Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Sonic Cruiser  
User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3178 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2966 times:

why are they still talking about the Sonic Cruiser on the Boeing website? I thought they scrapped it years ago.

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2840 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They did, but I imagine they keep it around for historical reasons for a bit.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2830 times:

And the concept is I think still alive and well, just not yet turned into a commercial product (the 787 is effectively a first spinoff).


I wish I were flying
User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

They were saying something like "eventually the airlines will come back to the idea of faster flight". Very well may be, but I don't think M0.98 is that attractive, even with an appropriate fuel burn. I'd rather expect either Aerion or SAI QSST to be developed into something bigger, to be offered to airlines, and both say 30-50 seaters are possible.

User currently offlineBoeingguy1 From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 415 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2688 times:

I would expect that something similar to the Sonic Cruiser would be the future of aviation- as long as we come up with an appropriate new engine (im talking a new fuel source, IE Ethanol...) and quite possibly something we might see (or our children) in the year 2075.


Gatwick South! Id rather crash in Brighton!
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2586 times:

I'm with RIX here, I want Aerion built, put in biz jet service, then offered in a 20-30 seat version, (or what you can fit in to provide reasonable comfort and not bollocks up the range too much).
Then I want BA to buy this version.
Then I want to be part of the maint/operations team on it.
So then I'd get at least the odd airtest on it.

An unexpected second supersonic chance.
You could never match the speed, service and comfort, (much better than many imagine), of Concorde.
I regard my last supersonic, OAE's retirement to BGI, as 'my Apollo 17'.
But an 'airline Aerion' would be pretty close, better yet, the aircraft looks very 'do-able'.
Unlike virtually every other proposed SST, some SSBJ's too.

Not Mach 2 or course, but an executive Aerion could leave LHR much earlier to Concorde by being much, much quieter.
(Having said that, we did, at weekends, operate plenty of 'extra' BGI's', start of charters, with push back times from 07.20-09.20).

I regard the Sonic Cruiser, liked our beloved white bird, as mainly a victim of Sep 11th.
Wouldn't have cared much for a LHR-JFK trip on SC, compared to Conc, still way too slow.
But plenty of other routes where it would make a difference, as well as looking great to arrive on!
I'd have liked to see BA with SC's in short.

Maybe one day.


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
Then I want BA to buy this version.

GDB, I'm absolutely with you here. If it comes to reality, I won't board this thing with any other airline until I go supersonic with BA again.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
Then I want to be part of the maint/operations team on it.

- yes, I, too, want you to be part of the team.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
You could never match the speed, service and comfort... of Concorde.

For Aerion, definitely not speed (however, interestingly, lower speed design is what makes it viable), but as for service and comfort... even a cabin yet more narrow than 2-2 of Concorde can be still comfortable, and it's not me who will tell you that BA will provide greatest service possible  Smile...

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
An unexpected second supersonic chance.

- yes, while not long ago all "future SST" talks were "never in at least 50 years, if ever". Now both Aerion "conservative, non-expensive" and SAI "almost no sonic boom" concepts already proved that it can be done much sooner, even if none of these two eventually flies. Now, who knows - wait for a couple of more breakthroughs, and... at least, it looks like Apollo17 will not be the last one ever to land on the Moon either!  Smile


User currently offlineDagell From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2470 times:

I heard that Airbus is thinking about making a sub-sonic or supersonic passenger jet. Any news on that?

User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Quoting Dagell (Reply 7):
I heard that Airbus is thinking about making a sub-sonic or supersonic passenger jet. Any news on that?

Probably like Boeing, they must be looking at it or just having feasability studies done etc to have some work in the back hand just in case.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2420 times:

In 1994, the Airbus nations did a study, drawing on concept work by BAe and Aerospatiale.
Like 30 years before, these descendants of Concorde companies came to very similar conclusions.

R/R-Smecna had a MCV-99, Mid Tandem Fan, engine concept.
Basically trying to be a high bypass turbofan for take off, landing, subsonic flight,then a low bypass engine for efficient supercruise (though a R/R rep told me they'd never match the Olympus 593's efficiency at Mach 2).

A challenge, that made the big modifications to Olympus, the reheat/nozzle system and most of all, the intake system on Concorde, look like a breeze.
(Which they certainly were not!)

But, still no supersonic overland, (though 2-2.5 times more pax than Concorde, much more range, much quieter).

However, more quiet/less emissions, was relative.
As restrictions in these areas were only going to be tougher in future, the goalposts were moving away much faster than any needed new technologies to counter them.
Boeing/NASA went through a similar, though much better funded process, coming to similar conclusions in 1998, ending the work that December.

Airbus eventually went for the VLA market instead, the rest you know, whatever you think of A380, compared to a SST, it was a wise move.


User currently offlineGusNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 143 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2232 times:

I always thought that the Sonic Cruiser was just a move from Boeing to get some attention of the press from the A380, which was all over the place at that time.

I never believe that Boeing really intended to build that plane. It was TOO "galactic" and revolutionary to and the benefit was to save a few minutes in a 5 hour flight? And they presented it when the A380 was right in the spotlight?

Mmmhhhh... it sounds like a publicity stunt to me...


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2201 times:

Quoting GusNYC (Reply 10):
sounds like a publicity stunt to me..

O-o-oh... Not again (just joking  Smile)!

Well, seriously: to me, too, it looked like something "too advanced" for "only 15% more speed" (that is more than few minutes in a 5 hour flight, though), and, indeed, not "a thing really to be built". But, yes, Boeing was very serious about the project - e. g., see "Flightpath" magazine by AIRtime Publishing, Vol. 1. There were photos of completed fuselage sections posted here - even if mock-ups, you don't make one just to "get some attention". And it's known pretty well that Sonic Cruiser was a part of "package" of designs that used the same R&D - one of them is known today as Boeing 787...


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Sonic Cruiser Technology posted Sun Apr 9 2006 07:53:42 by MrComet
Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement? posted Mon Jan 9 2006 00:53:46 by OyKIE
Sonic Cruiser posted Mon Jan 2 2006 08:51:55 by NASCARAirforce
Sonic Cruiser Team Still On Payroll At Boeing. posted Wed Sep 28 2005 11:34:39 by LufthanseatLAX
Could Boeing's Sonic Cruiser Have Been A BBJ? posted Tue Jul 12 2005 09:17:23 by Lehpron
Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted? posted Fri May 13 2005 12:28:39 by RootsAir
Sonic Cruiser? posted Sat Mar 19 2005 22:57:37 by NorCal
Return Of The Sonic Cruiser? posted Wed Dec 22 2004 22:25:18 by Mdsh00
Airbus E2 'Sonic Cruiser' posted Thu Nov 18 2004 05:35:36 by Katanapilot
Airbus Sonic Cruiser posted Sat Oct 2 2004 17:18:51 by VSXA380X800