Japan assembles superteam of aircraft component manufacturers to build supersonic passenger plane
- Reference: 1623911523
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/06/17/japan_supersonic_research/
- Source link:
The new organisation, Japan Supersonic Research (JSR), quietly signed itself into existence on March 31st. Yesterday, the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) [1]announced that it is a member, alongside Japan Aircraft Development Association, Japan Aerospace Exploration Association, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Kawasaki Heavy Industries), IHI Corporation, and Subaru.
Japan’s aerospace industry currently focuses on manufacturing components for aircrafts and engines, including wings and fuselages. Mitsubishi recently hangared plans to build its own mid-size passenger jet. Another more successful exception is Subaru’s joint manufacturing deal for the Bell 412 helicopter, sold locally in modified versions called the Subaru Bell 412EPX and XUH-2.
[2]
JSR’s vision is to engage in international joint development of supersonic aircraft by 2030.
[3]
[4]
JAXA’s contribution to JSR includes a decade worth of sonic boom research. The space agency already has an aircraft design with a nose much more pointed and needle-esque than the bird-like hook nose that Concorde used to improve pilot visibility during takeoff and landing. At one point, a JAXA aviation director [5]claimed the noise pollution from its supersonic aircraft’s takeoffs and landings would be half of that from the Concorde.
[6]
JAXA Supersonic plane concept.
Click to enlarge. © JAXA
The other problem with the Concorde was terrible fuel efficiency. JAXA thinks it has that under control too, thanks to its design being lighter than previous efforts.
[7]Pentagon confirms footage of three strange craft taken by the Navy are UFOs (no, that doesn't mean they're aliens)
[8]Virgin Galactic pals up with Rolls-Royce to work on Mach 3 Concorde-style private jet that can carry up to 19 people
[9]Want to own a bit of Concorde? Got £750k burning a hole in your pocket? We have just the thing
JAXA is betting on each individual member of JSR’s assembled team contributing expertise to make this endeavour viable, while enhancing individual members’ profitability.
JSR will have competition: United Airlines is buying 50 supersonic jets from Colorado startup [10]Boom Supersonic for use by 2029. That model is known as the Overture and it is expected to reach Mach 1.7. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.jaxa.jp/press/2021/06/20210616-1_j.html
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YMsdP1vpv3lbYrYjqrvbBgAAAMA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YMsdP1vpv3lbYrYjqrvbBgAAAMA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YMsdP1vpv3lbYrYjqrvbBgAAAMA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://global.jaxa.jp/article/special/aviation/ishikawa02_e.html
[6] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/06/17/handout_jaxa_supersonic_plane_concept_copyright_jaxa.jpg
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/16/us_pentagon_ufo/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/03/virgin_galactic_mach_3_not_quite_concorde/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2020/03/06/concorde_engine_for_sale/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/09/heirtoconcorde_demo_model_to_debut/
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: I wish them well
Indeed - have United really committed to buy? Or have they taken options to buy from Boom? Back when the Beatles were still together the top ten airlines had options on Concorde, by the time the Sex Pistols were in the charts they had none (Air France and BA only taking them because they were told to).
Re: I wish them well
Booms is a US company, therefore they do have options, and might even sell.
I doubt it, but they might suceed.
Good luck
Unlike Boom, they seem to have the experience so might actually produce a working airframe.
Still convinced that there's no commercial market, but good luck anyway.
Re: Still convinced that there's no commercial market, but good luck anyway.
well, the rich get richer, and their ranks grow rapidly (China!). It's not like it's meant to be a cheapo uber-fast ryanair to jet the great unwashed masses to Seychelles...
Re: Still convinced that there's no commercial market, but good luck anyway.
The richer rich got their own planes.
Having to share one with others pegs you as a mere millionaire at best. The kind of prole that has to walk down and get in line to have their passport checked, as opposed to just waiting in your plane's lounge for the officers to come to you.
Re: Still convinced that there's no commercial market, but good luck anyway.
> The richer rich got their own planes.
Or in the case of a couple of them, their own rockets which they may soon to able to use for point-to-point transport.
Interesting
There seems to be a sudden rash of companies sprouting up to make supersonic jet planes.
We've been hearing about a supersonic future ever since Concorde bit the dust. Might it actually come into being ?
Re: Interesting
It won't. Just wistful thinking by those that missed the chance to fly on Concorde (and over-romanticize the experience)
Re: Interesting
My experience is that it cannot be over-romanticised because it was just amazing.
Do we really need this ?
Will it not just increase the carbon footprint of the rich who will be able to afford the high ticket prices ?
Re: Do we really need this ?
Well, then the rest of us will just have to work harder on our bit?
Re: Well, then the rest of us will just have to work harder on our bit?
and it will be called a "sustainable carbon-footprint-offset-policy".
Damn, it does not abbreviate well!
Re: Well, then the rest of us will just have to work harder on our bit?
Sustainable Carbon-fOotprint-Offset-Policy
SCOOP - to pick up the steaming pile that it will undoubtedly entail ...
What baffles me about Concorde
My grandparents flew on Concorde once, in the very early 1990's. They did it for a milestone wedding anniversary as a treat. What baffles me is that they were born in a time when it wasn't even possible for people to fly to destinations, they then went through the 1970s(?) period where there was an huge increase in 747's and the like to get to destinations around the world. They then flew on Concorde. That was taken out of service just over 10 years after they flew on it... Now it's not possible to travel from London to Canada (that was the trip they did) in the time they did.
It seems to me like we've really taken a backwards step. I've watched the programmes about how Concorde was a financial loss, but a lot of that seems to be due to political shenanigans and terrible project management as opposed to the actual technology.
Everyone moans about budget airlines letting the great unwashed go to places for £20 after spending more than that on booze in Wetherspoons at the airport. There are about 2 million millionaires in the UK alone as of today. What's the missing piece here? Surely there is a market for this?
Re: What baffles me about Concorde
"I've watched the programmes about how Concorde was a financial loss, but a lot of that seems to be due to political shenanigans and terrible project management as opposed to the actual technology."
People seem to forget just how extremely complex Concorde was for it's time. The amount of bespoke electronics required to keep it flying (from flight controls to engine intake geometry computers) is astounding. One of the reasons Concorde was getting so expensive was the massive amount of ageing electronics aboard. In a more commercially viable craft with a larger fleet they'd have done a full avionics and electronics overhaul, replacing all those modules with more modern integrated circuits and computers (Probably saving a few hundred kilogram in the process) but by the time the crash happened most people with the required expertise and knowledge had moved on to other jobs, retired or became permanently unavailable. At that point replacement of many components would basically have entailed a full "from scratch" design with matching certification requirements. That just wasn't going to happen.
Politics certainly also played a role, but there was a lot involved in keeping Conc flying, even before the crash that sealed her fate. After that it was basically a done deal.
If you have a spare few months I'd highly recommend digging through [1]the thread on Concorde over at PPRuNe . Possibly the most complete repository of knowledge on everyday operation around Concorde, some the details in her designs and what choices where behind them, the functions of her computers and electronics modules, etc. Requires a bit of digging to find the gold, but there is so much gold there.
[1] https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question.html
Re: What baffles me about Concorde
Maybe traveling at this speed made no sense in the first place, as in, the constraints outweighed the benefits once the coolness effect wore off? We'll see how those project fare commercially.
I've been on Concorde
I first enjoyed Concorde sometime in the early 1970s. Alas it was a short journey of 0 miles in a static display of a prototype at the Farnborough Airshow, . Cool that it was, it's good that the flights are short, as it was more cramped than Ryanair.
Re: I've been on Concorde
If you are in the money league that you might be able to charter a Cessna Citation to get around Europe, a Concorde cabin is cavernous by comparison.
Supersonic passenger jets are doomed to fail unless sonic boom issues are resolved. A plane that can only fly supersonic over the ocean will not reduce practical travel times for most routes.
There's London or Paris to New York like the Concorde, but what else? When you're going three hours over land from, say, Frankfurt to Chicago no faster than a regular aircraft, then the advantage of saving two hours over the Atlantic does not make that much of a difference. Never mind the hours spent in lines for boarding and immigration, or stuck in the airport connecting.
No need to pay premium to save 2 hours on an 18 hour travel. Boom et al claim that tickets will be no more expensive than with a regular flight, which is obviously silly nonsense when you have a plane that is half the size and consumes a lot more fuel (not that they are willing to tell you *how* much).
Supersonic private jets might fill a niche for the super super rich, though. "Mine's faster than your puny Gulfstream!"
"Where else?" you ask. From where I sit, Melbourne–LA/SF, Melbourne-Buenos Aries (over the Antarctic) and Perth–Jo'burg would be nice.
I imagine, seeing it's the Japanese developing this, they have Tokyo–LA and Tokyo–Sydney in mind.
The other problem with the Concorde was terrible fuel efficiency
To be fair, Concorde's fuel efficiency was way better than what some other aircraft could do at that kind of speed.
Concorde really was a technological marvel of its time.
Dreams make great things
The first cars were not better than horse drawn carriages.
The first planes were not better than steam trains or cars.
But now we have great planes and cars.
Without the dreams of the people working to improve those things, we wouldn't have them.
It is great to see there are people trying to improve commercial aviation beyond the capabilities offered by a Boeing 707 released in 1958.
I wish them well
But I history does not bode well for their success.