Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......  
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 851 posts, RR: 2
Posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2051 times:

...will take place in about 2006-8.
Curius as hell how that a/c looks
like????
 Big thumbs up
MichaelSthlm/SE


Airbus SAS - Love them both
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2029 times:

SORRY!!!!!!
I mean B 787....



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineCiro From Brazil, joined Aug 1999, 662 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2018 times:

I guess it will probably be something like a 767NG.


The fastest way to become a millionaire in the airline business is to start as a billionaire.
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2431 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1998 times:

It will be a 777 with a 330 fuselage cross section.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 1924 times:

"It will be a 777 with a 330 fuselage cross section."

?????????????????

Dunno if even the cross section has been confirmed yet, but 2-3-2 would be logical. Especially if this should fill the 757/767 niche. Dunno about 2-4-2, but not much factual information is out yet.

George



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 20 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

According to Mullaly, it's basically going to be a 764 with the cross-section of a 772... twin engines and raked winglets confirmed.

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 20 hours ago) and read 1854 times:

The cross section of a 777 sounds a little wide, don't you think? The 772 is an unusually wide aircraft - 5 inches wider than the already plenty wide DC-10.

The reason 2-3-2 isn't logical is the same reason the A332 is whooping it up against the 767 now and the A300 and A310 are the most popular smaller widebody freighters and not the 767F - the cross section is just nost wide enough. Gotta be able to fit two LD3s side by side.

N


User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 19 hours ago) and read 1822 times:

Agree on the need to carry LD3s side by side, but by your own post, seating configuration doesn't neccessarily reflect cross section.

Perhaps though, 2-4-2 is optimal seating in a cross section that can accomodate side by side LD3s?

then what of ConcordeBoy's information? The situation is a little confused it seems.

George



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2742 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

When Mulally mentioned the '777 fuselage,' he wasn't refering to cross-section, but architecture. The new aircraft will have a perfectly circular fuselage, like the 777. However, it will not be as wide, probably very similar to the A330/340 (as already mentioned, it will be wide enough to fit two LD3s). Of course, don't expect an actual A330/340 fuselage either. In fact, it will probably be slightly larger due to the shape, allowing ample cargo volume without sacrificing headroom.

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlinePatches From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 1809 times:

I just can't believe it would be as wide as 777. 2-4-2 would be the best fit. than it could compete against the A330 in all phases. plus it would have the container space it would need. If they made it almost as big as a 777, would'nt it compete against itself?

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 1803 times:

Right I was trying to associate 2-3-2 with fuse width, and it didn't come across correctly...

A 767 width fuse, imho, is too small while a 777 width fuse would be too big. The A330/340 fuse width is optimal for an aircraft in this size range.

Although really, Airbus is getting a lot of mileage out of the A300 fuselage...both smaller and larger planes.

N


User currently offlinePatches From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 1795 times:

does anybody know what this bird will look like? How big of engines, fbw, even more composites? stuff like that.

User currently offlineJgore From Argentina, joined Feb 2002, 550 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 1788 times:

I guess it will be a Double-Decked 777 powered with 4 GE90-115's.

Jgore  Smile


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 1784 times:

A previous conversation on the "SE" aircraft indicated it would include as much composite as possible, as well as very high-bypass ratio (10:1) engines.

It seems both manufacturers are getting on board with tons of engine thrust... maybe the CF6-80E1 or Trent 700 (or future 600) will be appropriate.

N


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 1782 times:

It seems both manufacturers are getting on board with tons of engine thrust... maybe the CF6-80E1 or Trent 700 (or future 600) will be appropriate

Both? What about Pratt....?


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (11 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 1777 times:

Heh ok or the PW4168a or similar future engine.

Sorry Pratt lovers.

Any Pratters out there know anything about a PW4172? Both GE and RR are offering 72k lb engines for the A330 now but not PW...

N


User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 1772 times:

It's pretty clear that Boeing's new aircraft will carry side-by-side LD-3's. They are tired of ceding that point to Airbus with the 767. That feature was in the Sonic Cruiser design -- see the August 27, 2001 issue of AW&ST http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/autonomy_samples/autonomysuggest/autosuggest.jsp?docid=13898&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Fcontent%2Fpublication%2Fawst%2F20010827%2Faw52.htm, from which the following is snipped:

[John] Roundhill [vice president of marketing for the new aircraft at Boeing Commercial Airplanes] said lower-deck cargo-carrying capability is a key factor in determining a new aircraft's basic features such as range, payload and cargo hold cross section. The baseline design for the Sonic Cruiser has side-by-side LD3 containers under the passenger deck. (The bracketed inclusions were taken from earlier in the article.)

This probably means a 2-4-2 layout, but perhaps it could be 2-3-2 if they use a double-bubble design and the composite structure allows higher volumetric efficiency. I think Boeing will try to find a way to get the cabin walls to be more vertical than the competitor, which to me suggests 2-4-2 and double-bubble. We'll find out in good time.

As for what the plane will look like, I believe someone already posted a link to http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/100543_sonic19.shtml, which contains an artist's conception.



User currently offlineLanPeru From Peru, joined Jun 2001, 645 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (11 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 1770 times:

Perhaps the plane will be 2-4-2 like the A330/A340, but it will be a round fuselage with slightly wider seats and more legroom.

User currently offlineTeahan From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 5293 posts, RR: 61
Reply 18, posted (11 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 1769 times:

LanPeru,

AFAIK, the A330/A340 is a round fuselage!

Secondly, the legroom is totally up to the airline and not up to the manufacturer.

Jeremiah



Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offlineLanPeru From Peru, joined Jun 2001, 645 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (11 years 8 months 17 hours ago) and read 1725 times:

Teahan, I meant to leave out legroom sorry.

User currently offlinePatches From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (11 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 1691 times:

maybe NWA can be a launch customer for this plane and they could cancel some of there A330 orders. Ha Ha! Just joking. but they still would be a good launch base for this aircraft. Right?

User currently offlineThadocta From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (11 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

One of the problems with the 767 and its 2-3-2 configuration is that you only really end up with one extra seat per row compared with the narrow body 737 and 757 aircraft - as a result, it doesn't really give you that much more of an operational advnatage.

Compare it with the A332, giving you TWO extra seats per rown (when viewed across the entire cabin length, that makes a hell of a difference) and then factor in freight capability, it would make sense for Boeing to make the B787 into something a bit wider than then B767.

Dave


User currently offlineNWA320 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 1640 times:

It looks like it has winglets in the picture.


MERRY CHRISTMAS,
NWA320


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2431 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (11 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 1560 times:

Off course I did not meant that it would have a 330 fuselage. However I have no doubts whatsoever that it will have 2-4-2 seating. The fuselage is going to be wider that the 767 to allow for side-by-side underfloor LD-3. However it would not surprise me that Boeing would actually make it a little wider than the 300/330/340 to get some marketing advantage over the Bus. That would also allow for more headroom at the window seats, since the cabin walls will be more vertical. Combined with the general cabin architecture of the 777, this would give a more relaxed and spacious feeling to the pax. compared with the Bus.
It would not be as wide as the 777. Why bother spending billions of dollars if they could do the same thing basically with a 777-100? As previously said, such a 787 would compete head on with the 777 family. Makes no sense.

Boeing has repeatedly said that the aircraft would have two different missions, being medium haul and [ultra-] long haul. Would this mean that they are designing different wings for each mission?
A short/medium haul aircraft could do with a much smaller wing than the long rane aircraft. The smaller wing will tremendously increase short/medium haul efficiency. This is the reason why the shrinked 330-500 will not work. It still has a wing designed for 12000 km range, which is much too heavy for the short hops [as opposed to the A303/310]. A smaller wing could be up to 5 tons less heavy [which equals about 50 additional revenue pax...!].

Kind regards,
PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2470 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (11 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1390 times:

I can't help but notice the skepticism in the article over whether or not Boeing would really launch this airplane. Their credibility is really on the line after this announcement. They really now must go forward with this program if they're to have any hope of regaining momentum lost to Airbus. They can't delay because Airbus will field a competitor as soon as the bulk of the A380 R&D is done. Their back is to the wall, now-they MUST build this aircraft! I don't think they'll have any problem getting launch customers if the '787' has such outstanding economics. But I think the longer-range versions may threaten the 777-200, even with lower capacity. Boeing must be careful to avoid too close a performance overlap but the time to do this is clearly now-it's what the airlines want. Too bad for the Sonic Cruiser, that would really have been something!

25 Post contains links and images Delta-flyer : Here's the 787..... http://www.boeing.com/phantom/bwb.html Pete
26 Cloudy : Delta-Flyer I hope you are right, and I used to think as you do. It is a bit tantalizing to see the possibility of a midsized BWB mentioned on Boeing'
27 Srbmod : The BWB is not going to be the next a/c in the 7X7 family. Boeing is not going to make such a quantum leap in a/c design for the forseeable future. Th
28 Delta-flyer : I agree, calling the BWB the 787 is a bit premature. But it's interesting that the Boeing Phantomworks website added these commercial variants after t
29 BWIA 772 : The 787 i hope is as popular with the airlines as the 777 and really give bus competition for the 330 market. I wonder if the work done on the 787 wil
30 Gigneil : The commercial versions of the BWB have been on the Phantom Works website for some time, even before the cancellation of the SC. N
31 Delta-flyer : The commercial versions of the BWB have been on the Phantom Works website for some time, even before the cancellation of the SC. I think they added th
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...
Chances Of Y3 Being A "Sonic Cruiser" posted Thu Jul 20 2006 00:31:47 by Ruscoe
Return Of The Sonic Cruiser? posted Wed Dec 22 2004 22:25:18 by Mdsh00
Emirates Possible Customer Of The Sonic Cruiser posted Sat Nov 10 2001 01:52:16 by RJ_Delta
Sonic Cruiser= 787? posted Mon Oct 1 2001 20:11:38 by RJ777
Potential Users Of The 'Sonic Cruiser' posted Wed Jun 13 2001 05:07:37 by United Airline
Where Can I Find A 3-view Of Boeing Sonic Cruiser? posted Wed Apr 25 2001 11:16:50 by Air Orange
CEO Of The CO's Comment On "sonic Cruiser" posted Mon Apr 9 2001 21:29:13 by Cruising
Why IB To BOS&IAD Instead Of DFW Or Second ORD? posted Thu Jun 7 2007 19:33:19 by UPPERDECKFAN
Could CO Operate LPL-EWR Instead Of Y2's LPL-JFK? posted Mon May 28 2007 11:19:41 by 8herveg
Delta To Apply For ATL-PVG Instead Of PEK In 2008 posted Fri Jan 19 2007 10:30:33 by Panamair