Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Looking @ Mach .95 Aircraft  
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2015 times:

Boeing mulling Mach .95 aircraft in 757-767 category


NEW YORK, March 21 (Reuters) - Boeing Co. , the nation's largest commercial aircraft maker, on Wednesday confirmed it is working on technology that makes possible a Mach .95 jet in the 757-767 category, or an airplane capable of flying 95 percent of the speed of sound.

Boeing, which earlier announced a restructuring and plans to move its headquarters out of Seattle, said it has spoken with a number of airline customers who expressed "a great deal of interest."

Still, development of a Mach .95 airplane in the 757-767 category is in the most preliminary stages, said Chairman and Chief Executive Phil Condit.

"I am very excited about the possibility," Condit said at a media conference.

Boeing said, simply, that it has the potential for such an aircraft.

14:50 03-21-01

Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1856 times:

From http://www.boeing.com

Boeing Studying High Performance Commercial Airplanes


SEATTLE, March 21, 2001 - The air travel market always has valued improvements in safety, economic efficiency, and quicker, easier ways of flying. That is what drove the transition from propeller to jets, it is what has caused the rapid expansion of point-to-point flying, it is why airlines work so hard to provide a wide choice of frequencies to travelers. Working with our airline customers, we have identified a set of cost and performance technologies that will allow the design of a radically different airplane. This will give the airlines the opportunity to start another chapter in commercial aviation.

According to Commercial Airplanes President and Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally, "Our customers have shown significant interest in airplanes that allow passengers to fly where they want to go, when they want to go -- directly to their destinations without the hassle and delay of intermediate stops."

"We are developing designs that would reduce flying time as much as 15 to 20 percent while achieving ranges not possible with current airplanes. These airplanes also will fly higher than current models, offering a more comfortable ride for passengers. And they will be environmentally friendly because they will be quieter at takeoff and landing. Based on work with the 777, Next-Generation 737 and other programs, we see the opportunity to also significantly improve the design/build process for such a new airplane."

Mulally said Boeing is working with a number of airlines, suppliers and partners to determine the specific characteristics of the new airplane.

He added: "We're eager to create a new travel experience for our customers. This is an exciting opportunity for us to take advantage of the airplane performance and cost-reduction technologies we have been developing."


Contact: Susan Bradley, 206-766-2907



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

This is very interesting! I'm wishing for the best. Airlines that are sending 757s and 767s on pond crossings and transcons would benifet from this as the flights are shorter allowing for more flights per day in the same plane. Thus, as a result, airlines can earn more money!  Smile

I wish Boeing the Best, with this project!  Big thumbs up

Go Boeing


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6515 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1794 times:

This is really fantastic. After forty (40) years we may travel five percent (5%) faster than we did on the CV-990!!!
This new "Speedbird 757" will save me 4 minutes and 19 second on a trip to LHR compared to today's ordinary BA 757. This is really a grand new travel experience.
And then, if at the same time they can cut baggage retrieval queue at LHR by 50%, then I will save 1 hour, 4 minutes and 19 seconds. I just can't wait to see it...
Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineFlyerC_B757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1776 times:

Yes,

One problem though, fuel consumption and prices! Also, another problem is the pollution that goes with it.


User currently offlineKing767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1773 times:

Good to hear that Boeing is looking more closely at the "new-winged" 757 and 767.
-Tom


User currently offlineFly-By-Pilot From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1763 times:

I dont think its a new 757 or 767. I think it will only have similar capacity.

User currently offlineKing767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1756 times:

Right now, there are several options. A totally new design, or the "new-winged" 757/767. Boeing released a statement that so far, performance results favored the re-winged 757/767. Anyway, even if Boeing does decide to build a new design, I believe that Boeing will also develop the re-winged 757/767.
-Tom


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7802 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1725 times:

I think you are missing the point here. In order to make a plane go faster the wing needs to be redesigned in order accomadate this, and this can be done with exisiting engines. The current generation of ultra-fast biz-jets (Citation X, G-V, et al) have proved this can work.


Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineCruising From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 258 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

I think this is the project called "Yellowstone". There was news leak a month ago about this project.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8031 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1723 times:

I think what may be happening is the possibility we may be seeing Boeing start not one, but two all-new airliner programs some time this decade.

The first one will likely be a replacement for the 757/767 series with a new fuselage design and an all-new, highly-efficient wing that will allow for Mach 0.95 economical cruise. This is probably the Yellowstone project that has been rumored for some time.

The second one will like be the replacement for the Next-Generation 737. Boeing may be looking again at the General Electric UDF and Pratt & Whitney/Rolls-Royce unducted propfan technology, and this may result in a plane almost identical to the shelved 7J7 project of some 13 years ago but with an A320-width fuselage and more efficient wings than the original design. The plane can be scaled to carrying capacities identical to the current 737-600 to 737-900 range, but the new plane will sport seat-mile costs far below that of the 737NG's and very likely more range.


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8171 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

This is crazy. If the extra speed (5%, ooh) affects the fuel burn in the slightest then Boeing are screwed. The speed that airliners cruise at is fine, it's the massive queues for check-in, security, an hour on the taxiway, stacking for half an hour over the destination, waiting an hour at baggage claim... The flight itself is the least unpleasant part of the journey. Any airline who operate a jet at M.95 will be at a cost disadvantage, the time saving is negligible, not only from a passenger's point of view but from a utilisation point of view as well - it's not enough of time saving to get in an extra sector where the speed increase will make a difference.

In fact it could even be counterproductive - passengers will pay more to save time but when the inevitable daily delays hit the flights just like they do to M.8 flights, the pax will be more pissed off cos they paid extra to get somewhere faster and lo and behold, they're still sitting at the gate for an extra 90 minutes or holding on a taxiway somewhere for an hour.

PS Existing airliners, especially those born in the 60s, can go faster (707, 727, 747 et al) and indeed used to, my Dad who started travelling on business in the late 60s says flight times used to shorter but after the fuel crises of the early 70s the airlines calculated the most efficient cruising speed and it was between M.78 and M.82; in the old days they used to go at M.84, sometimes even M.88. A Pan Am captain used to do M.88 to Honolulu at 25,000 ft cos he didn't like to be late for his mistress.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1686 times:

sounds like a bulls**t.
for typical 757 secotors cruising at 0.95M will save you something like 5 to 10 minutes. BA LHR-HEL will save 10-11 minutes from current 2:20 flt. time. it is nothing if we think about block time, baggage reclaim, etc.


User currently offlineN628AU From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1681 times:

You people whining about fuel burn have it all wrong. The point of Boeing developing this technology would be to introduce NEW TECHNOLOGY that would allow for a more efficient aircraft. This is the same kind of whining about "Global Cooling" that first greeted jet aircraft in the 1950's and 60's.

User currently offlineKing767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1657 times:

I think what may be happening is the possibility we may be seeing Boeing start not one, but two all-new airliner programs some time this decade.

The first one will likely be a replacement for the 757/767 series with a new fuselage design and an all-new, highly-efficient wing that will allow for Mach 0.95 economical cruise. This is probably the Yellowstone project that has been rumored for some time.


I really have to disagree with you here. Really if you look at it, there really is not a replacement design for the 757/767. Anything bigger than the existing design would be too big and heavy for the market they serve. Anyway, there only so much technology you can put into a design. I believe we are at the limit, and for the time being, we are as advanced as we are going to get. I believe Boeing will go ahead with the re-winged 757 and 767.

The second one will like be the replacement for the Next-Generation 737. Boeing may be looking again at the General Electric UDF and Pratt & Whitney/Rolls-Royce unducted propfan technology, and this may result in a plane almost identical to the shelved 7J7 project of some 13 years ago but with an A320-width fuselage and more efficient wings than the original design. The plane can be scaled to carrying capacities identical to the current 737-600 to 737-900 range, but the new plane will sport seat-mile costs far below that of the 737NG's and very likely more range

Again, theres a limit to how far you can update technology. Designing such a new design just for such a small increase in speed is not economically smart. Look at NG sales, I think airlines are happy with current technology. For seat mile costs, theres only so much you can lower those too. Airplanes today are so economical, there is no need for upgrading. Anyway, if anything, I would see Boeing in the future re-engineing the 73 with a newer -56. Also, the NGs wings are also highly economical, and the only major increase that would be worth designing for would be a BWB, which I see as far off.

The best, Tom



User currently offlinePurdue Arrow From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1574 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1643 times:

Where are people coming up with a 5% speed increase? Typical cruising speeds for airliners today (including the 757/767) are about .8-.82. A cruising speed of .95 would be an increase of 15.8-18.8%, much more than some people seem to be thinking. (Simple math: .15 increase of cruise speed divided by current cruise speed of .8 = 18.75%). This would result in a savings of roughly 10 minutes per flight hour, would would reduce trans-con flight time by nearly an hour, and would reduce intercontinental flights by significantly more. If it can be done efficiently, why snub the advancement?

User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8171 posts, RR: 54
Reply 16, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1632 times:

The reason this is not an achievement is cos none of us live or vacation in airport terminals. Well, I've done both but that's another story. The gridlocked approach roads, the hour long queues for check in, security, all the things we hate about flying, not to mention longer routes and airborne holding patterns cos of Boeing's insistence on more flights in smaller planes (cheers)...these are all part of the journey time from door to door - the only way to measure it. Who cares if you spend an extra hour watching the Larry Sanders Show on the Cult-Tv channel or dozing? The bit when the brakes are released til the bit when the brakes come back on again is the easy bit, I don't give a shit if it's five hours or six, ten or eleven and a half, makes no difference. It's being dicked about at check-in or baggage claim that I hate, or waiting on the tarmac with the aircon not working properly or seeing the same town thirty times in a holding pattern while my connecting flight leaves without me that makes me promise myself to take a train or drive next time.

(In fact a faster cruise on eastbound trans-Atlantic flights from the east coast would be a nightmare, five and a half hours is just enough to get a couple of hours sleep, but four hours overnight, no chance. You'd feel a lot worse I think. It's like cross-Channel ferries overnight, some of them do about 5 knots all night so you get a night's sleep. They could leave at 1 am and get to the other side at 4 am but you'd feel shitty for two days after a night that short.)



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1621 times:

Intersting. Does more speed mean more range? If so, hoorah! SIA will be happy.

I think this is good however I wouldn't hold my breathe for the new model to come out.

I find it so irritating how it takes so long for BA and AI to get their new planes out! How long can it take!



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1609 times:

There is something to think about: fuel efficiency, flight stability, possible sonic boom (to produce it you don't need to be exactly at Mach 1), ... - needless to say, if they really want to design it, they KNOW about these and probably hundreds of other problems to solve.

five and a half hours is just enough to get a couple of hours sleep, but four hours overnight, no chance. - are we talking about the Concorde? M 0.95 won't even make it for 5.5 hours... And how about transpacific routes (the thing won't survive if it doesn't have the range)? I'd say some 12.5 is better than 15... Disregard all possible delays, the saved time is still yours.

...Or is Boeing just trying to say they have something new to offer in future? We'll see...

About "new 737NG" - why not, 737NG is a great success, but don't wait until it is obsolete (didn't this happen to 737 classic?), think about something new right now. The 7J7 idea had a 2-2-2 configuration, looks very attractive, but what about "extra air" to be transported?


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8031 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

I think Boeing is looking at reviving the 7J7 design again.

There are some reasons for this:

1. Boeing could introduce a new fuselage design that will have the width of the A320 but with headroom possibly better than the 737NG is now. That will definitely increase comfort in all classes, since seats can be made wider.

2. Propfan technology back in the late 1980's was not yet mature enough for an airliner. However, improvements in engine core design by now and more modern computers will allow for much-improved propfan designs that will offer enough power to take the plane to over Mach 0.80 easily but will have noise levels more akin to a turboprop engine driving a six-bladed propeller. This could mean 20% or more improvements in fuel efficiency, and will allow the plane to easily meet the proposed 2006 ICAO regulations for both exhaust emissions and noise levels.

Don't be surprised that Boeing announces such a project by 2005, and airlines like AA, CO, and DL may convert their current 737NG options to buy this new plane.

Airlines all over the world would welcome such a plane, since it will allow increased operations from noise-restricted airports (especially in California at airports like SFO, SJC, BUR, ONT, LAX, and SNA or US East Coast airports like BOS, LGA and DCA).


User currently offlinePurdue Arrow From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1574 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1578 times:

Are you saying, then, Cedarjet, that nothing should be done to make the flight quicker, that the only advances worth pursuing are those that cut back ground time? If so, you're being pretty naive. Why do you suppose some people paid a fortune to fly on Concorde, because the ground staff was more pleasant? No - it's because airplanes are time machines, and the quicker we can make a flight, the happier the average passenger will be. Being really can't do anything to make check-in quicker or to speed up baggage delivery at your destination, but if they can cut an hour or two off of your flight, then you'll get to your hotel an hour or two earlier, even if the amount of time spent at the airport remains the same. Further, such reductions in flight time would effectively increase airport capacity by making a wider range of time slots viable for use. For example, if the only landing slot American can get at NRT for service from JFK was so early that they'd have to leave an hour before any connecting passengers could arrive at JFK, then a 2 hour reduction in flight time would make that slot usable, as the flight would be able to depart JFK 2 hours later, and an hour after a bank of arrivals brought in connecting PAX. This is, of course, a theoretical example, but the principle is quite real - shorter flight times would make a wider range of slots viable.

User currently offlineHL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1567 times:

guys,

if this happens,

what will it be called? 787?

HL  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8171 posts, RR: 54
Reply 22, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1557 times:

It's not that I think flight should necessarily be kept at the speed it is now, but 18% increase in cruise speed results in a negligible reduction in TOTAL journey time. Concorde is more than TWICE as quick as a 767, which reduces journey time from door-to-door by about 20%. There's your time machine.

What the airlines want is fuel economy. The price of jet juice is only going to go up and up. The service on one airline is utterly indistinguishable from another and the only thing that differentiates in the eyes of the consumer is PRICE. No-one's going to fly United over NW because United have marginally nicer food, it's all airline food to the average punter. If NW is $70 cheaper then NW it is. The speed thing is irrelevant on short flights, agreed? So it's only on long flights that there is a time saving to be had. But if you're going from California to Japan or London, you're not going to step off the plane and go straight into a meeting or shopping frenzy, you're going to walk around in a daze for a couple of hours, have a shower and room service and crash out and do your thing the following day. So you get there an hour and a half earlier? Big deal, all that means is you've got to stay awake an extra hour and a half before something resembling a normal bedtime and you've got $70 or $260 less to spend during the trip.

So, to repeat. Airlines want to offer the cheapest possible product at the lowest possible price. Why do you think Concorde only has 100 seats, and the average load factor is about 50%? Very few people can afford time machines.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineArchie Bunker From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1546 times:

I think the more important issue is that the new plane would cruise at a higher altitude, combined with a faster cruise, it would avoid congested airspace at lower altitude.

User currently offlinePurdue Arrow From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1574 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1543 times:

All aircraft are time machines... why do people pay to fly across the country rather than driving? I'll give you a hint - it's not because of the luxury of air transportation; it because the flight is faster. The reason Concorde has relatively low loads is because of the price, but what makes you think that this aircraft would be anywhere near as uneconomical? There have been large technological advances since Concorde, and there could well be more before this aircraft is built. It is not unthinkable that Boeing may be able to make this an economic aircraft. Also, as has been said, this airplane would fly at higher altitudes, which would result in an even greater groundspeed than already considered... a given true airspeed will result in a higher groundspeed at a higher altitude.

25 Bryston : I read at aviationnow.com that this new design will use "canards". Did another airliner use such technology? I only see these canards on SAAB fighter.
26 Boeing nut : Good day all, Check out aviationnow.com. It seems as if this aircraft is an all new design with canards and a delta shaped wing. Very interesting.
27 CRandyHill : Dear god, please allow Boeing to make this plane! Please give it very long range so that I can get a direct flight from PDX to Sydney, reducing my tot
28 Toxtethogrady : Oh no, now they'll have to come up with a Next-Next Generation of 737's! (737-1000, anyone?)
29 N628AU : I think Cedarjet must have spent an afternoon in a blizzard in LGA.
30 Cedarjet : Too right, but it doesn't take a blizzard, just Sheer Weight Of Traffic (SWAT) unfortunately. Fix the problems of ground transportation and baggage cl
31 Citation X : Tu-144 uses canards.
32 Post contains images RIX : Concorde is more than TWICE as quick as a 767, which reduces journey time from door-to-door by about 20%. There's your time machine. - be it an hour o
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...
Boeing Sued Over "Dangerous" Aircraft posted Sun May 31 2009 08:44:22 by Babybus
Boeing Looking At 10 Or More 787s/Month posted Mon Mar 5 2007 14:27:54 by N1786b
Virgin In Talks With Boeing/Airbus On New Aircraft posted Fri Mar 2 2007 15:42:56 by Pilot21
Air Koryo Looking For New Aircraft posted Wed Aug 30 2006 19:28:04 by 777way
Silk Air Looking For New Aircraft posted Tue Mar 7 2006 21:34:13 by CX747
Boeing: China Needs 73 Aircraft Larger Than 747 posted Tue Sep 20 2005 20:34:37 by NA
Air India Looking To Lease Aircraft From Jet posted Tue Jun 28 2005 20:36:48 by Airish
Gulf Air Looking For New Aircraft & Public Listing posted Tue May 24 2005 06:14:44 by MEA
Boeing To Overhaul 737 Aircraft Family posted Tue Mar 1 2005 16:36:24 by NYC777
Boeing Bids For 50 A-I Aircraft (Breakdown) posted Mon Feb 7 2005 15:02:15 by Jacobin777