Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could The Y1 Offering Be A New Sonic Cruiser  
User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4410 times:

I've been of the opinion that the Y1 solution will consist of two aircraft - a single aisle (2+5) and a twin aisle solution. However, given that the catalyst for the launch of the Y1 is new engines, and these won't be available for nearly a decade, is there another option, with the longer range, larger Y1 a sonic cruiser type aircraft?

Here's my reasoning:
- The sonic cruiser concept vs 7E7 offered the trade off of higher speed and constant fuel consumption vs. constant speed and lower fuel consumption
- Since applying 787 technology to Y1 won't give anywhere near the same efficiency gains that the 787 got, maybe it makes sense to build a faster having the same efficiency as a 737NG?

Thoughts?


If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLimaNiner From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4372 times:

Does anyone really care about 10% higher cruise speed (i.e., a max of 10% flight time reduction on long flights)? 10 hrs vs 11 hrs on a long-ish flight doesn't seem like a big win, given that the day is already gone anyway. On shorter flights, it seems like even less of a win, because we're talking about a handful of minutes -- half an hour on a U.S. transcontinental flight, for example... These numbers all fall into the normal delay variation based on airport delays, etc., don't they?

User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4321 times:

The sonic cruiser was shelved for a reason. I forgot exactly why, but it is now illegal to produce sonic booms on commerical flights over the U.S. Plus the program is too costly and no one would really be serious about buying said airplane. Boeing doing the sonic cruiser would be a suicide, IMO.

Can anyone back this up?



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4283 times:



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 2):
The sonic cruiser was shelved for a reason. I forgot exactly why, but it is now illegal to produce sonic booms

That is NOT the reason. The sonic cruiser was going to cruise at high subsonic speeds and not produce sonic booms. Main reasons were airline concerns over costs, aviation downturn after 9/11, and I think Boeing could see the writing on the wall regarding escalating fuel costs.

In answer to the OP, I can't see the Y1 flying faster than the 747, it would be lucky to fly faster than the 737NG. As pointed out in Reply 1, cruise speed is even less important on shorter sectors. It should be able to turn around at airports faster than a 737NG. If it is twin aisle, that would make it a Y2, wouldn't it?


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4278 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 3):
That is NOT the reason. The sonic cruiser was going to cruise at high subsonic speeds and not produce sonic booms.

I didn't say that. I said two separate things. I said: 1) I forgot exactly why Boeing didn't continue on with the program and 2) Stated a fact that is illegal for sonic booms to occur over the U.S. I never said that both was the reason why Boeing discontinued the program.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4265 times:

Good idea but a few problems. Fuel prices being the major one. They are still very expensive even with the more efficient 737NG. Also the sonic speeds wouldn't really have much effect on the routes the Y1 is used for, maybe a little bit on transcon, but mostly none. And unless they can solve the sonic boom problem, which im sure they did with the sonic cruiser, the short distances it is at cruising altitude and speed probably do not justify the sonic speed. They would probably do better with the small gain in efficiency by using 787 technology even with old engines. Then maybe they could be easily fitted with the new improved engines at a later date. and let's say you get 10% faster and 10% off travel time, that doesnt save you enough time on a 2 hour fight to make up for the cost compared to what you could save with a 10% more efficient aircraft on the same route and same speed.

The biggest issue that would come up is would a 737 sized plane which is mean to be used more for routes like SAN-DEN benefit from supersonic speeds on these short flights? probably not. The sonic cruiser boeing showed off is probably the smallest we will see


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4235 times:

Not with oil at 100US$/Barrel, if 10US$/Barrel it could be possible.

User currently offlineTsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4095 times:



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 4):
and 2) Stated a fact that is illegal for sonic booms to occur over the U.S.

However since the Sonic Cruiser never breaks the sound barrier at all this was not a reason for cancelling the program.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3960 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CygnusChicago (Thread starter):
(I)s there another option, with the longer range, larger Y1 a sonic cruiser type aircraft?

No disrespect, but not a chance, especially in this category of aircraft. Airlines are demanding efficiency for the 737RS and A320RS so they are not going to accept a plane that burns even more fuel to boost speeds. If anything, we might see speeds drop, as with Boeing's "Fozzie" concept that cruised at 450 mph.

Big version: Width: 308 Height: 228 File size: 55kb


[Edited 2008-01-09 06:37:47]

User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3911 times:



Quoting Alessandro (Reply 6):
Not with oil at 100US$/Barrel, if 10US$/Barrel it could be possible.

Try $150 ... possible $200.
 Confused

Man ... I am old enough to remember $19/Barrel.


User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3869 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Airlines are demanding efficiency for the 737RS and A320RS so they are not going to accept a plane that burns even more fuel to boost speeds.

Yea, that was my initial thought. However, we keep hearing from Boeing and Airbus that the technology does not exist to get substantially lower fuel consumption at this point in time, hence the talk about the Mythical 2015 engine. Given that you cannot get more than 5 or 7% fuel efficiency improvement, doesn't it make sense to speed up the transport for the same consumption?

I get the point on short routes - 10 to 20% higher cruise on an ORD - LGA hop is useless. But, a larger 737-900ER replacement, on a five hour transcontinental will be useful. We've even been seeing an increased appetite for 757's on transatlantic. I think there are a lot of 5 to 8 hour routes that a new 738/9 + 752/3 will be perfect for.



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3864 times:



Quoting CygnusChicago (Thread starter):
single aisle (2+5)

Did you mean 2+3?


User currently offlineEvilForce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3854 times:



Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 1):
Does anyone really care about 10% higher cruise speed (i.e., a max of 10% flight time reduction on long flights)? 10 hrs vs 11 hrs on a long-ish flight doesn't seem like a big win, given that the day is already gone anyway.

Actually one of the big selling points in favor of the Sonic Cruiser was allowing airlines that currently need more than 2 aircraft for a route to lose enough flight time so they could get down to 2 aircraft. This would have allowed more flexibility and not had as many aircraft sitting for 10,15 or even 20 hours in between rotations.

Granted compared to the amazing sales of 800+ airframes for the 787 I'm sure that this wasn't the sole reason but it was a very good selling point of reducing airlines hard fixed costs like aircraft on a number of transPac or long flights.


User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3799 times:



Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 11):
Did you mean 2+3?

Arrgh. Yea.  blush 



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3740 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 10):
Given that you cannot get more than 5 or 7% fuel efficiency improvement, doesn't it make sense to speed up the transport for the same consumption? (A) larger 737-900ER replacement, on a five hour transcontinental will be useful.

It doesn't appear so to the airlines, since the Sonic Cruiser was pitched as a transcontinental airliner to replace the premium LA/SF-NYC runs operated by AA, UA, DL and CO in addition to an intercontinental role. AA wanted it for their Flagship Service between SFO/LAX and JFK because they believed they could poach full-fare passengers in all classes of service from UA's Premium Transcon (now p.s.) service.


User currently offlineJcf5002 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 289 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3730 times:

This is all fine and dandy, but why not a Concorde-esque replacement? The business world runs on speed and we all know the adage: "Time = money." Cessna has tapped into the speed market with the C750 / Citation X and Amtrak has had huge success with its Acela train service running from Washington D.C. to NYC, but I think it can be taken to an even higher level.

With engine technology at amazing levels right now, and supercruise becoming a normal term in the military aviation realm, why not find a civilian application? Concerns over sonic booms are almost a thing of the past with NASA developing airframe shapes that produce little or no boom. That brings us to fuel prices though. I agree they're high, but I really wonder how much more fuel would be used for a flight from JFK to LAX that took 2-3 hours at supersonic speeds (at FL600!) versus a flight that took 4-5 hours at subsonic speeds on a 737NG-capacity aircraft?

For a business person, a faster alternative makes a lot of sense. Right now, if you had business on the other coast, hotels, meals, rental cars, etc need to be considered. From a cost-benefit standpoint, one might pay the same for an airline ticket on a supersonic aircraft as they would for all those services combined, but the time saved and convenience factor would come in heavily. It would not be unreasonable to say that you could work in New York, be in Los Angeles for a lunch meeting and still make it home for dinner with your family.

Convenience is becoming the name of the game in the aviation community. People prefer more scheduled flights on smaller aircraft over a one-daily flight scenario on a super-jumbo. That reason alone is why the A380 will be a niche market aircraft. The market for such a jet really didn't exist after 9/11, but Airbus certainly MADE a market for it.

I am not an industry expert, though I work for a prominent company in the industry, but please don't flame me for the suggestion. Though I sound like a writer for "Popular Science," who haven't gotten a predicion right since 1983 (sacasm), I think there could be a market for this, maybe even more so than the market for the A380.

Respectfully,

Jeff

[Edited 2008-01-09 08:41:58]


Its always a sunny day above the clouds || CSEL, CMEL, CFI, CFII, MEI
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3657 times:



Quoting CygnusChicago (Thread starter):
However, given that the catalyst for the launch of the Y1 is new engines, and these won't be available for nearly a decade, is there another option, with the longer range, larger Y1 a sonic cruiser type aircraft?

Not really. Fuel cost is too much of a driver.

Quoting CygnusChicago (Thread starter):
- The sonic cruiser concept vs 7E7 offered the trade off of higher speed and constant fuel consumption vs. constant speed and lower fuel consumption
- Since applying 787 technology to Y1 won't give anywhere near the same efficiency gains that the 787 got, maybe it makes sense to build a faster having the same efficiency as a 737NG?

The problem is that, if you have the technology to fly with the same fuel burn as a 737NG but go faster, you can flip that equation around and fly the same speed as a 737NG but burn less fuel. The latter is a far more compelling sales pitch in today's airline environment than the former.

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 10):
Given that you cannot get more than 5 or 7% fuel efficiency improvement, doesn't it make sense to speed up the transport for the same consumption?

Not really. If you "spend" that 5 to 7% fuel burn improvement on increasing speed, you can only go about 4-5% faster, which makes essentially zero difference in travel time on Y1 type routes. 5-7% improvement would sell just fine to the airlines, it just doesn't make economic sense for the OEM's. The airlines would rather save 5-7% on fuel than go 4-5% faster.

Quoting Jcf5002 (Reply 15):
This is all fine and dandy, but why not a Concorde-esque replacement? The business world runs on speed and we all know the adage: "Time = money."

Because the market tested this on the Concorde and, it turns out, time doesn't equal that much money. At least, not enough to pay for that type of commercial aircraft. For people that do have that much money and time, there is the supersonic BBJ. That's how small the real market is for supersonic travel today.

Quoting Jcf5002 (Reply 15):
With engine technology at amazing levels right now, and supercruise becoming a normal term in the military aviation realm, why not find a civilian application?

Because supercruise still burns *way* more fuel than transonic cruise. The barrier to supersonic commercial travel hasn't been technology for about 40 years now...it's a cost problem that only gets worse with increasing oil price.

Quoting Jcf5002 (Reply 15):
I agree they're high, but I really wonder how much more fuel would be used for a flight from JFK to LAX that took 2-3 hours at supersonic speeds (at FL600!) versus a flight that took 4-5 hours at subsonic speeds on a 737NG-capacity aircraft?

Back of the envelope, using equal aerodynamics, engine technology, and capacity, assuming 0.85M at 35000' for the subsonic aircraft and 2.0M at 60000' for the supersonic aircraft, you'd need about 65% more fuel for the supersonic aircraft.

Tom.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3602 times:



Quoting CygnusChicago (Thread starter):
Since applying 787 technology to Y1 won't give anywhere near the same efficiency gains that the 787 got, maybe it makes sense to build a faster having the same efficiency as a 737NG?

There are attempts to make a supersonic aircraft that doesn't create a boom, namely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Supersonic_Transport

http://www.saiqsst.com/

These are much to small to be commercial transports. The goal is to sell an aircraft for $80 million each that will seat up to 12 passengers. But who knows what the next step could be?

I say more power to them, as long as they aren't using my tax dollars to build it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineJcf5002 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 289 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3568 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 16):
Because the market tested this on the Concorde and, it turns out, time doesn't equal that much money. At least, not enough to pay for that type of commercial aircraft. For people that do have that much money and time, there is the supersonic BBJ. That's how small the real market is for supersonic travel today.

What supersonic BBJ? I don't think the market was really tested back then. The "market" is a vastly different place than it was 15-20 years ago when Concorde was at its prime. Lets not forget that we were dealing with 1960s technology in a 21st century economy (3 flightdeck crew members, inefficient engines, etc.). As I mentioned, there has been an increased demand trend in the last decade for faster transportation between the larger business centers in the world. I refer back to the higher-end business aviation market where jets are flying in the 0.88M-0.92M range at FL500 or trains which travel in the 130-200mph range.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 16):
Back of the envelope, using equal aerodynamics, engine technology, and capacity, assuming 0.85M at 35000' for the subsonic aircraft and 2.0M at 60000' for the supersonic aircraft, you'd need about 65% more fuel for the supersonic aircraft

I see your point. Obviously one of the major factors in that equation which will change is aerodynamics. If that brought your fuel consumption down to around 50% more than a conventional airliner, who's to say that people wouldn't spend the 50-65% more to save time. From a cost/hr standpoint, the consumer would win either way. If given the choice to spend 50-65% more on a ticket, but arrive at the destination in half the time, I would wager that many business people, not to mention regular consumers, would choose the faster alternative.

I understand there are many other factors regarding a cost-benefit analysis on a new aircraft system, but I find the discussion interesting. I would love to see a company take the bold steps and invest in a project such as this (especially Boeing) and make it work.

-Jeff



Its always a sunny day above the clouds || CSEL, CMEL, CFI, CFII, MEI
User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3494 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 16):
Back of the envelope, using equal aerodynamics, engine technology, and capacity, assuming 0.85M at 35000' for the subsonic aircraft and 2.0M at 60000' for the supersonic aircraft, you'd need about 65% more fuel for the supersonic aircraft.

Not even close - you are off by an order of magnitude. Of the top of my head, the Concorde has a smaller cabin area than a 737-700, similar ranges (within 25%), and burns almost 4 times as much fuel for tha max range mission. Some people fail to realze how tiny the Concorde fuselage was internaly and how packed those F-class seats were. If you were to take Singapore Airways F-class suites from their new 77Ws, you could maybe fit 5 or 6 max in there.

So to move the same cabin size at M2 would take about 5-6 times as much fuel as to move it a M0.8. So it is really 500%-600% more fuel, not 50-60%.

Supersonic transports are a non-starter - there is nothing you can do about the aerodynamics. If anything, the shapes needed to minimize sonic boom and deflect it upwards would make any new SST less efficient than the Concorde.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineLuv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1650 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3456 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No matter what ends up (not) happening with the SC concept, it was a huge success in one key way: It served as a nice distraction to Airbus so that Boeing could get a good head start on the 787/a350 class of aircraft.


When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3429 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jcf5002 (Reply 18):
Lets not forget that we were dealing with 1960s technology in a 21st century economy...

A great deal of what modern airlines enjoy today (digital systems, etc.) were all pioneered by Concorde. She might have been designed in the 1960's and built in the 1970's, but she was years - even decades - ahead of her time in many areas.

And supersonic travel is a different realm then subsonic. The step-change between Mach 0.90 and Mach 1.90 is staggering. The greatest minds in three huge industrial powers (the US, the EU, and the USSR) tried to "make the numbers work" in an era of $10 a barrel oil (which includes program work done in the 1980's and 1990's when oil was extremely cheap) and they couldn't do it. To do so now in an era of $100 a barrel oil...  no 


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3345 times:



Quoting Jcf5002 (Reply 18):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 16):
Because the market tested this on the Concorde and, it turns out, time doesn't equal that much money. At least, not enough to pay for that type of commercial aircraft. For people that do have that much money and time, there is the supersonic BBJ. That's how small the real market is for supersonic travel today.

What supersonic BBJ?

There are four designs in study (not counting a potential Cessna offering)...not in production yet, obviously.

Quoting Jcf5002 (Reply 18):
don't think the market was really tested back then. The "market" is a vastly different place than it was 15-20 years ago when Concorde was at its prime. Lets not forget that we were dealing with 1960s technology in a 21st century economy (3 flightdeck crew members, inefficient engines, etc.).

True that some things have gotten better since Concorde, but there are two factors to consider. As Stitch correctly noted in Reply 21, Concorde wasn't as far behind modern times as you might think. Much more importantly, the increase in fuel price since that time is of significantly greater magnitude than the decrease in other costs.

Quoting Jcf5002 (Reply 18):
Obviously one of the major factors in that equation which will change is aerodynamics. If that brought your fuel consumption down to around 50% more than a conventional airliner, who's to say that people wouldn't spend the 50-65% more to save time. From a cost/hr standpoint, the consumer would win either way. If given the choice to spend 50-65% more on a ticket, but arrive at the destination in half the time, I would wager that many business people, not to mention regular consumers, would choose the faster alternative.

If you could hit 50% premium, it might work for a smaller size. However, as you recognized, there is more to it than fuel. It's almost a certainty that a supersonic jet would cost more to build and maintain than an equivalently sized subsonic jet. If we could hit 50% price premium overall, that would be a tremendous achievement.

Quoting Jcf5002 (Reply 18):
I understand there are many other factors regarding a cost-benefit analysis on a new aircraft system, but I find the discussion interesting. I would love to see a company take the bold steps and invest in a project such as this (especially Boeing) and make it work.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen (I'm an engineer, after all!). I just have a really hard time seeing how any public company could pitch this to their Board and they'd approve.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 19):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 16):
Back of the envelope, using equal aerodynamics, engine technology, and capacity, assuming 0.85M at 35000' for the subsonic aircraft and 2.0M at 60000' for the supersonic aircraft, you'd need about 65% more fuel for the supersonic aircraft.

Not even close - you are off by an order of magnitude. Of the top of my head, the Concorde has a smaller cabin area than a 737-700, similar ranges (within 25%), and burns almost 4 times as much fuel for tha max range mission. Some people fail to realze how tiny the Concorde fuselage was internaly and how packed those F-class seats were. If you were to take Singapore Airways F-class suites from their new 77Ws, you could maybe fit 5 or 6 max in there.

So to move the same cabin size at M2 would take about 5-6 times as much fuel as to move it a M0.8. So it is really 500%-600% more fuel, not 50-60%.

You're missing two things...one is that I was working under the assumption of equal aerodynamics and engine technology, which means a 737NG to Concorde comparison is a whole different thing.

The other thing you need to factor in is the decrease in drag by flying higher. Going from 35000' to 60000' drops your drag down by a factor of a little more than 3 (and drag goes directly to fuel burn). Like I said initially, back of the envelope, but it's not as bad as just doing the difference in speed squared.

Tom.


User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3270 times:



Quoting CygnusChicago (Thread starter):
However, given that the catalyst for the launch of the Y1 is new engines,

This part doesn't make sense to me. Surely the percentage of the engines vs the percentage of the CFRP fuselage is more for the Y2 than the Y1. A CFRP narrow body with 787 technology engines would surely offer enough advantages over the A320 to be worthwhile. Maybe they are selling enough 737s that they don't feel they need to bother with a Y1.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

CFRP brings less benefit in terms of weight reduction to narrowbodies on short-haul missions then it does to widebodies on long-haul missions. As such, the 737RS and A320RS will both need to depend on the engines more then CFRP to drive double-digit economic and efficiency improvements.

On the flip side, the higher cycle-rates/hours CFRP offers will no doubt appeal greatly to short-haul operators, so it's importance to driving new sales cannot be dismissed out of hand.


25 Mir : The Sonic Cruiser was shelved because no airline wanted to sacrifice efficiency for extra speed that was only going to come into play on very long ro
26 Tdscanuck : It's the latter. Beating the A320 with a cleansheet design wouldn't be hard (nor would beating the 737NG). What's hard is beating the 737NG/A320 by *
27 Futurecaptain : Everyone keeps talking about time savings, or no time savings. Lets see, Boeing 737...cruise speed Mach 0.72. Alot of airlines have slowed down with f
28 RedFlyer : That hour and 15 minutes could be saved in other ways, such as a reduction in congestion or wait times at the major airports that would be served by
29 Baron95 : Nope. It is much much worse. Supersonic aerodynamics are not the same as subsonic aerodynamics. You don't need just a little bit more power to go fro
30 Gorgos : I think we should all expect the a320 and b737 replacements to be the same thing but improved. It will be a narrowbody, single isle 3+3 tube, with win
31 Post contains links AutoThrust : Indeed and Airbus is also doing research(DREAM Project) led by RR for a Open Rotor Concept. At the end the A320RS and 737RS could be very similar. ht
32 Gorgos : Nice article Autothrust. No doubt will the engines be the most important development.I read an article about developments of flaps that were going to
33 Baroque : Not to be picky and Baron in reply 29 does a more detailed calculation, but 10% faster does not mean 10% off travel time - 9.09%. And the more the %
34 Jcf5002 : I agree that Concorde was vastly far ahead of its time. I was a technology showcase that no one really knew what to do with. Much like the Bugatti Ve
35 Stitch : We were actually predicting 777-level fuel burn for the Sonic Cruiser.
36 Baroque : Was the cruise speed ever fixed? It seemed to wander between M 0.9 and M .95, with occasional guesses at 1.2 from some of the more optimistic. I cann
37 AirbusA6 : Hmm, they might as well slow down the replacements for the 737 and A320, as on short haul journeys to and from London, for example, the amount of time
38 Stitch : I know there were studies done to see if transonic/supersonic speeds could be attained and sustained, since the plane could fly just under the limit
39 Tdscanuck : Typical cruise is 0.78, not 0.72. The Concorde and 737-700 have roughly comparable cabin area and range. A 737-700 holds 6875 US gallons of fuel. Con
40 Futurecaptain : Yes, according to Boeing. But to save fuel many operators have been cruising at slower speeds lately. Ya, the drag curves are interesting when compar
41 Baron95 : But not on the 737 transcon routes and other long routes where the SonicCruiser type speeds would make a difference. On transcon, 737NGs are flying M
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...
Could The 757 Ever Be A Tanker? posted Fri Nov 21 2003 00:16:50 by GalvanAir777
Could The 7E7 Do Neat, New Routes Like These? posted Tue Nov 18 2003 00:19:29 by Atcboy73
Could The A380 Still Be A Failure? posted Thu May 29 2003 05:35:20 by United777
New Sonic Cruiser Plans?! posted Fri Dec 7 2001 07:05:30 by Gnx99
CEO Of The CO's Comment On "sonic Cruiser" posted Mon Apr 9 2001 21:29:13 by Cruising
Boeing's New Sonic Cruiser posted Fri Apr 6 2001 22:58:54 by Critter592
Sonic Cruiser: Boeing Signals It Could Be Scrapped posted Wed Jul 24 2002 23:38:18 by Singapore_Air
Could The L-1011 Be Reborn? posted Sat Dec 22 2007 17:03:53 by BR715-A1-30
Could IND No Longer Be An LCC Haven In The Future? posted Sat Nov 24 2007 12:00:14 by FWAERJ
Could The 767 Be The Next 'Hot' Used Aircraft? posted Sat Nov 24 2007 08:00:55 by JAM747