Boeing claims 747-400ER is fastest commercial airplane in the sky (what about Conc ?)

[WupWupPullUp]

According to Boeing's wesite, "the 747-400ER is now the largest and fastest commercial airplane in the sky - cruising at Mach 0.85, or 85 percent of the speed of sound."

:mad: So what about Concorde then?:mad:

------ B747-400ER = Mach 0.85.
------ Concorde = Mach 2.2 (i.e. over 2 and a half times faster !!!!!)



When asked why they are claiming the 747-400ER to be the fastest commercial airplane, when Concorde is clearly much much faster, they replied "The 747-400ER is the fastest subsonic commercial airplane currently in service. Our Sonic Cruiser will, when it goes into service, will take on that title.".

And yet the website news article remains unchanged!! Should you feel inclined to let the author or Boeing know how you feel about this claim, please see the details below.


URL : http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q3/nr_020731g.html

Author's email : [email protected]

Boeing's www email : [email protected]

[744rules]

I think it must be frustrating for some americans to have almost ALL aviation records EXCEPT the one for supersonic commercial airtravel , and this for over more than 20years. The land where everything is bigger (but not faster for the time being :D )

[WupWupPullUp]

"The 747-400ER is the fastest subsonic commercial airplane currently in service. Our Sonic Cruiser will, when it goes into service, will take on that title.".

NO IT WON'T !!!!!

According to their website, the Sonic Cruiser will only fly at up to Mach 0.98.

This is still less than half the cruising speed of Concorde. (M2.2).

:-)

[Knold]

Are you married to a concord or what? You seem to be somewhat over offended. :confused:

[Semaphore Sam]

I doubt that Concorde can be considered 'commercial' in any meaningful sense of the word. It's been a 'one-off', a money-losing dinosaur, supporting government self-important bigwigs & Hollywood celebrities. Politicians & movie-stars need their perks, I know, supported by all the 'little-people' taxpayers; we Yanks have our Helmsley's, so why not the Frogs & Limeys? (Gratituous insults, I know; please take with 2 grains of salt, then fire-at-will!)

[Kalium Chloride]

Hate to say this but this oversight is old news. I queried it with Boeing a week ago and they did admit that it was technically untrue. Although they did point out that the -400ER got up to M0.92 in the first flight tests.

[WupWupPullUp]

Semaphore Sam - I would Fire at Will, but I don't know who he is, so you'll have to do instead ! :D

It's good that you keep up the old "we're so jealous of Concorde, that we can't bring ourselves to acknowledge it's superior performance!" attitude!. :rolleyes: I'm half expecting someone to start blahting about it's noise pollution Hehehehe!

As far as I can see, if a "joe public" wants to travel in the air, in the fastest means possible, there's only one aircraft that cuts the mustard - that's Concorde. Nothing else comes anywhere close! It's a shame that certain people (corporations?) can't acknowledge that!

Oh, and why call the Conc a dinosaur, when the 747 is an even older design?

Kalium Chloride - Wow, that's great! You hero! A whole week ago? So where's the post? Sorry, but if you don't tell anyone, then why criticise someone else for posting a new topic on the subject?

Knold - no, not married, but seriously chatting her up! :p

[Semaphore Sam]

WWPU:

"Joe Public" would love to fly in the 'fastest means possible', but it's commercially impossible, and that's the rub! Given enough money, NASA (or the Russian Federation Airforce) will organize a flight at warp 6, or whatever, to the whateverosphere, in suitable aircraft, or even rockets. If that's considered 'commercial' then so is Concorde, or Saturn V, or the Shuttle (which was supposed to be a 'commercial enterprise', like Concorde, with similar results).

United may go bust; so may US Air. Concorde (and the Shuttle)will NEVER stop flying due to 'commercial considerations'. Such considerations would have grounded Concorde in '74. Now, that's not to say Concorde doesn't have a niche; it's just that 'Commercial Aviation' isn't it; let's call it 'National Ego Airlines'.

Yes, the original 747 is a dinosaur; I saw it in Seattle 3 years ago; hasn't flown since mid-eighties (a real shame), when it was a testbed for future engines. The original SP's, 100's, 200's and 300's are being retired, due to airframe fatigue, and excess costs of running (commercial considerations). Not the Concorde; each airframe has so few hours per month since the early '70s it can safely fly another 15-20 years...safely, but not commercially.

Your civilized response is appreciated! I don't bash the Concorde per say; it just isn't a 'commercial aircraft'. So there is a case for the 747-400ER to be considered the fastest commercial aircraft, even if Boeing mistakenly disagrees!

Will accept further fire, especially in your good-natured format.

[126.9]

Perhaps the key lies in the fact that they mention the word commercial? Of course, there's absolutely nothing commercial about the old money losing Concorde! In that case, I guess they're quite right. :D

[skeet surfer]

I'd just like to point out that the Rallye I flew last week is the fastest sub 100kt aeroplane in service today at a measured velocity of 99.999999999999kts.......

I feel proud to be English & European and beat the Americans in their (so called) own field.......

[WeatherJinx]

How commercial are Boeing aircraft, anyway? It's common knowledge that their airliners are produced with the aid of cross-subsidies from over-endowed defence budgets...(and before I get flamed, I know that Airbus is not exactly subsidy-free either) ;)

I doubt that commercial aviation when taken as a whole has been at all financially viable if looked at over its 80 yrs or so lifetime, but then again so what? Why does everything have to make a profit?

Jx:cool:

PS - Concorde is gorgeous, though....

[Semaphore Sam]

'PS - Concorde is gorgeous, though....'

Surely we all agree on that!

[Ace Rimmer]

So the question is: Are Concordes commercial? I think there are two answers to that question for an manufacturer's perspective clearly not. Squillions to develop and a production run of 14 a/c which were sold for a very small price indeed...No chance. Its worth remembering though that it took big B from '69 till sometime in the mid to late '80s and several hundred airframes to cover the development costs of the '47 (the early design of which was for a USAF strategic heavy lift a/c contract - which they lost to Lockheed (C5) - was subsidised by Uncle.

From the airline perspective quite a different kettle of fish according to BA the type contributes a lot of revenue to its bottom line and they consider it a money maker. (All to do with securing lucrative business travel accounts from big corporations by offering so many Conc seats per xx biz class tickets bought or something like that) Certainly the grounding cost them a a lot in this competitive arena. And Big Airways have invested a significant wodge of cash in the mods to get the fleet back in the air.

I reckon them both to be jolly significant '47 for the social change it engendered - and it's longevity of production - 33 years and counting -
A Concs for being the sexiest airliner in the sky

Ref the website - Cy Attle's PR Kool aid kid PR types tend to get carried away from time to time its the rain you see

[Midnight Blue]

Why is nobody talking about the Tupolev 154M?
It is still in production and might cruise a bit faster than M .85...

[ETOPS773]

RE:TU154
Last I heard of that is was being fitted up by Nasa and Rockwell for some tests into SST.

In the 80s I think it was doing some long haul post rounds in russia.

As for concorde..yeah,joe public does get a chance to go on it..they`ve just got to have alot of money ;)
My local radio station does an award ceremony and they let people who have raised money for charity and "local heros" go for a joyride over the bay of biscay nearly every year.

And..part of Concordes niche is that its exclusive,sleek and sexy,its a great PR machine..lets face it..the 747 isn`t exactly exclusive or massively sexy(reminds me of a whale),and there are 1000s of them.the "Mr Smith" of the skies :p

[Midnight Blue]

ETOPS 773, you are probably talking about the Tu 144, the "Concordsky" ;)
I mean the Tu 154M with 3 Engines, T-Tail able for softfield landings (as the gear looks like...)
1000+ airframes were built from 1982 to 1994.

It is going at least M .87 in normal cruise.
And as I remember it is able to cruise with more than M .90 in highspeed cruise.

[WupWupPullUp]

I note with interest, that despite admitting in eMail, that Concorde is the "fastest airplane in the sky" (their words), they still haven't changed the website!

They are happy to continue claiming to Joe Public that the 747-400 is the fastest!

What conclusions should be drawn from this ?....!

[steamchicken]

hmm...that their PR department is smarting over the A380 still?
BTW a Conc definitely is commercial, it's still commerce even if you lose money!

[canberra]

dont you just love the yanks and the way they claim every thing is bigger and better in the land of the almighty dollar. yet several times since wwii the yank aviation industry has been caught on the wrong foot. they had to build canberras(b57s) under licence, also harriers and hawks. how many american airlines bought viscounts? and as for fast airliners although no longer in airline service what about the vc10? ps i dont dislike americans just the attitude they have at times.

[WupWupPullUp]

Anyone else emailed Boeing over this?

[18-Wheeler]

Don't bother, they most likely won't reply.

It's like the copy of "From the Earth to the Moon", by HBO. I was truly shocked to see on the cover the words "... Alan Shepard, the first man in space ..."
I emailed them, but they ignored me as well.

I wouldn't have quite put it the way Canberra did, but in essence he's right.

[Loki]

Is Concorde commercial?

One might as well ask if St Pauls Cathedral is a cost effective product. No doubt some 17th century accountants went a bit pale when Chris Wren unveiled his plans. The world has a place for accountants I`m sure, but it`s not near me.

[WupWupPullUp]

Is concorde commercial?

Well, to answer this, ask yourself two questions.

1. Was it built for millitary reasons?[/SIZE]
2. Was it built as a private aircraft?[/SIZE]

NO !

It was built for commercial reasons.

Whether or not it is commercially PROFITABLE or not is irrelevant - it's still a commercial aircraft.

x

[TowerDog]

WupWup:

Hmm, very sensitive over a non-issue are we?

Ya really have to point out that the Concorde is faster than a 747?
(Duh...:rolleyes: )

Perhaps you should go out more often, or at least respond to the ads for guaranteed penis enlargment...:D :rolleyes:

Now get away from mom's computer, off you go.:p

[Semaphore Sam]

Hi WupWup:
If Concorde is considered 'commercial', because it was originally built for 'commercial' reasons, then so was that American boondoogle, the 'Space Shuttle'. Now, I have admiration for both the Concorde & the Shuttle, but neither are 'commercial', even though both were originally built for so-called commercial ends. But, for argument's sake, ok, Concorde & the Shuttle are 'commercial'.

Sooooo, it's either the 747ER that's 'fastest commercial airliner', or the Space Shuttle! Sam

[boris]

Sam,
Here is a reality check:-
DC3 - slow commercial airplane (boeingspell)
Viscount - medium speed commercial airplane.
B747 - fast commercial airplane.
Citation X - faster commercial airplane.
Concorde - fastest commercial airplane.
Space Shuttle - Space Shuttle.
bozzo.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Boris beat me to it, but what about the Citation X ? If memory serves me right, this is a M 0.92 aircraft. Ah well, what Boeing meant is probably "fastest commercial aircraft, built by Boeing, seating more than 400 passengers, with a MTOW in excess of 400 tons, built by Boeing, powered by US engines, offering fastfood heaters, built by Boeing, and you may safely stuff your sleak pom/frog non-profit making fuel to noise converter 'cause it wasn't built by Boeing or any other US company".

CV990
TU154M
VC10
Citation X
Global Express
G-V

PR, the art of converting facts into glitter.

[747FOCAL]

Your all wrong. :D The fastest certified subsonic aircraft is the 727. Flight test all the way to Mach .98 Designed to cruise effortlessly at Mach .92 but then came the 70s gas crunch and everybody throttled them back and they never went back up.

The 727 is the last Boeing design that came from the guys that really knew how to build an airplane. Since then they are good airplanes, but not as good as before. ;)

[Flip Flop Flyer]

So what's all the hubbub with this Sonic Cruiser then? Obviously, extending the fuse of the trusty '72, and perhaps slapping on a threesome of afterburning -219s, should do the trick ...... maybe they lost the orginal design drawings in the move from Seattle :p

[Sheep Guts]

Looks like you poms take this really to heart. Physically you are correct( M2.2> m.85-92), but10-15 years from now, the B747-400ERs will still be IN THE AIR, when your Concorde, all 13 of them, will be on sticks outside old air bases collecting bird crap!:D
Face it guys, unless you build somemore units and stop charging 3000.00 quid to go to the Big Apple. I doubt you will turn around the enevitable.:o

Saying all that, I am fond of it, I was also fond of Vampires and Venoms and Hunters and Vulcans and Comets and Spits and Sopwiths and........................................;)

[buttonmonkey]

10-15 years from now Concorde will still be in the air, still making money and there still won't be anything in the sky from Uncle Sam to touch it.

[Knold]

Seems like a big profficy even for Nostradamus.. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[747FOCAL]

With the way things are going there won't be much but the military in the air come 15 years from now.

[Semaphore Sam]

I'm sure Concorde will still be in the air in 15 years, making as much money as it has since it's inception in '73...NADA. So will the Space Shuttle, for similar reasons: national prestige. Gentlemen, I acknowledge the SShuttle & the Concorde are wonderfull commercially, as were the Brabazon and the Airship 100. Congrats!

[Final 3 Greens]

"The 747-400ER is the fastest subsonic commercial airplane currently in service. Our Sonic Cruiser will, when it goes into service, will take on that title.".

Wup Wup Pull Up - hate to disagree with you, but this statment is true.

The Sonic Cruiser will take the subsonic title from the 74, but the Concorde will still beat it by miles (per hour)!!!!! :D :D

[AfricanSkies]

Concorde was already making money in 1982. The surplus for the 82/83 fy was GBP10.2 million and in 1983/84 was GBP10.7 million.

All subsidisation ended in March 1984.

BA paid the government GBP 16.5 million, aquiring spares with a book value of GBP 120 million but actually worth less because they were mostly engine parts and useless for any aircraft but Concorde. Thereafter BA owned all 7 Concordes, all the spares and a partly cannibalised Concorde 202.

As for Concorde remaining in the air, initially the airframes were certified until 2008 (6700 cycles). Stress tests were carried out on G-BOAF and after the results were published, the CAA raised the limit to 8500 cycles which should see Concorde still being

the

fastest

commercial

airliner

in the world

until about 2015.

A further cycle limit extension also be available even after this date.

:p

[747FOCAL]

Final 3 Greens:

I don't know where you got your information, but the 727 currently holds the title for aircraft that are still in service.
:D

[Mooney]

Where did people get the idea that concorde didn't make money? Sure it was a theory after production- but before the crash it was very profitable- and i'm sure will return to be.

Boeing 744s at .85 hey? Not with the number of A340s in the sky it wont be :)

[moggie]

Wow! 0.85M - Boeing 40 years behind the drag curve as usual.

1960s VC10 cruising speed 0.84-0.86, certificated at 0.925 (I know - I have hand flown it at that speed).

What a drag it used to be crossing the altlantic stuck behind a 747 that could not go as high or fast as us.

Concorde (USA residents, note spelling with the "E"), makes money and always will. More than can be said for USAir, AA, Continental etc and Boeings Commerical airplanes division.

Take a look at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC. The Rolls Royce Dart and 211 are there, along with a Harrier. Guess which nation conveniently forgets to mention that these firsts were designed in the UK? Last time I was there, Concorde didn't even exist (at least as far as the museum was concerned)!!!!!

God bless the USA - and enjoy your lonely, unfounded war with Iraq whilst the rest of us are doing something more sensible. Then you can save your "friendly fire" for your own troops for a change. You can win that one like you did Vietnam (ask Hollywood!).

Sits back and waits for Flak (which is NOT an American word but I guess we can expect them to claim it from the Germans!).

[West Coast]

VC10 or B747, hmmm what has staying power, which is still in production...

While at the air and space musuem, perhaps they will tell me the origin of the engine that powered the Mig15...a gift from you Brits.

Atlantic (Brit residents note spelling minus L)

Enjoy your next colonial war in Zimbabwe. We will come rescue you when you get in over your heads..again.

[moggie]

and who gave the yanks the jet engine - yep, the Brits! Another first, second and third all to us.

Now, lets see:

First jet engine? Us
First Turbo prop? Us
First airliner powered by either? Us
First SST? Us

Maybe the VC10 would have been the same commercial success that the 707 was if our industry had been allowed to subsidise it's development with a tanker (KC135) to allow us to sell it at below cost to the airlines.

Long live the government support of Airbus - you guys hate it when someone plays you at your own game (and especially if we beat you!).

I would not like to be at the top of the tree at Boeing with a catalogue of dinosaurs up against the Airbus offerings. How do you go about replacing717, 737, 747, 757, 767 which are all old designs without busting the bank?

[Capt.KAOS]

Coupla years ago I flew AMS-HKG in 10.35 mins in a Cathay 744, surfing the jet stream on 120+ miles tail wind over Russia for most of the trip. Acc the Capt. it was the 2nd fastest trip ever.... Arrived 1h30 mins ahead of schedule, which is no use because my party was still in his bed....

The flight info screen indicated speeds up to 1050 kms which is almost Mach1 I believe.

Cheers

cApT.kAoS

[West Coast]

To bad in your haste to get things first, you couldn't do it right also. Every one has an excuse for a lack of commercial sucess. The comet was first. For being first a high price was payed in lives and prestige. The accidents aside, it wasn't destined for sucess. the quick to follow 707 and DC8 were hands down superior aircraft. Please argue otherwise.

I will let the French know you guys did that SST thingey all alone. Where were they actually built?

The bus series are good acft, under powered for sure, but excellent technology. Now perhaps if the consortium can bring a dozen more countries into the fold you might have a world beater. I thought this was about Brit plane building. You should be kissing the frogs bu*** for letting you in the game. The Airbus website says says that the UK was not even a founding member.
Again, where are they built?

The dinos as you call them still garner half the market share.

[18-Wheeler]

Have to correct a couple of the things said above -

First jet engine? Us
First Turbo prop? Us
First airliner powered by either? Us
First SST? Us

First jet engine - The first jet engine to ever run was made by Professor Ernst Heinkel, in March 1937. It was the hydrogen fuelled Heineken He S 2. The engine only ever ran on a test stand, and its construction was overseen by Hans Joachim Pabst von Ohain.
(Whittle's engine first ran on 12-4-1937, a couple of weeks later than the Heinkel engine)
Whittle, however, holds the first patent for a jet engine.

First turboprop - Not sure of the type, but the Germans made a turboprop in the latter stages of WW2.

First SST - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Tupolev Tu-144 was earlier than the Concorde?

[con-pilot]

You are right 18 wheeler, the Germans beat the English in everything you said; and yes the Conc. was built in France.

Sorry, I love England and the English people but sometime you are guilty of what you chastise the Americans for. And for you people that say the ONLY reason the 707 came about was because of the United States Air Force, how do you explain the success of the DC-8, Boeing 727, 737, DC-10 etc.?

[mutt]

cApT.kAoS

The flight info screen indicated speeds up to 1050 kms which is almost Mach1 I believe.

Just a little diversion from this riveting discussion. Mach speed is based on the speed through the air and not over the ground. The B744 would only have achieved around M.86.

Mutt. :)

[18-Wheeler]

Yep, I've seen (briefly) 698 kts groundspeed coming east out of Narita, which was something like M 1.2, pity we could keep going that fast, it would've made the trip a LOT shorter!! :):)

[Capt.KAOS]

Mutt, thanks for the explanation. It's always a bit frustrating when strugling westwards against the jetstream @ "just" 700 kmh...... ;)

regards

CApt.kaOS

[FL390]

I'm not sure where people get the idea that Cocorde doesn't make money from - BA makes (ie profit) £25million a year from Concorde. Yes, it may be expensive to run with fuel and maintenance etc, but then each passenger is paying in the region of £4,000 a go - multiply that by 100 and you get £400,000 for every flight, assuming a full load.

:cool:

[Ace Rimmer]

Con pilot
Not wanting to do any seppo bashing buuuuut
Concordes: 50% Brit 50% Frog final assembly was carried out in Toulouse and Bristol. The extrodinary thing was the the French bits were built using metric measurements and the Brit bits imperial. It's a miracle the damn things went together at all. But there you go.

As for Airbi, Airbus is now a corporate entity 20% owned by BAE SYSTEMS (their caps not mine) BAE is responsible for the wings ever notice how well an aircraft flies without wings?

Boeing 707,727 and 737? damn fine aircraft every one but lets not kid ourselves that Boeing are innovators. They arent now and never really have been

Lets look at the facts:
The 707 fuselage was increased in diameter from the oridginal 'same as the KC135' spec because the company was losing orders to the DC8 with its double bubble design.

If you look at the 737 and 727 fuselages they exactly the same as the 707. Mind you the 727 (well -100 anyway) was pretty revolutionary in field performance.
As for the '37 well yeah they've sold a bunch especially when the -300,400,500 came along. But then for the majority of the types lifetime they really wasn't much in the way of competition was there?

The 747 well that was a failed military strategic airlifter contestant, the plans for which Boeing just dusted off and tweaked when Juan Tripp said he wanted a REALLY big plane (oh and before you get too huffy Joe Sutter told me that). So was it new? nope. Is it a good a/c? damn right. How many US mainline pax carriers still operate it? Erm two

777 OK granted bunches of CAD in the design but is that new? Nope not really. The FBW? nope. Is it a good a/c? yep

Now I'm not doing a 'Boeing is cack Airbus is great' thing here Boeing make great aircraft but so do Airbus they both get subsidies direct or indirect.

[Zoom]

Not totally relevant this, but I have heard tell that the RAF VC-10s ('Standard' fuselage with 'Super' engines) have cracked the sound barrier on a few occasions.

This is totally relevant, though. My Concise Oxford Dictionary (5th edition) defines 'commercial' as 'of, engaged in, bearing on, commerce'. Doesn't say anything about having to make a profit, Mr Boeing.

[tom_higginson]

Zoom, just the point I as about to make.
The yanks will say anything to try and convince themselfs of winning everything.

God, Americans just can't face being second :rolleyes:

[Zoom]

Since we are on the subject of SSTs, here's a question for you all:

How many American airports would now be happily accepting SST movements if the USA had not abandoned its SST programmes?

[BahrainLad]

One of the tired refrains that often comes out is 'Boeing bet the company when it launched x, you should be thankful for the progress it made to aviation' etc.

However, if you look at it, the only aircraft where Boeing even remotely 'bet the company' was with the 747. Every other launch was supported by the knowledge that the market existed for that aircraft (or, they had sufficient spinoff value from guaranteed sales).

707-----spin off from KC-135
727-----market for medium range jet proved by Comet/707/DC8
737-----market proven by BAC 1-11 and DC-9
747-----risk
757-----update to 727
767-----market for twin-engined medium range widebody proved by A300
777----market for twin-engined high capacity long range proved by A330 and earlier, L-1011 and DC-10

HOWEVER, we should all remember that to Boeing's credit, being late to the market had its advantages, as the 727/737/757/767/777 have been the most successful aircraft in their class, despite the fact that they were not pure 'innovators'.

[Send Clowns]

One thought, about the fight in the late 60s, early 70s between Europe and the US is that UK/France bet on Concorde, teh US on the 747. Europe went fast, the US large, and large won the commercial battle. There were various reasons for this, and there were good reasons in the late 60s for believing that there was a market for both. Concorde does now have its advantages, and some companies use it for sound business reasons - the time spared is worth the money to some of their executives (which compared with first class on a 747 is little premium).

Now we come to 2002. Boing bets its commercial division on a small, transonic (it is not subsonic - Boings comment was incorrect) aircraft, Airbus on a large subsonic one (note all contracts bar I think 1 so far signed the aircraft are 50% British, not 20% - they will fly with Rolls Royce engines).

My first impression of the Sonic Cruiser, having recently taught Principles of Flight was that the 15% saving in time could never justify the additional wave drag of transonic flight (this is the importance of it being transonic - wave drag peaks at these speeds). I thought I may be naive in my lack of knowledge of aerodynamics, but at Farnborough I was cooling down in Boing's air conditioning when I bumped into someone I knew at university, who had studied aeronautical engineering. He said he was there to laugh at the sonic cruiser. It was his opinion it would never be built in large numbers. We shall have to see!

Note also that A380 may replace Concorde. If (a big 'if') they can fit some sleeping cabins on for a viable price then sleeping onboard would save similar time for the busy executive, leaving at night to arrive refreshed in the morning.

[Human Factor]

B777: Cruises at M0.84, max M0.86, wing is actually good for M0.94 but would need re-certifying which would cost too much.

Tu154: Cruises at M0.94 allegedly. Statistically will get you to heaven faster than any other type.

[casual observer]

BahrainLad:

I think you have trivialized Boeing's accomplishments. First of all, the B727 was not a Comet/DC-8/B707 "imitator." The B707 was an intercontinental (i.e., long-haul) aircarft. The B727 was a trans-continental (i.e., medium-haul) aircraft. And the B737 was a short-haul aircraft. One of the reasons why the B727 was so successful was the B727 didn't have a true competitor. As you can see, back then, Boeing was the first manufacturer to offer a complete family of aircraft. That in itself was an innovation. Also, the B757 was meant to be a B727 replacement, but it never did become a B727 replacement because of the US airline industry deregulation. The B767 was partly in response to Airbus' A300. However, Boeing pioneered ETOPS with the B767 which transformed the trans-Atlantic market. Arguably, the ETOPS concept is another innovation. Lastly, although the B777 first came out as the -200 model which competed directly with the A330/340 and MD-11, the B777 would not have been launched if it was strictly to compete with the aforementioned aircraft. The B777 program was deemed commercially viable by the Boeing's Board of Directors because it was also designed to replace the B747-1/200.

Send Clowns:

The 15% speed gain in itself is not sufficient to make the Sonic Cruiser viable. However, the speed gain does open up more operational possibilities. Please refer to an old thread where I gave some (rather extreme) examples:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10593

I will not deny that my examples were extremely tight. Nonetheless, I reckon it's not hard to get over 30% productivity gain with a M0.98 aircraft. This can easily overcome the cost associated with the 20-25% extra fuel burn. Furthermore, your theory would fail completely to explain why we have replaced turboprops with jets. I'm not saying the Sonic Cruiser will definitely be launched, but I think Boeing's basic premise is not unsound.

Lastly, the definition of subsonic and transonic is not very clear. The flows on all Airbus and Boeing wings are clearly in the transonic regime, that is, there are supersonic bubbles and shocks. However, all these airplanes travel below the speed of sound. That's why they are called subsonic jets. Since the proposed Sonic Cruiser will travel below the speed of sound, I don't think it's wrong to call it a subsonic aircraft. FWIW, Boeing did call their M1.2-1.4 studies transonic.

[BahrainLad]

Sorry....wasn't meaning to trivialise, just showing that the oft-held view that Boeing repeatedly 'bet the company' on launching aircraft that created a new market segment is untrue....the only case where this applies is the 747. This doesn't say that they are not innovators....it just shows that they haven't taken as much risk as people often believe.

[Tuba Mirum]

Send Clowns, the idea of sleeping cabins on the A380 sounds attractive, but how would e.g. LHR-JFK be scheduled? Seems to me you're looking at a ludicrously late takeoff, or a ludicrously early landing, or both. Failing that, land at JFK and park somewhere off in the middle distance until the pax wake up:)

[Send Clowns]

Tuba - I agree that you'd have to sort the scheduling, but I'd have thought it could be done. Especially if a new major UK airport does spring up, further from suburbia so able to operate later. Personally I could be happy with 5 hours sleep on a late flight out of LHR then a final couple of hours at the hotel, but then I am good at napping any time except the evening. Would be a personal thing. Don't really see it happening though - a pipedream, in a marketing man's head :D

Casual Observer

I agree that your sums are rather tight, and they only work on certain routes. I am sure you could find plenty of other routes with no increase in productivity, which would therefore never have SCs, and that if you assume larger fleets with networks rather than single routes the productivity figures will also become closer.

I also suspect that your idea of significantly larger SCs is impractical. Note that in general unless it has variable geometry wings a faster aircraft takes more runway. The SC looks very much optimised for high speed (would have to be if their figures are anything like realistic!) but also cannot have the brute force of Concorde (no afterburners!) again for efficiency, so would use a lot of runway anway. Make it larger, how many airports could it use?

[casual observer]

Send Clowns:

My example was tight. However, it was also amazing. 20 hours of utilization, that's made in heaven. ;) In reality, if an airline is averaging 12 hours with their medium-to-long-haul fleet, they can easily up their utilization rate to 14 hours due to more windows of possible operations that I showed in my other post. That's equivalent of 16.5 hours of flights on a M.85 aircraft. That's 35-40% increase in productivity. It means an airline would reduce their medium-to-long-haul fleet requirement by 35-40%, and that's on top of the 15% increase in cockpit and cabin crew productivity. Thus, the 20-25% increase in fuel burn is insignifcant relative to other savings.

No, my examples are not specific to certain routes. In fact, anything longer than 4 hours, it works out pretty well. If you have not worked the numbers yourself, don't discount it just like that. If everyone is as closed minded as you are, we would still be flying turbo-props.

I won't even bother to argue with you about a larger version of SC.

[Tcas climb]

Mine's bigger than yours, nana nana naa na :p

I gues Canada has the record for the fastest in production, shortrange, two engine, 72 seat turboprop!

[Jhieminga]

Surprising. Although the volume and content of this trans-atlantic debate is quite interesting, all these hot-headed individuals overlook the fact that the original Boeing statement as amended in the e-mail they sent, may be CORRECT, IF (yes there's more coming, read on) the word SUBSONIC is included.

Apart from Concorde and the TU144 every other airliner flying is for the sake of this argument a subsonic airplane. And in that class Boeing may very well try to lay this claim. Concorde is just in a completely different class.

And please take note of the words 'may be' above, I am perfectly willing to believe that other (subsonic) airliners fly faster than the 747-400ER. But why doesn't someone get out the manuals and compile a list of Mmo numbers for different airliners. That way it might be very easy to conclude this debate, but of course dredging up age-old arguments is much more fun I guess....

(and by the way, Concorde will never do M2.2 in service, BA sticks to a maximum of M2.06 for several good reasons.)

[PPRuNe Pop]

OK! A really serious question. Has this poll and debate run its' course?

I think it has. In fact, since there can be no further 'argument' to support the theory of anything being faster than Concorde I think the point has been well and truly made.

We can do with a bandwidth saving so just a few more days and then I will close the thread.

Thanks to those who voted.

PPP