Lindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3087 posts, RR: 15 Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2142 times:
I think the improved and updated 767 model could generate a fair number of sales for Boeing. A good number of airlines in the US have aging 762s which could be replaced by a 763X. The 767 is an ideally sized aircraft for many, many airlines. Though the 767 might eventually come into direct competition with the Sonic Cruiser, it will probably remain a significantly cheaper aircraft and also be available much sooner than the Sonic Cruiser (in service by 2008-09). I'd give this program the go-ahead since development costs would probably be reasonably low.
The 747 replacement is trickier. I don't imagine there would be so much demand, but it would be a way for Boeing to stay in the large aircraft market... And if development costs are low, they might want to add it to their product line.
Speaking of 767s, some airline cancelled their 767 order this week--there is a cancellation in the new Commerical Orders list on the Boeing website. Anybody know who they were for?
FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 15 Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2066 times:
I can imagine a 763 fuselage mated to a 764 wing. This would be an ultra-long range aircraft for thin routes. But simple winglets added to the basic 763 wing? Nah, I can't see Boeing doing that. An aftermarket aerospace company for sure, tho. Just my two cents. Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
Teej13 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 486 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2011 times:
Here's the article... notice that they refer to them as "extended wing tips"...not a really insightful writing job though. So the new 747 is going to get engines from PW, RR, or GE, eh? I see.. that's narrowing it down...
By Bradley Perrett, European aerospace & defense correspondent
DUBAI (Reuters) - Boeing Co revealed possible upgrades to its slow-selling 767 and 747 airliners on Saturday and said it was sustaining its development effort on the proposed Sonic Cruiser fast jet, despite current airline woes.
But airlines suffering from globally depressed traffic were asking for a smaller version of the Sonic Cruiser, leading Boeing to look at launching two variants of that radical new model, the leader of the company's product-development unit, John Roundhill, told Reuters in an interview.
Boeing said last month that it was pressing ahead with the Sonic Cruiser, but Roundhill went further, saying the company had not even scaled down its development spending, although he added that the project's timing might slip.
``The activity on the project: it has not changed significantly,'' he said.
``We continue with the product with an in-service date (target) around 2008,'' he said, adding: ``That timing clearly could be affected by the events of September 11.''
The Sonic Cruiser would be 15 to 20 percent faster than conventional planes.
Boeing has never said exactly how much Sonic Cruiser development would cost, but Chief Executive Phil Condit said in April that an estimate of $12 billion to $15 billion was ''significantly high.''
NEW 767, 747 VARIANTS
Roundhill said that the so-called 747-400 Improved would be much quieter than the current version of the jumbo jet and that it and a new 767 derivative would be more fuel-efficient.
For the 747 the key was improved versions of the plane's current engines, he said.
Exploiting a regulatory dispensation for four-engine planes, the 747 is a relatively noisy aircraft, but Roundhill said Boeing aimed the improved version at meeting the tough QC-2 limits that London's Heathrow airport imposes on twin-jets, which are inherently quieter.
Boeing has proposed many 747 developments over the past few years, from a longer-range version, which has gone into production, to abandoned superjumbos to compete with the huge A380 of European rival Airbus SAS ARBU.UL.
In recent years Boeing has seen flagging sales for the 747 and for the 767 twin, much of whose technology is 20 years old.
Roundhill said the proposed 767-300X, with extended wing tips, would have five percent better fuel efficiency than the standard 767-300 model but shorter range.
The executive did not say how much the proposed developments would cost Boeing, but neither appears expensive to the company.
Any improved 747 engines would come from General Electric Co, Rolls-Royce Plc or Pratt & Whitney . And Boeing has already developed the 767 modification for a larger variant of that plane.
TWO SONIC CRUISER VARIANTS
Analysts are closely watching the Sonic Cruiser project, which many think would give Boeing a powerful advantage over Airbus. Boeing itself has described the futuristic aircraft as a high-margin product.
``We reviewed our market forecast (for the Sonic Cruiser) as a result of September 11,'' Roundhill said. ``Our conclusion from that is that the vision (concept) is still the same.''
But airlines contemplating lower traffic demand were now interested in a smaller aircraft as well as the standard version, he said.
``I believe that our customers may want more than one size of this airplane as a result of September 11 as they adjust their route structures.''
Boeing's so-called base-line Sonic Cruiser design -- the one thought most likely to go into production -- originally had 224 seats but had grown to 240, Roundhill said. The second version would be somewhat smaller than that.
AIRNZ_747-800 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1990 times:
Well, instead of making the 767-300X, they should make something like a 767-600. The 766 would have an extended fuselage, wingtips, improved engines and airfoils.
In regards to the 747, they should just make them a heck of a lot bigger, somewhere in the range of well over 260 feet long. Remember, size matters, especially when you are dealing with the 747. There's a reason why they call it the JUMBO JET, you know.......
Mark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1949 times:
It's good that they're looking at an updated 767.. but I wonder if the jig might not be up, at least when the A332 is the (increasingly-popular) alternative.
747 similarly, I think good to have a back-up plan just in case the Sonic Cruiser takes a little longer (or even if the 380 has some snags, as well), so can patch up the "744+" market a little, for a few more years yet.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1866 times:
Risk-refusal monopoly? Pah! You are talking about the company that risked everything in the 60s to get the 747 flying. Monopoly? At 50% of the market, that's hardly a monopoly!
What alternative do you like? Airbus? A company that hasn't risked anything, ever, and whose entire means of innovation is putting proven technology out of military aviation into civil planes? Put it like this: Boeing designed and manufactures things that had never been done before (very large aircraft, swept wing airliners, they got engine manufacturers to develop high-bypass-ratio engines, etc. etc. etc.). Now that they have achieved these things, why should they start redesigning their entire product line, if it still works? They cover everything from 100 seats to 500. What risks should they take, in your opinion, and why?
Wingman From Spain, joined May 1999, 2019 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1712 times:
Airbus never screams for attention. Adria, you need to get off your soapbox and check into a reality clinic. The 380 might just as likely be Airbus' undoing. Crowing about engineering specs is foolish, whether they belong to Airbus or Boeing.
The747Man From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1686 times:
I think they just want the media attetion at the Dubai airshow.Like they did with the Sonic jet at Le Bourget.
Is there something wrong with that? Airbus probably wants attention as well.
The A380 is a press magnet because when it will be built it will be the best aircraft ever and that fact is Boeings worst dream.
The best aircraft ever built you say? Well, how on earth do you know that? Have you been on one lately? You're like some of the others who now say the A346 is the best A340 there is, and they haven't even been on it yet!
If Boeing is starting to consider more derivatives of old planes [again] it means 1) they really want their money back and 2) they are loosing confidence in the Sonic Cruiser.
They have to do something, they lost the JSF contract and they've long since stopped the VLA.
What's the matter if Boeing builds more deratives of old planes, hmm? They're not just old planes, they're GREAT DESIGNS. I don't see you critisizing Airbus for building the A318 or A321 when they could've just built whole new aircraft.
Or they'll go bankrupt (I wish , I hate thier risk-refusal-monopoly).
Hmm, now you wish the biggest aviation company on earth will go out of business, what kind of idiot are you?
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 1633 times:
I don't know what it is with you guys. It's like you'd prefer to see one point rather than the others even though they are louder than this one, y'all're silly.
Perhaps the word "risk-refusal" was taken the wrong way by most of you, how about "derivative-happy".
Yes they did risk before and made it through, however, their lack of risks nowadays is rather curious. Who cares what they did in the 60's, they are a different company now, no staff member that from the 60's is there now. Monopoly? Yes, as much as 90% in the US, that's a monopoly!
What alternative do I like? Interesting how you assume it would be Airbus (btw, they are taking risks, it's called A380). Who said anything about "redesigning their entire product line?" Nobody is that crazy; that's like asking for chapter 11!
What risks should they take, in your opinion, and why?
Basically, I 'd like to see some affordable multiple-Mach-busting airliners in the future, with Boeing's expertise it, I know they can do it. Why they won't even forcast a possiblity is what annoys me. What's wrong with trying? They haven't even forcasted SC's impact. I breifly noted some reasons why in response to The747Man.
First of all, I was being sarcastic. Secondly, how is it you don't see a problem with "monopolies"? Boeing isn't a business in the simplest form anymore, there is no competition (in the US - the main market) and hence, no progress. The statement "the future is now" is heavily underexagerated! You wanna know what the future of air travel is? Look at your local airport! Except it'll be more gridlocked than freeways at rush hour with the projected increase in travel accomodations! No one is going to make newer airports (because of NIMBY), and if anyone doesn't speed up these planes, it's gonna be an airmagedon of traffic problems.
[Airbus is a minority since it has less than 10% of the North American market, Boeing couldn't care less about Airbus. They've been around for barely 30 years, against Boeing, with some 80 years? Golly.]
` My point: The reality is that I don't hate Boeing for being successful, just their refusal for incorporating something new and different. Atleast Ford changed the Mustang over the years, why not Boeing to the same, know what I mean?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 1597 times:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the USA is not the only market that counts. If boeing has, as you claim, 90% of that market, how much do they have in Europe and Asia? Airplanes are a world market. And, in the whole world, Boeing has about 50% of all sales (and a lot more on the flying fleet). So it is far from being a monopoly.
Airbus 380? A risk? Sure. If European governments did not have a tendency to bail out any big business that screws up. If it weren't for government intervention, do you think Swissair, Sabena, Alitalia, Iberia, Air France, Aer Lingus and others would still be flying in one form or another, today? Besides, they would not launch until they had 50 orders, so they made sure the risk was minimized before even launching. And what is so new about that plane anyway? A bit bigger, a bit more composites, a bit more FBW - hardly revolutionising, is it?
Supersonic transport? Oh dear. You must be a dreamer. There are several obstacles to making it viable. Most notably: 1) the boom. Supersonic transport above land will probably never happen, or not in the next 10-20 years. 2) Fuel consumption. To fly in a reasonable Mach range, it would be too high, driving cost up into the never-never-land. 3) Airframe life. A supersonic plane is subjected to more heat than a normal plane. It adds an entire dimension to the fatigue life of a plane if the load/unload cycle is accompanied by a hot/cold cycle as well. It also means materials will be expensive, driving up airframe price. 4.) The market. Sure, some business people would not mind paying 200% more per flight if they get there faster. But even businesses tend to have a sharp eye on their costs these days. They might afford the luxury of supersonic flights for important managers, but the average business man will have to stay firmly in the conventional airliner. 5.) Feasibility. To save enough time, you need a lot of range. This means you need space for fuel in your plane. Which is a problem if you want a sleek, thin plane. Concorde just about manages the hop across the Atlantic. Clearly, that is not enough range for a new generation of supersonic airliners.
All in all, supersonic flights are simply not viable yet. Maybe in 20-30 years. But even then they'll be a small niche, compared with the conventional airliners.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 22, posted (12 years 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1535 times:
Who said anything about supersonic transport? I remember saying "multiple-mach-busting airliners" not just "machbusting." I wanna see a Hypersonic airliner baby. Say good bye the booms and hello world market cuz you're flying beyond 30 miles in the sky!
And who cares for orbital velocity, that's decades out, I'd be happy cruisin' @ a mile per second. Furthermore, I'm sure it the technology already exists, the SR-71 can approach M4.0, so M5.0 isn't that far off. I'm also sure it would have the exact same ticket cost as the Concorde, so don't tell me it'll cost 20 grand one way. That beauty is forty years old and it'll be 60 by the time something like this comes out anyway.
People have to be made aware of what options they can have -- that is the key to a market. If Boeing tried this (or something like it) in the next decade then they got my vote.
BTW, airframe wise, the Concorde is in better shape than subsonics it's own age, and made of the same aluminum as those planes. Heck, let's make another Concorde with 2001 technology, it will be better (according to Boeing's derivative-happy logic) and like Cfalk said, "we would have worked out [or most of] all the kinks". It won't be expensive, unless we obcess about going faster, like the HSCT.
I don't understand why they wanted to go to M2.4 when it will cost less to go M2.0 which has already been proven. I also don't see why they didin't use a turbofan w/reheat instead of a turbojet with sound diffuser; isn't it obvious why they couldn't reach the noise standards?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.