Mach 1.8!

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/07/wconc07.xml&sSheet=/portal/2001/12/07/por_right.html

I hope that is right. That would be so cool.

--dragogoalie-#88--

What the Hell is boeing (and its customers) on???

"Yeah Mr. condit, we really like the idea you're developing for a Trans-sonic aircraft to have long range and cut time off long trips. But just one little thing. We'd like you guys to make it TWICE as fast as originally planned. Cool?"

"Oh, sure. We'll get right on that."

Clearly this isn't the way things work... is it?
i'm puzzled.  

And furthermore, the title: "Boeing unveils New Concorde"...??? I don't think Boeing would be too into associating their product with Concorde, or using the name at all. Seems like a rather odd piece of reporting. btw, here it is in link form:

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/07/wconc07.xml&sSheet=/portal/2001/12/07/por_right.html

I do think that they have the potential with the basic shape published so far to make a supersonic version.
Maybe there will be two aircraft based on the basic design: a transsonic twinengined version as originally conceived and a supersonic four-engined one.

That way they have both a replacement for the 757/767 and a replacement for Concorde within the same project, thus reducing overall development cost.
The features that make the SST version faster should work to reduce fuelconsumption in the transsonic version, making that one cheaper to operate (by either being able to use less fuel or carry more pax/cargo over a given route).

I seem to remember Boeing saying something along the lines that a re-engined uprgraded 767 could fulfill exactly the same mission profile as the Sonic Cruiser with 15% cheaper operating costs although obviously isn't as sexy a solution.

Can't understand why an airline would go for the Sonic cruiser when a 767-400ERX could do the exact same job for cheaper.

Then again, an Opel and a BMW both seat 5 people and have steering wheels...which would you rather drive?  

"Clearly this isn't the way things work... is it? "

It would make sense to me, seeing as boeing wants to sell thier product, no? If the airliners asked for something specific, and there was enough interest, Boeing would be stupid to not build it.

--dragogoalie-#88--

I think the article is most likely a load of BS. The difference between a M0.9 plane and a M1.8 plane is huge and you can't just re-align your project like that. Most likely the reporter just misunderstood something and ran away with it.

Well, the things I know from my Aircraft Performance lecture tell me one thing. You optimize an aircraft either for goin 0.98 at a given altitude or 1.8. You cannot have both. In case Boeing decides to go M1.8 (which is possible with only a fraction of the Concorde's cost) then the M0.98 project is off the table. I see no sense in developing an aircraft familiy with two COMPLETELY different sets of wings.

SailorOrion

One additional point: when airlines say that the "Sonic Cruiser" should be M1.8 fast they say in the same statement that the original SC was crap. Still I have serious doubts about the realizationof the SC project - in which form ever.

Regards
Flying-Tiger
http://fly.to/rorders

They'll need an all new two-stage engine, with a complex intake system.
Much more airframe heating at 1.8, so a much more powerful air system needed, as well as different materials.
You won't get the 6-9 inch airframe expansion as on Concorde, but you won't be far off.
Will even a reduced boom be acceptable overland? Would this version fly at 55-60,000 ft, or 45-50,000 as planned for the 0.95 SC?
Assuming no reheat on take-off, will reheat be needed for acceleration?
High altitude emissions will be an issue too.
Assuming the Telegraph has got it right, and they are not known for accurate reporting on Aerospace/Defence issues, we'll need a lot more details.

Most likely all Boeing is doing is studying the possibility of adapting the Sonic Cruiser's airframe to a supersonic aircraft.

Some of you, I'm surprised by some comments especially, have absolutely no clue about how this or any other business works. It has been less than one year since Boeing unveiled plans for the SC. At this stage they are discussing specs with various airlines in order to define the final product. And yet it took Airbus some 5-6 years to get things finalized and launched on the 380 and here you all are saying Airbus is positively divine. Jesus Christ, give it rest for a year and let things take their course.

Flying Tiger, your comment in particular is utter nonsense. I would point to the reaction from AA, DL and AC on the "original" SC specs as proof that airlines do not think the concept is "crap". I thought you were part of this industry.

I recall reading an article a month or two ago which stated that the SC would have two "sweet spots", one just below the speed of sound and the other just above it. It said that Boeing would offer the slower version first and the faster version might come later. I don't remember the exact numbers but it could be mach 1.08, the airlines may be asking for this version and this article simply omitted the zero.

From another source, the new speed boundary was said 'a bit more than the sound speed'. That is clearly not M1.8 as the article said. It will make sense for Boeing to make the delta wing aircraft be able to fly above M1 over oceans or deserts.

Wingman, how can any airline say that the plane will be "wonderful" for them when they don´t have any hard facts where they can build on? I.e. speed, fuel burn, payload, number of pax, service intervals etc... Most of this was said for PR-reasons, nothing more. Buying the first two years of production?? Come on, you don´t take this serious don´t you?

Anyway, if the first "facts" provided by Boeing were really this good why suddenly the move to M1.8 (assuming this report is true)? Two possibilities:
a) the first SC figures were nonsense
b) there is no market for the original SC but for a M1.8-sonic aircraft (this is something I can believe, however I have doubts that with today´s technology the same economic figures (to the 767) can be reached).

Please tell me what you think about that...

Regards
Flying-Tiger
http://fly.to/rorders

Mach 1.08 sounds more likely.
But that wouldn't make for a 'New Concorde' headline would it?

What puzzels me: why has Boeing choosen to have the SC operating in the M0.95-1.08 sector? This is usually the worst speed you can choose because of turbulences which arise in the area around the sonic barrier. And M0.95 would mean that the SC still has to be certified for Sonic Speed (M1.01 if I´m correct).

Regards
Flying-Tiger
http://fly.to/rorders

Wingman, methinks you protest too much.

No one in this thread mentioned Airbus before you did! So why are you trying to stir it up. The A380 and the SC are two very different aircraft - so why compare their design, evolution or operation!?

And, there is a very good reason why Concorde flies at Mach 2.0 - it is the most efficient speed past supersonic to go at before you meet serious heat issues. There is a high drag area between M.98 and 1.5 (where Concorde uses reheat) which is best avoided if you want any sort of range at all. Is 1.8 fast enough to escape this?

Personally, and this is an objective view, I don't see how Boeing will be able to get 250 passengers (presumably in a widebody) into an aircraft with low enough drag to cruise past Mach 1.

All I can say is "GO BOEING" and "GO AMERICA"!!

GDB said:
Mach 1.08 sounds more likely.
But that wouldn't make for a 'New Concorde' headline would it?

I see your point, but at M1.08 the SC would be supersonic, so concorde wouldn't be be the only supersonic airliner anymore.

I'm with Flying-Tiger on this one... *IF* this article is true (big IF), then it sounds like Boeing just scrapped whatever they had, and went back to the drawing board.

A M0.98 and M1.8 aircrafts would be quite different to be efficient and economical.

There is a high drag area between M.98 and 1.5 (where Concorde uses reheat) which is best avoided if you want any sort of range at all.

This is exactly what Boeing believes it has defeated, creating the ability to economically cruise just under the speed of sound, with no sonic boom.

On supersonic speed, see the AW&ST article in the Sept. 17 issue, p.31, which says that the design was tested in a wind tunnel up to Mach 1.08. It also says, "[Gillette] noted that the design could be operated at a higher Mach number than the planned 0.95-0.98, but that technology currently is not available to adequately control the resulting sonic boom."

I don't believe this adds up to a redirection of the project to Concorde-like speed.

Flyying Tiger could be part of the industry. The PR department of Airbus IS part of the industry...

The only reason I bring up the 380 is because the same people that declare it a smashing success before the first rivet has been welded are the same that think the SC is a complete flop before the first rivet is welded. Both programs are years away from fruition, so how can anyone make such overarching staements at this stage?

I agree with those who say this article is BS. Boeing hasn't said anything about any drastic concept changes. But certainly the initial reaction from the airline world has been very supportive of the project. Maybe it will fail miserably, but maybe Boeing has an ace up its sleeve along with aces up the sleeves of the engine makers. When JFK promised to put a man on the moon in a nine year time-frame people thought he was on LSD. I for one wouldn't be surprised to see this concept work beautifully. And it it does, you'll have your choice of long range transportation modes. I can easily see an airline like DL or AA deploying SCs in a single class business arrangement. If the operating economics are right, the plane would become the absolute cash cow of the industry, for both Boeing and the airlines. I admit there are a lot of ifs in my speculation, but all new programs have giant ifs in them, including the 380. That's why airlines like SIA have water-tight performance guarantees that say if Airbus doesn't deliver on performance the planes go right back to the Toulouse parking lot without any financial penalty whatsoever. If SIA isn't 100% sure, no one lese should be either.

Wingman,

What you wrote echoes, perhaps intentionally, what I wrote in another thread about the A380. However, the symmetry you imply is IMHO not there. The A380 relies on fairly conventional, scaled technology and must be considered a lower risk project than the SC.

It would of course be great to see both fly, but presently the A380 is much further along in development and has 97 orders, whereas the SC is still in a more conceptual stage with lingering doubts whether or not the plane is for real or no.

Performance guarantees are fairly standard norm, considering the plane has not yet been flight-tested.

Jwenting, would you please tell me why I´m a member of the Airbus PR department? Currently I´m quite amused about your statement...

Wingman: Actually I think that there is quite a big market for a sonic cruiser - but it would be a super-sonic cruiser. With M0.98 or even M1.08 the gains (TIME) are not really big, taking under consideration the already crowded airports, especially in the Norht-Atlantic/Europe range. A direct, slightly larger Concorde replacement has a better chance to be an economic success for one reason: here you has a real TIME-saving. The problems I´ve pointed out are of technical nature, I just don´t see that there has been a real break-through in aerodynamics and engines which would deliver what Boeing currently is interested in offering.

Original specs of the SC said that the engines of the SC were supposed to be re-engined B777 engines, especially the GE90 and Trent 800. Even Rolls-Royce admitted that the M0.1 increase would result in a 25% increase in fuel burn, resulting from the higher drag (see Eg777ER´s statement). Currently all manufacturers have focused on clean-shet engine developments. This however will impact on the aquisition price of the SC and thus on the long-term costs. Without having a second application for the engine (the only other one would be a competing aircraft from Airbus) all engine manufacturers would have to recover all development costs with a comparibly low number of engines which means that they wouldn´t be able to lower the price too much.

About the class arrangement I disagree with you, the SC would likely be a two-a-half-class plane: a large first, an even larger business class and a small eco class, mainly a result of the - likely - higher fares (due to higher over-all costs). Thus an eco single-class segment does not make much sense IMO.

I like to ask you one question: if there has really been a break-through in the fight against the sonic barrier who would have found it out? Most likely the research departments of the military because they would be the most interested party for such a development. An something of this improtance usually leaks out quite quick.

Sorry, but in the current configuration I´ve some problems to the SC becoming a commercial success.

Regards
Flying-Tiger
http://fly.to/rorders

I agree in many ways with both you and Joni. The SC has capitalized "ifs" where the 380's are merely italicized. But the "ifs" go both ways. Boeing, RR, PW, GE and the Japanese heavies have about six years of high-pressure work ahead to make some technological breakthroughs. Consider a scenario where two or more of the partners achieve breakthroughs along the lines of aerodynamics, design and propulsion. This would be par for the course in my opinion and may result in an airplane that flies supersonic over long hauls at competitive economic rates. All of this would happen while Airbus and the 380 are locked into a configuration that really can't be changed. Again, Boeing may fail miserably as I said, but from the comments I've read from airline CEOs and analysts they could just as well score a very very major coup.

I'm surprised at the weenies here who claim that the plane can't be built. WTF?
Are you all saying a huge company is deluding itself and its customers by asking
for orders on a plane they aren't even sure they can build?


---------------
I like to ask you one question: if there has really been a break-through in the fight against
the sonic barrier who would have found it out? Most likely the research departments of the military because they would be the most interested party for such a development. An
something of this improtance usually leaks out quite quick.
------------

So what you're saying is that if a military lab hasn't found it yet, no one else has
or can? That's a pretty stupid statement. Much tech. progress is being made by
private corporate labs or academic research they sponsor.
Now I know why you're in a PR department....you probably don't have the brains for
real work....just spinning stories.

Succeed Concorde??? Never. There will not be anything worthy of replacing concorde for a long time....
Some Concorde airframes have the ability to remain in the air until 2017..... that is some of th AF concordes which get used less.

Did anyone know that AF can no longer fly 100 pax to JFK from Paris?? Their a/c can only manage 92 pax because of the mods.... interesting.

There is no redesign involved here. This was a clean sheet design that was intended to be a supersonic aircraft from day one. Rather than re-hashing the details for you here, just check out these discussion threads

https://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/609984/6/
https://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/580199/6/

It’s not even a very well kept secret at Boeing. I grew up in Seattle, and I get back there often to visit friends and family. I can tell you that Boeing employees freely say that it is going to be supersonic.

Wow, I'm amazed at all aerodynamics and economics experts here, judging
an airplane by a few images online, predicting aerodynamic features, cost, and
even badmouthing it before it's even released (why would someone sink so low
as to bash some company for making a product is beyond me....what's it to you
people? how did they personally offend you?)

Anyway, I made my point...I urge everyone to ignore the moronic "experts" and
only discuss things which are directly inferred from available information.

flying tiger your figures are full of crap

We were surprised to hear about that 92 pax restriction on AF Concordes, BA has flown full loads to JFK and back with modified aircraft.
Since AF aircraft have the new, lighter tyres too, it can only be their interior, which has not changed since 1976.
BA are into their 3rd major interior upgrade, the new seats are lighter, presumably the ones fitted in the early 90's were lighter than the originals too.
Then there's the newer galleys and lavs, BA replace theirs next year, but the ones fitted now are still newer than the AF Concorde ones.

B808/A400: That´s not exactly what I said. My point is that the military labs are more likely to find the way to defead the sonic barrier because of their higher experience in this field invloving designs for interceptors, figthers etc. However a "commercial" lab could have the advantage of taking a completely different approach whilest a "military" lab is more likely to follow the path they have already beaten. Everything is possible thus I don´t rule it out... and thanks for insulting me!

SMI: Provide me with better figures. If you´re not able to correct mine shut up! I´ve just participated in a discussion, providing my point of view and have included in my statement the data/expectation which I know or have discussed with friends. If you don´t like my statement it´s your problem, not mine.

And if you´ve read carefully I´ve never said that the Sonic Cruiser is c***, just that in its original configuration I don´t give it a chance.

Regards
Flying-Tiger
http://fly.to/rorders

Charlieduke,

Why on Earth would Boeing claim the design is subsonic if it's supersonic?

Flying-tiger;

I should clarify how the US military does their research. First off, you probably know that
they don't develop the planes themselves. They contract it out to the likes of
Boeing, who do the research and develop the plane, so it's very likely that if anyone,
Boeing will find the breakthrough first. They are the ones who are doing the cutting
edge work. The other research is done by academic labs at universities. In fact,
I was once involved in a project (low scale, but still interesting) where we used
computers to model radar waves incident on the nose of a typical F16-type plane.

There are actually very few high-tech labs run directly by the military, compared with
all the other research being done. In any case, either Boeing, or Lockheed-Martin
would be the first to discover something revolutionary.


And how can you tell by a few rendered images whether a design is sound or not?
Jet_lag was right to point this out. We have a bunch of amateurs here criticizing the
work of top scientists in the country from a few simple images and press releases.
Boeing seems confident they can make it work, and I think that they wouldn't waste
everyone's time if they weren't...that's not how business works. Just hold off any
criticisms until it's built or we have final specs.

B808/A400: About the way how research is done I´m informed, however to simplify my answer I had distinguished between military and civil labs. As far as I know military and civil labs are usually separated, even within one company. Thus I thought it would be accectable enough to limit it to just these two terms.

You last point: I agree to this, from a few images and press releases we can´t tell too much. But what I´ve written is MY personal opinion, compield from different sources, including contacts with aerospace engineers who have worked in this area for decades. Maybe I´m completely off the path, maybe I´m only 50% correct, maybe I´m 100% correct. Who can tell? Certainly nobody on this message board.

Regards
Flying-Tiger
http://fly.to/rorders

Agree that we have different opinions about the SC?

Regards
Flying-Tiger
http://fly.to/rorders

hmm, let's wait untill the plane flies.
Then we can judge if it is a great success, or b/s.

But i don't understand how some people can say: "hey, they are boeing, they are the best in the USA,and we americans are the best people in the world....), so it has to be great! What, you say something else ? Fucking european airbus fan!"
Just remember that when Airbus came up with the A380 first, Boeing said: crap, nobody wants such a big plane! - then, when they realized that Airlines are buying the A380, they designed the 747X and said: "That's the future of aviation". But no airlines wanted it, so they made a 180° turnaround and said: "There is no market for so huge planes" ...

What i want to say is, that also american boeing people can make mistakes.

I know that many americans (most of them, i hope) are open-minded, but some have to think about their attitude about america & europe.

Have fun.

I agree, but i'd say that Boeing fans were the ones that said crap, nobody wants such a big plane! - then, when they realized that Airlines are buying the A380, they designed the 747X and said: "That's the future of aviation". But no airlines wanted it, so they made a 180° turnaround and said: "There is no market for so huge planes" ... Boeing always maintained there was no market for VLA, even during 747X-Stretch development.

Regards.

I'm american, I like Boeing planes, and I thought the A380 was a cool looking
plane when I first saw the concept.

I think it's stupid to even try and judge any plane from preliminary drawings,
whether you're from europe or usa. I'm not sure why these topics always
deteriorate into accusations. It's only planes, for chirst's sake. You'll get to
fly them all so what's the point of criticizing them?

About the way how research is done I´m informed, however to simplify
my answer I had distinguished between military and civil labs. As far as I know military
and civil labs are usually separated, even within one company. Thus I thought it would
be accectable enough to limit it to just these two terms.
-----------------------

Things like aerodynamic research aren't necessarily separated..only the actual
projcts are. In any case, military planes are completely different from civilian
onces. They are much easier to make aerodynamic then a civilian (much bigger)
plane, so those labs probably weren't even working in the same direction.

Trying to question whether they really did find a breakthrough, or not, is also
silly. I'm not sure they would make such a big deal out of a non-existent discovery.
Too much is at stake to fool around with customers by making empty promises.
I'm quite confident that Boeing did discover something, and I can't wait to see what
comes out. It'll be one hell of a plane.

Personally I think Boeing have "borrowed" a lot from the
Tu-144 design on the SC, the testing they did with
the Tu-144 that they flew with NASA, that plane was
later sold on Ebay without engines! I think the SC will
fly but as a much smaller plane, but thats only my guess..
Link http://www.super70.com/science/Transportation/Aviation/TU-144.asp

I personally have high hopes for the Sonic Cruiser. The original subsonic specs seemed a little fishy to me (no real benefit over a normal plane) but if it actually flies economically at Mach 1.8, that'll be great news, not to mention an interesting twist in the Airbus vs. Boeing competition. To those who have been bashing the SC, Boeing has a long history of taking amazing risks with the development of their airliners (707, 737, 747 come to mind). They have been innovators in the aviation industry, many times risking the entire company on gambles that ended up working out splendidly. I expect the Mach 1.8 Sonic Cruiser to be a smash hit. Don't put it past Boeing to pull it off. Airbus: Be very afraid. Look what happened to McDonnell Douglas when they couldn't keep up with Boeing's innovation.

Airbus: Be very afraid. Look what happened to McDonnell Douglas when they couldn't keep up with Boeing's innovation.

Not "couldn't", but "didn't". James McDonnell ordered the DC-8 line to be shut down and the tooling destroyed, thinking every DC-8 sold was a DC-10 lost. It might have been, if there had been no competition. McDonnell also demanded that no further development of the DC-10 family occur until the program broke even. There went the Twin-10, and Airbus picked up the slack with the A-300. Neither was there a stretched DC-10 to compete with the 747. McDonnell really screwed Douglas. Dumb, dumb, dumb.