Corporate Aircraft

I like your idea, especially a one-way trip.

there might be room in the Shuttle's cargo bay that's going to waste

NASA's Shuttle has finished. There is still Le Shuttle going from Folkestone to Sangatte, though.

What's it gonna' take to put you in this classic today? Did I mention we include his and hers parachutes?

https://www.silverstoneauctions.com/1976-hawker-siddeley-harrier-gr3-jump-jet

Those his and her parachutes are nice....but when you read the fine print, it says she has to sit on your lap as there's only one seat.

The problem with that is?

And she says "Is that the joy stick or are you happy to see me?"

Did that incident take place in the cockpit ?

Cost differential?

We don't have one running around - that's gonna be tough.

Osprey is the closest bet, but, that's a military bird.

Onboard VTOL for a bizjet is way too much trouble for its ROI.

Much better to have a separate VTOL platform to lift it up for some type of elevated launch.

Or

One or 2 launch, or limited used VTOL booster(rocket of some kind), put in just for take off.

Air Force has been doing it, i.e.: plenty of data there.

The current program for a commercial Osprey derivative, is the AW609. I worked for the avionics provider back when it was the BB609/BA609. It kept changing airframe manufactures, as it was a money pit of development moneys. And it's still not certified.

My memory was back 10 years ago, you could buy a biz-jet and 2 turbo-prop (all 12 seaters) for the cost of one tilt rotor. This was from a magazine article back at that time. But a wiki article Wiki_AW609 has a price estimate of $24Million(2005). Current price for a CJ1 is ~$3.6Million. So the price estimate is even greater differential from it's original design hopes.

The only market was north sea oil rigs, and far from shore search and rescue.

These are complicated machines, as they require flight augmentation computers that are fail operational, as the air frame is not stable. As well an engine failure is a loss of flight, so there are 5 transmissions as part of the cross feeding of power between the rotors.

'..VTOL booster (rocket of some kind)...'

.

Okay, I understand how a rocket booster might be viewed as a tried/true technology for the first three letters in that acronym, but that 'L' at the end seems a bit more tricky.

SpaceX and Blue Origin have indeed landed a rocket. I'm not ready to hop on just yet.

None whatsoever. It is up to the project champion, not CR4 readers, to determine the difference and to sell the concept to potential investors.

With teleconferencing and virtual reality making communication effectively instantaneous I don't see a market for business aircraft landing in a parking lot. If a business chooses to outsource work then some executives must endure the travel to and from an airport.

Keep the corporate jet and just hire a rotor jockey to take you to your final destination. Much cheaper solution.

Parachute out of the jet. This will get them to the meeting even faster. Saves money on helicopter fees.

Air-BOHN.

A drone coptor designed to pick up aircraft and then move them forward past their take off speed whilst releasing would be quite a trick.. The opposite approach for landing..

It will be proposed.

Amazing prediction. It just was.

English Electric worked on this in the '60s, but stalled because thrusters(jet engines) weren't strong enough back then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07N6qy3xhlY

What makes you think a corporate or a private pilot is going to invest in a SST?

Air France, (deep pockets) couldn't afford too fly them, Boeing and USSR, (at the time) fore-seen the money pit that they are and quit. The Concord couldn't keep their tail feathers intact let alone, cut tires, compressor stalls and burning out brake assy's on a short runway trying to land. I had the distinct honor to replace 2 brake assy's on the last Air France Concord. That type of aircraft isn't going to fly again in our life time.

Concorde, please.

Has anyone here seen the "Herculean" effort put forth to load the baggage compartment of the Concord(s)? The baggage compartment is accessed from the bottom of the fuselage, which is 15' or 5 meters off the ground.

Even at $15.00 p.hr, (Calif. new wages) wouldn't be enough pay for me to load one of those SOB's

I got volunteered to do brake jobs on one of AF's Concords because we were the only Hanger on the field that had jacks tall enough to raise the "lawn dart"

And, how do explain to the aircrew, let alone the paying passengers, they lost the top third of the rudder while in flight? And, yes they did suffer rudder flutter in a bad way.

Impressive during take off and landing, but if ever you wondered what it felt like to be in a sardine can ..... climb aboard a Concord.

Thanks, but no thank you.

I ran the Concorde II notion by my step son, a corporate type expat in Shanghai who does the crossing at least 6 times per year. A 4-5 hour flight from Dallas to Shanghai would be worth at least $10k to him...and maybe even more to some of his cronies, even the Chinese.

I don't think $10k for one passenger every other month will be a viable business model.

The president of Western Union had much the same initial reaction to A. G. Bell's "toy", a gadget for the entertainment of the wealthy on their estates. By the time Bell demonstrated with wires strung around the Philadelphia Exposition, Mr. Western Union publicly admitted how wrong he was.

We will see where the globalization market takes us on Concorde II.

Clearly the president of Western Union had a biased initial perspective that blinded him from seeing the future. The Concorde demonstrated that commercial supersonic travel of a hundred passengers could be profitable when fuel was cheap and telecommuting or tele-presence relied only on A. G. Bell's toy. Supersonic travel of twenty or less people as Concorde II will likely require a ticket fee much more than just twice the old Concorde ticket price. The cost of a personal, corporate supersonic vehicle will likely be even more.

I certainly agree with the ticket price assertion for the Airbus concept. I suspect the actual serious proposal will emerge from the outfit that has skin in the current game...Lockheed Martin's initial funding by the guvmint for the SR-72. Every step of the way LM will have its eye on a 100+ passenger commercial version.

A young PhD electronics engineer friend, who with a couple of others, has plunged into the cutting edge of hardened electronics development, has taken professional note of the demand for his services exerted by hardened hypersonic avionics.

It is not so much if, but when and in what form are we to have another generation of very high speed airborne passenger service.