# why don't we already have supersonic business jets (SSJBJ)? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 27, 2015, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992 "2015-01-27T08:30:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2015, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/41 "2015-01-28T11:18:04Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > I would like to see some cites for that. Really that much more than a 747 per passenger mile? Why does that seem so implausible? The ‘high density’ configuration of concorde ran with 128 seats - I think transatlantic 747s run 300-400 seats so even if the airframe and fuel costs were identical, you’d be looking at around triple the cost per rpk or whatever they call it. Factor in the costs to keep those super-rare airframes flying, ouch. And that’s if you totally ignore the cost of the multinational government sponsored development programme at the bleeding edge of technology spread over a mere 20 airframes Just for comparison: 747 - over 1,500 built concorde - 20 built, total of 67 engines built Space Shuttle - 5 built Of course, if they built 1500 concordes they would be a hell of a lot cheaper to own and run, but that was never going to work out in the real world. On the noise issue, everyone talks about the sonic boom but don’t forget Concorde had a power pack consisting of four afterburning turbojets derived from a 1950 (not 1950s, 1950) bomber engine. They weren’t particularly out of the ordinary for the seventies but relative to modern civilian engines they were crazy loud. So in addition to all the extra costs for a ‘modern’ SST/SSJBJ you can add in a squillion dollars for the engines to be supersonic capable and meet modern noise regs. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2015, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/42 "2015-01-28T12:18:35Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > Pilots: aside from “Complex Aircraft”, what credentials would the FAA require to operate a 2 seater at mach 1.1? Well, for sure a “high performance” sign-off… ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2015, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/43 "2015-01-28T13:49:51Z")
This thread reminded me… There’s a MIG parked in a parking lot off U.S. 80 east of Dallas, TX. I could never tell if it was a MIG 15 or a MIG 17. If it’s any help with identifying it, the rudder is split so it doesn’t interfere with the elevators. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2015, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/44 "2015-01-28T14:36:35Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > As to 100 Heads of State of rich countries - can you imagine the reaction in the press if the President announced he wanted to sent 200 million on a new jet? I certainly know how it would go down in the UK (or any other parliamentary democracy!). The POTUS already spends [more than that](http://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/New-Air-Force-One/36) on new jets, though we haven’t actually bought any since 1990. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2015, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/45 "2015-01-28T14:39:03Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > . . . The Boeing entrant was named the 7007 (note the zeroes), if you want to search. . . . Same as the [2707?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2015, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/46 "2015-01-28T15:05:54Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > This thread reminded me… There’s a MIG parked in a parking lot off U.S. 80 east of Dallas, TX. I could never tell if it was a MIG 15 or a MIG 17. If it’s any help with identifying it, the rudder is split so it doesn’t interfere with the elevators. The -17 has rounded wingtips and three wing… strakes? Ribs? … instead of two. See [here](http://www.airplanesgallery.com/gallery/mig-17/mig_17_4.jpg). The -15 has flat wingtips and doesn’t have the small extra rib furthest to the outside on each wing. If the rudder is split I think it’s a -15 because the elevators on the -17 don’t go all the way back. ---
**Author:** ![fiddlesticks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddlesticks/32/18129_2.png) [@fiddlesticks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fiddlesticks)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2015, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/47 "2015-01-28T21:15:41Z")
When I was a kid in northeastern Wisconsin in the 1980’s, a BA Concorde visited the EAA Fly-In in Oshkosh. As I recall, they did at least one excursion trip during the visit north to Hudson Bay where they opened her up and scared some polar bears. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/48 "2015-01-29T00:28:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The POTUS already spends [more than that](http://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/New-Air-Force-One/36) on new jets, though we haven’t actually bought any since 1990. Actually, I just heard on the news tonight that Boeing won the contract for the next Air Force One, scheduled for delivery during the next administration. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/49 "2015-01-29T01:09:21Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Actually, I just heard on the news tonight that Boeing won the contract for the next Air Force One, scheduled for delivery during the next administration. Was there ever even the slightest doubt they wouldn’t? I thought the US government had to preferentially buy US for these kind of purchases and no one else makes a plane of that capacity. I would be surprised if AirBus even bothered to bid, would they be allowed to? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/50 "2015-01-29T01:52:26Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The -17 has rounded wingtips and three wing… strakes? Ribs? … instead of two. See [here](http://www.airplanesgallery.com/gallery/mig-17/mig_17_4.jpg). The -15 has flat wingtips and doesn’t have the small extra rib furthest to the outside on each wing. If the rudder is split I think it’s a -15 because the elevators on the -17 don’t go all the way back. The term of art is “fence” or “wing fence”. See [Wing fence - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_fence) which even has a pic of a MiG 17 showing it’s prominent wing fences. ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/51 "2015-01-29T04:57:26Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Was there ever even the slightest doubt they wouldn’t? I thought the US government had to preferentially buy US for these kind of purchases and no one else makes a plane of that capacity. > > I would be surprised if AirBus even bothered to bid, would they be allowed to? Apparently that [isn’t officially](http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/02/28/how-boeing-won-the-tanker-war/) true. In a practical sense, the Air Force One contract is a one and done kind of thing. Once the US has possession of the jets it does not matter if in the future, relations sour with Airbus. (so long as the parts for the jets are readily available on the world market, which they would be). That means that if they offered the same level of quality at a lower price, the U.S. government is theoretically required by law to buy from them. Obviously, in practice it does not work that way and Boeing seems to usually win the contracts. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/52 "2015-01-29T14:32:08Z")
Thanks, **LSLGuy**! > [@Broomstick](#): > > Actually, I just heard on the news tonight that Boeing won the contract for the next Air Force One, scheduled for delivery during the next administration. > [@coremelt](#): > > Was there ever even the slightest doubt they wouldn’t? I thought the US government had to preferentially buy US for these kind of purchases and no one else makes a plane of that capacity. > > I would be surprised if AirBus even bothered to bid, would they be allowed to? EADS was allowed to bid but failed to submit one on time. After the KC-135 debacle I’m not surprised. The only submissions were the Boeing 747-800 and… 787. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2015, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/53 "2015-01-31T04:40:18Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > It was my suspicion that, because of the “civilized hostility” between the British and the French (France blocked the UK’s into the EEC (forerunner of the EU), for instance), it became a matter of one-upmanship as the realities of the limits and costs became obvious - neither was going to suggest the obvious - let’s not do this. Ever see two kids in a staring contest? This is exactly what happened. When Britain & France wrote the contract in the 60s to jointly build an SST they included a clause which stated that if either side pulled out they would still be responsible for their share of costs! Even when it became undeniably clear from independent reviewers that an SST would never be profitable neither side wanted to be the one to suggest quitting. IANAL but I don’t see why they couldn’t have simply \*both \*agreed to null & void the agreement if they wanted to. > [@slaphead](#): > > Why does that seem so implausible? The ‘high density’ configuration of concorde ran with 128 seats - I think transatlantic 747s run 300-400 seats so even if the airframe and fuel costs were identical, you’d be looking at around triple the cost per rpk or whatever they call it. Factor in the costs to keep those super-rare airframes flying, ouch. And that’s if you totally ignore the cost of the multinational government sponsored development programme at the bleeding edge of technology spread over a mere 20 airframes > > Just for comparison: > 747 - over 1,500 built > concorde - 20 built, total of 67 engines built > Space Shuttle - 5 built > > Of course, if they built 1500 concordes they would be a hell of a lot cheaper to own and run, but that was never going to work out in the real world. Back when it was still running I looked up the cost of a flight on the Concorde on [Travelocity.com](http://Travelocity.com) just for laughs. A NYC-to-London ticket on the Concorde cost about $10,000 each way, **but** , a first class ticket on a 747 on the same route cost $9,000. If you had that kind of money the Concorde would certainly be a bargain, relatively speaking. But again, it was subsidized by the govts so to be profitable the fares should have been much higher. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2015, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/54 "2015-01-31T06:02:54Z")
I would imagine that, even the regulations of flying with a sonic boom notwithstanding, the high cost of such a supersonic private jet wouldn’t make it worth it to billionaires who could buy a cheaper airplane that would be slower - it’s only a few hours of difference per flight. Such “slow” current existing private jets are already decked out in luxury and style anyway, so it’s not like they are suffering on those plane flights - the rich folks are still having a super-comfortable flight. $80 million for a “slow” private jet that can take you to a destination in six hours versus $170 million for a “fast” supersonic private jet that can take you to a destination in three hours - it wouldn’t be worth it to spend the extra tens of millions of dollars just to shave a few hours off the flight. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/55 "2016-03-25T13:42:21Z")
Bumped. There’s a new proposal for a lower-cost SST, and Virgin is on board: [http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/aviation/boom-supersonic-plane-virgin-space-company/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/aviation/boom-supersonic-plane-virgin-space-company/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2016, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/56 "2016-03-25T18:34:54Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > … My question is, supersonic flight has been the commercial world for over 40 years, yet in all that time no company found it profitable to turn out a small supersonic jet for heads of state and the ultra-wealthy? … IIRC the commercial world never really found SSTs profitable, so scaling an SST down is likely to be less profitable. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/57 "2016-11-15T16:24:11Z")
An update on the Virgin proposal: [Richard Branson reveals prototype for supersonic passenger aircraft | Airline industry | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/15/richard-branson-supersonic-flight-virgin-boom) ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/58 "2016-11-15T20:41:53Z")
Great! I’ll book a flight on the Virgin SST! Right after I take a $250,000 trip to (near) space on Virgin Galactic! I mean. those flight ARE running aren’t they? They did start in 2014 from the bustling Spaceport USA in New Mexico, right? At least Burt Rutan isn’t sharing the blame - he retired while the project was still, theoretically, possible. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/59 "2016-11-15T21:01:24Z")
> [@GreasyJack](#): > > I think the argument from a strictly time-saving perspective is hard to make. The way private jets shine in that regard is in getting rid of most of the airport time on either end of a trip and being able to fly direct into smaller airports, which has the effect of making same day round trips to regional destinations practical which wouldn’t be if flying commercial. > > The amount of time you’d save by flying twice as fast would only be really noticeable on longer hauls and even then it wouldn’t be that big of a deal. For example, the Concorde shaved about 4 hours off NY to London, which is nice, but that’s not like a huge game-changing amount of time saved that suddenly makes it a doable day trip. The extra speed might be useful on longer trips, but not if you have to stop for fuel more often which you almost certainly would. Right, and the faster business jets (Gulfstream G650) have cruising speeds in the mach 0.85-0.90 range (562-595 knots). Going mach 1.1 wouldn’t shave much time off (~150 knots faster), which is a bit more than an hour off a Dallas to London flight. Anything shorter, and we’re talking trivial time saved. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2016, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992/60 "2016-11-15T21:27:50Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Hmm, theres 1645 Billionaires in the world according to Wiki and another 100 or so heads of state of rich enough countries. > > You telling me there isn’t 200 people out of that pool that wouldn’t pay big money for a supersonic jet if it could seat 10 people and travel cross pacific? yes, that’s what they’re telling you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-already-have-supersonic-business-jets-ssjbj/710992.md?page=4)