More Sonic Cruiser doubts

[Nigel PAX]

Boeing may axe sonic cruiser

David Gow, industrial editor
Wednesday June 26, 2002
The Guardian

Boeing, the world's biggest aircraft manufacturer, is considering taking the axe to its planned ultra-high-speed "sonic cruiser" which was supposed to herald a new era in airline travel. The US aerospace company could opt instead to build a more conventional version of the planned 250-seater that promised to cut an hour off the flying time between London and New York and five hours between Sydney and London.

Toby Bright, executive vice-president for Boeing commercial airplane sales, said yesterday: "We won't do this airplane unless its makes sense to us and the customers."

Boeing has been in talks with about a dozen airlines, including British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, about the optimal design and speed of the sonic cruiser which was originally planned as a stark alternative to Airbus's superjumbo, the A380, planned to have up to 600 seats.

The sonic cruiser was initially conceived as a jet airliner that would fly at 0.98 mach or just below the speed of sound and, unlike the A380 that would fly - in Boeing's eyes - from crowded hub to congested hub, swiftly carry business passengers from regional airport to regional airport.

Mr Bright indicated that airlines were at cross-purposes over the new sub-sonic plane's design, capacity and speed, however. "We are hearing from our customers different demands: there's not a consensus yet," he said in London.

It is understood that the airlines, which also include JAL and several big US carriers, are far apart on the issue of speed, with some preferring a slower version - of 0.85 mach or the speed of conventional 747 jumbos - because of fuel-consumption and environmental concerns.

Mr Bright told reporters: "We are always working on other products and the sonic cruiser is looking at an array of possibilities I would not rule out how difficult this airplane could be."

Phil Condit, Boeing's chief executive, recently indicated that Boeing would take a final decision on the plane's future by the end of 2003, with a view to it entering service in 2008. That would be two years after the A380 which has so far secured 87 orders.

But Mr Bright refused to say when such a decision would be made nor when the sonic cruiser might start flying commercially other than to say: "We are still trying to hit delivery in 2007-08." His boss, Alan Mulally, has pointed to the end of the decade.

The senior Boeing executive said: "Since we introduced the concept of the sonic cruiser the airline industry has had its worst downturn in the history of aviation."

Boeing expects to deliver just 275 planes next year, compared with 380 this year and 527 in 2000 but Mr Bright pointed to an upturn in production levels in 2004. So far this year Boeing has won 135 new orders, including 100 from Ryanair and 25 from a US low-cost carrier. Mr Bright hopes to pick up a further 100 orders from EasyJet for its single-aisle 737 jet next month.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,743941,00.html

[ShotOne]

No great surprise there. The whole project was probably just a PR jaunt to take public attention from the A380. If only I'd had £1 for every artists impression that has been published of a US built SST.

[twistedenginestarter]

Altogether wierd bit of PR or lack of it. I mean can anybody translate this into English sentences? "We are always working on other products and the sonic cruiser is looking at an array of possibilities I would not rule out how difficult this airplane could be."

From the article, you can't work out whether he's saying customers would like a new plane but something that doesn't cruise and doesn't go fast ( perhaps a new 757?) or that Boeing have realised they can't build anything that works so let's blame the customers for not asking for it.

I suppose if you had to place bets, they'd be on Sonic Cruiser never seeing the light of day. Which begs the question what are they are going to do instead...

[BOING]

Standby for a rehash of the high-speed 747-400 which, if Boeing had had the guts, would have been flying by now.

Boeing, after years of design leadership, is falling prey to the same malady as the US car industry several years ago. Weak kneed leadership and overly powerful bean counters too concerned with next weeks share price to spend money on new projects. The Sonic Cruiser only stood a chance of production if several major airlines had lined up with orders. The beancounters would then have signed off on the concept. As it is, with the airlines in disarray and not enough firm orders, the Sonic Cruiser is dead.
Boeings only alternative is the high-speed 747. It is the only airframe they have which can be coaxed to 0.95 without enormous redesign.

Pity no innovative company can raise the vast amounts of capital needed to get into the aeroplane business. Hell, Boeing cannot even build a successful low tech. low risk RJ!

[Kerosene Kraut]

Only a Supersonic Cruiser could survive.

[Gaston777]

Will they build it or won't they ?
The question is are people interested to cut flight time by 10 to 15 percent, while burning considerably more fuel than a 777.
You have to admit the design was superb though. A lot nicer than the 380.
I think they just needed something to take the attention off the Airbus for a while.

And where could I find stuff about that high speed 747 ? Thanks

[sky9]

Shot One
I'm nearly with you there. I suspect that it was probably a "spoiler" for the A380 launch with the intention of casting doubt on the "bigger rather than faster" route.

[Martin A]

Well, it looked prety good in the pictures, but it was pretty well hopeless other than from a "getting attention aay from the A380" point of view. A combination of hopes that have never been managed before, fly at .95 + economically , go further than anything else of the same size and do it with materials that have not yet been fully developed ! optimism in the extreme one would say !
The ned is prety predictable, but it might just have caused a stumble by Airbus on the A380, so give Boeing credit for that. However, the high speed 747 is only a tarted up 747, a little bit faster before severe drag rise sets in, but one suspects no less of a fuel burner than the current ones at current speeds, or they would offer the stick on bits as retrofit wouldn't they ? Doubt that you would get any kind of economic cruise out of a 747 at .95, not to be confused with MMO, which could be up near that number. Someone probably knows what margins you need between the Mmo and Vd.
Looked good, but who in this time wants to see seat mile cost go up !
bye
Martin A