That is a theoretical view. First the aircraft need an acceptable approach speed, a reasonable runway performance, and climb performance. If not happy wings has to extended. (Same story for the Concorde.) The Aerion seems made just for fulfill that conditions. I guess it will be a low runway-performer, not good for a business aircraft, build for stability and safety.
Usually are constructed after the engines. Aerion is opposite. They changed the engine already. A successful supersonic aircraft need to solve the engine problem first. Let me give some figures at FL650 M0.92 is about 155KIAS. AtFL800 M3.0 is about KIAS250. A nicely constructed aircraft(like wingsonly acft) can maintain a L/D of 40.

Well we are not talking the politics of envy here, I didn't decry biz jets as a whole but this is just ridiculous although an interesting exercise. Adding a huge VAT rating would in theory make no difference because apparently 'these are people for whom money is no object' so if that's the case and they want the plane that badly they can pay an 'enhanced price for it'. They might even like the idea as it makes them more exclusive.

I'm a triple engine flyer, but I really wouldn't fly this thing, even my boss would double the salary... :=:=:=

With all due respect, when "theory" meets reality, the manufacturer will build the thing where the taxes are not predatory, and the countries with the predatory taxes will not only get zero tax revenue, but will lose a good number of high wage jobs. The politics of envy are almost always self defeating.

I suspect that those who can afford a $70M G650, plus salary for pilots and cabin crew, don't bat an eye at the price tag for the fuel.

Fuel consumption will restrict range.

The AS2 is designed to fly 4,750nm at Mach 1.4 or 5,300nm at Mach 0.95. That's plenty of range for the planned mission profiles.

Flexjet is primarily a fractional-ownership company, and a big percentage of their client base are corporations (vs. individual customers). They can place these jets on coastal hubs and offer their customers supersonic transatlantic and transpacific flights -- NYC to London, Paris or even Moscow; SFO to Tokyo, etc.

For these corporations, the flights could be considered a deductible business expense. With oil prices forecasted to remain low, I'm sure they can work out the economics.

Having said that, Aerion is majority-owned by a billionaire, and I'm sure he and his buddies are looking forward to jetting around the world at supersonic speeds.

Ken V

The politics of envy (altho I have no desire to own a machine like this much as I love aircraft, so envy doesn't come into it) are almost always self defeating, but there is one little word in there you seem to have overlooked-'almost'.

And I think this is one of the cases where it isnt. It cannot be manufactured anywhere except USA France and Germany , possibly UK .

it will be hugely expensive and portrayed as a horrendous environmental harm device making it unlikely any public corporations would buy it .

It can easily be distinguished from any other business jet so a different tax rate can easily be applied .

Governments always like to slap down uppity rich people when they get the chance -which isnt often because mega rich people have a lot of influence but no one will buy the story in this case

It might cost a few jobs but only a few and anyone working on this project would have to be pretty special because of the technology and can easily get work elsewhere.

So I am not playing the politics of envy just saying this is one of those occasional steps too far

Having worked for several "High net worth individuals" for many years now I can tell you the economics of this will work. There are no shortage of individuals willing to pony up $120 million for a Supersonic biz jet, it's as much a matter of prestige as it is about time savings. A friend of mine who flies for a wealthy Saudi family recently told me that the principal had a just bought a new 777 for his wife to use on shopping trips because the 767 they had was too small!

As far as fuel economy goes; it just gets better with each new generation of jets, the G650 I currently fly burns the same fuel at M.87 as the G550 burned at M.84, although we almost always cruise at M.90, in fact in the past 2 years I've only made a handful of trips at less than Mach.9 and at that speed I still get better fuel burn than I did in the Gulfstream III at Mach.80

That's certainly not the general view in North America and most of the world... and maybe not even in Europe, noting that Airbus recently strengthened their partnership with Aerion to design the AS2.

Aerion is currently looking to build a new manufacturing facility, presumably somewhere in the US. They will receive full support from the local, state and federal governments to build supersonic business jets -- likely including significant tax breaks.

Will be interesting to see if any of the airlines take an interest in this and try and persuade Aerion to increase the size of the passenger cabin. BA of course have A318s that seat 32 passengers and do London City-JFK (via Shannon westbound). Would any airline attempt to use an enlarged AS2 for a similar service I wonder?

It's very difficult to design a quiet supersonic aircraft that's also fuel efficient.

The AS2 will carry max. 12 passengers yet it is nearly as long as a Boeing 767, with a very thin and long fuselage.

This type of design might scale up a bit, to around 20 passengers, but going beyond that will require many new technological breakthroughs.

A decade ago NASA outlined some goals for a "next next generation" (N+2) quiet supersonic aircraft capable of carrying 35 to 70 passengers at Mach 1.8 and a 4,000nm range.

The idea was to spur research and development activities for new technologies required for such an aircraft by 2020, and to enable an even more advanced N+3 supersonic airliner with up to 200 passengers by 2035.

However, analysis led by Boeing and partners a few years ago concluded that it is unlikely we will have the technology for N+2 by 2020. Indeed we will be lucky if the Aerion AS2 (considered an N+1 aircraft) or a competitor actually enters into service by 2023.

So for right now, only business-jet sized aircraft looks realistic given the environmental constraints.

This will be my last reply on this topic as I do not wish to get sucked into back and forth bickering. That being said, the desire to use predatory taxes to punish people because they are very rich and can afford things you can't even dream of is the very definition of the politics of envy.

To put this in perspective, while there is considerable pressure here in the USA to engage in predatory taxation, it remains a minority position and fortunately is generally frowned upon. Here in the USA not only is it unlikely predatory taxes will be applied to this project, but it is highly likely that local communities will offer tax breaks and other incentives to attract the manufacturer to their community. If you doubt that consider Virgin Galactic, founded and funded by a BRITISH guy, but operating in the USA. Only the very rich will be able to afford to take a ride in Branson's private space ship, and several states/cities in the USA competed and offered various INCENTIVES to have that space ship built and/or operated in their community.

Now, about this statement:
It might cost a few jobs but only a few and anyone working on this project would have to be pretty special because of the technology and can easily get work elsewhere.

The above statement is an acknowledgement that predatory taxation moves such high paying specialist jobs to another community. The point being missed is that as good as high paying jobs are for individuals, those jobs are even better for the community where those jobs are located. Just as important, the community is improved by having people with "pretty special" skills live there. You can't see that pushing those people and those jobs elsewhere is self defeating? If a community keeps that up, pretty soon that community will look like a typical coal mining town: dirty and depressed. It is self defeating. Do it at a national level, and the nation starts looking like a coal town. Sound familiar?

Yes, one of these incentives being a dirty great unpopulated desert! :E

Ken V

No need to respond because although we have disagreed unlike many on here we have discussed our points ina civilised manner . I certainly dont think you have been discourteous or rude in anyway to me personally and hope you feel the same.
Perhaps one thing where our countries are bit different is humour and especially sarcasm and I confess to being a fairly sarcastic individual at times .
All i would say if money is no object then why not take advantage of that and raise a bit of public money for hospitals road airports etc that the mega rich don't really use in the same way as the rest of us . In my view a supersonic bizjet is a step too far but I have no problem with business aviation in general and indeed recently enjoyed a tour round one of the worlds very best business airports just down the road from me

The owners keep the field in prisitine condition from an environmental aspect and go over and above regulatory requirements in this respect . They try very hard to be good neighbours and contribute significantly to the local community through charitable work and economy by employing a lot of people plus a large degree of indirect benefit via hotels catering etc etc etc. They are a private company owned by two very very wealthy men but they do things the right way.
Anyway lets call an end to it for there and agree to differ and I wish you and yours a happy Thanksgiving holiday. PB

For all business jet owners, the money is not a problem, simply because it's the most expensive and inefficient way of traveling, but actually this is the scope - to show off! I can afford this luxury, I own the most luxurious, the larger or the fastest business jet and always money will attract money.

There are many reasons for business jet ownership (or private aircraft ownership in general) other than to "show off".

Convenience, flexibility, and privacy, to name a few. Also many business jet owners are pilots themselves. Many enjoy the personalized service -- flying with the same friendly crew for years.

One of the first companies I worked for did a lot of business in remote areas in a different state, not served by any airline nearby. Our CEO often flew the company plane himself for meetings, site inspections, etc. I've flown right seat a couple of times.

Much more convenient and efficient than two days in a car each time. And time does equal money.

Nobody actually needs to fly an aircraft like this and any justification offered for it must sound fatuous.
Still, it's interesting to think that such an aircraft might actually come to exist and enter service.
I would be fun to spot for these at the major airports, with plenty of commercial service, from which this type would inevitably operate.
If I could afford the thing, or get someone else to pay for it, like the shareholders, I'd not mind having one myself.
The technical development that this aircraft would represent is a precursor of things to come, like a future Mach 2+ commercial Pacific-crosser.

" like a future Mach 2+ commercial Pacific-crosser."

you mean Concorde? :)

Concorde didn't have trans-Pacific supersonic range (at least not without stopping to refuel, which sort of defeats the purpose :rolleyes:).