Boeing gambles on speed with Sonic Cruiser
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boeing gambles on speed with Sonic Cruiser
Time saved on major routes
Flights, Current time, Time savings
L.A.- Boston, 5 hours, 40 minutes 35 minutes
N.Y.- London, 7 hours, 50 minutes
San Francisco- Tokyo, 10 hours 45 minutes, 1 hour, 20 minutes
Singapore- London, 13 hours 40 minutes, 1 hour, 55 minutes
The proposed Boeing jet would shave time off long flights. Times are approximate.
Source: USA TODAY research
06/18/2001 - Updated 04:49 PM ET
Boeing gambles on speed with Sonic Cruiser
By Alan Levin, USA TODAY
SEATTLE — In 1958, Boeing bet its future on a sleek jet unlike anything that had come before. The 707 flew higher, faster, farther and quieter than the propeller planes of the day. Almost overnight, it catapulted Boeing to the top of the commercial aviation business.
But something unexpected happened in the decades that followed. Despite improvements that allow jets to fly farther and quieter, none but the Concorde flies much faster than 550 mph, the 707's original cruising speed.
Now Boeing is gambling it can finally build an economically viable passenger jet that can fly on the verge of the sound barrier.
Boeing
Boeing "Sonic Cruiser" may transform commercial aviation, flying just under the speed of sound.
Boeing says that its proposed "Sonic Cruiser" will fly as much as 20% faster than current models, perhaps as fast as 648 mph. The jet will be capable of flying long distances, possibly linking cities such as New York and Singapore with non-stop flight. And, more important, it won't cost airlines more to operate than today's jets, the company says.
The Concorde flies at more than twice the speed of sound, but unpleasant sonic booms, jet emissions at high altitudes and high fuel costs doomed its potential. Only two airlines fly the Concorde, and no one is building a replacement.
For the Sonic Cruiser to be able to fly just under the speed of sound, Boeing has to battle the laws of physics and economics. The jet must minimize the shock waves that other passenger jets encounter at those speeds. And its engines can't burn too much fuel.
The new jet could hardly be more different from existing large jets. Preliminary drawings show the Sonic Cruiser with huge wings that angle from the rear of the fuselage, rather than from the middle. Instead of a tail to keep it level, it will have two small wings near its nose. Passengers shouldn't feel any differences from a regular flight.
Experts say the jet could transform commercial aviation. Boeing estimates it will begin operating in six or seven years. "If the planes can really do what Boeing says they will, the major airlines will have no choice. They can buy them, or they can become a coal-hauling cargo operation," says Richard Aboulafia, aviation director for the Teal Group Corp. consultants.
Boeing officials say they will need the rest of the year to complete the design and to decide such things as how many passengers the jet will hold. They say it will probably carry about 200.
Officials at Airbus, Boeing's rival in the large jet business, call the Sonic Cruiser a ruse designed to hide Boeing's failure to develop a new jumbo jet. Airbus plans to build a jet that will carry 550.
John Leahy, Airbus' executive vice president for customer affairs, says Boeing's jet won't fly as fast or as efficiently as Boeing claims. "There is no such thing in this industry as a free lunch," he says.
High expectations for new jet
As Boeing prepared for a new round of publicity on the Sonic Cruiser at this week's Paris Air Show, USA TODAY interviewed dozens of aerodynamic experts, airline officials and sources close to Boeing to learn more about the new jet and its chances of success. According to these experts:
The speeds promised by Boeing can be attained.
In the early '70s, teams at NASA devised plans for a jet that would fly at 98% of the speed of sound. (Sound travels at 661 mph in the high altitudes where the Sonic Cruiser will fly.) Design elements were tested in flight, and models performed well in wind tunnels.
"Oh, yeah," says Richard Whitcomb, retired NASA aerodynamicist, on whether a passenger jet can fly that fast. "Easily. I did it." Indeed, though the drawings released by Boeing look vastly different from Whitcomb's models, officials say the jet will incorporate key principles that he pioneered.
The radical design presents Boeing engineers brand-new challenges.
Instead of tweaking familiar jets, engineers must wrestle with new issues. The Sonic Cruiser's design makes it inherently less stable than traditional aircraft, for example. And although the jet won't normally be flown above the speed of sound, Boeing will most likely have to demonstrate to federal regulators that it can safely fly at supersonic speeds in an emergency, such as a sudden descent.
The economics of the new jet, more than technical issues, might decide its future.
Boeing says the new jet will fly at 628 to 648 mph but will not cost airlines more to operate, as measured per seat, per mile, than current models. Even if it costs slightly more, analysts believe the benefits to passengers of saving up to two hours on long flights will far outweigh the extra cost.
If the Sonic Cruiser costs 10% to 15% more to fly, the jet will be less attractive. If costs go any higher, then the new jet could be doomed. "This has to be economically attractive," says John Roundhill, Boeing's vice president of marketing for the Sonic Cruiser.
Breaking the sound barrier
The lure of speed has long drawn aircraft manufacturers toward Mach 1 — the sound barrier. But the complex physics of flying just below the sound barrier have beaten them back.
Mach 1 is the speed at which sound waves move through the air. A jet moving through the air creates sound waves. When the jet reaches the same speed as those sounds, it throws off a shock wave. People can hear the result as a "sonic boom." The speed of sound changes with temperature. Sound travels at about 740 mph at sea level and drops to 661 mph above 36,000 feet as temperatures fall.
Up to Mach .80 (eight-tenths the speed of sound), air flows smoothly and predictably across the surfaces of an aircraft. Above Mach .80, things start to get chaotic.
As air flows over curved surfaces (such as wings and the front of the fuselage), it speeds up. As a result, even though a jet is flying at Mach .90, air may be flowing at supersonic speeds over parts of it.
When this occurs, shock waves dance about the wings and fuselage, buffeting the jet and dramatically increasing drag. Drag is the amount of resistance the air places on the jet. The effects of flying near the sound barrier were so severe in early aviation tests after World War II that some theorized the barrier could not be broken.
Since the first supersonic flight in 1947, technological advances have allowed military jets and a few civilian models to fly above Mach 1. Concorde passengers hardly notice passing the sound barrier.
But flying near the speed of sound has remained difficult. A small increase in speed near Mach 1 can cause the engines to guzzle fuel. To keep expenses down, jets mostly fly at Mach .75-.85.
After a supersonic jet program in this country failed around 1970, NASA and the aviation industry tried to make jets fly closer to Mach 1. Led by Whitcomb's discoveries in NASA's wind tunnels, the group equipped a fighter jet with a new wing and flew it just below the sound barrier in test flights. A thinner, flatter wing and strategic reshaping of the fuselage reduced shock waves and lowered drag. Several manufacturers, including Boeing, developed plans for the new jet.
But as fuel prices soared in 1973, the industry reversed course. Instead of more speed, airlines demanded jets that used less fuel. The new designs were shelved.
They weren't forgotten, however. Several of the young Boeing engineers who worked on the failed program in the '70s are now key company executives. They include Roundhill, Alan Mulally, president of the company's commercial aviation division, and Walt Gillette, the Sonic Cruiser program manager.
In an interview, Roundhill offered few specifics about the design. But he confirmed that several factors played a role in the decision to proceed with the jet.
Computers play a key role
Powerful new computers make designing jets easier. Supercomputers can calculate air flows and suggest optimum shapes of a jet.
New composite materials made of graphite weigh 20% less than metal alloys and can make aircraft much lighter. Roundhill said that Boeing might build the wings and fuselage with composites. And computers imbedded in cockpits can make unruly jets easier to fly.
Roundhill also confirmed reports that an unnamed engineer had come up with a breakthrough that helped make the jet possible. He wouldn't identify the breakthrough or even the engineer.
One thing that clearly set the drawings of the Sonic Cruiser apart from current jets was the decision to place the jet's wings at the rear of the fuselage. Aerodynamic experts say this solves a big problem in the earlier designs for a faster jet.
To minimize sonic shock waves, a jet's fuselage must be narrower where the wings attach. On a traditional jet, this would require a narrow middle section of the fuselage. Manufacturers feared passengers would feel awkward boarding such a jet. It also costs more to build.
On the Sonic Cruiser, the fuselage will be narrowed at the rear because the wings attach there. As a result, the fuselage is closer in shape to a traditional jet's.
On the same day last March that Boeing unveiled the Sonic Cruiser, company officials also said they would not build a jumbo jet to succeed the 747. For the first time, Boeing conceded the market for the world's largest jet to a competitor. Airbus had recently announced it would build the A380, a jet that will carry 550 passengers. It believes airlines will need very large jets to reduce the number of flights in and out of overburdened hub airports.
Design challenges
Boeing has a different philosophy. It thinks airlines will bypass those hubs with smaller jets flying non-stop to distant destinations. In other words, airlines want a jet like the Sonic Cruiser that can fly faster and farther than today's jets. Continental Airlines CEO Gordon Bethune, a former Boeing executive, agrees. The other airlines "who are late with the (Sonic Cruiser) are going to be very much at a disadvantage against me," he says.
Several aerodynamic experts are more cautious. They don't doubt that it can fly, only that its unusual configuration could make it too costly and awkward to build.
"There are some definite design challenges there," says Peter Coen, an aerospace engineer at NASA Langley Research Center. "But I think they could be met."
Jerry Grey, a visiting professor at Princeton University and nationally known aerodynamics authority, says, "If I had to guess, I would have to say that it will probably never be developed and never fly."
Boeing has announced new aircraft before, only to drop them in the face of airline indifference. It could happen with the Sonic Cruiser, Roundhill concedes. But he doesn't think so. "We wouldn't even be focusing on this if we didn't believe it would be economically viable," he says.
Flights, Current time, Time savings
L.A.- Boston, 5 hours, 40 minutes 35 minutes
N.Y.- London, 7 hours, 50 minutes
San Francisco- Tokyo, 10 hours 45 minutes, 1 hour, 20 minutes
Singapore- London, 13 hours 40 minutes, 1 hour, 55 minutes
The proposed Boeing jet would shave time off long flights. Times are approximate.
Source: USA TODAY research
06/18/2001 - Updated 04:49 PM ET
Boeing gambles on speed with Sonic Cruiser
By Alan Levin, USA TODAY
SEATTLE — In 1958, Boeing bet its future on a sleek jet unlike anything that had come before. The 707 flew higher, faster, farther and quieter than the propeller planes of the day. Almost overnight, it catapulted Boeing to the top of the commercial aviation business.
But something unexpected happened in the decades that followed. Despite improvements that allow jets to fly farther and quieter, none but the Concorde flies much faster than 550 mph, the 707's original cruising speed.
Now Boeing is gambling it can finally build an economically viable passenger jet that can fly on the verge of the sound barrier.
Boeing
Boeing "Sonic Cruiser" may transform commercial aviation, flying just under the speed of sound.
Boeing says that its proposed "Sonic Cruiser" will fly as much as 20% faster than current models, perhaps as fast as 648 mph. The jet will be capable of flying long distances, possibly linking cities such as New York and Singapore with non-stop flight. And, more important, it won't cost airlines more to operate than today's jets, the company says.
The Concorde flies at more than twice the speed of sound, but unpleasant sonic booms, jet emissions at high altitudes and high fuel costs doomed its potential. Only two airlines fly the Concorde, and no one is building a replacement.
For the Sonic Cruiser to be able to fly just under the speed of sound, Boeing has to battle the laws of physics and economics. The jet must minimize the shock waves that other passenger jets encounter at those speeds. And its engines can't burn too much fuel.
The new jet could hardly be more different from existing large jets. Preliminary drawings show the Sonic Cruiser with huge wings that angle from the rear of the fuselage, rather than from the middle. Instead of a tail to keep it level, it will have two small wings near its nose. Passengers shouldn't feel any differences from a regular flight.
Experts say the jet could transform commercial aviation. Boeing estimates it will begin operating in six or seven years. "If the planes can really do what Boeing says they will, the major airlines will have no choice. They can buy them, or they can become a coal-hauling cargo operation," says Richard Aboulafia, aviation director for the Teal Group Corp. consultants.
Boeing officials say they will need the rest of the year to complete the design and to decide such things as how many passengers the jet will hold. They say it will probably carry about 200.
Officials at Airbus, Boeing's rival in the large jet business, call the Sonic Cruiser a ruse designed to hide Boeing's failure to develop a new jumbo jet. Airbus plans to build a jet that will carry 550.
John Leahy, Airbus' executive vice president for customer affairs, says Boeing's jet won't fly as fast or as efficiently as Boeing claims. "There is no such thing in this industry as a free lunch," he says.
High expectations for new jet
As Boeing prepared for a new round of publicity on the Sonic Cruiser at this week's Paris Air Show, USA TODAY interviewed dozens of aerodynamic experts, airline officials and sources close to Boeing to learn more about the new jet and its chances of success. According to these experts:
The speeds promised by Boeing can be attained.
In the early '70s, teams at NASA devised plans for a jet that would fly at 98% of the speed of sound. (Sound travels at 661 mph in the high altitudes where the Sonic Cruiser will fly.) Design elements were tested in flight, and models performed well in wind tunnels.
"Oh, yeah," says Richard Whitcomb, retired NASA aerodynamicist, on whether a passenger jet can fly that fast. "Easily. I did it." Indeed, though the drawings released by Boeing look vastly different from Whitcomb's models, officials say the jet will incorporate key principles that he pioneered.
The radical design presents Boeing engineers brand-new challenges.
Instead of tweaking familiar jets, engineers must wrestle with new issues. The Sonic Cruiser's design makes it inherently less stable than traditional aircraft, for example. And although the jet won't normally be flown above the speed of sound, Boeing will most likely have to demonstrate to federal regulators that it can safely fly at supersonic speeds in an emergency, such as a sudden descent.
The economics of the new jet, more than technical issues, might decide its future.
Boeing says the new jet will fly at 628 to 648 mph but will not cost airlines more to operate, as measured per seat, per mile, than current models. Even if it costs slightly more, analysts believe the benefits to passengers of saving up to two hours on long flights will far outweigh the extra cost.
If the Sonic Cruiser costs 10% to 15% more to fly, the jet will be less attractive. If costs go any higher, then the new jet could be doomed. "This has to be economically attractive," says John Roundhill, Boeing's vice president of marketing for the Sonic Cruiser.
Breaking the sound barrier
The lure of speed has long drawn aircraft manufacturers toward Mach 1 — the sound barrier. But the complex physics of flying just below the sound barrier have beaten them back.
Mach 1 is the speed at which sound waves move through the air. A jet moving through the air creates sound waves. When the jet reaches the same speed as those sounds, it throws off a shock wave. People can hear the result as a "sonic boom." The speed of sound changes with temperature. Sound travels at about 740 mph at sea level and drops to 661 mph above 36,000 feet as temperatures fall.
Up to Mach .80 (eight-tenths the speed of sound), air flows smoothly and predictably across the surfaces of an aircraft. Above Mach .80, things start to get chaotic.
As air flows over curved surfaces (such as wings and the front of the fuselage), it speeds up. As a result, even though a jet is flying at Mach .90, air may be flowing at supersonic speeds over parts of it.
When this occurs, shock waves dance about the wings and fuselage, buffeting the jet and dramatically increasing drag. Drag is the amount of resistance the air places on the jet. The effects of flying near the sound barrier were so severe in early aviation tests after World War II that some theorized the barrier could not be broken.
Since the first supersonic flight in 1947, technological advances have allowed military jets and a few civilian models to fly above Mach 1. Concorde passengers hardly notice passing the sound barrier.
But flying near the speed of sound has remained difficult. A small increase in speed near Mach 1 can cause the engines to guzzle fuel. To keep expenses down, jets mostly fly at Mach .75-.85.
After a supersonic jet program in this country failed around 1970, NASA and the aviation industry tried to make jets fly closer to Mach 1. Led by Whitcomb's discoveries in NASA's wind tunnels, the group equipped a fighter jet with a new wing and flew it just below the sound barrier in test flights. A thinner, flatter wing and strategic reshaping of the fuselage reduced shock waves and lowered drag. Several manufacturers, including Boeing, developed plans for the new jet.
But as fuel prices soared in 1973, the industry reversed course. Instead of more speed, airlines demanded jets that used less fuel. The new designs were shelved.
They weren't forgotten, however. Several of the young Boeing engineers who worked on the failed program in the '70s are now key company executives. They include Roundhill, Alan Mulally, president of the company's commercial aviation division, and Walt Gillette, the Sonic Cruiser program manager.
In an interview, Roundhill offered few specifics about the design. But he confirmed that several factors played a role in the decision to proceed with the jet.
Computers play a key role
Powerful new computers make designing jets easier. Supercomputers can calculate air flows and suggest optimum shapes of a jet.
New composite materials made of graphite weigh 20% less than metal alloys and can make aircraft much lighter. Roundhill said that Boeing might build the wings and fuselage with composites. And computers imbedded in cockpits can make unruly jets easier to fly.
Roundhill also confirmed reports that an unnamed engineer had come up with a breakthrough that helped make the jet possible. He wouldn't identify the breakthrough or even the engineer.
One thing that clearly set the drawings of the Sonic Cruiser apart from current jets was the decision to place the jet's wings at the rear of the fuselage. Aerodynamic experts say this solves a big problem in the earlier designs for a faster jet.
To minimize sonic shock waves, a jet's fuselage must be narrower where the wings attach. On a traditional jet, this would require a narrow middle section of the fuselage. Manufacturers feared passengers would feel awkward boarding such a jet. It also costs more to build.
On the Sonic Cruiser, the fuselage will be narrowed at the rear because the wings attach there. As a result, the fuselage is closer in shape to a traditional jet's.
On the same day last March that Boeing unveiled the Sonic Cruiser, company officials also said they would not build a jumbo jet to succeed the 747. For the first time, Boeing conceded the market for the world's largest jet to a competitor. Airbus had recently announced it would build the A380, a jet that will carry 550 passengers. It believes airlines will need very large jets to reduce the number of flights in and out of overburdened hub airports.
Design challenges
Boeing has a different philosophy. It thinks airlines will bypass those hubs with smaller jets flying non-stop to distant destinations. In other words, airlines want a jet like the Sonic Cruiser that can fly faster and farther than today's jets. Continental Airlines CEO Gordon Bethune, a former Boeing executive, agrees. The other airlines "who are late with the (Sonic Cruiser) are going to be very much at a disadvantage against me," he says.
Several aerodynamic experts are more cautious. They don't doubt that it can fly, only that its unusual configuration could make it too costly and awkward to build.
"There are some definite design challenges there," says Peter Coen, an aerospace engineer at NASA Langley Research Center. "But I think they could be met."
Jerry Grey, a visiting professor at Princeton University and nationally known aerodynamics authority, says, "If I had to guess, I would have to say that it will probably never be developed and never fly."
Boeing has announced new aircraft before, only to drop them in the face of airline indifference. It could happen with the Sonic Cruiser, Roundhill concedes. But he doesn't think so. "We wouldn't even be focusing on this if we didn't believe it would be economically viable," he says.
Guest
Posts: n/a
From Janes.com
Sonic Cruiser details leak out
By Phil Butterworth-Hayes
Boeing is still remaining enigmatic about one of the most exciting air transport programmes ever planned – the Sonic Cruiser. But slowly, details are emerging about some of the ground-breaking technologies that will have to be developed if the aircraft is to make into the skies around 2006.
Among these is the power-plant. Here, both Boeing and engine manufacturers face a series of technical challenges. The engine will have to be based on current technology – most probably the General-Electric’s GE90, the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 and the Pratt &Whitney PW4098 – but designed to blend into the wing to obviate some of the high levels of drag needed for high-bypass engines. The semi-recessed design will borrow much from Boeing’s military programmes but will not automatically guarantee the noise, range and payload performance that Boeing is seeking. Noise, in particular, will be a major issue. Although the aircraft will be certified from day one to the new Chapter Four noise standards – a mere 10dB less than the current Chapter Three limits – it looks increasingly likely that many European airports will have introduced their own much more stringent noise limits by 2006. Which means that merely meeting Chapter Four requirements may not be enough – and that also implies new noise-reduction technology for wing, airframe and landing gear.
The payload/range performance of the aircraft will also be critical to the project’s success. While there is a gaping hole in the market for a new generation of Boeing 767 and Airbus A310 aircraft, the Sonic Cruiser should be optimised for transPacific operations, where its speed will make a significant difference to the crossing time. A Sonic Cruiser flying New York to London would lop around 1 hour 15 minutes off the journey time; but up to four hours could be saved the aircraft had the range to fly on a non-Polar route between New York and Tokyo.
But this would be entirely different aircraft to a medium-haul Boeing 767-size aircraft optimised for developing routes through secondary hubs in the US and European domestic market.
The key issue that Boeing really faces is how radical should it be in developing this new design. There are two programmes currently being assessed – a Mach 0.95/0.98 aircraft and a Mach 1.2 design. Using tried and tested Boeing 777 technology for engines and avionics, Boeing could probably have a Sonic Cruiser in the air by 2006. But is this what the airlines want? If the economics of the aircraft point towards an all-business and first-class layout then airlines might not be so warm on the project. Developing the technology to make the aircraft profitable with 70 per cent load factors and plenty of economy seats would require considerably more research and development from Boeing and its partners.
Boeing and its customers are currently talking through these issues - and it will probably be many months before the design is set in concrete.
Sonic Cruiser details leak out
By Phil Butterworth-Hayes
Boeing is still remaining enigmatic about one of the most exciting air transport programmes ever planned – the Sonic Cruiser. But slowly, details are emerging about some of the ground-breaking technologies that will have to be developed if the aircraft is to make into the skies around 2006.
Among these is the power-plant. Here, both Boeing and engine manufacturers face a series of technical challenges. The engine will have to be based on current technology – most probably the General-Electric’s GE90, the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 and the Pratt &Whitney PW4098 – but designed to blend into the wing to obviate some of the high levels of drag needed for high-bypass engines. The semi-recessed design will borrow much from Boeing’s military programmes but will not automatically guarantee the noise, range and payload performance that Boeing is seeking. Noise, in particular, will be a major issue. Although the aircraft will be certified from day one to the new Chapter Four noise standards – a mere 10dB less than the current Chapter Three limits – it looks increasingly likely that many European airports will have introduced their own much more stringent noise limits by 2006. Which means that merely meeting Chapter Four requirements may not be enough – and that also implies new noise-reduction technology for wing, airframe and landing gear.
The payload/range performance of the aircraft will also be critical to the project’s success. While there is a gaping hole in the market for a new generation of Boeing 767 and Airbus A310 aircraft, the Sonic Cruiser should be optimised for transPacific operations, where its speed will make a significant difference to the crossing time. A Sonic Cruiser flying New York to London would lop around 1 hour 15 minutes off the journey time; but up to four hours could be saved the aircraft had the range to fly on a non-Polar route between New York and Tokyo.
But this would be entirely different aircraft to a medium-haul Boeing 767-size aircraft optimised for developing routes through secondary hubs in the US and European domestic market.
The key issue that Boeing really faces is how radical should it be in developing this new design. There are two programmes currently being assessed – a Mach 0.95/0.98 aircraft and a Mach 1.2 design. Using tried and tested Boeing 777 technology for engines and avionics, Boeing could probably have a Sonic Cruiser in the air by 2006. But is this what the airlines want? If the economics of the aircraft point towards an all-business and first-class layout then airlines might not be so warm on the project. Developing the technology to make the aircraft profitable with 70 per cent load factors and plenty of economy seats would require considerably more research and development from Boeing and its partners.
Boeing and its customers are currently talking through these issues - and it will probably be many months before the design is set in concrete.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is an old design. It first appeared on "Thunderbirds" in the 1960's.......in fact it made quite a few appearances throughout the series.
Gerry Anderson has been proved wrong in his earlier predictions that we would all walk with the assisstance of fishing wire and drive pink Rolls-Royce'
However if Boeing builds this plane, then this will vindicate Gerry as one of all times greatest visionarries and not the crazed reclouse who loved to play with dolls. Even as an adult.
Gerry Anderson has been proved wrong in his earlier predictions that we would all walk with the assisstance of fishing wire and drive pink Rolls-Royce'
However if Boeing builds this plane, then this will vindicate Gerry as one of all times greatest visionarries and not the crazed reclouse who loved to play with dolls. Even as an adult.
Guest
Posts: n/a
TUESDAY JUNE 19 2001
Boeing admits new plane will guzzle fuel
BY BEN WEBSTER, TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,...210095,00.html
BOEING has agreed that its new high-speed plane would use more fuel than existing airliners but said there was “plenty of fossil fuel still around”.
The Sonic Cruiser will burn up to 35 per cent more fuel than other planes in order to accelerate to just below the speed of sound (760mph).
The American aviation company accepted that the extra fuel would increase carbon emissions but said the environmental price was worth paying to save time for busy executives. The new delta-wing jet, which Boeing expects will enter service between 2006 and 2008, is likely to be filled with business executives prepared to pay a premium to shave an hour off transatlantic flights and five hours off the London-Sydney journey.
The aviation industry has accepted an estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that commercial jets are responsible for 3.5 per cent of man-made climate change. With air travel likely to double by 2015, aviation’s contribution to global warming is set to rise significantly.
Harry Stonecipher, Boeing’s vice-chairman, said the environment was “darned important” and admitted that his company’s plans to burn more fuel on Sonic Cruisers did not sit comfortably with the global energy shortage.
He added: “There is plenty of fossil fuel still around.” He suggested that Airbus, Boeing’s European competitor, was jumping on a bandwagon by repeatedly referring to environmental concerns in its presentation at the Paris Air Show.
Asked why he had made no mention of the environment in his speech at the show, Mr Stonecipher said: “If I didn’t jump on the environmental bandwagon as fast as I should have, then I apologise.”
Airbus said its own new plane, the A380 superjumbo which will carry at least 555 passengers, would use 35 per cent less fuel per passenger than the Sonic Cruiser, which may seat as few as 100 people.
Boeing did not challenge Airbus’s estimate, but said that in comparison with the average passenger jet, the Sonic Crusier would use 15 to 20 per cent more fuel.
No'l Forgeard, the chief executive of Airbus, criticised Boeing for accepting the increase in fuel consumption “so lightly”. “I am surprised because more fuel burn means more pollution,” he said. “Environmental considerations are a major driving force in the design of our aircraft. It comes second only to safety and economics.”
M Forgeard said Airbus believed that the environment was a higher priority than speed. Boeing insists that the Sonic Cruiser does have some environmental benefits, with the location of the engines on the delta wing designed to deflect noise upwards. Mr Stonecipher said the new jet would be “quieter than any plane flying today”.
Alan Mulally, chief executive of Boeing’s commercial aircraft division, said: “People are worried about the one little question about fuel burn, but if you can offer speed and range, then the Sonic Crusier is a clear winner.”
British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have expressed strong interest in buying Sonic Cruisers. The greater speed means the airlines may be able to squeeze one extra transatlantic flight a day out of one plane, with huge efficiency gains.
Boeing admits new plane will guzzle fuel
BY BEN WEBSTER, TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,...210095,00.html
BOEING has agreed that its new high-speed plane would use more fuel than existing airliners but said there was “plenty of fossil fuel still around”.
The Sonic Cruiser will burn up to 35 per cent more fuel than other planes in order to accelerate to just below the speed of sound (760mph).
The American aviation company accepted that the extra fuel would increase carbon emissions but said the environmental price was worth paying to save time for busy executives. The new delta-wing jet, which Boeing expects will enter service between 2006 and 2008, is likely to be filled with business executives prepared to pay a premium to shave an hour off transatlantic flights and five hours off the London-Sydney journey.
The aviation industry has accepted an estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that commercial jets are responsible for 3.5 per cent of man-made climate change. With air travel likely to double by 2015, aviation’s contribution to global warming is set to rise significantly.
Harry Stonecipher, Boeing’s vice-chairman, said the environment was “darned important” and admitted that his company’s plans to burn more fuel on Sonic Cruisers did not sit comfortably with the global energy shortage.
He added: “There is plenty of fossil fuel still around.” He suggested that Airbus, Boeing’s European competitor, was jumping on a bandwagon by repeatedly referring to environmental concerns in its presentation at the Paris Air Show.
Asked why he had made no mention of the environment in his speech at the show, Mr Stonecipher said: “If I didn’t jump on the environmental bandwagon as fast as I should have, then I apologise.”
Airbus said its own new plane, the A380 superjumbo which will carry at least 555 passengers, would use 35 per cent less fuel per passenger than the Sonic Cruiser, which may seat as few as 100 people.
Boeing did not challenge Airbus’s estimate, but said that in comparison with the average passenger jet, the Sonic Crusier would use 15 to 20 per cent more fuel.
No'l Forgeard, the chief executive of Airbus, criticised Boeing for accepting the increase in fuel consumption “so lightly”. “I am surprised because more fuel burn means more pollution,” he said. “Environmental considerations are a major driving force in the design of our aircraft. It comes second only to safety and economics.”
M Forgeard said Airbus believed that the environment was a higher priority than speed. Boeing insists that the Sonic Cruiser does have some environmental benefits, with the location of the engines on the delta wing designed to deflect noise upwards. Mr Stonecipher said the new jet would be “quieter than any plane flying today”.
Alan Mulally, chief executive of Boeing’s commercial aircraft division, said: “People are worried about the one little question about fuel burn, but if you can offer speed and range, then the Sonic Crusier is a clear winner.”
British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have expressed strong interest in buying Sonic Cruisers. The greater speed means the airlines may be able to squeeze one extra transatlantic flight a day out of one plane, with huge efficiency gains.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wasn't there talk of some development of a son-of-concorde for around 10 years away??
If so the 'Sonicsruiser' is going to have a very short life-span and very little hope of a return on the investment to build the thing.
I think Boeing are blowing smoke up our respective arses to pull off a bit of a PR coup at Paris (avoid talking about 747-X and divert attention away from A380...)
On that i give them full credit on a job well done ;-)
Btw i do think there is value in the theory of more demand for smaller long-haul aircraft as the larger hubs become log-jammed. The appeal is the time saved negotiating a smaller airport which could be *very* substantial.
If so the 'Sonicsruiser' is going to have a very short life-span and very little hope of a return on the investment to build the thing.
I think Boeing are blowing smoke up our respective arses to pull off a bit of a PR coup at Paris (avoid talking about 747-X and divert attention away from A380...)
On that i give them full credit on a job well done ;-)
Btw i do think there is value in the theory of more demand for smaller long-haul aircraft as the larger hubs become log-jammed. The appeal is the time saved negotiating a smaller airport which could be *very* substantial.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's obvious that the journo at USA is just repeating a press release.
Unluss you count the De Havilland Comet and the Avro Jetliner from a decade before.
------------------
Per dementia ad astra
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">In 1958, Boeing bet its future on a sleek jet unlike anything that had come before.</font>
------------------
Per dementia ad astra
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have deleted the other thread and put this here to keep Danny happy
By Chris Stetkiewicz
LE BOURGET, France, June 18, (Reuters) - Airlines can expect to pay
more for Boeing Co.'s proposed faster jet and passengers can expect
to pay more to fly on it, the aerospace giant said on Monday.
"The pricing will be market based," Boeing Vice President of
commercial jet marketing Randy Baseler told Reuters at the Paris air
show. "It could have a higher price (than like-sized jets), but I
can't imagine it would just be double."
A host of factors will help determine the sticker price for
the "sonic cruiser," which could shave up to three hours off flights
from the U.S. west coast to Asia and let airlines squeeze more
flights per day from each plane, but would burn about 20 percent more
fuel while in the air.
The key question is how much airlines value a 15 percent boost in
speed to just below the sound barrier, which is about 740 miles per
hour (1,200 kph) at sea level.
From their initial reaction, airlines appear to value that boost
quite a bit, and several are clamoring to help design the sonic
cruiser and to be among the first on the block to own one, Boeing
says.
"When you talk to the airlines, you can see their minds clicking,"
Boeing's top commercial jet salesman Seddik Belyamani told
Reuters. "Every airline we have talked to has said they want to be in
on the ground floor."
Industry experts have predicted that airlines would intially market
the sonic cruiser to first-class and business-class passengers, who
are willing and able to pay more to get off a crowded airplane
faster.
Baseler agreed, but said the cost of owning a sonic cruiser would be
low enough for carriers to make money without making their passengers
feel the full force of those costs.
"They won't need to charge a premium fare, but when they first
introduce (the sonic cruiser) they probably will," Baseler said.
Boeing Vice Chairman Harry Stonecipher on Saturday predicted the
sonic cruiser would bring fatter profit margins than other jet
models, with strong airline demand limiting discounts to airlines and
keeping production at healthy rates.
AIRLINES RARELY PAY FULL PRICE
Boeing and rival Airbus Industrie price airplanes in the way auto-
makers price cars, with only the very naive paying full price.
Boeing's sticker prices range from $35 million for a 106-seat 717 to
over $200 million for a long-range 777-300ER widebody, though
substantial discounts are common.
While it plans to build three sonic cruiser models ranging from 150
to 300 seats, Boeing plans to get started with a version seating 200
to 250.
That compares most directly to the mid-sized 767 widebody, which
lists at $100 million to $138 million depending on the configuration
and flight range.
Sonic cruiser is not without its sceptics, and many industry experts
have voiced doubts that Seattle-based Boeing can deliver on its
promises.
Airlines will undoubtedly want to see more details before committing.
"We have questions about the plane -- whether it is technically
feasible and whether it will be cost efficient," Air France Chief
Financial Officer Philippe Calavia told Reuters.
Other naysayers note Boeing earlier this year abandoned its proposed
larger, longer-range 747X superjumbo jet despite assurances that the
programme was on track.
But Boeing officials across the board insist the sonic cruiser will
make it off the drawing board and into the sky, and they expect to
ask the board of directors for authorisation to market it within a
year.
"We are very serious about this thing. It's real," Belyamani said.
By Chris Stetkiewicz
LE BOURGET, France, June 18, (Reuters) - Airlines can expect to pay
more for Boeing Co.'s proposed faster jet and passengers can expect
to pay more to fly on it, the aerospace giant said on Monday.
"The pricing will be market based," Boeing Vice President of
commercial jet marketing Randy Baseler told Reuters at the Paris air
show. "It could have a higher price (than like-sized jets), but I
can't imagine it would just be double."
A host of factors will help determine the sticker price for
the "sonic cruiser," which could shave up to three hours off flights
from the U.S. west coast to Asia and let airlines squeeze more
flights per day from each plane, but would burn about 20 percent more
fuel while in the air.
The key question is how much airlines value a 15 percent boost in
speed to just below the sound barrier, which is about 740 miles per
hour (1,200 kph) at sea level.
From their initial reaction, airlines appear to value that boost
quite a bit, and several are clamoring to help design the sonic
cruiser and to be among the first on the block to own one, Boeing
says.
"When you talk to the airlines, you can see their minds clicking,"
Boeing's top commercial jet salesman Seddik Belyamani told
Reuters. "Every airline we have talked to has said they want to be in
on the ground floor."
Industry experts have predicted that airlines would intially market
the sonic cruiser to first-class and business-class passengers, who
are willing and able to pay more to get off a crowded airplane
faster.
Baseler agreed, but said the cost of owning a sonic cruiser would be
low enough for carriers to make money without making their passengers
feel the full force of those costs.
"They won't need to charge a premium fare, but when they first
introduce (the sonic cruiser) they probably will," Baseler said.
Boeing Vice Chairman Harry Stonecipher on Saturday predicted the
sonic cruiser would bring fatter profit margins than other jet
models, with strong airline demand limiting discounts to airlines and
keeping production at healthy rates.
AIRLINES RARELY PAY FULL PRICE
Boeing and rival Airbus Industrie price airplanes in the way auto-
makers price cars, with only the very naive paying full price.
Boeing's sticker prices range from $35 million for a 106-seat 717 to
over $200 million for a long-range 777-300ER widebody, though
substantial discounts are common.
While it plans to build three sonic cruiser models ranging from 150
to 300 seats, Boeing plans to get started with a version seating 200
to 250.
That compares most directly to the mid-sized 767 widebody, which
lists at $100 million to $138 million depending on the configuration
and flight range.
Sonic cruiser is not without its sceptics, and many industry experts
have voiced doubts that Seattle-based Boeing can deliver on its
promises.
Airlines will undoubtedly want to see more details before committing.
"We have questions about the plane -- whether it is technically
feasible and whether it will be cost efficient," Air France Chief
Financial Officer Philippe Calavia told Reuters.
Other naysayers note Boeing earlier this year abandoned its proposed
larger, longer-range 747X superjumbo jet despite assurances that the
programme was on track.
But Boeing officials across the board insist the sonic cruiser will
make it off the drawing board and into the sky, and they expect to
ask the board of directors for authorisation to market it within a
year.
"We are very serious about this thing. It's real," Belyamani said.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think GlueBall and BigJets make the point.
Would you (or any other "busy executive") rather pay First Class fare to chop an hour or so off LHR-JFK, or pay perhaps a tenner "premium" for an "executive checkin and immigration/customs" and shave at least that much time off hanging around in queues?
I know which I'd go for - a big 550-seater where I could go for a moderate route-march to avoid DVT
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
Would you (or any other "busy executive") rather pay First Class fare to chop an hour or so off LHR-JFK, or pay perhaps a tenner "premium" for an "executive checkin and immigration/customs" and shave at least that much time off hanging around in queues?
I know which I'd go for - a big 550-seater where I could go for a moderate route-march to avoid DVT
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Posted up the top of this somewhere is a comment (from a Journalist) that "Chapter 4 is a mere 10dB less than Chapter 3."
Umm, sorry to be a pedant, but as decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, a fall of 10dB is actually a fall of 50%, so the challenge keeps on increasing for Boeing.
Very pretty, but as a banker I can't really see the fiscal rationale.
Cheers
Tobbes
[This message has been edited by Tobbes (edited 21 June 2001).]
Umm, sorry to be a pedant, but as decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, a fall of 10dB is actually a fall of 50%, so the challenge keeps on increasing for Boeing.
Very pretty, but as a banker I can't really see the fiscal rationale.
Cheers
Tobbes
[This message has been edited by Tobbes (edited 21 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
That was Tex Johnston at the controls. The barrel roll was entirely unauthorized and he was fired for doing it, though later rehired.
I agree that, like all companies, Boeing gambles from time-to-time. But the barrel roll was not an example of a Boeing gamble. Examples are the development of the 707 and 747. Failure of either of the programs might well have bankrupted the company.
OFBLSF
I agree that, like all companies, Boeing gambles from time-to-time. But the barrel roll was not an example of a Boeing gamble. Examples are the development of the 707 and 747. Failure of either of the programs might well have bankrupted the company.
OFBLSF
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boeing says that over half of 747 sales are for their range, not payload. The market for a behemoth is not considered lucrative enough to support multiple types. Boeing learned their "market share at all costs" lesson a few years ago to their detriment. Whether metal is cut on this, though, has yet to be seen. High trans-sonic makes sense considering the restrictions that were placed on the Concord due to it's aural signature at mach.
