Sonic Cruiser Scrapped?

[crewrest]

From 'this is london'

Airlines force Boeing to scrap plane
10 November 2002

BOEING is expected to abandon plans for its sonic Cruiser -capable of flying near the speed of sound - after leading airlines cast doubt on the project. Executives from some of the world's top carriers who went to the US for a preview of the designs have told the plane maker that they are not interested in an aircraft that offers only a small speed advantage over conventional designs.


The decision will come as a major blow to Boeing and will be seen as a vindication for Airbus, which cast doubts on the project from the beginning. The Sonic Cruiser was announced with a fanfare 19 months ago just after Boeing failed to win a single order for its version of a super-jumbo jet and airlines opted for the Airbus version.




this is london (http://www.thisislondon.com/news/business/articles/timid55381)

[GreenArc]

The concept is a good one, especially transPac. But the timing is bad. If Boeing had any balls left, they'd start development and bet on a revitalized market in 2008.

Condit is pretty much taking Boeing out of the commercial aircraft market.

GreenArc

[Notso Fantastic]

It was nothing more than a flight of fancy! Boeing will keep the 747 rehashed for a 50 year lifespan program. I saw recently that if the B52 program carries on for its planned time, it will have a flying in-service lifespan of over 90 years! Unbelievable. Maybe there might be something in regular redesign rather than new development.

[Geddy]

I am glad to hear this because I will be able to call in a few bets!!

Seriously though, if this is true it is unsuprising and is worthy of 2 comments.

1/ It was only ever a smoke screen to hide the axing of their latest 747 and 767 incarnations.

2/ It never had the speed to overcome to TransPac problem of the jetstream. Going east in a 744 at 35-40K in a jetstream would yeild you a similar speed to the Chronic Snoozer at 50K without a jetstream.

[Lewis]

Time to sell my Boeing stocks.

[exeng]

However I've always thought that the 'sonic cruiser' idea was clutching at staws; a non starter from the beginning.

A mach 1 aeroplane offers an advantage, but is it enough? .14 mach increase over it's subsonic competitors, not much is it.

If Boeing could come up with a real SST that could carry many pax over long distances they would have a winner. Trouble is that they cannot, and nor can the opposition.

Thing is the diabolic French have come up with an idea that will eclipse the 747.

As an aside, having flown both Boeings and the Bus can Airbus please find it within themslves to recruit some of the people who designed the flight control software for the 777


Regards
Exeng

[BOING]

Don't think the Sonic Cruiser was ever a serious idea.

Problem for Boeing now is that the 747 is being undercut by their own 777 during this austerity period. They have a choice of ways to go. Firstly, a new aircraft (far too expensive and risky these days). Secondly, let the 747 die and produce 777 derivatives. Thirdly, develop a really worthwhile "old" 747/400 upgrade that is cost justifiable to soak up some of the many low time 747s available. Otherwise they are out of the "big" aircraft game.

[steamchicken]

Not really surprising....the economics were against and so was the technology. Now all Airbus have to do is to deal with the Froggy peasants who don't like the new road........

[Torquelink]

Boeing say that the alternative to the Sonic Cruiser is "Project Yellowstone" a Super Efficient aircraft (see Flight today) which will use the materials, systems, aerodynamic and propulsion technology improvements needed to make the SC work to make a conventional speed M0.78 250 seater 20% more efficient than B757/B767-300ER/A330 class aircraft. They say that this is what the airlines want. The problem is that the capital cost of such an aircraft would be high and its efficiency more than off-set by the much lower capital costs of recent-build used B757/767/A330s etc and, without increased speeds as a USP, would be a difficult sell. Same reason that Boeing have generated little enthusiasm for the B744XQLR - the current model does its job so well that it's difficult to justify the price required for the proposed developments. As Boing suggests, take a recent, but now reduced value B744, add blended winglets to give 5% more range, engine and aerodynamic mods to reduce fuel burn, new interior and terminate all ADs and you have a 7,500nm 420 seater whose capital costs allow it to deliver seat-mile costs lower than other type - A380 and proposed "777-400ER" included.

[saudipc-9]

There are some idea's that you can see are doomed to failure the first time you read about them. This certainly fits that bill. It was obvious that airlines were not interested in this project. Maybe in North America going coast to coast ,but no where else in the world requires this sort of service.

[Buster Hyman]

Perhaps if it was an SST, the story might have ended differently. Alas, Boeing & it's like, in attempting to destroy & discredit the Concord (no e),have created the climate that won't allow the only thing it could have offered that would've eclipsed the A380!:rolleyes:

[sky9]

I would have thought that if Boeing are not careful they will be out of the aircraft manufacturing industry more quickly than they think.
The 747 is old and outdated and will not compete with the A380.
The 767 needs an urgent revamp and does not compare with the A330
The 757 is far too heavy for most of the routes that it flies. Its only current attraction is the low residual costs. Outperformed on most routes by the A321
The 737 NG is not too bad but there have to be questions asked about the outdated technology. The current restrictions on the flight envelope posses questions about the FAA and JAA certification as a derivative.
The 717 well, it’s the 717.
Unless Boeing pull their finger out they will find themselves competing in one area only; the 777.
The Sonic Cruiser was a bluff called by a bad poker player with a duff hand in a high stakes game. The bluff was called.

[nosefirsteverytime]

hmmmm, you've got to wonder why Anotov don't get into the act (ok ok, maybe not wonder as such, but still......). One time I actually worked out the fuel numbers for an An-225 with 1,500 seats, works out at aboot $50 a head for a transatlantic flight, add on whatever you want to and you still get a cheap flight across the Lantic compared to most others....