Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?  
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10712 times:

Quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser

"There is speculation however in the industry that the Sonic Cruiser design is far from gone. Boeing would like to pursue a "bleedless" engined 737 replacement, however the engine diameter increase could preclude the use of engines being mounted below wing. A scaled down version of the Sonic Cruiser design (albeit slower) in the 737 capacity and a 2+2+2 vs 3+3 cabin could be just what Boeing launches in the coming years to round out its fleet of very fuel efficient aircraft."

Is this likely? Would have been really cool to see if the replacement of the 737 would feature rear mounted engines like the DC-9.  Smile


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6530 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10668 times:

The engines IMO should be around the size (or slightly larger) than the 757. The 757 uses wing-mounted engines, so therefore the 737 replacement should. They should offer both CFM and IAE engines IMO.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10654 times:

Heh, the 717 would have been a better platform to build on....oh well. How the cookie crumbles as they say.

User currently offlineStratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10642 times:

Unless Boeing comes up with a way to do this while keeping the price comparable to that of a 737, it is not likely. Not just sales price, but operational, maintenance, etc. (Life cycle cost).

A sonic cruiser goes a little faster than today's airliners, which can amount to a significant time saving over long distances, however at short distances this time saving would be fairly neglectable.

So once again, unless Boeing can keep the life cycle cost the same (which would be very impressive) dont expect to see a 737 sized sonic cruiser.

On a side note, it would be very cool to see a sonic cruiser like replacement for a 737.



Forever New Frontiers
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10606 times:

Isn't Y1 more likely to resemble a C-17 than a Sonic Cruiser?

User currently offlineBoeingguy1 From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 415 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10591 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
Is this likely? Would have been really cool to see if the replacement of the 737 would feature rear mounted engines like the DC-9.

With fuel prices where they are today, I would love to see a re-incarnation of the 7J7... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7J7



Gatwick South! Id rather crash in Brighton!
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10543 times:

I suppose it very much depends on what you identify as 'Sonic Cruiser technology'.

The possible canard design was the Sonic Cruiser idea's most eye-catching feature, but many of the less obvious features being built into the 787 - lighter weight, better streamlining, thinner high-aspect-ratio wings, lower cabin altitude, and of course bleedless engines - are products of the Sonic Cruiser project.

Those new technologies, plus the benefit of further design experience gained from the 787 programme, will obviously be built into any replacement for the 737. To that extent, the Sonic Cruiser project is far from 'dead'.

But, though it will be a lot lighter and faster than the current 737, I still expect Y1 to look a lot more like a conventional airliner than the Sonic Cruiser design. The canard aeroplane design has been in and out of favour many times since it was first tried in the early 1900s, but it has never really 'stuck'.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10543 times:

For shorter range operations, the speed advantage of the sonic cruiser cannot justify the additional cost. It might someday make sense for 6000-8000nm trips, but it definitely doesn't make economic sense for 1000-4000nm trips. I would be stunned if Y1 were to have a higher cruise speed than the B787.

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 976 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10518 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
A scaled down version of the Sonic Cruiser design (albeit slower) in the 737 capacity and a 2+2+2 vs 3+3 cabin could be just what Boeing launches in the coming years to round out its fleet of very fuel efficient aircraft."

A slowed-down Sonic Cruiser is the 787. In 737-size, it's the Y1.

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
Would have been really cool to see if the replacement of the 737 would feature rear mounted engines like the DC-9

Unlikely.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 2):
Heh, the 717 would have been a better platform to build on....oh well

Hardly !

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
A sonic cruiser goes a little faster than today's airliners, which can amount to a significant time saving over long distances, however at short distances this time saving would be fairly neglectable.

Boeing's biggest fan, Southwest Airlines, will be a key customer in defining the Y1 737NG replacement.

For WN to get anything out of a faster aircraft, it would need to quickly reach an economic cruise of Mach .95-.98 and reduce turn-time by 30% just to give one more utilization per day. WN will likely say: more fuel efficency please. Sonic Cruiser-like designs will be vetoed by a conservative, fuel sensitive industry.

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 4):
Isn't Y1 more likely to resemble a C-17 than a Sonic Cruiser?

Perhaps, Boeing patented a high-wing semi-wide body. However, a patent doesn't necessarily hint at anything.

The high-wing would allow higher bypass engines without compromising ground clearance, and a wider body could speed turn-time.

Quoting Boeingguy1 (Reply 5):
With fuel prices where they are today, I would love to see a re-incarnation of the 7J7

The same fuel efficency can now be gained with much more conservative technology than the UHB propfan. It won't come off the shelf...


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10512 times:

Larger engines could be fitted to the wing if it had ground clearance similar to the 757. 757 uses the same basic fuselage design as the 737, it just has a longer undercarriage, and can fit a large pair of fans under. IMO, the 797 should resemble this, with two big fans under the wings, and a tall undercarriage. I imagine 797 will look like a smaller 787, and if it flies as fast as 797, i'll be impressed. Typically long range aircraft fly faster. 737, 757, and 320 all fly in the .78-.80 range, with the 757 able to cruise up to .82. The 787 flies at .85, if the 797 is that fast, it'll be impressive.


"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineGrantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10411 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 9):
Larger engines could be fitted to the wing if it had ground clearance similar to the 757. 757 uses the same basic fuselage design as the 737, it just has a longer undercarriage, and can fit a large pair of fans under. IMO, the 797 should resemble this,

The problem with the 757 was always that it was built a little too large and shrinking it to create the originally proposed 757-100 was not economically practical. I can't see how the Y1 could possibly resemble the 757 yet fulfill the mission of the 736.

If the engines for the Y1 will be similar in size to those of the 757, Boeing will have to find some arrangement whereby those rather large engines can be used on a plane in the 736 size range.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 976 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10369 times:

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 10):
I can't see how the Y1 could possibly resemble the 757 yet fulfill the mission of the 736.

It's rather simple...

Composite fuselage and structure will prevent the high/low end variants from suffering unnecessary structural weight. Boeing can scale "one and a half" wings so that the larger variants have adaquet lift and the smaller variants are not lugging around dead weight. Engines can also be scaled and retain partial commonality (like the Trent, PW4000, and CFM families). A versatile family of aircraft can be imagined approx as:

Standard wing:
- 100 seats 3000 nm range
- 150 seats 3500 nm range
- Standard engine
- Seating optimized for efficent labor utilization in LCC config

Heavy wing
- 200 seats 4500 nm range
- 250 seats 4000 nm range
- Scaled up engine
- Reinforced wingbox with span insert
- Optional belly tanks

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 9):
757 uses the same basic fuselage design as the 737, it just has a longer undercarriage

That means extra weight and extra maintenance on the landing gear. It also puts the under belly out of the reach of bag loaders and MX crews.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10362 times:

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 10):
The problem with the 757 was always that it was built a little too large and shrinking it to create the originally proposed 757-100 was not economically practical. I can't see how the Y1 could possibly resemble the 757 yet fulfill the mission of the 736.

Wasn't one of the reasons that Boeing hesitated to build the 757 that it would be to close in capacity to the 737?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6530 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10342 times:

I am doubtful that Boeing will make a 737-600 sized variant. That market has been taken over by Embraer. The largest variant should be 757-200 sized IMO.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10320 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
The largest variant should be 757-200 sized IMO.

Looking at the current success of the 73G and 738 I doubt Boeing is keen on giving this away  Smile

Don't count on Boeing to give up on the 736 size just yet. Even though the current version is a heavy plane, doesn't mean that the weight will be an issue on the next generation. Composite structure will give Boeing some benefits. And different wingsizes.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30974 posts, RR: 86
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10287 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I would think Boeing would prefer the 757-style of tall undercarriage allowing clearance for larger engines on a low-mounted wing then having the engines at cabin-level hanging off a high-mounted wing with a "shorter" undercarriage for the Y1 program.

User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10262 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
I would think Boeing would prefer the 757-style of tall undercarriage allowing clearance for larger engines on a low-mounted wing then having the engines at cabin-level hanging off a high-mounted wing with a "shorter" undercarriage for the Y1 program.

This is why rear mounted engine would make sense for the Y1. Large engines and low ground clearance.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30974 posts, RR: 86
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 16):
This is why rear mounted engine would make sense for the Y1. Large engines and low ground clearance

Well WN and FR will certainly heavily influence many of the plane's basic physical dimensions. If their passenger and baggage load/unload equipment is designed only to service a 737-high frame, and cannot accomodate a 757-high one, then I imagine Boeing will be forced into somehow working within the current 737 height.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 976 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10213 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 16):
This is why rear mounted engine would make sense for the Y1. Large engines and low ground clearance.

Engines are not as efficent with a large fuselage in front of them. T-tail aircraft are also heavier and more complicated than under-wing aircraft.

Simply going to a high-wing solves many problems


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10146 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
The largest variant should be 757-200 sized IMO.

I expect the longest stretch of Y1 will have 80-85% the cabin floor area of the B787-3/8.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21525 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10087 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
I would think Boeing would prefer the 757-style of tall undercarriage allowing clearance for larger engines on a low-mounted wing then having the engines at cabin-level hanging off a high-mounted wing with a "shorter" undercarriage for the Y1 program.

the reason the 737, 727 and DC9 variants were low to the ground was that they were designed for a time when they would be flying to airfields without ground equipment.

They could be serviced by pickup trucks and brought their own stairs (optional on early 737s).

The A320 and 757 were designed at a time when this wasn't as important a factor. The 757 would be going to more established airports, and 5 years later when Airbus started on the A320, it was seen as a European airport solution, that fit with their international airport structure and established ground equipment bases.

By 2012, the idea that you should build a low to the ground aircraft from scratch would be just too costly a sacrifice for the overall design. Most modern jetways and airports have to 'bend down' to reach the 737s and MD80s, and it would actually improve (by a few seconds) arrival time by simplifying jetway movements.

Expect the 797 to be higher off the ground, at the same height as 757s, 767s, 787s, etc. There would be no need for an overhead wing in this case, especially if the wing was angle up like the 777.

Though an overhead wing would be cool, I don't think it is necessary, it would add noise to the cabin, eliminate the possibility of an overwing exit, etc.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9207 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18):
Engines are not as efficient with a large fuselage in front of them. T-tail aircraft are also heavier and more complicated than under-wing aircraft.

Simply going to a high-wing solves many problems

I was not aware of this. Makes sense though.

I have some questions regarding high-wing aircraft.

1: Does the high-wing aircraft provide more lift than a low-wing aircraft with the same wing-span?

2: Does the the high-wing aircraft suffer speed penalties. All high-wing aircrafts seems to have a slower cruising speed.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9106 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
"There is speculation however in the industry that the Sonic Cruiser design is far from gone. Boeing would like to pursue a "bleedless" engined 737 replacement, however the engine diameter increase could preclude the use of engines being mounted below wing. A scaled down version of the Sonic Cruiser design (albeit slower) in the 737 capacity and a 2+2+2 vs 3+3 cabin could be just what Boeing launches in the coming years to round out its fleet of very fuel efficient aircraft."

Anyone can post any crap on wikipedia and there is virtually no check on accuracy. It could have been an a.netter who submitted the above crap about a scaled/slowed down sonic cruiser. Slowing from an inefficient transonic M.9x you have a M.8x aircraft which is basically a current day subsonic aircraft. Also to put a transonic class plane on shorthaul missions you gain nothing over a subsonic class plane. Save 5 minutes off a 2-hour flight? Who cares? Probably burns 10% more fuel to save the 5min.

And 2+2+2 cabin? what's that crap?

Your B737 replacement will, yes, be a slightly more efficient aircraft, but not super efficient. Shorthaul business is very different from longhaul. Emphases are on ground turnaround efficiency and climb/decent performance. As long as cruise performance is good-ish then it's not as important as many other things. Yes every drop of fuel saved = $$ but unless they can justify the extra $$ they have to spend to enable this efficnecy gain you ain't gonna see it happen.

Composite it will be. Larger cabin diameter than the B737 but otherwise looks exactly the same or very very very similar. The larger cabin diameter will probably allow a slightly bigger engine core and a higher BPR. Bleed or no bleed debatable (shorthaul). Blended winglets on longer range versions, otherwise wing fences or raked tips. No sharkfin. No C17 style high wings or T tail. No engine mounted above wings. Boring looking old plane. Basically a composite B737. That's my educated guess.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9006 times:

Quoting Boeingguy1 (Reply 5):
With fuel prices where they are today, I would love to see a re-incarnation of the 7J7

I remember that. Did they ever solve the issues with prop fans? I think Antonov built a prop fan powered plane, cant recall the name.


User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8954 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 16):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
I would think Boeing would prefer the 757-style of tall undercarriage allowing clearance for larger engines on a low-mounted wing then having the engines at cabin-level hanging off a high-mounted wing with a "shorter" undercarriage for the Y1 program.

This is why rear mounted engine would make sense for the Y1. Large engines and low ground clearance.

Absolutely. But this will NEVER happen since it was Boeing in their "infinite wisdom" that is killing off a line with (40) forty years of tail-mounted engine experience. Efficiency be damned...this is company pride issue.  rotfl 


25 Razza74 : What about UDF technology?
26 Boeing7E7 : Which nulifies one of the 737's advantages of ground loading. Close to the ground with easy access.
27 William : The reason the 7J7 had a 2+3+2 cabin (the same as 767 width) was pax comfort. Surveys had shown that the pax love the 2+3+2 seating. However the Propf
28 Post contains images OyKIE : I was very tired when I read this. Thought you meant 757-200 should be the smallest variant. No I do not use drugs According to DfwRevolution the sam
29 1337Delta764 : Some have told me that the 7J7 was supposed to have a 2-3-2 cabin, others tell me it was supposed to have a 2-2-2 cabin? Which one is it?
30 Stitch : Some of Boeing's Y1 internal design studies show a widebody config for the reason William noted in Reply 27 - making embarking and disembarking faste
31 Stratofortress : 2+2+2 seems a little unrealistic. First off it really does not take that long to empty a 737 sized plane, so decrease in turn around time in exchange
32 Scbriml : Assuming a conventional configuration, the next generation of single aisle planes will need to be higher off the ground to be able to fit larger, mor
33 FlyBoy84 : I recently flew on an AA flight where the plane was late. Once it got to the gate (it was empty) the gate agent said it would take about 30 minutes t
34 Greasemonkey : The 7J7 would not be very feasible with the UDF engines and current noise regulations. -GM
35 Boeing7E7 : Unless of course they aren't under the wings or mounted to a high wing as suggested. Some airlines care, some don't. For those that do (Continental/S
36 Okie : And the answer is economics. Problem 1 with Sonic Cruisers Design is Engines. High bypass designs only operate in the .84 mach or less realm very eff
37 Scbriml : Agreed, but we were talking about the 737 replacement not RJs and Turboprops. I was just trying to illustrate that the "disadvantage" of a higher pla
38 Rampart : That "crap" would be much appreciated by this long-legged passenger. Legions of us would go out of their way to book a flight in such a plane, with 4
39 Quickmover : 2+2+2 seating = No middle seats (which passengers hate). Awsome idea.
40 DfwRevolution : With 100% certainty, the 7J7 was 2+2+2 If Wikipedia says 2+3+2 it is mistaken. I submitted a correction a few weeks ago, and I certainly hope it has
41 Scbriml : But the last few years have seen a dramatic change in that landscape. I don't dispute the 737 is still more dominant in the LCC segment, but it's har
42 Post contains images DfwRevolution : Well, depends on what you're counting as your last few years. Since 2000, nothing has changed dramatically. The year of dramatic change was 2000 when
43 Zvezda : Actually, a 2+2+2 cabin would provide slower turnaround times and lower passenger comfort than a 3+3 cabin of the same width. One 24 inch aisle in a
44 IRelayer : Just something that I wanted to comment on... I have noticed a huge rampup of these types of discussions in the past few months both here on A.net and
45 Post contains links Tifoso : It most certainly is. Here is a link to the patent filing at USPTO. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...txt&s1='twin+aisle'.TTL.&OS=TTL/ Boeing ha
46 Post contains images Seanp11 : I would like to offer my two cents. I think the high wing is improbable. The landing gear would require some kind of external structure to house the g
47 Spink : While I'm all for an additional 2 inches of seat width, I doubt it will happen. I also don't agree on the 24 inch aisle being better than two 18 inch
48 Boeing7E7 : Most carriers use 19-20" anyway, so here's to two 20" aisles.
49 Rampart : Thanks, Tifoso! Didn't occur to me to look for the patent database. I actually didn't know it was online. Well, that's proof. My concern was that the
50 Post contains links Areopagus : DfwRevolution did us the service in an earlier thread ( http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/1685725 ) of posting a facs
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 As 757/767 & 777/330 Replacement posted Thu Apr 26 2001 21:54:51 by F4N
Boeing 737 Replacement As Early As 2012? posted Fri Dec 30 2005 12:41:53 by Sq212
Boeing And Lockheed Martin JV On 737 Replacement? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 22:56:32 by Lumberton
Rear-engined, 5-abreast Low End 737 Replacement? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 22:38:12 by 1337Delta764
AS 737-400 Combi posted Sun Oct 15 2006 02:30:06 by EIPremier
Chances Of Y3 Being A "Sonic Cruiser" posted Thu Jul 20 2006 00:31:47 by Ruscoe
AS 737-800 Deliveries/MD80 Retirement posted Sun May 21 2006 00:06:36 by EIPremier
AS 737 Combi Retirement Livery posted Thu May 18 2006 02:51:04 by HarrisAir
Air Namibia Looking At 737 Replacement posted Mon Apr 24 2006 14:40:09 by Flying-Tiger
Sonic Cruiser Technology posted Sun Apr 9 2006 07:53:42 by MrComet