User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5020
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 12:09 am

...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
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5020
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 12:10 am

SORRY!!!!!!
I mean B 787....
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
Ciro
Posts: 639
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 1999 5:00 pm

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 12:22 am

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 avatar
PW100
Posts: 2745
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 12:43 am

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!"
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 1818
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 3:30 am

"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
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 5:50 am

According to Mullaly, it's basically going to be a 764 with the cross-section of a 772... twin engines and raked winglets confirmed.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 5:54 am

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
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 1818
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 6:47 am

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
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2468
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 6:58 am

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.
 
patches
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 5:56 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:02 am

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?
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:05 am

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
 
patches
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 5:56 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:10 am

does anybody know what this bird will look like? How big of engines, fbw, even more composites? stuff like that.
 
jgore
Posts: 518
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 2:41 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:13 am

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

Jgore  Smile
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:15 am

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
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:17 am

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....?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:20 am

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
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:27 am

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.

 
lanperu
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 1:17 pm

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:31 am

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.
 
teahan
Posts: 4992
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 11:18 pm

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:35 am

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
 
lanperu
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 1:17 pm

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 8:23 am

Teahan, I meant to leave out legroom sorry.
 
patches
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 5:56 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 9:01 am

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?
 
thadocta
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 9:44 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 9:42 am

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
 
NWA320
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:06 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:20 am

It looks like it has winglets in the picture.


MERRY CHRISTMAS,
NWA320
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2745
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Thu Dec 26, 2002 8:10 pm

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!"
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2426
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Fri Dec 27, 2002 7:47 am

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!
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Fri Dec 27, 2002 1:00 pm

Here's the 787.....



http://www.boeing.com/phantom/bwb.html

Pete

"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Fri Dec 27, 2002 2:27 pm

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's site.
But now I'm a bit more cynical.

The main market they seem to see for the blended wing body is the military - with its possibility of refueling many more aircraft at once than a normal tanker. And having a smaller ground footprint and better STOL performance than a normal freighter. By far the best of all, the military could be made to pay most of the development costs.

They won't put their own money into it if they think the military might pay later. And it is far easier to get the military to try something new than it is the commercial market.

Boeing is a slave to its stockholders, and these stockholders value the military and space businesses more anyway. They value the next quarter's earning's report even more. It is hard enough to convince them of the value of any new commercial program, let alone something as radical as the BWB.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:35 am

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. The next a/c will fit somewhere between the 767 and the 777 in terms of size, and will incorporate many of the technologies developed with the 777, and will incorporate many of the cutting edge technologies that are currently being used on military a/c. Whether it will be the successor to the 767 is yet to be seen, or perhaps it will be the baseline design for an entirely new family of a/c. Boeing's current fleet does not have the high degree of commonality that Airbus has with their fleet, and that does stick in the craw of the Boeing folks. The transition training time from a 737 to a 757/767/747/777 high a lot longer than the time to go from a A320 family to A330/340. Airbus claims that the training time to go from an A320 to a A340 is 6 weeks max, and claim that the training time to go from a 737 to a 767 is 2-3 months. The next series of a/c Boeing designs and builds will be the basis for a new family of a/c with complete commonality, from the smallest a/c to the largest.
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Sat Dec 28, 2002 5:38 am

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 they announced the cancelation of the Sonic Cruiser.

The BWB concept represents a significant increase is aerodynamic efficiency, which, coupled with the new technologies being developed for the 20XX, will result in the efficiencies Boeing is looking for.

The BWB technology is not as far-fetched as one may think; the B-2 is a living example, not to mention numerous prototypes and of course the flying wings of the 30's - 40's. I'd say we'll see this type of aircraft in commercial service in 15 years.

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Sat Dec 28, 2002 6:57 am

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 will be used when boeing has to replace the 737ng. This from the point of view that if the 737 fuselage was a perfect circle. I find that the 737ng is a little cramp.


Eagles Soar!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Sat Dec 28, 2002 7:06 am

The commercial versions of the BWB have been on the Phantom Works website for some time, even before the cancellation of the SC.

N
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: A 787 Instead Of Sonic Cruiser......

Sat Dec 28, 2002 8:12 am

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 the different civilian variants only recently - they did have a single mention of it prior to that.

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"