Oykie
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:53 am

Quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser

"There is speculation however in the industry that the Sonic Cruiser design is far from gone. Boeing would like to pursue a "bleedless" engined 737 replacement, however the engine diameter increase could preclude the use of engines being mounted below wing. A scaled down version of the Sonic Cruiser design (albeit slower) in the 737 capacity and a 2+2+2 vs 3+3 cabin could be just what Boeing launches in the coming years to round out its fleet of very fuel efficient aircraft."

Is this likely? Would have been really cool to see if the replacement of the 737 would feature rear mounted engines like the DC-9.  Smile
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4921
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:18 am

The engines IMO should be around the size (or slightly larger) than the 757. The 757 uses wing-mounted engines, so therefore the 737 replacement should. They should offer both CFM and IAE engines IMO.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:23 am

Heh, the 717 would have been a better platform to build on....oh well. How the cookie crumbles as they say.
 
Stratofortress
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:16 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:26 am

Unless Boeing comes up with a way to do this while keeping the price comparable to that of a 737, it is not likely. Not just sales price, but operational, maintenance, etc. (Life cycle cost).

A sonic cruiser goes a little faster than today's airliners, which can amount to a significant time saving over long distances, however at short distances this time saving would be fairly neglectable.

So once again, unless Boeing can keep the life cycle cost the same (which would be very impressive) dont expect to see a 737 sized sonic cruiser.

On a side note, it would be very cool to see a sonic cruiser like replacement for a 737.
Forever New Frontiers
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:36 am

Isn't Y1 more likely to resemble a C-17 than a Sonic Cruiser?
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
boeingguy1
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:31 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:39 am

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
Is this likely? Would have been really cool to see if the replacement of the 737 would feature rear mounted engines like the DC-9.

With fuel prices where they are today, I would love to see a re-incarnation of the 7J7... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7J7
"...Gatwick South!? Id rather crash in Brighton!"
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:55 am

I suppose it very much depends on what you identify as 'Sonic Cruiser technology'.

The possible canard design was the Sonic Cruiser idea's most eye-catching feature, but many of the less obvious features being built into the 787 - lighter weight, better streamlining, thinner high-aspect-ratio wings, lower cabin altitude, and of course bleedless engines - are products of the Sonic Cruiser project.

Those new technologies, plus the benefit of further design experience gained from the 787 programme, will obviously be built into any replacement for the 737. To that extent, the Sonic Cruiser project is far from 'dead'.

But, though it will be a lot lighter and faster than the current 737, I still expect Y1 to look a lot more like a conventional airliner than the Sonic Cruiser design. The canard aeroplane design has been in and out of favour many times since it was first tried in the early 1900s, but it has never really 'stuck'.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:55 am

For shorter range operations, the speed advantage of the sonic cruiser cannot justify the additional cost. It might someday make sense for 6000-8000nm trips, but it definitely doesn't make economic sense for 1000-4000nm trips. I would be stunned if Y1 were to have a higher cruise speed than the B787.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:03 am

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
A scaled down version of the Sonic Cruiser design (albeit slower) in the 737 capacity and a 2+2+2 vs 3+3 cabin could be just what Boeing launches in the coming years to round out its fleet of very fuel efficient aircraft."

A slowed-down Sonic Cruiser is the 787. In 737-size, it's the Y1.

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
Would have been really cool to see if the replacement of the 737 would feature rear mounted engines like the DC-9

Unlikely.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 2):
Heh, the 717 would have been a better platform to build on....oh well

Hardly !

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
A sonic cruiser goes a little faster than today's airliners, which can amount to a significant time saving over long distances, however at short distances this time saving would be fairly neglectable.

Boeing's biggest fan, Southwest Airlines, will be a key customer in defining the Y1 737NG replacement.

For WN to get anything out of a faster aircraft, it would need to quickly reach an economic cruise of Mach .95-.98 and reduce turn-time by 30% just to give one more utilization per day. WN will likely say: more fuel efficency please. Sonic Cruiser-like designs will be vetoed by a conservative, fuel sensitive industry.

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 4):
Isn't Y1 more likely to resemble a C-17 than a Sonic Cruiser?

Perhaps, Boeing patented a high-wing semi-wide body. However, a patent doesn't necessarily hint at anything.

The high-wing would allow higher bypass engines without compromising ground clearance, and a wider body could speed turn-time.

Quoting Boeingguy1 (Reply 5):
With fuel prices where they are today, I would love to see a re-incarnation of the 7J7

The same fuel efficency can now be gained with much more conservative technology than the UHB propfan. It won't come off the shelf...
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:06 am

Larger engines could be fitted to the wing if it had ground clearance similar to the 757. 757 uses the same basic fuselage design as the 737, it just has a longer undercarriage, and can fit a large pair of fans under. IMO, the 797 should resemble this, with two big fans under the wings, and a tall undercarriage. I imagine 797 will look like a smaller 787, and if it flies as fast as 797, i'll be impressed. Typically long range aircraft fly faster. 737, 757, and 320 all fly in the .78-.80 range, with the 757 able to cruise up to .82. The 787 flies at .85, if the 797 is that fast, it'll be impressive.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:16 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 9):
Larger engines could be fitted to the wing if it had ground clearance similar to the 757. 757 uses the same basic fuselage design as the 737, it just has a longer undercarriage, and can fit a large pair of fans under. IMO, the 797 should resemble this,

The problem with the 757 was always that it was built a little too large and shrinking it to create the originally proposed 757-100 was not economically practical. I can't see how the Y1 could possibly resemble the 757 yet fulfill the mission of the 736.

If the engines for the Y1 will be similar in size to those of the 757, Boeing will have to find some arrangement whereby those rather large engines can be used on a plane in the 736 size range.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:37 am

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 10):
I can't see how the Y1 could possibly resemble the 757 yet fulfill the mission of the 736.

It's rather simple...

Composite fuselage and structure will prevent the high/low end variants from suffering unnecessary structural weight. Boeing can scale "one and a half" wings so that the larger variants have adaquet lift and the smaller variants are not lugging around dead weight. Engines can also be scaled and retain partial commonality (like the Trent, PW4000, and CFM families). A versatile family of aircraft can be imagined approx as:

Standard wing:
- 100 seats 3000 nm range
- 150 seats 3500 nm range
- Standard engine
- Seating optimized for efficent labor utilization in LCC config

Heavy wing
- 200 seats 4500 nm range
- 250 seats 4000 nm range
- Scaled up engine
- Reinforced wingbox with span insert
- Optional belly tanks

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 9):
757 uses the same basic fuselage design as the 737, it just has a longer undercarriage

That means extra weight and extra maintenance on the landing gear. It also puts the under belly out of the reach of bag loaders and MX crews.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:39 am

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 10):
The problem with the 757 was always that it was built a little too large and shrinking it to create the originally proposed 757-100 was not economically practical. I can't see how the Y1 could possibly resemble the 757 yet fulfill the mission of the 736.

Wasn't one of the reasons that Boeing hesitated to build the 757 that it would be to close in capacity to the 737?
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4921
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:46 am

I am doubtful that Boeing will make a 737-600 sized variant. That market has been taken over by Embraer. The largest variant should be 757-200 sized IMO.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
 
Oykie
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:53 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
The largest variant should be 757-200 sized IMO.

Looking at the current success of the 73G and 738 I doubt Boeing is keen on giving this away  Smile

Don't count on Boeing to give up on the 736 size just yet. Even though the current version is a heavy plane, doesn't mean that the weight will be an issue on the next generation. Composite structure will give Boeing some benefits. And different wingsizes.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:59 am

I would think Boeing would prefer the 757-style of tall undercarriage allowing clearance for larger engines on a low-mounted wing then having the engines at cabin-level hanging off a high-mounted wing with a "shorter" undercarriage for the Y1 program.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:04 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
I would think Boeing would prefer the 757-style of tall undercarriage allowing clearance for larger engines on a low-mounted wing then having the engines at cabin-level hanging off a high-mounted wing with a "shorter" undercarriage for the Y1 program.

This is why rear mounted engine would make sense for the Y1. Large engines and low ground clearance.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:18 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 16):
This is why rear mounted engine would make sense for the Y1. Large engines and low ground clearance

Well WN and FR will certainly heavily influence many of the plane's basic physical dimensions. If their passenger and baggage load/unload equipment is designed only to service a 737-high frame, and cannot accomodate a 757-high one, then I imagine Boeing will be forced into somehow working within the current 737 height.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:23 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 16):
This is why rear mounted engine would make sense for the Y1. Large engines and low ground clearance.

Engines are not as efficent with a large fuselage in front of them. T-tail aircraft are also heavier and more complicated than under-wing aircraft.

Simply going to a high-wing solves many problems
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:11 pm

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
The largest variant should be 757-200 sized IMO.

I expect the longest stretch of Y1 will have 80-85% the cabin floor area of the B787-3/8.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:40 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
I would think Boeing would prefer the 757-style of tall undercarriage allowing clearance for larger engines on a low-mounted wing then having the engines at cabin-level hanging off a high-mounted wing with a "shorter" undercarriage for the Y1 program.

the reason the 737, 727 and DC9 variants were low to the ground was that they were designed for a time when they would be flying to airfields without ground equipment.

They could be serviced by pickup trucks and brought their own stairs (optional on early 737s).

The A320 and 757 were designed at a time when this wasn't as important a factor. The 757 would be going to more established airports, and 5 years later when Airbus started on the A320, it was seen as a European airport solution, that fit with their international airport structure and established ground equipment bases.

By 2012, the idea that you should build a low to the ground aircraft from scratch would be just too costly a sacrifice for the overall design. Most modern jetways and airports have to 'bend down' to reach the 737s and MD80s, and it would actually improve (by a few seconds) arrival time by simplifying jetway movements.

Expect the 797 to be higher off the ground, at the same height as 757s, 767s, 787s, etc. There would be no need for an overhead wing in this case, especially if the wing was angle up like the 777.

Though an overhead wing would be cool, I don't think it is necessary, it would add noise to the cabin, eliminate the possibility of an overwing exit, etc.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:01 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18):
Engines are not as efficient with a large fuselage in front of them. T-tail aircraft are also heavier and more complicated than under-wing aircraft.

Simply going to a high-wing solves many problems

I was not aware of this. Makes sense though.

I have some questions regarding high-wing aircraft.

1: Does the high-wing aircraft provide more lift than a low-wing aircraft with the same wing-span?

2: Does the the high-wing aircraft suffer speed penalties. All high-wing aircrafts seems to have a slower cruising speed.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:27 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
"There is speculation however in the industry that the Sonic Cruiser design is far from gone. Boeing would like to pursue a "bleedless" engined 737 replacement, however the engine diameter increase could preclude the use of engines being mounted below wing. A scaled down version of the Sonic Cruiser design (albeit slower) in the 737 capacity and a 2+2+2 vs 3+3 cabin could be just what Boeing launches in the coming years to round out its fleet of very fuel efficient aircraft."

Anyone can post any crap on wikipedia and there is virtually no check on accuracy. It could have been an a.netter who submitted the above crap about a scaled/slowed down sonic cruiser. Slowing from an inefficient transonic M.9x you have a M.8x aircraft which is basically a current day subsonic aircraft. Also to put a transonic class plane on shorthaul missions you gain nothing over a subsonic class plane. Save 5 minutes off a 2-hour flight? Who cares? Probably burns 10% more fuel to save the 5min.

And 2+2+2 cabin? what's that crap?

Your B737 replacement will, yes, be a slightly more efficient aircraft, but not super efficient. Shorthaul business is very different from longhaul. Emphases are on ground turnaround efficiency and climb/decent performance. As long as cruise performance is good-ish then it's not as important as many other things. Yes every drop of fuel saved = $$ but unless they can justify the extra $$ they have to spend to enable this efficnecy gain you ain't gonna see it happen.

Composite it will be. Larger cabin diameter than the B737 but otherwise looks exactly the same or very very very similar. The larger cabin diameter will probably allow a slightly bigger engine core and a higher BPR. Bleed or no bleed debatable (shorthaul). Blended winglets on longer range versions, otherwise wing fences or raked tips. No sharkfin. No C17 style high wings or T tail. No engine mounted above wings. Boring looking old plane. Basically a composite B737. That's my educated guess.
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:49 pm

Quoting Boeingguy1 (Reply 5):
With fuel prices where they are today, I would love to see a re-incarnation of the 7J7

I remember that. Did they ever solve the issues with prop fans? I think Antonov built a prop fan powered plane, cant recall the name.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:58 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 16):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
I would think Boeing would prefer the 757-style of tall undercarriage allowing clearance for larger engines on a low-mounted wing then having the engines at cabin-level hanging off a high-mounted wing with a "shorter" undercarriage for the Y1 program.

This is why rear mounted engine would make sense for the Y1. Large engines and low ground clearance.

Absolutely. But this will NEVER happen since it was Boeing in their "infinite wisdom" that is killing off a line with (40) forty years of tail-mounted engine experience. Efficiency be damned...this is company pride issue.  rotfl 
 
Razza74
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:17 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:13 pm

What about UDF technology?
Ahh the joy of living under a flightpath
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:17 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 9):
Larger engines could be fitted to the wing if it had ground clearance similar to the 757. 757 uses the same basic fuselage design as the 737, it just has a longer undercarriage, and can fit a large pair of fans under.

Which nulifies one of the 737's advantages of ground loading. Close to the ground with easy access.
 
william
Posts: 1622
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:26 pm

The reason the 7J7 had a 2+3+2 cabin (the same as 767 width) was pax comfort. Surveys had shown that the pax love the 2+3+2 seating. However the Propfan technology did the aircraft in. They should have kept the airframe and put some turbofans back there.

"And 2+2+2 cabin? what's that crap?" That "crap" is quicker turn around times and more pax comfort. I think SWA (one of Boeings biggest customers) would be happy with that "crap".
 
Oykie
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:04 am

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 14):
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
The largest variant should be 757-200 sized IMO.

Looking at the current success of the 73G and 738 I doubt Boeing is keen on giving this away

I was very tired when I read this. Thought you meant 757-200 should be the smallest variant. No I do not use drugs  Smile

Quoting Razza74 (Reply 25):
What about UDF technology?



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8):
Quoting Boeingguy1 (Reply 5):
With fuel prices where they are today, I would love to see a re-incarnation of the 7J7

The same fuel efficiency can now be gained with much more conservative technology than the UHB propfan. It won't come off the shelf...

According to DfwRevolution the same efficiency can now be gained without noisemaking UDF engines.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4921
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:06 am

Some have told me that the 7J7 was supposed to have a 2-3-2 cabin, others tell me it was supposed to have a 2-2-2 cabin? Which one is it?
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:36 am

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 22):
And 2+2+2 cabin? what's that crap?

Some of Boeing's Y1 internal design studies show a widebody config for the reason William noted in Reply 27 - making embarking and disembarking faster and improving turnaround thanks to two rows and a shorter fuselage. Long single-aisle planes like 757s and 739/A321s have long load and unload times when working through the single jetway most airports imploy.

Quoting William (Reply 27):
The reason the 7J7 had a 2+3+2 cabin (the same as 767 width) was pax comfort.



Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 29):
Some have told me that the 7J7 was supposed to have a 2-3-2 cabin, others tell me it was supposed to have a 2-2-2 cabin? Which one is it?

The 7J7 actually had a 3+3 passenger config. The fuselage diameter was very close to the 727/737/757 and was a single-aisle config. The Wikipedia data on it being a widebody with dual-aisles is incorrect.
 
Stratofortress
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:16 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:51 am

2+2+2 seems a little unrealistic.

First off it really does not take that long to empty a 737 sized plane, so decrease in turn around time in exchange for higher cost of having a widebody (wider, more drag, more fuel) does not seem realistic. After all, it takes longer to get all the bags on and off than the passangers.

The comfort part, I agree with, and it would be great to have the 2+2+2 seating, I just dont think we will see it.
Forever New Frontiers
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13475
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:53 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 26):
Which nulifies one of the 737's advantages of ground loading. Close to the ground with easy access.

Assuming a conventional configuration, the next generation of single aisle planes will need to be higher off the ground to be able to fit larger, more efficient engines under the wings. Sales of over 4,000 A320s would suggest the closeness of the 737 to the ground is not much of an advantage.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
FlyBoy84
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 4:17 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:01 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
Some of Boeing's Y1 internal design studies show a widebody config for the reason William noted in Reply 27 - making embarking and disembarking faster and improving turnaround thanks to two rows and a shorter fuselage. Long single-aisle planes like 757s and 739/A321s have long load and unload times when working through the single jetway most airports imploy.

I recently flew on an AA flight where the plane was late. Once it got to the gate (it was empty) the gate agent said it would take about 30 minutes to service the plane and get all passengers on (this was a 1 hour flight with only beverage service). Surely, that doesn't beat SW's turn-around, but it's good.

A 3-3 configuration would not be unreasonable for the larger variants.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 20):
the reason the 737, 727 and DC9 variants were low to the ground was that they were designed for a time when they would be flying to airfields without ground equipment.

They could be serviced by pickup trucks and brought their own stairs (optional on early 737s).

The A320 and 757 were designed at a time when this wasn't as important a factor. The 757 would be going to more established airports, and 5 years later when Airbus started on the A320, it was seen as a European airport solution, that fit with their international airport structure and established ground equipment bases.

By 2012, the idea that you should build a low to the ground aircraft from scratch would be just too costly a sacrifice for the overall design. Most modern jetways and airports have to 'bend down' to reach the 737s and MD80s, and it would actually improve (by a few seconds) arrival time by simplifying jetway movements.

This is a point I'm sure I've made in another posting, and repeating it is entirely appropriate. Future planes will not be built according to some nostalgic or historic longing for the past. They will be designed and built for

Effeciency
Comfort
Compatibility with airport infrastructure
Demand from carriers

And not necessarily in that order.

Frankly, I look forward to boarding a bigger, more powerful, more comfortable Boeing narrowbody. I'm sure we will all appreciate the taller plane with the larger engines when we realize that it has amazing hot-and-high performance and that it takes off like a rocket! (Like the current 757)

Change is good!
 
Greasemonkey
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:18 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:08 am

The 7J7 would not be very feasible with the UDF engines and current noise regulations.

-GM
It's usually a good idea to know what all the buttons do...before you push them.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:26 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 32):
Assuming a conventional configuration, the next generation of single aisle planes will need to be higher off the ground to be able to fit larger, more efficient engines under the wings. Sales of over 4,000 A320s would suggest the closeness of the 737 to the ground is not much of an advantage.

Unless of course they aren't under the wings or mounted to a high wing as suggested. Some airlines care, some don't. For those that do (Continental/Southwest/Regionals) it matters very much and for them it's considered an advantage. As for sales, it's not just about the 4,000 320's vs the 737, the MD-80's are there as are every RJ/Turboprop on the planet. They all offer this access as a quick turn advantage.
 
Okie
Posts: 3555
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:44 am

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 33):
Future planes will not be built according to some nostalgic or historic longing for the past. They will be designed and built for

And the answer is economics.

Problem 1 with Sonic Cruisers Design is Engines. High bypass designs only operate in the .84 mach or less realm very efficiently. Which would require either compound (expensive and complex) or low bypass design (noisy and not very efficient). UDF would not even be a thought.

Problem 2 is wings, to have a wing that works efficiently at .99 mach then it will not work at slow speeds 250kts or less very well with out adding expensive and complex solutions. Canards, swingwing, leading edge devices, etc which would add complexity and costs.

Things to ponder
Taller gear could make way for larger tires/wheels which could handle larger brakes and higher speeds for take-off and landings precluding need for leading edge devices making a simple and cheaper wing.
Thrust reverser will probably disappear. Lighter weight, less complex.

With existing technology what we can assume is
Composite Construction. Weight and economics
Bleedless Engine. Weight and economics
Electric and or self contained actuators for control surfaces. Weight and economics.

Okie
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13475
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:52 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 35):
As for sales, it's not just about the 4,000 320's vs the 737, the MD-80's are there as are every RJ/Turboprop on the planet. They all offer this access as a quick turn advantage.

Agreed, but we were talking about the 737 replacement not RJs and Turboprops. I was just trying to illustrate that the "disadvantage" of a higher plane doesn't seem to have materially affected sales of the A320.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
rampart
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:52 am

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 22):
And 2+2+2 cabin? what's that crap?

That "crap" would be much appreciated by this long-legged passenger. Legions of us would go out of their way to book a flight in such a plane, with 4 opportunities for an aisle seat along with the standard 2 with a window. 2+2+2 has been suggested in trade publications outside of Wikipedia and this net.

And why the hostility?

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 22):
No C17 style high wings or T tail.

A patented design did appear in an earlier thread on this website, the design mentioned in the Wikipedia blurb. I can't vouch for it's validity -- is it really from Boeing? -- but it can't be found now, and I think it must have been deleted from the archive for a good reason. Anyhow, it's just a patent, and design could go any direction. However, that style seemed to work for the BAe 146, Dornier 328, and now An 74.

I wonder if some of the replies here took the premise of the original post too literally. Of course it wouldn't make sense to go Mach 9.0 on a short haul aircraft. However, new composite materials, canard + swept wing designs with embedded engines of enhanced efficiency could make a lot of sense regardless of scale. Ask Burt Rutan. Commercial aircraft might finally catch up after 35 years of proven technology. It's only a matter of time*.

Does anyone remember the truly outrageous designs first proposed for the DeHavilland Comet? Had those remained, aircraft would be so very different today.

-Rampart

*my own caveat with an example: railroad cars and tracks have not changed in over 100 years, so yes, design can be entrenched while working around improvements in technology. If that holds, then I'll prove myself wrong.
 
quickmover
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 4:28 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:59 am

2+2+2 seating = No middle seats (which passengers hate).
Awsome idea.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:40 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 29):
Some have told me that the 7J7 was supposed to have a 2-3-2 cabin, others tell me it was supposed to have a 2-2-2 cabin? Which one is it?

With 100% certainty, the 7J7 was 2+2+2

If Wikipedia says 2+3+2 it is mistaken. I submitted a correction a few weeks ago, and I certainly hope it has not been changed back. I have Boeing literature and industry media from the 1980s, no where does it show 2+3+2.

If you would like copies, I would be glad to email them.

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 31):
2+2+2 seems a little unrealistic.

Perhaps, but it was still offered in the conceptual 7J7. The semi-widebody is also what influenced Airbus to build the A320 wider than the 737 or MD80. They were afraid Boeing would launch a product with amazing comfort and economics, leaving them out to dry.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 22):
And 2+2+2 cabin? what's that crap?

Call it what you want, but it was a marketed study by Boeing and it greatly influenced the 1980s market. It may yet return in the future.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 22):
Your B737 replacement will, yes, be a slightly more efficient aircraft, but not super efficient.

Customers like WN will demand nothing less than 20-25% reduced operational and ownership cost. The 737NG and A320 are both relatively outdated today, the A320 is 1980s technology and Boeing only built the 737NG to match. Full application of 787 technology will create killer-aps for short-haul airlines.

This is one reason Airbus must carefully manage their resources in the near future, less they risk Boeing launching an all-new product first and sweeping the quarter-century old A320 away like a dirty tissue.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 22):
The larger cabin diameter will probably allow a slightly bigger engine core

Engine and cabin diameter are completly independent.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 22):
Bleed or no bleed debatable (shorthaul)

No bleed, no debate.

The advantage of bleedless systems are less fuel burn (which are nice), but dispatch reliability, reduced maintenance, and reduced weight. That's even more important for short-haul aircraft (flying 6-7 segments a day) than long-haul aircraft.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 37):
I was just trying to illustrate that the "disadvantage" of a higher plane doesn't seem to have materially affected sales of the A320.

You also don't see the A320 in nearly as prolific numbers in LCC or specialized roles as the 737. Airbus had to make a huge push to win LCC approval of the A320.

Until jetBlue and EasyJet, the 737 virtually dominated the LCC market. Operating anything else was heresy. The 737 still has more preference in the LCC market, and these carriers will be critical in defining the 737 replacement.

Customers like WN will not stand for losing capabilities they had with the 737.

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 33):
A 3-3 configuration would not be unreasonable for the larger variants.

What we may see is a "1.5 x wide isle" that allows the faster turn and improved cabin service of the double isle without adding the weight and drag of dual isles. Anyone's guess.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13475
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:54 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 40):
Until jetBlue and EasyJet, the 737 virtually dominated the LCC market.

But the last few years have seen a dramatic change in that landscape. I don't dispute the 737 is still more dominant in the LCC segment, but it's hardly a surprise these days when an LCC selects the A320.

Unless the 737 replacement is a high-wing design, I don't see how a new plane can be as low as the 737 with next generation engines (which will be quite a bit bigger than the CFM56).
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:04 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 41):
But the last few years have seen a dramatic change in that landscape.

Well, depends on what you're counting as your last few years.

Since 2000, nothing has changed dramatically. The year of dramatic change was 2000 when the A320 was finally embraced by an increasing number of LCC. Since then, it's been a fairly even split (except in Asia) of whose picking 737NG and whose picking A320.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 41):
Unless the 737 replacement is a high-wing design, I don't see how a new plane can be as low as the 737 with next generation engines

That's the exact consideration hinting at a high wing !  Wink
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:10 am

Quoting William (Reply 27):

"And 2+2+2 cabin? what's that crap?" That "crap" is quicker turn around times and more pax comfort. I think SWA (one of Boeings biggest customers) would be happy with that "crap".

Actually, a 2+2+2 cabin would provide slower turnaround times and lower passenger comfort than a 3+3 cabin of the same width.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 40):

What we may see is a "1.5 x wide isle" that allows the faster turn and improved cabin service of the double isle without adding the weight and drag of dual isles.

One 24 inch aisle in a 3+3 configuration would allow faster embarkation and disembarkation than two 18 inch aisles in a 2+2+2 configuration. Both 18 inch aisles would block frequently. The 24 inch aisle would rarely block. The extra 12 inches that could have been used on aisle space could be used to make each seat 2 inches wider, which would do far more for passenger comfort than would the second aisle. So, for any given cabin width, 3+3 is better for both the airline and for the passengers than 2+2+2.

In reality, Y1 will not be wide enough to accommodate 2+2+2 seating. The aisle will probably be 2-4 inches wider and the seats will probably be 0.5 to 1.0 inch wider than those of the A320.

Legacy carriers may choose 0.5 wider seats and 3.0 narrower aisles for passenger comfort on longer flights. LCCs may choose 0.5 narrower seats and 3.0 wider aisles for quicker turns.
 
irelayer
Posts: 929
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:30 am

Just something that I wanted to comment on...

I have noticed a huge rampup of these types of discussions in the past few months both here on A.net and in a lot of other aviation circles. Is this just "lookahead" mode or is there some type of announcement that we are all unknowingly predicting?

-IR
 
Tifoso
Posts: 432
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:15 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:54 am

Quoting Rampart (Reply 38):
A patented design did appear in an earlier thread on this website, the design mentioned in the Wikipedia blurb. I can't vouch for it's validity -- is it really from Boeing?

It most certainly is. Here is a link to the patent filing at USPTO. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...txt&s1='twin+aisle'.TTL.&OS=TTL/

Quoting IRelayer (Reply 44):
Is this just "lookahead" mode or is there some type of announcement that we are all unknowingly predicting?

Boeing has been talking about the 737 successor for a while now, and it seems like Airbus has started doing the same more recently.
 
seanp11
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:16 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement

Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:57 am

I would like to offer my two cents. I think the high wing is improbable. The landing gear would require some kind of external structure to house the gear, which would increase drag. The high wing also requires hydraulic lines, etc, to be run through the side of the passenger cabin. This can add weight, reduce space in the cabin, and be potentially hazardous to the pax. It would be absurd to think that Boeing, or Airbus, would go after a design like that just to allow the plane to be loaded from the ground. If the aircraft were able to be loaded with single file LD3s, I doubt that Southwest, Ryanair, Continental, or any of the other big 737 operators would care about its longer legs. Container loading would shave a good amount of time off turnaround.

The twin aisles seem unlikely, in my eyes, as several people have posted, that one wide aisle, opposed to two narrower aisles, would enable faster turnarounds. Perhaps, if that were combined with a wider door, enabled by composites, that allowed two people to board at a time, turnarounds would be faster. The increased ability to walk around, from two aisles, does not matter as much in the short haul, as the longhaul that most widebodies are used on today. I've been on flights ≤3 hours, where I have not gotten up at all. Those are the majority of the sectors that the 737/A32x are used on today, so it is likely that the 737 successor will also be flying those sectors as a majority.
But this is just my  twocents 
sean
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:32 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 43):
One 24 inch aisle in a 3+3 configuration would allow faster embarkation and disembarkation than two 18 inch aisles in a 2+2+2 configuration. Both 18 inch aisles would block frequently. The 24 inch aisle would rarely block. The extra 12 inches that could have been used on aisle space could be used to make each seat 2 inches wider, which would do far more for passenger comfort than would the second aisle. So, for any given cabin width, 3+3 is better for both the airline and for the passengers than 2+2+2.

While I'm all for an additional 2 inches of seat width, I doubt it will happen. I also don't agree on the 24 inch aisle being better than two 18 inch aisles. It has been my experience that when people block the aisle, they really block the aisle. Getting around someone in 2 feet of space with a carry-on while they are trying to put their carry-on into the overhead just doesn't seem like it is going to happen. Most carry-ons are on the order of 16 inches wide, that doesn't leave a whole lot of room for the other person.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:49 pm

Quoting Spink (Reply 47):
I also don't agree on the 24 inch aisle being better than two 18 inch aisles.

Most carriers use 19-20" anyway, so here's to two 20" aisles.
 
rampart
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement?

Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:01 am

Quoting Tifoso (Reply 45):
It most certainly is.

Thanks, Tifoso! Didn't occur to me to look for the patent database. I actually didn't know it was online. Well, that's proof. My concern was that the original post several months ago was not authentic (it may have been, but I was suspicious when I couldn't find it again).

As several have posted, there are drawbacks to a high wing design. There are also drawbacks to a low wing design. There wouldn't be a patent if there weren't some validity to the advantages of a high wing design. If high wing is hazardous to passengers and aerodynamically inefficient, why is it used for BAe 146, Dornier 328, & An 74? There are solutions.

As for twin aisles, none of you have convinced me that single aisle is potentially faster to turnaround or more comfortable. I'm still holding out for the 2+2+2.

-Rampart