John G
Topic Author
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2000 12:03 am

Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 6:51 am

Does anyone else think that the proposal for the new boeing Sonic Cruiser concept plane is just a face-saving gesture to take the bad look from the decision to pull out of the 747-400X?
I find it rather difficult to see where this plane fits into any airline's marketing:
1. It is still sub-sonic, thus a poor cousin to Concorde, or any of the proposed SSTs, such as the Airbus Alliance.
2. It has the same engines as the existing 777, thus will have the same fuel profile, but will be carrying fewer pax, hence higher fares,..but....
3. Who will be willing to pay higher fares for a trip just 15% shorter than the conventional?

An aesthetically beautiful bird? Undeniably. But can aesthetics alone sell this craft?
Let us remember the case of the most aesthetically beautiful bird of them all, Concorde..............
 
Guest

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 6:58 am

Where do you see that it will have the same engines as the 777? That is not the information I have been hearing.
 
John G
Topic Author
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2000 12:03 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 7:00 am

That was from BBC News tonight
 
Guest

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 7:04 am

That information is not on the Boeing web site. In fact, the aircraft is in such a preliminary design stage that I doubt that the issue of engines has been settled. Nevertheless, I will say that the artist's rendering of the Sonic Cruiser up on the Boeing web site does not appear to have anything like a 777 engine.
 
MATSUMOTO
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:55 pm

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 7:10 am

Several billion dollars in development is a lot to spend to save face.
 
John G
Topic Author
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2000 12:03 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 7:10 am

That was from BBC tv news - BBC webiste does not confirm
 
John G
Topic Author
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2000 12:03 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 7:13 am

I know, but remember - the US Gov't and aviation industry spent more in RESEARCHING the Boeing and Lockheed SST projects than the British and French Governments and BAe/Aerospatiale spent researching and BUILDING Concorde
 
John G
Topic Author
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2000 12:03 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 7:23 am

This is from a thread lower down th page about the Yellowstone's engines:
The sonic cruiser's engines will be derived from existing and future 777 power plants, Mulally said, noting that all three major engine manufacturers - General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls-Royce - offer products for the 777.


"All three of those engine companies have terrific engines on the 777 today," Mulally said. "The sonic cruiser's basic engine will be based on that proven technology."


Boeing will rely heavily on airline input to finalize many of the plane's characteristics, from capacity to interior configuration, Mulally said.


 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7030
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 7:39 am

Please don't fight over the engines. That's not a big issue. A whole range of existing engines will in any case be able to do the job with not much change.
But what is the viability of such a plane?
I think that John G has got a valid point here.
That small increase in speed will mean nothing except on the very longest flights. And Boeing also announces that the range should be a wopping 9000 nm!!!
But knowing a little about what it takes to make an ordinary long range plane in the 6-7-8000 nm basket, and still transport a considerable payload, how can it be that this plane can fly so far?
It will fly higher in thinner air (or at the same altitude as a 747SP of 1975 vintage), but that doesn't decease the drag. The wings will still have to carry the same weight. The rather conventional canard wing layout will not offer an increased lift to drag ratio, and it will not offer a lighter structure weight or make a lighter fuel load possible. The engines will not be any more fuel efficient because the speed if lifted from Mach .85 to .95.
I simply can't see what makes this range possible, and if that's not the case, then the plane really has nothing to offer compared to an ordinary Mach .85 plane.
Can somebody tell us what should make this plane so much more aerodynamically efficient that such a range can be possible carrying a fair payload?
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Republic
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:39 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 7:53 am

If this is all face saving, then why are Singapore, United, and Air Canada interested? Is it not possible that Boeing has shared more information with them than what you have been able to access? Unless, of course, you know more about aircraft design and operation than the Star Alliance.

Your post reveals more about your prejudices than it does about the new Boeing design.

Rgds,
Joe
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 7:54 am

Prebennorholm, it sounds like the Sonic cruiser will be marketed just for very long-range hauls, so it's probably the perfect plane to build. If it cuts 15% off a 12 to 15 hour flight, that adds up to a lot of time, doesn't it.

And I don't think Boeing has anything to save face for, to be honest. Sounds like to me that they've been thinking about this project for a while. Like Matsumoto said above, spending several billion just to save face doesn't make much sense, altough I'm sure Airbus would want everyone to believe that's the case.
 
Archie Bunker
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2000 3:22 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 7:55 am

that's a challenge to Boeing engineers, but that's what they're paid for. Big grin
 
Guest

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 8:17 am

I don't see this announcement as saving face, more just not being stupid. They're probably just trying to avoid what Mcdonnell Douglas and Lockheed did to eachother in the 1970's. Both built fantastic planes, the DC-10 and L1011, but neither could sell enough to make any reasonable profit because of the competition. This pushed Lockheed out of commercial aircraft design and McD into boeing later on. The superjumbo is a very expensive project and there is a market for it, but Boeing probably realized they wouldn't be able to sell enough to make it worthwhile pursuing. Rather, they're pursuing the overseas markets that can't supply 700 passenger planes. just my 2 cents.
 
Fly-by-pilot
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 10:45 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 8:18 am

It will be able to crise faster because of its delta shaped wings just like the concorde. Less resistance thus less engine thrust. Why is that so hard to understand.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 8:26 am

I have to agree with Alpha 1 in that this has to be something Boeing has had up thier sleeve for quite sometime. I think they surprised a lot of people out there with this announcement.

Regarding the engine discussion, this is where I think Boeing has yet to reveal thier little secret. I agree that using 777 type engines to carry fewer passengers causes people to scratch thier heads. There has to be some incredible aerodynamic advances on this aircraft that we don't know about. I don't think we've heard the entire story yet.

I also agree with Matsumoto. Several billion dollars is a lot to spend just to save face.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 8:43 am


This Mach 0.95 cruser is SUCH Bullsh-t in my opinion.

What the hell for... less passengers, okay that will make higher costs. They fly a bit higher, okay no problem there... but for what like 10-20% time reductions (I could be wrong on that), but what the hell is this?

A properly designed Stretched-747 proposal can give lower operating costs, and the 747 is plenty fast as it is... last I heard, it's max cruise speed was 0.87 Mach. Versus Mach 0.95? The difference comes out to like 55 miles an hour!

And if they are really working for speed... what happened that HSCT that they ditched awhile back because they said it was "impractical" What happened to it?

It carries the same load-- about 300. It goes very high (Fl 500 - 650), and a whole lot faster (Mach 2.4). Granted it would have higher operating costs, but considering you are going nearly 3 times faster than a standard jetliner, it is worth it. Many people would pay 30% - 50% more to go 3 times faster, that is statistically more for your money. And it would be used predominantly for long range flights, it would have a 5700 nm - 6500 nm range. That range is pretty much all you need if your going over water -- that would pretty much get you almost across the whole pacific depending on where you start. The engine designs they made were quite acceptable in terms of their overall power, and wouldn't even need full power for takeoff, like most modern-day jets. It uses special mixer-ejector chutes that basically draw in air through auxilary intakes downstream of the engine and throughly mixes it with the exhaust, thus "silencing it". Combined with reduced takeoff thrust (engine would put about 60,000 lbst. max, and about 50,000 lbst for takeoff) that would easily meet FAR Stage III noise regs. In fact it beat them. And they claim that making Stage 4 is that difficult, make the mixer-chutes bigger, and enlarge the auxiliary intakes! It was already proven that those chutes really don't reduce thrust that much, certainly not significantly enough to affect takeoff performance even at full loads.


 
ampropilot2b
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 9:04 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 9:19 am

I think its very funny how everyone on this sight is already debating the financial viability of an aircraft that hasn't yet gone further than an artist's rendition. No one can say it will or will not be economically viable at this point. While I love the debate and don't want to squander anyones right to post....NO ONE except the Boeing Engineers who are already working on this project, can make claims as to whether it will be financially viable.

The 777 was being designed back in the 1980s....so anyone who thinks that 15-20 years of research and innovation cannot overcome the above mentioned problems...well you are simply mistaken. Too many people on this sight are unable to think outside the box about either the Boeing or Airbus products. Think back 50 years...what was state of the art back then?

Everyone should stop saying that everything Airbus and Boeing say about their airplanes is false in any way. Both Airbus fans and Boeing fans should realize that both companies can and will probably make viable airplanes. Its like politics....if you are a democat, you agree with everything the Democrat says...and visa versa for republicans. Why is it the same way with Airbus and Boeing people?

We will all just have to wait and see what happens once we know more. In the mean time, don't claim something is impossible unless you have CURRENT proof that it is. Conventional wisdom is out in today's world of technology and innovation.

-Just my thoughts
 
Guest

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 10:02 am

I have several things to say about this:

-Main reason why Boeing is developing this and not a SST:
Flying over the US: You can't break the sound barrier when you fly over the US. Therefore a SST is only good when doing East Coast trans-atlantic flights or West Coast Trans-pacific flights(Provided that it doesn't fly over Alaska). When flying Mach .95, you don't make a sonic boom.

-Also: it can avoid more weather and traffic by flying up in the 40s.

-No one knows what the list price or cost to operate this is. For all we know, it could turn out to cost less to operate, the same, or much more than a current jet.

-Crusing speed for a 744 is mach .85, not .87

-This would be a basic variant of the plane. It will probably be able to get stretched or shrunk.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7030
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 10:21 am

Ampropilot2b wrote:
The 777 was being designed back in the 1980s....so anyone who thinks that 15-20 years of research and innovation cannot overcome the above mentioned problems...well you are simply mistaken. Too many people on this sight are unable to think outside the box about either the Boeing or Airbus products. Think back 50 years...what was state of the art back then?

50 years back... Well, first the 47 years old B707, but also the 54 years old Boeing B-47 Stratojet, which by the way to some extent was based on a German 1942 design study which was directly copied into the Tupolev Tu-16 Badger - their aerodynamic properties are very hard to distinguish from all the most modern airliners of today.
I wouldn't say that Herr Junkers could have drawn up the 777 in 1942, had there been no war, and had he had the engines, but almost.
NASA did a pretty good job back in the sixties and came up with so called super critical wing airfoils which gained 2-3% on lift to drag ratio in addition to allowing slightly higher Mach number with reduced sweep back.
But otherwise very little has changed to the physical laws which dictate the basic design of an economic subsonic airplane.
What did change dramatically was engine technology. And also materials, better alloys, composites replacing metals etc. But not the aerodynamic shape.
There is nothing really new and untried in the new Boeing M.95 concept. Thousands of different concepts have been tested in wind tunnels over the last 60 years or more, many of them incorporating some or all of the "radically new concepts" presented by Boeing.
But let us wait and see if they have some new secrets hidden in their sleeves.
I think that Boeing has a fear that we forget that they exist if they are not in the newspaper every day with some brand new "technology breakthrough". There has been quite a few over the years. Ten years ago the 1000 pax double decker, then the trans pacific super sonic, lately the blended wing-body, and now the M.95 plane. It gets really hard to tell what is bluff and what isn't.
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 11:22 am

So many of you make it sounds like Boeing just cooked up with this idea in the past few months to save face. Boeing has been regularly updating major airlines on the progress on the 20XX program. The Sonic Cruiser is the first project to become public. One can argue that Boeing has been withholding the 20XX program and use the B747X as a smokescreen and force Airbus to heavily discount the A380. Now Airbus is firmly committed to the A380. If the Sonic Cruiser becomes a gamechanger as Boeing envisions, then the A380 will become obsolete not too long after it enters into service. If Boeing can deliever the new aircraft with promising economy, airlines operating the Sonic Cruiser will draw high yield premium traffic from airlines operating the A380 between hubs. In that case, the lower seat cost of the A380 would be meaningless with little premium traffic. Well, this is just one scenario and that's what Boeing hopes it might happen.
 
crj-900
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 12:08 pm

Dynkrisolo

Sat Mar 31, 2001 11:51 am

You took the words out of my mouth. Beoing my have realized there was room for only one in the "big jet" market. So they propose some competition, to lower the price, and drop out of the race with airbus picking up the tab.
crj-900
 
hkgspotter1
Posts: 5750
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sat Mar 31, 2001 12:01 pm

John G,

I aggree, they failed with the 747X and now they have to top Airbus.
 
John G
Topic Author
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2000 12:03 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 5:45 am

I take the point about the inability to fly supersonic over continental land masses - I hadn't considered that - but to use the example of the USA, the transcontinental market there is governed MUCH more by price than service, so it's still hard to envisage a premium service on that route doing much business vs. First/Business Classes on conventional craft.
Thanks to you all for replying - this is the first time I have ever started a thread.  Smile
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8138
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 5:54 am

Oh give me a break.  Insane

I believe that the Yellowstone project has been in development for at least 3-4 years. What Boeing was look for was a successor to the 767, and it appears this new plane fits that role and can be used to serve extremely long routes beyond the reach of even the 777-200 Longer-Range.

With this new plane, LHR-SYD non-stop is no longer a pipe dream.  Smile
 
Guest

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 6:31 am

I think some things have been lost or not communicated properly here.

1) Boeing is claiming up to Mach .98 cruise, which is where they get the 15% faster than the Mach .85 747.

2) Boeing is pushing point to point, meaning not only are long transcontinental flights going to be directly cut by 1.5-3 hours, but alot of passengers are also going to save an additional 2 hours connection time stopping at hubs. Total time savings could easily be 25-30%, for example SEA-SYD could be 13.5 hours with this plane, instead of 18 hours through LAX right now.

3) This plane also offers great time savings "in-country". NY-LAX goes from 5 hour flight to 4 hours. I've also had that flight delayed for well over an hour waiting for flight path approval due to air traffic congestion, sonic cruiser might have gotten immediate approval due to it's cruise height, cutting my lovely 7 hour trip almost in half.

4) I'm betting Boeing has the answer to keeping it's fuel consumption reasonable, or they wouldn't pursue the project. But the reality is, fuel consumption is not everything, otherwise we wouldn't be flying jets at all. Comfort and conveniance are getting more important all the time, and I for one am willing to pay 40% extra to save some time.

Lastly, there are a couple curious questions I don't think anyone has raised. Firstly, why is this design a twin jet? If this plane is all about speed, isn't ETOPs requirements going to restrict it from taking the most direct flights over water? Why not go Trijet to avoid ETOPs restrictions?

Secondly, maybe the Sonic Cruiser is a planned interim step to something much better? Boeing has dropped Supersonic plans multiple times due to cost, environmental, noise, and regulatory issues. Is Boing planning a "SuperSonic Cruiser" that builds on this design and takes it all the way to Mach 2-3, once the Sonic Cruiser is a proven commercial success?

- Randy
 
ben88
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 4:49 pm

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 6:38 am

If you're willing to spend 40% extra to save some time, you're in the minority, trust me!
 
Guest

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 7:04 am

I was wrong, it may not cost any more at all. I re-read the wall street journal article and Boeing is claiming that the SonicCruiser will "fly 20% faster than today's conventional planes without increasing airlines' operating costs".

From the article it appears that it's per hour fuel costs will be 20% higher than a 767, but since the flight is going to take 15% less time, it's almost a wash. Add in savings from being able to turn around more flights, less flight crew hours, etc, to make up the difference.

I hope Boeing is right, they are betting the farm on this. The article indicated they are cutting out virtually all other development projects to do this. Personally I find a future in which I can fly both the SonicCruiser and A380 on long flights to be a much more comfortable, and more exciting world.

- Randy
 
wingman
Posts: 3839
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 7:31 am

That was an excellent point someone brought up earlier. You have to add typical change-over and/or refuelling stop delays to the 15%, so a typical LHR-SYD flight today might shave off 5-6 hours airport to airport right? So ask an executive if he would mind paying extra for this convenience and he/she might say yes. Looking at a round trip, this person is back to the kids and home a 1/2 day sooner (or can meet 2 additional potential customers).

I don't think any airline will succeed if the operational cost is actually 40% higher, but anywhere under 20% and poeple will start to think. At cost parity with today's long-haulers, this plane would be a crushing home-run. SIA and BA could easily configure an all B-Class service with Connexion services and you have a flying business center that gets you where you want to go. Trust me, people are ready to explode with the hassles of crowded flights, delays, stop-overs etc. But maybe I'm wrong, perhaps high-end travellers would prefer to fly 15% longer on a 380 and get all their shopping, whoppers, and work-outs in.
 
Sonic
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2000 3:10 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 7:32 am

So what is it Sonic Cruiser? 787? Or Boeing will go Lockheed's way and name aircrafts with names, not numbers?
 
Guest

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 7:33 am

I would pay extra to go on the CONCEPT !!!

t>y
 
AerLingus
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2000 9:22 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 7:49 am

Quite honestly, I don't believe a thing that Boeing says anymore. They need to stop jumping around all over the place, conduct some corporate surveys, and find out what niche they need to fill because this subsonic cruiser garbage will simply not do for the passengers or the airlines, nor will the stretch 744. Rehashing designs will not cut it for much longer, and asthetics and novelty will not bring in revenue for Boeing or the airlines.
Airbus already took a gamble with the superjumbo.
Now it's Boeing's time to play smart as opposed to making silly attempts to get the interest of the media and the general public.
Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
 
toxtethogrady
Posts: 1861
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2000 12:33 pm

Sure It's The Face They're Trying To Save?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 7:59 am

I think public and airline acceptance is going to be long in coming. No commonality at all with the rest of the Boeing fleet.

If Bethune buys the plane for CO, you'll get the first indication it's a winner...
 
gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 8:56 am

You are quite right AER LINGUS. You would think that with the outstanding success of the 777 where they did just as you suggest (consult the flying public and airlines), they would know the way forward. They seem to be in a confused state (I think they are in shock that nobody wants the 747 any more) and unable to re-focus. I hope it is only a temporary condition and they come up with something that is viable and real as opposed to a crass attempt to get the media's attention.
I have no memory of this place.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8138
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 10:00 am

I'm going to say this: would Boeing have designed the Sonic Cruiser if there was no substantial interest from the airlines?

Think about it: four of the five major international carriers based in the USA (American, Continental, Delta and United) are not interested at this time in buying a big airliner. Explain to me why AA, CO and UA have increasingly large 777-200ER fleets, and DL is on the verge on a 50+ plane 777-200ER order? Remember, the 767 fleets of AA, DL and UA were delivered in the 1980's, and for long-range planning they will have to starting looking at a successor to the 767.

This is where the Sonic Cruiser comes in. Given that the Sonic Cruiser can fly LAX-JFK about a hour faster than the 767-200/300 series, you bet AA, CO, DL and UA are interested just for long-distance domestic operations. Because of the potential of flying 9,000 nautical miles non-stop, US-based airlines are going to be very interested in this plane to fly very long international routes out of BOS, JFK, EWR, PHL, IAD, CLT, ATL, MCO, MIA, ORD, STL, DFW, IAH, DEN, LAS, SAN, LAX, SFO and SEA. I really envision as many as 200 or more Sonic Cruisers being sold to AA, CO, DL and UA.

A number of foreign airlines would definitely be interested, too. Already, BA and SQ have expressed interest; I expect a number of other airlines that have very long route requirements (SA, AN, KE, CA, MU, CZ, and even possibly KE and OZ) may express interest also. British Airways would love to get a plane that can finally fly the Kangaroo Route between London and Sydney non-stop; the Sonic Cruiser has not only the potential to do this, but also complete a single trip in around 14 hours.

No wonder why Airbus is probably very concerned, because the Sonic Cruiser could steal a lot of premium class passengers that would be flying the A380-800.
 
teahan
Posts: 4994
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 11:18 pm

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 10:00 am

Hey,

RayChuang, I am not a Boeing hater, I am actually really looking forward to this plane if it takes off but here are a few facts:

I'm going to say this: would Boeing have designed the Sonic Cruiser if there was no substantial interest from the airlines?

The Sonic Cruiser is not even close to being designed yet. They may have done the preliminary design phase but that is where it ends.

Think about it: four of the five major international carriers based in the USA (American, Continental, Delta and United) are not interested at this time in buying a big airliner

In previous posts I clearly remember you saying that United would order the Boeing B747X. This was on several occasions and not just one. Why the sudden change of mind?

and DL is on the verge on a 50+ plane 777-200ER order?

Where does that 50+ figure come from? I have been hearing stuff about a new DL B777 for the 2 years on this site and I have seen nothing. From what I have heard, expect a 15 plane order but not even close to 50!

British Airways would love to get a plane that can finally fly the Kangaroo Route between London and Sydney non-stop; the Sonic Cruiser has not only the potential to do this, but also complete a single trip in around 14 hours.

Where did Boeing ever say the plane would have enough range to do the Kangaroo Route non-stop? NO WHERE! They said the range would be UP TO 9000nm which is about the same as the B777-200LR. That is a good bit short of Sydney. If Boeing creates a version that can do the Kangaroo route non-stop, expect Airbus to make a version of the A380 that can do the Kangaroo Route non-stop too (but obviously slower).

I am not attacking you, not attacking Boeing, I am just getting a few facts straight!

KInd Regards,
Jeremiah Teahan


Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
 
teahan
Posts: 4994
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 11:18 pm

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 10:00 am

Hey,

RayChuang, here is one of the posts where you said UA would be ordering a Super Jumbo:

Topic: RE: United Becomes Airbus's Biggest Client
Username: RayChuang
Posted 2001-03-18 08:06:21 and read 1280 times.

I don't think UA will buy the 767-400ER, the more I think about it. They'd rather buy a lot more 777-200's.

Right now, UA, NW, JL, KE and CA are the airlines that will determine whether we'll see a lot more A380's or see a lot of 747X's. The reason is simple: trans-Pacific routes tend to sport very high load factors (and will continue to do so), and if the A380-800 were flying now on the SFO-HKG route that plane would still be completely full.


Kind Regards,
Jeremiah Teahan




Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 12:46 pm

Don't even need the LHR-SYD example to illustrate the Sonic Cruiser's potential appeal. Say, MUC-DFW can support a daily flight with the Sonic Cruiser, approximately an eight hour trip. If you have to go through hubs, for example, FRA and JFK, it can easily turn into a twelve hour plus trip with two transits. Would you opt for the direct flight even if you have to pay a 15% premium?
 
Republic
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:39 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 12:57 pm

Teahan:

Selectively following the news these days?

Friday March 30, 7:43 am Eastern Time

Airline chiefs interested in new Boeing jet

MARLOW, England, March 30 (Reuters) - Chief Executives of Singapore Airlines Ltd , Air Canada Inc (Toronto:AC.TO - news) and UAL Corp (NYSE:UAL - news) said on Friday they were interested in the fast, long-range airliner that Boeing Co (NYSE:BA - news) proposed this week.

``We are excited that Boeing has taken on this challenge,'' James Goodwin, Chairman and CEO of UAL, which owns United Airlines, said.

The CEO of Singapore Airlines Cheong Choong Kong, told reporters his company wanted to talk further with Boeing about the plane, which would cruise about 15 percent faster than a typical airliner.

``Air Canada would definitely line up in the extremely interested prospective customer category,'' said Air Canada's boss, Robert Milton.

They were among chief executives of the Star airline alliance meeting in Marlow, England.


Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited.

--------------
Is this good enough for you?
 
gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 1:08 pm

Regarding the interest expressed by AC, SIA & UAL in this new Boeing. This means nothing at all. Every Airline in the world will be 'interested' in it. Every time Porche brings out a new car I am interested in it but I don't own one nor am I likely to. Boeing took orders for the 2707 SST back in the sixties from Pan Am, TWA and BOAC. Even Aer Lingus ordered 2 of them! The Concorde order book was very respectable and some airlines took options on both the Concorde and the Boeing 2707. Where did that all go? Boeing has to get this project much further before interest will turn into orders.
I have no memory of this place.
 
Republic
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:39 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 1:14 pm

Gearup:

I respectfully disagree. In this instance, I will take the informed opinion of the CEO's of Singapore, United, and Air Canada over yours. I'm quite sure that they do not believe that their statements "mean nothing."

Have you ever heard of intellectual honesty?

Rgds,
Joe

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

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 1:24 pm

Joe,

Intellectual honesty has nothing to do with it. How do we know what politics is behind these big names in the airline industry and their reasons for saying what they do. These public statements must reflect what a lot of airline CEO's are saying within the confines of their boardrooms. I am sure they are ALL very interested in this new Boeing design. You and I are for sure. But interest is just interest, no more. That is what I mean by 'this means nothing'. I personally hope to see this aircraft in revenue service especially with AC given that I am a Canadian. I am not holding my breath though
I have no memory of this place.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3141
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 5:17 pm

Did you know:

The European Union is planning to introduce new noise chapter 4 regulation within 5 years, which means all existing and new planes will need a general reduction of -10dB on their exisiting chapter 3 noise emission level to be allowed to fly in and over the European Union.

This chapter 4 regulation means:
-) all hushkit planes will have to stay out of Europe;
(planes like the A300Bseries, B727, B737classic, B747classic and even older versions of the B757 and B767.)
-) even brandnew planes like the B777-300ER or the A321-200 -unless modified- will not be allowed to fly anymore, simply because the engines fitted on these heavier versions of the orriginal design are already pushed too far to allow them to safely fly with the -10dB reduction.
Talking about restrictive legislation!!!

In other words, if the Yellowstone were to use B777 based engines to fly up to M.98 then they would be certainly pushed so heavily that they fall short of the new chapter 4 regulation in the European Union and will never be able to fly from any European Airport.

I think this is to be considered as well, since not much interest will exist in a plane that isn't welcome in an important part of the world.
Boeing will need a radical new engine design, no based-on-this-or-that engine design for the project, so the hole project will be made much more expensive and will take much longer then 10 years.



 
Guest

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 8:19 pm

Sabenapilot: Boeing probably already figured this out. They aren't secluded from the rest of the world you know. Why would it take more than 10 years? Engines from P&W, RR, and CFM can be made simultaneously as the new plane.
 
DatamanA340
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 7:02 pm

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 9:20 pm

I have no attention whether it's face-saving. But this project is very interesting indeed.

I've posted about Boeing's PTP previously https://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/429982/, that PTP doesn't made so many new 'direct' flights. Hubs are still exists and people in Reno would tend to fly to Los Angeles, an existing hub, than Las Vegas, a new PTP origin, to trip to Tokyo. If he/she is to fly to Fukuoka, he/she would have no choice than transfer in LAX, even when PTP goes. What are the hero of Boeing's PTP? 767 and 777. What are the ones of Airbus's H&S? 320 and 380. 777 is only 40~50% smaller than 380 thus it cannot make PTP 'from everywhere to everywhere'. How much cities in the U.S. can feed direct flights to Paris or London?

Now, CRandyHill posted:
2) Boeing is pushing point to point, meaning not only are long transcontinental flights going to be directly cut by 1.5-3 hours, but alot of passengers are also going to save an additional 2 hours connection time stopping at hubs. Total time savings could easily be 25-30%, for example SEA-SYD could be 13.5 hours with this plane, instead of 18 hours through LAX right now.

He used the example of Seattle. Seattle will get much benefit from PTP, but still there are more regions that cannot feed PTP traffic, like I mentioned Reno or Eugune even though both are capitals of states. Instead PTP can increase congestion in mid-sized airports like Seattle. 15% faster in sky, but double delayed in land, it's not a mere joke.

Basically I think H&S and PTP will go ahead together. Many -especially such high-end- travellers prefer less stopovers and travel times and some others want to pay less with more transfer. And growing alliances support H&S system. Did European carriers stopped operation in Australia and NZ because of demand shortage? No.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3141
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 10:09 pm

HI Lowfairair-

Boeing probably already figured this out. They aren't secluded from the rest of the world you know. Why would it take more than 10 years?

I know Boeing knows about this, but I was pointing to some of the readers on this forum who really believe this plane will be up and flying in less then 5 years or so thanks to the B777 engine technology.

Designing an engine from scratch takes about 10 years you know.
Take a look at how long it took GE from the first idea to the first flight of its GE90.

Not to be talking about the problems occuring in the design of what's called transsonic engines (engines on planes flying at high subsonic speeds have the need for a supersonic design you know due to the converging airflow and the acceleration inside the intake).

The Oympus engine as used on Concorde took over 15 years to develop! And they aren't even chapter 3, nor is any other transsonic jet engine.
In fact it is generally believed that it is physically impossible to make a chapter 3 (let alone a chapter 4) transsonic jet engine.

Anyway, this will be very interesting to follow in the future. I personally think that soon the US government will try to block the chapter 4 regulation in Europe, and also will try to achieve an exception on chapter 3 for the Yellowstone flyer.


 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1849
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 10:38 pm

Sabenapilot:

You are completely wrong about not being able to meet Chapter 4 requirements. At the press conference, Boeing's CEO specifically addressed that issue and said the Sonic Cruiser would be quieter and environmentally more friendly than any of the current aircraft.
 
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 11:12 pm

Sabenapilot, I totally agree with you!

I just like to remember all of you, that MD also made big commitments concerning the performance of the MD-11, and what followed, was a series of modifications, within the last 10 years of service, to reach the goal they set themselves..... So I think it's better not to believe all these nice commitments they made now, let's wait and see if they reach their goal!
 
User avatar
flashmeister
Posts: 2685
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 4:32 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Sun Apr 01, 2001 11:16 pm

Dataman A340 wrote: He used the example of Seattle. Seattle will get much benefit from PTP, but still there are more regions that cannot feed PTP traffic, like I mentioned Reno or Eugune even though both are capitals of states.

True, that on pure O&D traffic, SEA may not be able to support 300 seats/day to SYD. But, perhaps 150 (the low range of this project). Also, if not SYD, maybe other cities along the Pacific Rim...

Where PTP traffic really benefits is when it is combined with H&S traffic to an extent. You use secondary hub cities (that are used primarily for connecting traffic) to support long, semi-thin routes. PIT is a great example of this... PIT could never support a flight to, say, FRA on its own, but with the connecting traffic, it can.

There are a lot of cities like this that are underutilized: PIT has room to grow, STL could see this from AA, PDX now that DL has left, SEA is good for it, and places like Oakland, Hartford, Raleigh/Durham, San Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix, New Orleans, etc etc etc.

Thats where the Sonic Cruiser will work best - longer, thinner runs on international routes, with the benefit of being faster and more frequent.

(Also, not to be picky, but neither Reno nor Eugene are captials: Carson City is the capital of Nevada, and Salem is the capital of Oregon.)

 
DatamanA340
Posts: 535
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 7:02 pm

RE: Flashmeister

Sun Apr 01, 2001 11:41 pm

Oh, I thought Seattle could feed Sydney direct by 777.  Smile But there will be no doubt about demand of Reno-Fukuoka, of course. And I still think bigger hubs must be preferred because they have more connections, therefore shorter travel times despite of more potential congestion on taxiway. For example, from Reno, San Francisco than Portland and Los Angeles than San Francisco.

By the way, thank you for geographical knowledge.
 
Beefmoney
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 2:16 am

RE: Sonic Cruiser - Just Face-saving?

Mon Apr 02, 2001 12:27 am

Does anyone know why boeing would attempt to put canards on their concept design, wouldnt that only increase takeoff and landing distance? Because canard designs traditionally need more airspeed to stay airborne.
Michael Hawkins

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos