Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1858 posts, RR: 2 Posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5022 times:
Airbus's new350XWB will bring about a Boeing response. (which was in the pipeline anyway Y3).
I was thinking about this and wondered what the chances of the Y3 being a "Sonic Cruiser" concept.
In favour would be the attraction of faster travel.
Against it I see the price of fuel, assuming it cannot be made to be as efficient as a tube with wings, and the fact that Airbus has now shown their hand in this segment of the market and Boeing may feel they do not need to spend the extra money a Sonic Cruiser would require to "leapfrog" it.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1380 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4859 times:
Mach 1.6? Boeing's 2001 Sonic Cruiser proposal was for Mach 0.95 to 0.98. One of the managers (Gillette?) mentioned that it also had a supersonic secondary cruise speed but nothing that high.
The 787 fuselage came from the SC. The SC's wing was said to be of conventional (albeit CFRP) construction, with root gloves. Engines were to be developments of the 777 engines' cores. So, if in the future Boeing decides the time is ripe for a Sonic Cruiser, they can develop it from the 787.
Grantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4753 times:
I think that Boeing will be more likely to choose to introduce the Y3 when the market is right rather than because Airbus is attempting to compete with the A350-XWB. The B777 is still a very modern and competitive plane and will remain so.
I attended a public presentation about the 787 recently, and the Boeing spokesman indicated the extended use of composites was a definite spin-off from the Sonic Cruiser project. One of the benefits of carbon fiber is its low coefficient of expansion due to heat - ideal for near-sonic or supersonic speeds, if you recall how the Concorde would "stretch" in flight.
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4652 posts, RR: 37
Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4542 times:
In my opinion, the Sonic Cruiser concept is dead. It was very exciting, and I would have loved to have had the opportunity to take the left hand seat in it one day, but the economics simply don't stack up. As I said in another thread, it appears that the economic sweet spot in terms of efficiency versus speed lies in the Mach 0.8-0.85 area.
Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 9): I suppose this is where the possibilities of a sonic cruiser really exist. Irf Boeing can significantly cut that "extra" fuel burn then they will have a leapfrog aircraft.
The problem is that, save for any radical advance in aerodynamics that gets rid of the transsonic drag issue, anything they do to cut the fuel burn at Mach 0.98 will also cut the fuel burn at Mach 0.85. Unless fuel becomes very cheap again, and that extremely unlikely, then there will be no compelling argument to spend 20% more fuel to get 20% more speed.
The Y3 will more than likely be a conventional configuration airliner using the latest technology available, much like the 787 will be.
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 36
Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4427 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 7): The difference in fuel burn between 0.85M and 0.98M is about 20%. With fuel prices above $50/bbl, it's unlikely that passengers will pay that much more for the time savings.
Also, with high fuel prices, labor costs and capital costs are a lower component of overall costs, so improved utilization of equipment and reduced flight hours don't matter so much. Prior to the run up in fuel prices, non-fuel costs were 90% of AA's costs; now they are 70%. Finding a way of reducing the 90% of costs while maintaining constant fuel costs is a win-win, particularly when combined with potentially higher revenue from passengers who value their own time. With fuel costs 3 times larger slice of the pie, any savings gained from the other 70% is offset by the increased costs for fuel.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2370 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4388 times:
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 10): The Y3 will more than likely be a conventional configuration airliner using the latest technology available, much like the 787 will be.
I wonder about this configuration thing... some day, it has to change! One can argue that the problem hasn't changed, so we legitimately can expect the same solution... But we have a much better handle on aerodynamics and control than we did in the 70's.
Is the world ready for a statically unstable airliner design?
What about canards, like the Sonic Cruiser had? This would reduce induced drag (no more tail fighting the wing) and perhaps lead to better fuel efficiency. There are a bunch of disadvantages, but nothing that couldn't be overcome with a nice bank of redundant flight computers.
Or landing gear integrated with engine nacelles? I can think of several pros and cons.
One thing to keep in mind is that a Sonic Cruiser-like configuration does not automatically imply a high cruise speed. There are quite likely some funky configurations that could do better at Mach 0.85 than the same old tube with wings. It's just that there's this box that the market is not ready to think outside of, and that Boeing commendably challenged with the Sonic Cruiser.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4): The smallest likely Y3 aircraft would be bigger than the largest, and terribly named A350-XWB.
What I've gathered here on a.net is that Y3 is this mythical shape-shifting beast that takes on whatever form is convenient for the argument being made.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1206 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4368 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 13): What I've gathered here on a.net is that Y3 is this mythical shape-shifting beast that takes on whatever form is convenient for the argument being made.
Y3 is the Boeing designation for an all-new clean-sheet aircraft that would eventually replace the 773ER and the 747. Speculation would therefore lead many to conclude that the smallest Y3 would be no smaller than the 773ER.
Since the 773ER is bigger than the A350-1000, it's not unreasonable to expect that the A350-100 will be smaller than Y3.
The Y3 designation comes from Boeing's Yellowstone study in 1999 that concluded Boeing should consolidate to a three-product family. These aircraft being:
Y1 - 717, 737, 757 replacement
Y2 - 767 replacement (well into development as the 787)
Y3 - 777, 747 replacement
The most reasonable speculation would place Y3 from 375-500 seats, with Boeing launching no sooner than 2016-2020.
Since the 787 is now capable of replacing the 772ER, there's no need for a smaller variant than the 773ER and Boeing could hypothetically optimze for a larger aircraft. Of course, much depends on how well the 747-8 and 773ER continue to sell into the next decade.