Just a couple of more tidbits of information on the sonic cruiser—Recent wind tunnel tests confirmed predicted performance at m1+. Cruise speed will be m1.2, even over land. At least one engine manufacturer has responded to a confidential RFQ by stating their ability to make a turbofan with a 2-1 bypass ratio and a 700 gallon/hour fuel burn that would be capable of pushing to S.C. to m1.35. That means with two engines and two hundred seats, the operating economics are similar to a 762.
I will state again that my source of information is third hand—an ex Boeing engineer who stays in touch with his former colleagues. When he's sober he's usually right.
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- dynkrisolo
- Posts: 1849
- Joined:
RE: Supersonic Cruiser
If this information is correct, then I think his former colleagues will be in serious trouble.
-
- flybywire777
- Posts: 61
- Joined:
RE: Supersonic Cruiser
This quote is from Boeing's news release of Sept 17.
" Environmental performance is an important factor in the design of the Sonic Cruiser; it will be quieter and leaner than all anticipated regulations and provide excellent fuel efficiency. "
This is a change from what they stated early sonic cruiser press releases July 10. "will have fuel effeciency similiar to today's long-range jets"
This may seem minor but could Boeing be getting some good data from it's recent testing?
" Environmental performance is an important factor in the design of the Sonic Cruiser; it will be quieter and leaner than all anticipated regulations and provide excellent fuel efficiency. "
This is a change from what they stated early sonic cruiser press releases July 10. "will have fuel effeciency similiar to today's long-range jets"
This may seem minor but could Boeing be getting some good data from it's recent testing?
-
- transswede
- Posts: 1008
- Joined:
RE: Supersonic Cruiser
I still don't think that Boeing has a license to break the laws of physics... Same operating economics as a 767, at mach 1.35? Will just have to wait and see... 
RE: Supersonic Cruiser
Was just at a presentation today....M.97 is the cruise target with an 8000 nm range
RE: Supersonic Cruiser
I'm sceptical about the entire thing right now... Besides, how could a plane with a bypass ratio of 2:1 meet all anticipated (noise) regulations and be as fuel efficient as a high-bypass-ratio driven 767?
Also, the -200 is of course an easier target to beat than the -300. Usually, the standard versions of any plane need to be stretchable, so they are heavier and more fuel consuming than they absolutley need to be. The stretch is then more efficient on the fuel burn per pax ratio, so the realistic benchmark to beat would be the 767-300/400, or the 777-200/300.
Regards
Ikarus
Also, the -200 is of course an easier target to beat than the -300. Usually, the standard versions of any plane need to be stretchable, so they are heavier and more fuel consuming than they absolutley need to be. The stretch is then more efficient on the fuel burn per pax ratio, so the realistic benchmark to beat would be the 767-300/400, or the 777-200/300.
Regards
Ikarus
-
- Boeing Nut
- Posts: 5078
- Joined:
RE: Supersonic Cruiser
Remember when Boeing first announced the "Sonic Cruiser" and some referred to it as "yellowstone"? Boeing stated that "yellowstone" was a code name for technology used on the "Sonic Cruiser". I think this is Boeing's secret weapon on the Sonic Criuser and it's the reason why they are able to get such good initial performance numbers.
Stay tuned.
Stay tuned.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
RE: Supersonic Cruiser
M0.97 is rubbish. There's too much transsonic drag. Believe it or not, it may be cheaper for the SC to cruise at M1.2 than at M.97.
Your bone's got a little machine
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 2175301, ADM94, avtcle, B6JFKH81, BA744PHX, Boair, BoilerAviation, bpat777, Coexstud, cylw, DeltaRules, DenverTed, DFW17L, drewwright, Ertro, ethernal, Flflyer83, flightwriter, flyCMH, FlyingViking, FLYKTPA, gdavis003, gwrudolph, hl8208, holeham, IADCA, iflyabunch, Independence76, MBSDALHOU, MohawkWeekend, nc3rd, ntehrani, prebennorholm, RainerBoeing777, ram789, Runway28L, SESGDL, SoCalFlyer, tootallsd, trex8, tu154, UkiAir, yendig, ZaphodHarkonnen and 312 guests