Boeing Studying New High-Speed Plane (M1.2), 250-Seat Jet, Flight Says
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boeing Studying New High-Speed Plane (M1.2), 250-Seat Jet, Flight Says
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Boeing Studying New High-Speed Plane, 250-Seat Jet, Flight Says
By Tim Kelly
Seattle, May 14 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing is considering developing a "transonic'' plane that can fly faster than the speed of sound and a widebody jet with up to 250 seats, along with plans already announced to design the so-called sonic cruiser high- speed airliner, Flight International reported.
The three types of aircraft are part Boeing's "20XX'' project formed five years ago to evaluate new designs and manufacturing technology, the magazine said. The transonic aircraft might cruise at speeds of up to Mach 1.2, or 840 miles per hour, Flight said without citing sources.
Seattle-based Boeing has already asked engine makers including General Electric Co., United Technology Corp.'s Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce Plc, to study the development of jet engines for these aircraft, the magazine said. As yet only the sonic cruiser has been discussed with airlines, Flight reported.
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. said on Friday it is interested in buying as many as six sonic cruisers, which Boeing said could be delivered to customers between 2006 and 2007.
(Flight International, May 15-21, p. 4)</font>
By Tim Kelly
Seattle, May 14 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing is considering developing a "transonic'' plane that can fly faster than the speed of sound and a widebody jet with up to 250 seats, along with plans already announced to design the so-called sonic cruiser high- speed airliner, Flight International reported.
The three types of aircraft are part Boeing's "20XX'' project formed five years ago to evaluate new designs and manufacturing technology, the magazine said. The transonic aircraft might cruise at speeds of up to Mach 1.2, or 840 miles per hour, Flight said without citing sources.
Seattle-based Boeing has already asked engine makers including General Electric Co., United Technology Corp.'s Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce Plc, to study the development of jet engines for these aircraft, the magazine said. As yet only the sonic cruiser has been discussed with airlines, Flight reported.
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. said on Friday it is interested in buying as many as six sonic cruisers, which Boeing said could be delivered to customers between 2006 and 2007.
(Flight International, May 15-21, p. 4)</font>
[This message has been edited by Zeke (edited 15 May 2001).]
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could be useful if it is a "Roll-on Roll-off" design. No check in, go straight to the aircraft with your luggage. Destination Country Immigration officers on-board do the arrival formalities in flight. On arrival its straight off the plane into the taxi rank. With a worldwide integrated ADS based AATM (Automatic Air Traffic Management) system there will be no delays or holding patterns.
Dream on baby...
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Dream on baby...
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Guest
Posts: n/a
Come on guys! Didn't you pick up the real real reason why they announced the Sonic Cruiser?
Did you notice that they announced the cancelation of 2 major projects that day? The Stretched 744 and the 767-400. It was announced to take attention away from the failure of these two major projects. It will never happen.
Did you notice that they announced the cancelation of 2 major projects that day? The Stretched 744 and the 767-400. It was announced to take attention away from the failure of these two major projects. It will never happen.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cpdude,
Which bit bothered you? The pretending to understand engineering or the radicalism
The problem with faster aeroplanes is that we still have ancient ground infrastructure, based upon the passenger handling methods of the transatlantic liners. Its about time we got round to sorting out some of the archaic traditional practices involved in flying. Ticketing is a nightmare, check-in a farce. Security is a major bottleneck and baggage handling a joke. Air Traffic? Air Tragic more like it. With relatively cheaper fares, flying has become the common way to travel. Now we should look at ways to speed up the people handling side of things. Malaysia just built their new "KL" airport 90 kilometers out of town. Without a rail link and with only a traffic-jammed toll road to get into the city. Why bother with faster aircraft if the time saving is simply wasted on getting to the airport or check-in and baggage collection queues?
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Which bit bothered you? The pretending to understand engineering or the radicalism
The problem with faster aeroplanes is that we still have ancient ground infrastructure, based upon the passenger handling methods of the transatlantic liners. Its about time we got round to sorting out some of the archaic traditional practices involved in flying. Ticketing is a nightmare, check-in a farce. Security is a major bottleneck and baggage handling a joke. Air Traffic? Air Tragic more like it. With relatively cheaper fares, flying has become the common way to travel. Now we should look at ways to speed up the people handling side of things. Malaysia just built their new "KL" airport 90 kilometers out of town. Without a rail link and with only a traffic-jammed toll road to get into the city. Why bother with faster aircraft if the time saving is simply wasted on getting to the airport or check-in and baggage collection queues?
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Guest
Posts: n/a
I hear that one operator over here in the sand pit is shortly about to go and talk to Mr Boeing about the prospects of this very thing happening. Probably buy a handful of other toys as well at the same time.
As someone said, we live in interesting times!
As someone said, we live in interesting times!
Guest
Posts: n/a
lerxt,
you might want to get your facts straight.
the 767-400 has not been cancelled. the extended range version of the -400 along with the stretched 747 has been put on hold because there is not enough interest right now in those two products (i.e lack of market). its called good business sense.
it is obvious that boeing has been working on these (high speed projects) for awhile. they just didnt show their hand. you sound like one of those people that is never happy. you were probably one that ripped boeing for not developing something "new", and then when they do, you say that it is all a ploy to distract from their failures.
what do you want boeing to do?
you might want to get your facts straight.
the 767-400 has not been cancelled. the extended range version of the -400 along with the stretched 747 has been put on hold because there is not enough interest right now in those two products (i.e lack of market). its called good business sense.
it is obvious that boeing has been working on these (high speed projects) for awhile. they just didnt show their hand. you sound like one of those people that is never happy. you were probably one that ripped boeing for not developing something "new", and then when they do, you say that it is all a ploy to distract from their failures.
what do you want boeing to do?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Blacksheep,
I agree with your point however as a long-haul pilot and a part-time passenger, a 3-5 hour saving is still a 3-5 hour saving. The time spent on the ground is basically a constant, which could be improved.
Bottom line, I am pro-technology and people are generally resistant to change or hear of new ideas.
I agree with your point however as a long-haul pilot and a part-time passenger, a 3-5 hour saving is still a 3-5 hour saving. The time spent on the ground is basically a constant, which could be improved.
Bottom line, I am pro-technology and people are generally resistant to change or hear of new ideas.
Guest
Posts: n/a
From the Boeing web site dated March 15, 2001
From the Boeing web site dated March 29, 2001
From the Boeing web site
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The first Longer-Range 767-400ER, which will be delivered to Kenya Airways in May 2004, also includes a new, award-winning 777-style interior and a new 777-style flight deck</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Mulally said that customers also are very pleased with the performance of the new 767-400 airplane, and do not require additional range.
"Therefore," he said, "we are slowing development on the Longer-Range 767-400ER, a proposed re-engined version of the 767-400. The highly capable 767 family will continue to serve the airlines very well."</font>
"Therefore," he said, "we are slowing development on the Longer-Range 767-400ER, a proposed re-engined version of the 767-400. The highly capable 767 family will continue to serve the airlines very well."</font>
From the Boeing web site
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">On March 29, Boeing Commercial Airplanes announced that airline customers have indicated that, with continued improvements, the 747-400 family will satisfy the majority of their large airplane needs. Development of the Longer Range 747-400 will continue; the first airplane will be delivered to QANTAS in November 2002. Boeing is also studying additional improvements to the 747-400, and will protect its ability to develop a larger (747X) if and when customers indicate a need.</font>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Agree with Zeke, the 767-400ER is a current Boeing product and has been in service since August 2000. It's the 767-400ER(LR), or the 767-400LR project that got shelved.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 15 May 2001).]
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 15 May 2001).]
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah cpdude, its the technology that bothers you. Change and new ideas are our speciality, we're Technical Services Engineers, its what we do. Technology is the stuff of life to us. That and developing modifications to improve reliability and service in the most economical way.
Now, back to this transonic airplane business. Just below the speed of sound is where all the drag lives. Terrible stuff drag, you have to put in lots of power to overcome it. That puts the fuel bills up and annoys the beanies upstairs. Current airplanes potter along at around 0.83M because it gives the best operating economics. We can push through the "sound barrier" to, say, about 1.2M to counter the transonic drag problem. But then we annoy all those "green" people down below who can't stand all that banging noise. Ok, so we'll only go supersonic over the sea and go down to 0.83M when we're over land.
So, flying from Singapore to London we're only over land for, let me see now, 63% of the way. So discounting acceleration and slow down time we go 31% faster for 37% of the flight time and save 1.9 hours on the journey. A bit less than the 4 or 5 hours that you are interested in saving. And it only takes 20% more fuel.
I suppose that may be worth it. Maybe not. Members of my family fly that way seven or eight times a year and the kerb to kerb time is 23 hours. Cutting that down to 21.1 hours may be worthwhile but I reckon that overall the Concorde programme lost money because people generally are not prepared to pay that much extra to save a small amount of time. People for whom time is money fly Concorde regularly but everyone else saves the cash and settles for subsonic. If Boeing's proposed machine is to succeed they will have to make it work at the same cost as present aircraft in the face of aerodynamic theory that dictates otherwise. Concorde was pulled off the Far East route because it wasn't much faster than the 747 on overland routes. The Boeing proposal is much slower than Concorde.
In the end it is the airlines that have to spend the money. We would be well advised to spend it where it will do the most good. On the ground.
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Now, back to this transonic airplane business. Just below the speed of sound is where all the drag lives. Terrible stuff drag, you have to put in lots of power to overcome it. That puts the fuel bills up and annoys the beanies upstairs. Current airplanes potter along at around 0.83M because it gives the best operating economics. We can push through the "sound barrier" to, say, about 1.2M to counter the transonic drag problem. But then we annoy all those "green" people down below who can't stand all that banging noise. Ok, so we'll only go supersonic over the sea and go down to 0.83M when we're over land.
So, flying from Singapore to London we're only over land for, let me see now, 63% of the way. So discounting acceleration and slow down time we go 31% faster for 37% of the flight time and save 1.9 hours on the journey. A bit less than the 4 or 5 hours that you are interested in saving. And it only takes 20% more fuel.
I suppose that may be worth it. Maybe not. Members of my family fly that way seven or eight times a year and the kerb to kerb time is 23 hours. Cutting that down to 21.1 hours may be worthwhile but I reckon that overall the Concorde programme lost money because people generally are not prepared to pay that much extra to save a small amount of time. People for whom time is money fly Concorde regularly but everyone else saves the cash and settles for subsonic. If Boeing's proposed machine is to succeed they will have to make it work at the same cost as present aircraft in the face of aerodynamic theory that dictates otherwise. Concorde was pulled off the Far East route because it wasn't much faster than the 747 on overland routes. The Boeing proposal is much slower than Concorde.
In the end it is the airlines that have to spend the money. We would be well advised to spend it where it will do the most good. On the ground.
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
