Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23 Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 909 times:
It will probaply become reality. But I doubt it will be succesfull. Why spending more fuel (money) to safe just an hour on a trip from LHR to JFK, compared to a 777 or a A340.
Besides, only bussinesman will be able to afford the high prices for tickets on a soniccruiser flight. And these are the ones who get treated nicely on a A380 soon. I'm sure they will love to stay an hour longer on their flights, rather than an hour less!
DeanBNE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 901 times:
Snip from above article; "Seven months ago, American Airlines was so hot for Boeing's Sonic Cruiser that chief executive Don Carty jokingly asked the head of Boeing Commercial Airplanes for exclusive dibs on the first three years of production.
But the Dallas-based carrier's ardor for the Sonic Cruiser was snuffed out by the Sept. 11 hijacking of two American jetliners and Monday's crash in New York of another American plane. With American bleeding up to $15 million a day — and the airline industry preoccupied with survival — the debut of Boeing's ultrafast plane likely won't come so quickly.
Some of the 15 or so major international airlines working with Boeing to define the proposed plane's characteristics suspended Sonic Cruiser meetings after the terror attacks and have been slow to return Boeing's marketing questionnaires."
Flying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, RR: 39 Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 893 times:
I´ve some doubts about it. I´m not quite sure how Boeing wants to manage the certification process as they would have the Sonic Cruiser to fly Mach 1.01-1.04 to get it certified to Mach 0.95-0.98. That would mean a different design.
And the choice of engines will be a question: all manufacturers have back away from developing derivates of the current T7 powerplants and fix on new designs instead. That means that this site will contribute another share of development costs to an already not cheap plane. And will all three manufacturers be able to sell their engines in the long-term? The A330 and B777 projects were a desaster till today because three manufacturers have to share the whole market and two of them came out with a completely new design and the other had to build a derivate which comes close to a new engine.
And what about the ecologic issues? Flying in this heigth contributes further to the green house effect - much stronger than in the lower atmosphere. And the increased fuel burn itself will provided more NOx, CO etc per pax compared to a B744 or A388.
CanadairRJ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 871 times:
I sure hope the SC doesn't take-off. It is the craziest thing I have ever heard of. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be bashing the SC or Boeing, but Boeing is obviously a smart company. I think they can put there money into a plane that will actually make some money.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 865 times:
They will. It is called the Sonic Cruiser.
Boeing is a smart company indeed. The economy will come around again. American will again jokingly state they want the first three years of production. Unfortunately, everyone is looking short term right now. Airbus is not stopping their developement of the A380. And Boeing won't stop thier developement of the Sonic Cruiser.
747forever From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 823 times:
No question, the sonic cruiser WILL become reality, if you ask me, you have to look back to the 747 concept, most people thought, no way can Boeing do that, but what can i say, they did, and it has the lowest price per pessenger per seat, surely they can, and most likely will do the same with the sonic cruiser. As for the A380, neah!!
Magyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 596 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 816 times:
I hope it will NOT be a success story. I am pretty sure
Boeing CAN build a plane which can fly just shy of
the sound speed and carry as many pax as they
claim as far as they claim. My only doubt is the cost
of it. My biggest fear is that Boeing can actually build
the plane that can fly at the cost what they claim.
Why don't I like the concept? Because it is one of the
most wasteful way to fly. Boeing can always build a
plane doing everything the SC can but flying slower
and being MUCH more efficient. And the speed is for
pleasing the whining first/business class pax.
Since I know that their opinion counts the most,
I hope Boeing fails with the SC so there
won't be an option to fly faster and more inefficient.
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1356 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 800 times:
Magyar: Boeing can always build a
plane doing everything the SC can but flying slower
and being MUCH more efficient. And the speed is for
pleasing the whining first/business class pax.
Well then, why not insist that A and B henceforth develop only efficient turboprop airliners? Why don't you convince Airbus to stop development of the 380 and focus their efforts on an updated Brabazon?
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4111 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 596 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
