NASCARAirforce
Topic Author
Posts: 2452
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:27 am

Sonic Cruiser

Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:51 pm

why are they still talking about the Sonic Cruiser on the Boeing website? I thought they scrapped it years ago.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23100
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser

Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:44 pm

They did, but I imagine they keep it around for historical reasons for a bit.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Sonic Cruiser

Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:48 pm

And the concept is I think still alive and well, just not yet turned into a commercial product (the 787 is effectively a first spinoff).
I wish I were flying
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser

Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:29 am

They were saying something like "eventually the airlines will come back to the idea of faster flight". Very well may be, but I don't think M0.98 is that attractive, even with an appropriate fuel burn. I'd rather expect either Aerion or SAI QSST to be developed into something bigger, to be offered to airlines, and both say 30-50 seaters are possible.
 
boeingguy1
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:31 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser

Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:34 am

I would expect that something similar to the Sonic Cruiser would be the future of aviation- as long as we come up with an appropriate new engine (im talking a new fuel source, IE Ethanol...) and quite possibly something we might see (or our children) in the year 2075.
Gatwick South! Id rather crash in Brighton!
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Sonic Cruiser

Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:09 am

I'm with RIX here, I want Aerion built, put in biz jet service, then offered in a 20-30 seat version, (or what you can fit in to provide reasonable comfort and not bollocks up the range too much).
Then I want BA to buy this version.
Then I want to be part of the maint/operations team on it.
So then I'd get at least the odd airtest on it.

An unexpected second supersonic chance.
You could never match the speed, service and comfort, (much better than many imagine), of Concorde.
I regard my last supersonic, OAE's retirement to BGI, as 'my Apollo 17'.
But an 'airline Aerion' would be pretty close, better yet, the aircraft looks very 'do-able'.
Unlike virtually every other proposed SST, some SSBJ's too.

Not Mach 2 or course, but an executive Aerion could leave LHR much earlier to Concorde by being much, much quieter.
(Having said that, we did, at weekends, operate plenty of 'extra' BGI's', start of charters, with push back times from 07.20-09.20).

I regard the Sonic Cruiser, liked our beloved white bird, as mainly a victim of Sep 11th.
Wouldn't have cared much for a LHR-JFK trip on SC, compared to Conc, still way too slow.
But plenty of other routes where it would make a difference, as well as looking great to arrive on!
I'd have liked to see BA with SC's in short.

Maybe one day.
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser

Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:58 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
Then I want BA to buy this version.

GDB, I'm absolutely with you here. If it comes to reality, I won't board this thing with any other airline until I go supersonic with BA again.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
Then I want to be part of the maint/operations team on it.

- yes, I, too, want you to be part of the team.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
You could never match the speed, service and comfort... of Concorde.

For Aerion, definitely not speed (however, interestingly, lower speed design is what makes it viable), but as for service and comfort... even a cabin yet more narrow than 2-2 of Concorde can be still comfortable, and it's not me who will tell you that BA will provide greatest service possible  Smile...

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
An unexpected second supersonic chance.

- yes, while not long ago all "future SST" talks were "never in at least 50 years, if ever". Now both Aerion "conservative, non-expensive" and SAI "almost no sonic boom" concepts already proved that it can be done much sooner, even if none of these two eventually flies. Now, who knows - wait for a couple of more breakthroughs, and... at least, it looks like Apollo17 will not be the last one ever to land on the Moon either!  Smile
 
dagell
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:21 pm

RE: Sonic Cruiser

Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:18 am

I heard that Airbus is thinking about making a sub-sonic or supersonic passenger jet. Any news on that?
 
A319XFW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:41 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser

Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:21 am

Quoting Dagell (Reply 7):
I heard that Airbus is thinking about making a sub-sonic or supersonic passenger jet. Any news on that?

Probably like Boeing, they must be looking at it or just having feasability studies done etc to have some work in the back hand just in case.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Sonic Cruiser

Tue Jan 03, 2006 5:07 am

In 1994, the Airbus nations did a study, drawing on concept work by BAe and Aerospatiale.
Like 30 years before, these descendants of Concorde companies came to very similar conclusions.

R/R-Smecna had a MCV-99, Mid Tandem Fan, engine concept.
Basically trying to be a high bypass turbofan for take off, landing, subsonic flight,then a low bypass engine for efficient supercruise (though a R/R rep told me they'd never match the Olympus 593's efficiency at Mach 2).

A challenge, that made the big modifications to Olympus, the reheat/nozzle system and most of all, the intake system on Concorde, look like a breeze.
(Which they certainly were not!)

But, still no supersonic overland, (though 2-2.5 times more pax than Concorde, much more range, much quieter).

However, more quiet/less emissions, was relative.
As restrictions in these areas were only going to be tougher in future, the goalposts were moving away much faster than any needed new technologies to counter them.
Boeing/NASA went through a similar, though much better funded process, coming to similar conclusions in 1998, ending the work that December.

Airbus eventually went for the VLA market instead, the rest you know, whatever you think of A380, compared to a SST, it was a wise move.
 
gusnyc
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:06 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser

Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:32 am

I always thought that the Sonic Cruiser was just a move from Boeing to get some attention of the press from the A380, which was all over the place at that time.

I never believe that Boeing really intended to build that plane. It was TOO "galactic" and revolutionary to and the benefit was to save a few minutes in a 5 hour flight? And they presented it when the A380 was right in the spotlight?

Mmmhhhh... it sounds like a publicity stunt to me...
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser

Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:55 am

Quoting GusNYC (Reply 10):
sounds like a publicity stunt to me..

O-o-oh... Not again (just joking  Smile)!

Well, seriously: to me, too, it looked like something "too advanced" for "only 15% more speed" (that is more than few minutes in a 5 hour flight, though), and, indeed, not "a thing really to be built". But, yes, Boeing was very serious about the project - e. g., see "Flightpath" magazine by AIRtime Publishing, Vol. 1. There were photos of completed fuselage sections posted here - even if mock-ups, you don't make one just to "get some attention". And it's known pretty well that Sonic Cruiser was a part of "package" of designs that used the same R&D - one of them is known today as Boeing 787...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 666wizard, AMIKI, Anansaudiajet, angelopga, babatonton, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], etops1, Google Adsense [Bot], N14AZ, oldannyboy, Planesmart, pompos, RalXWB, riyadfilza, Someone83, Spyhunter and 243 guests