Io il belly flop di Starship lo affronterei solo a stomaco vuoto però.
Siedi in punta, praticamente sul centro di rotazione. Sei già in caduta libera, prenderesti forse un paio di g. E' dopo il belly flop che arriva la frenata, ma lì sei già schiena al suolo