Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Your Opinions On Sonic Cruiser  
User currently offlineVivaGunners From Italy, joined Oct 2000, 364 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1750 times:

My personal opinion is this:
I don't like it, even if I'm trying to force me.
Maybe it's a mine problem, but SC is too different from those planes I just LOVE now; so I can't like it.
I think (or I hope) somebody else has my opinion or can just understand me.
Obviously I talking about the mere design of SC and I know that, a part from this, SC is probably a good project for aviation future, but I can't imagine a 777 that compared to SC in 2010 (I suppose)will be seen like an old concept of plane. I LOVE 777,767,757,747,737,330,320,380,340 etc.
I don't feel happy thinking about SC like aviation future.

Any kind of reply would be greatly appreciated.


Any ideas for a signature?
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

Since the Japanese joined in on the SC, I convinced it will fly. But it will be a rare bird for many years to come,
as for the design it look like a military project not an airliner, but fair enough, planes don´t have to look the
same, easier fro beginner spotters....


User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1663 times:

I personally am really exited about the SC, It is the dawn of a new era of travel, and while the first edition will be decent, once they have the technology mastered, I think all planes will end up this way. You will have 737 sized planes doing transcons in 2 hours etc. If they succeed, it will be amazing

Jeremy


User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1646 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1642 times:

As of right now,
These are the companies that are going to do Materials and Technology research for the SC project.

Alenia Aeronutica

Fugi Heavy Industries

Kawasaki Heavy Industries

Mitsubshi Heavy Industries

Japan Aircraft Development Corp

Vought Aircraft Industries

and BCA Wichita Division.

Wichita Division and Alenia Aeronutica are thought to be on the Technology and Structures portion of the project. While the companies from Japan will be doing most work on materials.



My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineBobcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1637 times:

If they build it, I'll fly it...



User currently offlineJustplanesmart From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 722 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1619 times:

Appearance-wise, the drawings of the Sonic Cruiser do not appeal to me. But whether I find an aircraft visually pleasing or not does not dampen my enthusiasm for it. If it is produced, the SC will represent the first significant leap in commercial airliner technology since the late 60's. Think about this-as much time has passed since the introduction of the 747 until now as from the DC-3 until the 747. So the SC will be a thrill for its inovation. I hope that it will be built, and that it will be assembled here in the Seattle area. That will be something that I look forward to, and hope to have my two sons share with me.


"So many planes; so little time..."
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6287 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1606 times:

Since the late 60s? The 747 was not exactly a quantam leap in technology. The only thing that has really changed since the 1930s are the avionics and engine efficiency. Add to that more efficient wings, etc. But you have today nothing more than 70 year old technology that is larger. I don't even see the SC as being any large leap forward except in it's look.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineTWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1594 times:

I think that Boeings Sonic Cruiser is a good idea. I think that there would be interest from the airlines. Hopefully we'll be seeing the Sonic Cruiser in the sky in a few years. Big grin

TW



Two A-4's, left ten o'clock level continue left turn!
User currently offlineRogueTrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1586 times:

I'm excited about it and hope it works, though have no opinion as to whether its technologically viable. The economics of air travel the technology hopes to address is correct: people want more point to point and they want it faster and want more frequencies. People do not want more hubs and less frequency.

From an aesthetic point of view, we've been living with the same thing for 50 years or more. Most 'normal' people would say a 707 looks like an A340 or whatever. I think the first Comets flew in the late 1940s, and we're still working with the same type of designs.

The great thing is that no one knows what the future holds. Maybe aliens will finally share with us their propulsion technology, putting both A and B out of business.

kind regards,

RogueTrader


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13742 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1578 times:

This is my opinion, and I know you all love the Sonic Cruiser so sorry, but this post is for opinions.

I hope it fails. The Sonic Cruiser would have the range to fly non stop Europe - Australia and that would detracr from hubs like Singapore and then Singapore Airlines' profits would falter.

And that's why I don't like it. But it looks cute.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1577 times:

You will have 737 sized planes doing transcons in 2 hours etc
How long does it take right now?4 hours or so?I dont see an improve like that when the Sonic Cruiser will only cruise at .95M


User currently offlineRogueTrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1575 times:

Singapore Air: that's great honesty. I wish everyone who has an opinion would just say something like, "I hope it succeeds/fails because of my own personal interests...". Really, I am impressed.

kind regards,

RogueTrader


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13742 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1565 times:

that should be...

"and that would detract from hubs like Singapore"

Rogue Trader: Thanks  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1535 times:

I understand Singapore_Air's concerns, but I can't imagine that the SC project will fail. It may not turn out the way it is envisaged today, but when you have Boeing aligned with the major contractors listed above, not to mention the hundreds of smaller contractors (including my employer), all of whom are investing their own funds, something positive will happen.

Pete  Smile


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1522 times:

Personally I was not big on the idea of SC or its looks but then it is going to be the first major change in Jetliner design for decades.

I can see a market evolving for the SC. The markets are moving gradually away from hub and spoke which will leave airlines trying to lure/ herd low yield fares into hubs in attempts to fill A380. Direct city to city and higher frequency is the key that is why 767s and equivalents relegated the 741/742s from trans Atlantic supremecy.

The present thought of 15+ hours on A345s may give way to SCs for 12 hr journey which will be more appealing to the high yield fare.

My opinion is that A380s will oftenstruggle to be filled from hubs and then only will too much low yield and the current 777/A340/744/etc will prove more versatile and economical.

...And the SC may well prove to be a smart move in the long range / time shrinking high yield market possibly bringing a new design philosophy for airliners......time will tell (I still prefer the looks of the current 777/747 etc) My 2 cents worth


User currently offlineUal777contrail From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1505 times:

i feel that the a-380 isnt going to be as popular as planned and the sc will be another concorde.

the a-380 will do a few airshows and then sold back to airbus, the sc will be right next to it.

i hope they both make it, aviation is a cool industry and to have such diffrent planes being built right now is awesome.

good luck to boeing, and to airbus.




ual 777 contrail


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13742 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1477 times:

Though I really want it to fail like a pig, my wishes could seem to be demised.

Think about it. Mach0.95 or whatever is just the next step in evolution. You can't stop that.

Pity.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineDeltaownsall From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1466 times:

I like the Sonic Cruiser and everything...but am I the only one that actually LIKES hub and spoke travel? I like to switch airports and everything...as it gives me a chance to see the airports and do some spotting. Also, I like long flights better for the simple reason that I like flying in general...doesn't anyone else like long flights too? For this reason I hope air travel stays the same, even though the SC seems like it could be a good step into the future of air travel.

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1454 times:

Singapore Air, why would it detract from Singapore as a hub or whatever? If anything, it will bring Singapore within easier reach of more destinations. Think about it-shaving 2/3 hours or so-at least-off a flight from, say New York City. It could help, not hurt destinations like Singapore.

And Gordon Bethune made some interesting comments on the SC in CLE about 2 weeks ago. He said, in the SC vs. A380 debate, to put yourself in the shoes of a frequent flier, that flies a lot between, say New York and Paris. Now, do you want to stand in line with 700 people to board, deplane and claim your luggage-and get there in the same amount of time, or would you rather fly a 767-size aircraft that gets you there while the A-380 and those 700 people are still just over halfway across the atlantic? Smart way to look at it.

If it flies, I can't imagine it would fail, shaving travel times as it would.


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8093 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1430 times:

Bethune should remember that his SC will be at the same Flight Level as the A380 and won't necessarily be able to go faster without taking a longer route.

Anyway, here's the thing about the SC: the time saved by cruising a little faster (it won't queue on the taxiway faster, nor will it's passengers get from downtown to the airport and v.v. any faster) isn't enough to justify a higher fare. Therefore, the operating costs need to be the same as a 777 or A380. If the costs are higher, it's not going to work. Period. It's not like you're cutting the total flight time in half. More like 5% - 10% (as I said, taxiing, holding, maneouvering, even initial cruise etc won't be any faster).

And I don't care what nationality the subcontractors are, especially Japanese - half their major banks are trading insolvent and Japanese involvement guarantees nothing. Subcontractors don't fly airliners and the airlines of the subcontracting countries aren't going to fly a plane which will lose them money.

I personally think the SC will not happen unless the costs (especially FUEL) are less than (at least, the same as) a conventional aircraft. With what's going on in the middle east right now, fuel prices will take a big hike and probably not come down again, political solution in Palestine or none. The more fuel costs, the more important efficiency becomes. Hey, airliners used to cruise at near-SC speeds until the oil crisis of '73. Then all the airlines had to calculate what the most efficient speed was. My Dad said long haul flights got an hour longer almost overnight. We could go back to those cruising speeds now (the 747 is of that era and can move faster if it wants to) but it doesn't make economic sense for the airlines. Nor will the SC.

PS As an aviation enthusiast I would love to see it fly and hitch a ride, I'm just looking at it from a business point of view.

PPS I don't give a flying shit what effect (none, btw) the SC will have on Singapore Airlines' traffic between Aus and Europe. Bloody SQ? They'll survive, don't worry about that.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1417 times:

You have to wonder about the economics though.

It will weigh as much as a 772, but have only the payload of a 763. That relagates it to high yield business routes. Its primary benefit is its high speed which would increase airline productivity...but that high speed is of only value on routes 5+ hours long.....which would further limit the market to TA, TP and maybe transcon.

Boeing needs 2-3 largish orders from marquee airlines to kick-start this puppy.

Neil









Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineRogueTrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1412 times:

Bethune should remember that his SC will be at the same Flight Level as the A380 and won't necessarily be able to go faster without taking a longer route.

Cedarjet, do you think that somehow the president of a major airline and all the people at Boeing haven't addressed this problem, if it exists? How do you explain the fact that you see this so clearly but airline CEOs and airplane designers haven't?

kind regards,

RogueTrader


User currently offlineFlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1404 times:

The plane's going to have to be supersonic. Mach .95 simply isn't fast enough to justify that kind of fleet renewal. From what I've read here, it may be just as fuel-efficient to fly at Mach 1.2 - and if that happens, by God, Boeing's got a winner here.

Some folks here think that Boeing may have defeated the sonic boom problem. I'm not so sure about this but it would be interesting to see.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1404 times:

You know if Dehavilland rolled out the comet today most people would call it a great advance in aerodynamics because it didn't have engine pods and was such a clean design.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1646 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1387 times:

I forgot to put on the list in my first post.

Hawker de Havilland.

I would think they will be working on the V-stab and Rudder. Being that they did this work for the 777.



My Country can beat up your Country....
25 Post contains images Singapore_Air : Alpha1: I can see your logic, but if you can get from LHR - SYD about 1.5 hours earlier than having to make a 1.5 hour transit and possibly a 0.5 hour
26 Sinlock : This is my opinion, I would not suprised if we see Califorina (Long Beach) push hard to get Final Construction for the Sonic Cruiser. After the last o
27 EGGD : Its BUTT ugly!!! !!
28 Areopagus : Cedarjet:Bethune should remember that his SC will be at the same Flight Level as the A380 and won't necessarily be able to go faster without taking a
29 Yyz717 : I got my weight quote from an article on the SC in Aviation Week or another mag.
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...
Flying Volare - Your Opinions On The Airline posted Fri Apr 30 2004 16:02:28 by Pe@rson
Your Opinions On Spotting At MAN posted Tue Apr 13 2004 14:01:26 by Pe@rson
Your Opinions On UL posted Tue Oct 7 2003 15:32:18 by Pe@rson
Part 2: Bethune On Sonic Cruiser And A380 posted Mon Sep 16 2002 23:18:05 by PW100
Bethune On Sonic Cruiser And A380... posted Thu Aug 29 2002 11:51:09 by SAS23
Your Opinions On The Review Of TS236 posted Wed Apr 3 2002 05:58:02 by BWIA330
Your Opinions On USA3000 posted Thu Mar 28 2002 03:04:33 by BWIA330
Your Opinions On Delta Airlines posted Thu Jul 26 2001 08:48:45 by DeltaOwnsAll
Engine Makers Keen On Sonic Cruiser Prospects posted Mon Jun 25 2001 01:49:25 by B757300
Your Opinions On JI, Their RDU Hub, And Their 73Gs posted Fri Jun 22 2001 22:06:12 by LH423