SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sat May 12, 2001 4:45 pm

Interesting article. A bit on the short side though

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0528/052.html?_requestid=47733

EXTRACT:

"It sure is a big bet. There is a very good chance that higher operating costs will kill this plane. There is even a good chance that Mulally expects as much and ordered up the release of the radical design more as a morale booster than as a serious business proposition."
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
GOT
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 6:44 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sat May 12, 2001 6:05 pm

The link didn't work, you had to be a registered user.
Anyway I agree. I think that the operating costs will kill the Sonic Cruiser. The Sonic Cruiser is just a dream and I don't think that it will ever fly.

GOT
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sat May 12, 2001 6:53 pm

I've heard of comments like this dealing with other things. A lot of times they are completly against the conventional thinking, which the Forbes article seems to embrace.


"Forget it, Louis, no Civil War picture ever made a nickel."
—Irving Thalberg's warning to Louis B. Mayer regarding Gone With the Wind

"He'll never be any good."
—Robert Irsay, owner of the Baltimore Colts,
after trading newly drafted quarterback John Elway
to the Denver Broncos, 1983

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sat May 12, 2001 8:12 pm

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"
--Lord Kelvin, 1895 in front of the Royal Society
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sat May 12, 2001 9:36 pm

Registration is free though I believe.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
Kangar
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 8:11 pm

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sat May 12, 2001 11:09 pm

It is however a fact that the highest drag is achieved in that speed zone the Sonic cruiser is intended for, this is a big deal to over come.
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is

Sun May 13, 2001 12:43 am

Well, until it is built, the A380 should be considered a paper airplane as well.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 2442
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is

Sun May 13, 2001 1:03 am

B757300,

That's a very stupid reaction I must say.
What you're saying is something like:
Ok, I've jumped out of an airplane whithout parachute, I'm falling down to earth very quickly, but at present I haven't hit the ground yet so everything is fine for me! Yes, well ...Who knows, you might even survive...

By now even the most optimistic Airbus hater knows the A380 will be built and delivered to (at present) over 60 customers.
As for that fake Boeing Concorde, there still is a long road ahead.



 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 1:30 am

The A380 is now a real aircraft to all intents and purposes. Orders have been placed for the finished product, detailed designs are with sub contractors for final quotation/mock up/prototypes of parts and the whole operation is underway.

The Sonic Cruiser is a long way behind this. Doesn't stop Boeing moving quickly, but the technology might.

The use of current engines is likely to cause some headaches particularly in the area of in take design which will take some engineering for handling air at speeds greatly accelerated from current performance.

Control surface and stability problems have always been a problem to be overcome in the trans-sonic zone. The aircraft is going to operate in this zone and will have to show capabilities at and above the speed of sound, even if only for recovery purposes from accidental overspeed.

Then there is the radical design and its fit on airport ramps and compatibility with existing handling equipment...we'll probably see a number of compromises there before the final design is signed off.

All takes time and whilst the A380 is still not around in the metal, the SC is hardly on paper.
 
wingman
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 1:32 am

60 customers have signed up for the 380? That means at least 52 new airlines placed orders since yesterday. Who were they?
 
wingman
Posts: 2765
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 1:42 am

Looks like the same people who thrash Boeing for building planes from the Middle Ages while Airbus produces wonderful Star Trek airplanes with joysticks now instantly thrash Boeing for coming up with a revolutionary design. So what do you people want? Make up your minds and let us know.
 
Guest

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is

Sun May 13, 2001 1:55 am

Sabenapilot,

Those idiots running American, Continental, Virgin, Emirates and Singapore are being fooled by Boeing. Now, if only those airlines are run by competent management like Sabena's they'd see the light.  Yeah sure


 Big grin Big grin Big grin
 
gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 1:56 am

How about this scenario. Boeing is undergoing a major corporate makeover. The new HQ is going to Chicago in order to make it more central to all it's business units. Boeing's acquisitions in recent years has increased it's involvement in military and weapons systems development. Is it possible that this is where Boeing sees it's future? Boeing does not want to spend the money to build a 747 replacement and thought that the world is happy with the present 747!!! It predicts far less need for VLA than AI does and simply does not want to go head to head with the A380. So it tries to remain true to IT'S market forcasts, retires gracefully from the competition (saving face in the process, one hopes) and for good measure throws out this sonic cruiser nonsense just to make everyone think that the show ain't over yet at the Boeing Commercial Airplane Division. All the time of course the really big show in town is the Military business units where the development dollars are really needed. So lets keep stretching 737's, 757's, 767's and spend the R&D on F15, F16, B52, B1 replacements and space based weapons. After all, in this area, Airbus Industrie is no competition at all and not likely to be in the near term! Just a few thoughts!
I have no memory of this place.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 3:03 am

Exactly, 100 years ago, the airplane was considered an impossible machine. It wouldn't work. Look where we are now 100 years later.

Until final assebly begins, it is a paper airplane. If for some reason, hypothetically, the A380 was cancelled today, it would be a "paper airplane". So of course the "sonic criuser" is a paper airplane.

Boeing has stated all along that this aircraft may not have the same operating costs as existing widebodies. They are working on getting it relatively close. The aircraft so far has been marketed as a high end passenger aircraft. First and business class being emphasized. Those passengers will be more than willing to pay extra to not have to be on an aircraft one to three hours more than normal.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 3:11 am

Sabenapilot is one of those people who will trash anyone who says anything remotely bad about Airbus.

No matter what you might want to believe, the A380 still does not exist. Until Airbus builds the prototype, its still a paper airplane. (And Yes, I know they will build it, but last time I checked, it still hasn't been built)
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
L-188
Posts: 29874
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 3:31 am

The funny part is that Sabenapilot holds Sabena's management in such high regard.....

If memory serves they almost ran the company into the ground a few years back.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
A330-243
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 5:36 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is

Sun May 13, 2001 3:55 am

B757300,

No I don't think Sabenapilot will trash anyone who says something bad about Airbus. I have noticed his posts are very informative and it is very interesting to read a pilot's view. You seem to forget how many people create threads knocking Airbus products. Perhaps Sabenapilot knows more about the situation (i.e. he flies an Airbus) and simply wishes to defend Airbus?

Its's funny how each time somebody doubts/questions the Sonic Cruiser, the response will be something along the lines of:

Well the A380 doesn't have that too.

Why bring the A380 into it? They are not true competitiors? .

Instead of sharing your knowledge/opinions on how Boeing plans on overcoming these diffculties, and thus contributing to the discussion, you choose to attack the Sabena airlines managment.

IIRC, this was orignally meant to be a post on the SC. It had the potential to be an informative debate, maybe somebody would have posted a detailed explanation on Boeing's view.

Now people are just making jokes/attacks. Is that the best you can do?

Makes me wonder how much you really know about the SC...
 
A320FO
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2000 12:28 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 3:58 am

Well just a couple of comments:
First of all this post is heading back to the good old A versus B....

No, now back to some FACTS:

100 years ago aerodynimic knowledge was near zero, that's why nobody believed in aviation as we know it today.
Todays aviation is limited by the aerodynamic knowledge, which is very far developed, making the former large jumps ahead in technology smaller and smaller.
Just compare the 1903 aircraft with the ~1933 design of the DC-3: a huge improvement in 30 years. Today we are still flying aircraft based on a 30 year old design (A300, B747, etc), with improvements in details and way smaller.

Why?
We are already operating with highly optimized designs, where just small efficiency increases come with a huge price tag, due to the huge amount of research required. Just look at what CFM is investing in the CFM56 series engine just to reduce costs (operating, fuel consumption, etc) by ONE to TWO percent!

So to get back to the A versus B bashing (at least for some of you out there):
The A380 is a conventional airplane, limited AND designed within known aerodynamic laws, just at slightly larger dimensions. On the paper, already in design freeze.
The Sonic Cruiser is a new airplane, limited by known aerodynamic laws, with still UNKNOWN ways of resolving known aerodynamic limitations.

I am always fascinated by new designs, and a lot of airlines are also fascinated by the fact of faster travel, but at the current stage, Boeings project is a mere idea, and aerodynamics won't make an exeption for Boeing.
Boeing might quite well solve some of the problems, but that will take a long time, so the time frame sounds a little to optimistic.
A similar example was the Concorde. Quite many airlines signed for options, but how many really operated them? Just a little increase in operating costs doomed the entire program. And energy costs definately won't be as low (on average) anymore as they were over the last two decades....

Just my 0.02 (whatever currency) worth....

A320FO
 
Notarzt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 6:09 am

Folks...

The airline industry decides if the Sonic Cruiser will become reality or not. I just heard that Branson of Virgon Atlantic announced his firm interest in the project...

Indeed, there'S no need to deny that the A380 is paper work - for the moment. Disregarding the "orders" already received, we must consider that quite a number of these "orders" are still (and just) letters of intent and similar "commitments". This goes, at least, for FedEx (and, thus, for ALL A380 freighter orders) as well as for Qatar Airways. Furthermore, I was told that Qantas made a certain step back - may be, another member can comment on this.

Stay cool, watch the scene.

Daniel  Big thumbs up
 
User avatar
GreenArc
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 10:59 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 6:56 am

Doubters,

The Citation X cruises efficiently at M.92.

It accomplishes this incredible feat using:

a conventional configuration,
conventional materials,
conventional aerodynamics,
and conventional powerplants.

Boeing is stretching out a staggering .03M with ten year better technology.

I wouldn't bet that it can't be done.

GreenArc
 
Guest

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 7:05 am

Some more quotes for the doubters of the sonic cruiser, this time, from the computer industry.

"640K ought to be enough for everybody"
-Bill Gates, 1981

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"
-IBM chairman, 1943
 
teahan
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 11:18 pm

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 7:40 am

Hey,

Notarzt wrote: Furthermore, I was told that Qantas made a certain step back - may be, another member can comment on this.

Nope you are wrong. The Qantas order made a step forward. It is now a firm order and not a LOI!

Kind Regards,
Jeremiah Teahan

Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
 
B808/A400
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:22 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 8:04 am

I doubt Boeing would waste everyone's time discussing an unfeasible project.
I sincerely hope they (and I'm certain they will) get this baby flying and making
profits.
 
Notarzt
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 8:24 am

Teahan,

No, I am not wrong. I just asked someone to comment on something that I've heard. You might say the source was wrong - not me. Note the difference. Dispense the thread-like tone.

Daniel  Big grin
 
AirbusDriver
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2001 8:01 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 9:55 am

sombody made the comment that the Citation X cruise a mach 0.92, that true but at that speed it's burning as much fuel as a Falcon 2000.

i think the sonic cruiser is a good idea and will most surely be build but on thing is for sure it will cost more to operate than the same plane cruising a 0.85.

also a 15% increase in speed does not mean a 15% reduction in time, more and more we are restricted a lower speed for a longer period of time by atc so 15% of reduction of the time at cruise speed mean a 7 to 10% reduction in actual flt time.
 
Guest

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 12:24 pm

The people at Boeing aren't stupid. Many airlines have expressed great interest in the SC, and Boeing will try to make it work; time is money. It may not work, but I think Boeing believes that the technology is availible to make this work cost efficiently.

On another note, I think something needs to be understood about part of the A v B war. I just need to say that in the US there is alot of resentment over the fact that European tax dollars inadvertantly cost US manufacturing workers their jobs. As this era is progressing, more and more manufacturing jobs are vanishing in the US to jobs in Asia and even Europe. Now, there are some very good reasons why Airbus should be supported (competition etc), however I don't see why Airbus can't compete on level ground with Boeing. DONT GET ME WRONG. I know Boeing receives government projects and all, but this certainly cannot have a huge effect on how much boeing competes in the commerical market.
 
hkgspotter1
Posts: 5750
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 1:35 pm

Wingman,

Have you forgotten Concorde ??, this was the start of Airbus. Boeings idea has taken them almost 30 years to think up !!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sun May 13, 2001 7:03 pm

Seeing we're into quoutes:

"This aircraft is all about speed. Anyone who criticises Concorde is missing the point."
British Trade Minister, 1976.

BUT the point was the range, the fuel levels, the operating costs. Boeing has to resolve these if the SC is to be a success.
 
Fly-by-pilot
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 10:45 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is

Mon May 14, 2001 5:26 am

The problem isnt really efficiency at altitude but efficiency throughout the whole flight. I think this double delta wing is the key in maintaining both low speed/altitude efficiency and high speed/altitude efficiency. It will allow relatively low takeoff speeds and climb while also maintaining effeciency at cruise. I am pretty sure that in the future Boeing could make that second angle in the wing variable, thus making a true replacement for the Concorde.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Mon May 14, 2001 6:52 am

SJC > SFO
On another note, I think something needs to be understood about part of the A v B war. I just need to say that in the US there is alot of resentment over the fact that European tax dollars inadvertantly cost US manufacturing workers their jobs. As this era is progressing, more and more manufacturing jobs are vanishing in the US to jobs in Asia and even Europe.

I really see it. But on the other hand a large number (more than 800) of suppliers are companies in the US. We should consider companies like Boeing or Airbus as developers and assemblers the whole industrialized world benefit from.

Secondly, the way the administration supports US companies isn't always fair and does not always fall within the principles of free trade - ask some managers at Airbus or other european high-tech companies. (Here in Germany, approx. one spy per week is expelled back to the US and according to some major papers it is very likely that governmental authorities support their "work".)
I support the right to arm bears
 
LZ-TLT
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Mon May 14, 2001 7:11 am

(Here in Germany, approx. one spy per week is expelled back to the US and according to some major papers it is very likely that governmental authorities support their "work".)

Don't be ridiculous!!!Major papers? Which ones...I'm very very sorry for you, if you mean "Spiegel", "Stern" or even "Focus".

And as for the espionage - it was on display, how usefull it was as the Concodre and the Tu-144 were developed. The french did spy out the russians as well as the russians spied out the french...and how the saga ended? With TWO different aircraft which were only at minor part based on knowledge gained from espionage. Let's face it, industrial spying is a major point today, but ON ANOTHER LEVEL. It's not the blueprints and (let's say) the wing profile and the golden A380 toilettes, which is wanted and spied out by Boeing. Most companies are spying out each other when it comes to market policies and management decisions.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is

Mon May 14, 2001 7:38 am

Don't be ridiculous!!!Major papers? Which ones...I'm very very sorry for you, if you mean "Spiegel", "Stern" or even "Focus".

"Die Zeit" and "Der Spiegel" (personally I prefer the first but would hesitate to call "Der Spiegel" a tabloid paper, wouldn't you?). Didn't want to be ridiculous  Innocent and didn't want to set the focus on espionage. I really don't have anything against Boeing but it is my point of view that whenever Boeing and/or the US administration point to "all the tax payers money" Airbus received this is mostly hypocritical talk.

Regards,
NoUFO - remember: Life is good
I support the right to arm bears
 
A320FO
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2000 12:28 am

RE: Subsidies / Tax Breaks

Mon May 14, 2001 4:21 pm

Just concerning subsidies, direct or indirect, what made Boeing HQs move to Chicago?
NO, not that Seattle is off the map and Chicago in the middle of their market.
Well, what then? Of course money. $60 million over several years, sponsored by Chicago. So basically a subsidy for Boeing.

OK, so that much to the upcoming A versus B in the last posts. Now maybe this topic can get back on track


A320FO
 
LZ-TLT
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Mon May 14, 2001 7:43 pm

I don't have the intention to focus this post on the A vs B topic but merely make a comparison to clarify the "paper plane"-definition and look if it applies to the Sonic Cruiser

No UFO,

Looks like I took you a bit wrong. Espionage is no thema in this thread. And to end up the thema "tax money" and financing and get back on track - you refer to Boeing's "hypocritical talk". This INDEED IS hypocritical talk, Boeing are getting the same amount(if not more) tax money with their military/defense products, Airbus is receiving here and there tax money (or being statued tax-free/lower-taxed) against the promise of securing work places or opening new, so here, both A and B are equal.

As for the Sonic Cruiser - this INDEED IS a "paper plane", and it will remain so, unless the project is secured, there are orders in the book and the constructors get to the drawing board.

On the other side - the 380 was a "paper plane" for a long time, but we must have the insight, Airbus did it all right with it - announcing a plane which was of interest to the airlines, clarifying the concept more and more...than securing the budged, filling the order book and at the same time letting the constructors get to their drawing boards and CAD stations. So, even still being most a "paper plane", the A380 is BIRTH IN PROGRESS, and I believe, it will fly. As you may notice, some of the components intended to use with the 380 were built in the 340-600 prototype(the Trent engines, to mention some)

The Sonic Cruiser is hardly a concept, and I believe it could easily be dismissed if the customers doesn't show that much interest on it, so at last, it's much more a "paper plane" than the 380.
 
rabenschlag
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 10:28 pm

Airbus As Model?

Mon May 14, 2001 8:02 pm

do you think boeing would have built the 767 without being paced by the A300? the 777 without the 330/340? who came up with the idea of widebody twins? one could get the impression that since a long time boeing is not the pacemaker. the SC would be a real step, so theres no model. can they do it on their own?

r.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is

Mon May 14, 2001 10:26 pm

Actually, the 767 was going to be built anyway because three airlines--AA, DL and UA--during the middle 1970's were looking for a plane with the feel of a widebody jet but at a smaller size than the DC-10/L1011's then entering widespread service.

As I remember, the 7X7 design studies that cumulated in the 767 originally looked like a reduced-size L1011 powered by three PW2037 turbofans.

Anyway, I believe that the Sonic Cruiser will be built. Especially given the fact that AA, BA, CO, CX, DL, QF, SQ, UA and VS all have expressed pretty strong interest in such a plane. Remember, we're talking about a plane that can fly HKG-JFK in under 13 hours, not the 16 hour flight it requires today.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Mon May 14, 2001 10:43 pm

AFAIK work on the 7x7 also started before plans for the A330 were published.
If Boeing had prior knowledge they would have been stupid to make it that obvious.
The large twin was just a thing waiting to happen and on both sides similar ideas were drawn up at around the same time. Boeing made a better looking plane out of them, though  Smile
I wish I were flying
 
B808/A400
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:22 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Mon May 14, 2001 10:53 pm

Work on the 747 started when Airbus wasn't around yet.


As for SC, if it has the 10000 nm range, it will fly literally
anywhere in the world. I think Boeing's goal (and what the
airlines want) is a plane which can allow certain flights impossible
with present day airliners, such as LHR-SYD
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Tue May 15, 2001 1:22 am

well. comments to prepious posts:
1. Yes, we already have airliners able to cruise over M0.9. But, who tell you that these aircraft ACTUALLY flying this speed on day-to-day basis? Flying high cruise speed means burining MUCH MORE fuel. Only US President can afford it (his AF1 mostly cruising M0.9-0.92).
2. No, we are not saying Sonic Cruiser can not exist. We saying there is no way (at this stage) it can fly economically. Concord was build long time ago to fly over M2, but everybody knows the costs of this speed.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Fri May 18, 2001 7:54 am

There must be something wrong with my pocket calculator, and even more strange, Mr. Bill Gates put the same flaw into my Excel license.

Everybody talks about saving one and a half hour on an 8 hours trans Atlantic flight going M=0.95 instead of 0.85. My calculator says that the time gain is 50 minutes and 31 seconds when we exclude ATC induced speed limits and such. So 45 minutes is probably a very good guess. On shorter, but more intense trans Atlantic routes like CDG- or LHR-JFK the time saving will be considerably shorter - 30-35 minutes.

If only the the airlines would guarantee that the avarage delays on such flights would only be 30-35 minutes, that would be great!!!

45 minutes, that's exactly half of the claimed one and a half hours gain. Where do we find that "factor two bug"?

It's exactly the same when 16 hours on the JFK-HKG sector becomes 13 hours. Nope, 14 hours and 30 minutes.

But why all this fuzz about those few minutes. Thirty years ago a CV-990 crossed the North Atlantic going M=0.89-0.90. Nobody really noticed that - if they were on a "slow" 707, VC-10 or DC-8 instead - and nobody ever paid an extra penny for flying on a CV-990.

And at that time a high percentage of the pax were busy businessmen for whom time was money. Today they haven't got the time to fly, they rely on email, company data networks and tele- or video conferences to an ever increasing degree. At the same time budget tourism is booming and will become a greater and greater part of the airline revenue even if they hate to admit that.

We see loads of new widebodies introduced with, say, 278 coach class seats and maybe 20 business class seats. And then we all know that half of the business class seats are occupied by strange upgrades from even more strange milage programs and such.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the sonic cruiser fly. But I simply don't see any future for it unless it is cheaper to operate than ordinary jets. And how it can become cheaper to operate, that's beyond me.

But please help me to hunt down that factor two bug. Or tell me that the sonic cruiser will actually go M=1.05 instead of M=0.95.

Now this factor two bug has been around for a few months without any progress. It makes it more and more suspicious that Boeing is telling stories.

If it is so, why don't they just tell us instead that they already have the world's greatest selection of airliners and they are constantly improving them. Every twenty years or so they make much upgraded versions, like for instance the 737NG or the 747-400, both of them great steps forward compared to their glorious roots.

Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
RIX
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Fri May 18, 2001 11:02 pm

A real time saving won't be its speed (though, to save some hour or two in a long route is not bad at all) but its range that will allow to avoid connections. So don't expect to see it flying from JFK to LHR (but, may be, to SVO). Plus, less connections will be a real relief for overcrowded airports, while a VLA is only a particular solution for a specified problem. You could say "a VLA will help" if major airports were overcrowded with 747s and their capacity was not enough. But we don't see many 400+ seaters there - even less (relatively) than 10 years ago. With all the progress in information and communication people still prefer to fly directly where they need and still travel for business - hardly much less than 30 years ago. (Even those people who work in information technology area - that is what I know for sure Big grin)...

 
Navion
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

Hkgspotter

Fri May 18, 2001 11:52 pm

I'm not sure what you were saying in your post, so pardon me if this response is wrong.

1) Nothing has taken Boeing 30 years to catch up. Boeings SST design, the 2707, was a state of the art aircraft with even greater capabilities than the condorde. Boeing chose not to build it because they felt the market didn't exist in light of costs and environmental concerns. (sound familiar).

2) My understanding of European aeronautical history includes many collaberative ventures, not just concorde. I've never been under the impression concorde is the beginning of Airbus. Airbus was a consortium formed for the purpose of designing, funding, manufacturing, and selling the A300 project. It has grown from that.

3) Finally, it is much more difficult to design an efficient Mach .95 aircraft than a Mach 2 aircraft. Flying in the high pre-mach region subjects an aircraft to very high drag rise, so I would venture to say it is easier building a Concorde/2707 than a Sonic Cruiser. Once you've gone transonic, the math is relatively simple regarding design.
 
ScottB
Posts: 5413
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sat May 19, 2001 3:29 am

One thing which many people forget about the Sonic Cruiser is that while fuel costs may be higher for this aircraft at M0.95 (potentially 20-30% higher than its conventional competitors), its crew costs (and an airline's largest cost item is wages and benefits, not fuel) will be 10-15% lower. Moreover, with greater aircraft speed, an airline with a fleet of 50 Sonic Cruisers would be able to fly, say, 10% more block hours than an airline with 50 777's or 330's - or they could accomplish the same mission with only 45 aircraft. Note also that it's been stated that the Sonic Cruiser will be able to operate at conventional speeds with considerable fuel savings owing to its aerodynamics. Being able to fly at higher altitudes will allow the SC to fly above ATC congestion, as well as above the jet stream on East-to-West transatlantic flights.

It's not about just the fuel cost. It's about the total cost of operation.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sat May 19, 2001 3:38 am

IAS is not groundspeed. When flying M0.97 at FL490, you have a higher groundspeed than you do when flying M0.97 at FL390.
I wish I were flying
 
D L X
Posts: 11629
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Preben/ScottB

Sat May 19, 2001 8:17 am

Hey Preben, I think Scott just found your factor of 2 bug. Well done.


Gotta think outside the box on this one. The S.C. won't be flying like a conventional plane, only faster. It will be flying like an S.C., flying above the ATC slowdowns, and weather related slowings. Again, well done, Scott.
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: Forbes: Sonic Cruiser Is "Paper Plane"

Sat May 19, 2001 4:31 pm

What wonderful posts!

I may congratulate myself in getting over 1000 views

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Thanks to you all!
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 747megatop, Baidu [Spider], BartSimpson, blooBirdie, Dasa, djsflynn, keagkid101, Phen, piciuuu, Qatara340, RalXWB, rogerbcn, scbriml, SCQ83, Thule, zkncj and 258 guests