Look at Boeing's beautiful new aircraft!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Zeke, no question cycling it more would be only the beginning of making the thing worthwhile- for the airlines another cost savings would be reducing the need for extra crew on the handful of routes where the time saving would bring it over the threshold. Certainly for NAT the extra speed would mean squat, both for pax and the bean-counters. I do see one advantage here for crossing the pond, though- that airspace is getting pretty crowded these days and I'm sure the good folks in Gander would love to see some of that traffic shifted up to 450. In some ways it looks like Boeing and Airbus are taking opposite approaches to the problem of increased traffic- Airbus jamming us by the thousand into fewer planes, Boeing sending more planes above the traffic.
Anito4a- that starship looks an awful lot like that Italian turboprop.
Eecam- I agree that Boeing has been running on inertia far too long. Airbus is light-years ahead in the technology going into the medium-to-large category, Canadair invented a whole new class of jet airliners, De Havilland came up with a way to make a turboprop cabin as quiet as a jet, but what has Boeing ever done? They even owned DH while the Q-series Dashes were under development and they ended up losing a mint and practically giving away the technology to Bombardier. Go figure.
------------------
Nuke the rainforest- it's more efficient than logging.
Anito4a- that starship looks an awful lot like that Italian turboprop.
Eecam- I agree that Boeing has been running on inertia far too long. Airbus is light-years ahead in the technology going into the medium-to-large category, Canadair invented a whole new class of jet airliners, De Havilland came up with a way to make a turboprop cabin as quiet as a jet, but what has Boeing ever done? They even owned DH while the Q-series Dashes were under development and they ended up losing a mint and practically giving away the technology to Bombardier. Go figure.
------------------
Nuke the rainforest- it's more efficient than logging.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think Boeing did a masterful job of goading Airbus into building a very large white elephant. There should be a nice downturn in the world economy just about time the orders are ready for the assembly line. Prediction: another big loser.
Boeing's high sub-sonic cruiser? Can't see the big advantage in that. Bitch'n looking airplane though, but still not quite as nice as the Concorde. Probably have about the same economics, which is to say, not so good.
Airbus kicking Boeing's bee-hind? Oh, please. Yea, that 340 is a real barnburner -- can't make 'em fast enough, huh. The 330 is a pig. The 320 is a good money-maker airplane, but has the repuation among mechanics of being, well . . disposable.
Just be glad we have two world-class manufacturers of large aircraft. It keeps everybody somewhat honest and innovative.
The real measure of which is the best airplane is: Which one has the best 12 year Captains pay?
[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 02 April 2001).]
Boeing's high sub-sonic cruiser? Can't see the big advantage in that. Bitch'n looking airplane though, but still not quite as nice as the Concorde. Probably have about the same economics, which is to say, not so good.
Airbus kicking Boeing's bee-hind? Oh, please. Yea, that 340 is a real barnburner -- can't make 'em fast enough, huh. The 330 is a pig. The 320 is a good money-maker airplane, but has the repuation among mechanics of being, well . . disposable.
Just be glad we have two world-class manufacturers of large aircraft. It keeps everybody somewhat honest and innovative.
The real measure of which is the best airplane is: Which one has the best 12 year Captains pay?
[This message has been edited by Roadtrip (edited 02 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Squawk 8888,
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Studies I have here show that the direct operating cost of financing is about 0.07USD/nm, fuel/oil/lube 0.232USD/nm.
Everyone agrees this aircraft will have to burn more fuel than a B777 to get the speed and altitude they are designing for but with only half the number of pax. Higher utilization does not help bring the other costs inline…I will try and explain myself a little below.
Also as you fly sectors in excess of 3000 nm the direct operating costs of maintenance and landing, navigation, and registration plateaus out.
The indirect costs drop a little when you have longer sectors, but the cost of airplane and traffic servicing, control, and freight increases.
The overall ratio of direct and indirect operating costs decreases by 0.01 with sector lengths between 3000 and 4000 nm, it plateaus out so longer sectors don’t give you better efficiencies by themselves.
If you were to draw a graph of annual utilization vs block time for many pax transports you will see that if sectors lengths get any longer than 3.5 hours the utilization you can get out of an aircraft in a given year differs little if you were to do 10 hour sectors, for 3.5 hour sectors its about 3250 hours / year, for 10 hour sectors its about 3350 hours per year.
The studies have shown the only efficiencies above this can be made by mechanized loading cargo transport aircraft where the turn around times are quicker. However they also plateau out around 3800 hours per year.
In summary, if you use the aircraft for long sectors (>3.5 hrs) little efficiency is gained in the economics of the aircraft, and you can only fly so many hours a year due to many factors outside the aircraft operators control.
The data I have is a few years old, the historical numbers in that study seemed to indicate that the rations are changing only very slightly over the past 25 years.
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Studies I have here show that the direct operating cost of financing is about 0.07USD/nm, fuel/oil/lube 0.232USD/nm.
Everyone agrees this aircraft will have to burn more fuel than a B777 to get the speed and altitude they are designing for but with only half the number of pax. Higher utilization does not help bring the other costs inline…I will try and explain myself a little below.
Also as you fly sectors in excess of 3000 nm the direct operating costs of maintenance and landing, navigation, and registration plateaus out.
The indirect costs drop a little when you have longer sectors, but the cost of airplane and traffic servicing, control, and freight increases.
The overall ratio of direct and indirect operating costs decreases by 0.01 with sector lengths between 3000 and 4000 nm, it plateaus out so longer sectors don’t give you better efficiencies by themselves.
If you were to draw a graph of annual utilization vs block time for many pax transports you will see that if sectors lengths get any longer than 3.5 hours the utilization you can get out of an aircraft in a given year differs little if you were to do 10 hour sectors, for 3.5 hour sectors its about 3250 hours / year, for 10 hour sectors its about 3350 hours per year.
The studies have shown the only efficiencies above this can be made by mechanized loading cargo transport aircraft where the turn around times are quicker. However they also plateau out around 3800 hours per year.
In summary, if you use the aircraft for long sectors (>3.5 hrs) little efficiency is gained in the economics of the aircraft, and you can only fly so many hours a year due to many factors outside the aircraft operators control.
The data I have is a few years old, the historical numbers in that study seemed to indicate that the rations are changing only very slightly over the past 25 years.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My name is gaunty and I'm a Boingaholic.
But lets keep it in perspective, the market is bored and Wontwoloos has the ball, 3 down and 30 yards.
Boing Marketing: "Let's trot out one of our real flash design concepts run it up the pole and see who salutes it.
Give a bunch of engineers a brief and the laws of physics will ultimately have them all going in the same direction. A340 v B707/CV880/CV990/DC8-63 none of the latter were slouches just didn't have the benefit of the new materials and technology now available.
Thunderbirds are go!!
[This message has been edited by gaunty (edited 02 April 2001).]
But lets keep it in perspective, the market is bored and Wontwoloos has the ball, 3 down and 30 yards.
Boing Marketing: "Let's trot out one of our real flash design concepts run it up the pole and see who salutes it.
Give a bunch of engineers a brief and the laws of physics will ultimately have them all going in the same direction. A340 v B707/CV880/CV990/DC8-63 none of the latter were slouches just didn't have the benefit of the new materials and technology now available.
Thunderbirds are go!!
[This message has been edited by gaunty (edited 02 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
On a serious note I think we have to keep in mind the many early problems that occured on the "Thunderflash" design.
If I remember correctly two aircraft were lost enroute London-New York. One of them lost on the maiden flight on that route. It was only because IR were able to skillfully transfer Alan into the hold of the aircraft (inflight!) that the manufacturers were able to establish that it was in fact a "little wooden man" causing sabotage.
In another incident one Thunderflash crash-landed at London airport due to an undercarriage failure. Once again IR was able to bring the aircraft safetly to rest using three remote vehicles which accelerated along the runway to "catch" Thunderflash as it touched-down.
I was suprised that there was not an immediate public outcry over flight safety. As it was I seem to remember there was just the usual "big party" and mutual back-slapping at IR headquarters.
A message for Boing?
Stop the PR posturing, or call Scott and Virgil for advice to design a practical flying machine (TB2 for example).
If I remember correctly two aircraft were lost enroute London-New York. One of them lost on the maiden flight on that route. It was only because IR were able to skillfully transfer Alan into the hold of the aircraft (inflight!) that the manufacturers were able to establish that it was in fact a "little wooden man" causing sabotage.
In another incident one Thunderflash crash-landed at London airport due to an undercarriage failure. Once again IR was able to bring the aircraft safetly to rest using three remote vehicles which accelerated along the runway to "catch" Thunderflash as it touched-down.
I was suprised that there was not an immediate public outcry over flight safety. As it was I seem to remember there was just the usual "big party" and mutual back-slapping at IR headquarters.
A message for Boing?
Stop the PR posturing, or call Scott and Virgil for advice to design a practical flying machine (TB2 for example).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Aaah, it really looks sexy . . . . 
Maybe I'm getting old but . . .
It's gonna cut, what, one hour off my LON-JFK time, or an hour off Mid-East-Europe?
For a fraction of the cost of the new 'plane, airlines would have me rushing to their door if only they put another couple of agents on check-in, so I could cut 90 to 120 minutes of check-in time to under an hour, and if the arrival airport put a few more customs & immigration guys on, saving me another half an hour.
For my money (poor though I am ) I'd much rather save an hour of the ground time than even two hours flight time.
Might even cut down air-rage
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
Maybe I'm getting old but . . .
It's gonna cut, what, one hour off my LON-JFK time, or an hour off Mid-East-Europe?
For a fraction of the cost of the new 'plane, airlines would have me rushing to their door if only they put another couple of agents on check-in, so I could cut 90 to 120 minutes of check-in time to under an hour, and if the arrival airport put a few more customs & immigration guys on, saving me another half an hour.
For my money (poor though I am
) I'd much rather save an hour of the ground time than even two hours flight time.Might even cut down air-rage
------------------
What goes around . . .
. . often lands better!
Guest
Posts: n/a
It looks too sexy to be true - I think the Boeing Spin Doctors released it a little bit too early (ie: 31st March ).
Who remembers the "SST" project? - not long after Concord became a reality, all the other major manufacturers produced drawings for the latest and greatest. Faster, further, Higher ( in some cases sub-orbital ).
Just remember what day it is after the 31st March!.
Who remembers the "SST" project? - not long after Concord became a reality, all the other major manufacturers produced drawings for the latest and greatest. Faster, further, Higher ( in some cases sub-orbital ).
Just remember what day it is after the 31st March!.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It seems that nationalism isn't far below the surface in this argument, with a number of people seemingly regarding admiration of, and support for, Boeing as being their 'patriotic duty', and the rubbishing of anything else as being a similar obligation.
It must smart that the Europeans built (and still operate) the World's only practical SST, and that they built the first successful FBW airliners. The A380 must be a similar 'irritant'.
But a white elephant? The aircraft carries 500 passengers, yet can turn a profit with a 747-load, and the break-even load factors of the existing 747-400 and the small A380 are within a whisker of each other. And those decrying the A380 would doubtless maintain that the 747-400 is a good size for an airplane. So even if they can't fill a 380 every trip, it makes more sense than a 747, because they can give the passengers more comfort, a higher cruising speed and a fractionally cheaper ticket.
ZEKE
Perhaps you have some insight on the operating costs of A380?
It must smart that the Europeans built (and still operate) the World's only practical SST, and that they built the first successful FBW airliners. The A380 must be a similar 'irritant'.
But a white elephant? The aircraft carries 500 passengers, yet can turn a profit with a 747-load, and the break-even load factors of the existing 747-400 and the small A380 are within a whisker of each other. And those decrying the A380 would doubtless maintain that the 747-400 is a good size for an airplane. So even if they can't fill a 380 every trip, it makes more sense than a 747, because they can give the passengers more comfort, a higher cruising speed and a fractionally cheaper ticket.
ZEKE
Perhaps you have some insight on the operating costs of A380?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jackonicko,
I have to agree with you that nationalism doesn’t seem to be far below the surface in this argument. I do like the new Boeing aircraft, think it looks great, and will fly in uncongested airspace above the weather while in cruise.
I have tried to present a balanced argument as to why the fleet planners at airlines would not go for the new Boeing design as it would not deliver the profits to the airlines shareholders and perpetuate their job security.
Development cost for the A380 is estimated at $US10bn, the number of units forecast to be delivered is 500-1000 region. The forecasts market is for approximately 1332 airliners of 400 seats and above through to 2017, this would also include sales of B747s. The first engineering development work on the A380 commenced in June 1994, with first deliveries expected in early 2006.
I have heard rumors that the A380 will be constructed in the main by robots, and little if any use of rivets as fasteners. I understand a laser welding technique has been developed with save tones in fasteners alone.
Numerous design configurations were studied for the A380 and they gave serious consideration to a single deck aircraft which would have seated 12 abreast and twin vertical tails.
They settled upon a twin deck configuration, largely because of the significantly lighter structure required, the ability to use existing airport gates with little modification, and reuse many of the system concepts found on the A320/A330/A340.
The direct operating costs (DOC) per seat on the A380 are estimated to be 15% less than those for the 747-400 (I don’t know which engine configuration). The DOC is about 53% of the total operating costs.
The DOC includes crew, fuel, oil, lube, insurance, maintenance, depreciation, landing navigation and route charges.
I have to agree with you that nationalism doesn’t seem to be far below the surface in this argument. I do like the new Boeing aircraft, think it looks great, and will fly in uncongested airspace above the weather while in cruise.
I have tried to present a balanced argument as to why the fleet planners at airlines would not go for the new Boeing design as it would not deliver the profits to the airlines shareholders and perpetuate their job security.
Development cost for the A380 is estimated at $US10bn, the number of units forecast to be delivered is 500-1000 region. The forecasts market is for approximately 1332 airliners of 400 seats and above through to 2017, this would also include sales of B747s. The first engineering development work on the A380 commenced in June 1994, with first deliveries expected in early 2006.
I have heard rumors that the A380 will be constructed in the main by robots, and little if any use of rivets as fasteners. I understand a laser welding technique has been developed with save tones in fasteners alone.
Numerous design configurations were studied for the A380 and they gave serious consideration to a single deck aircraft which would have seated 12 abreast and twin vertical tails.
They settled upon a twin deck configuration, largely because of the significantly lighter structure required, the ability to use existing airport gates with little modification, and reuse many of the system concepts found on the A320/A330/A340.
The direct operating costs (DOC) per seat on the A380 are estimated to be 15% less than those for the 747-400 (I don’t know which engine configuration). The DOC is about 53% of the total operating costs.
The DOC includes crew, fuel, oil, lube, insurance, maintenance, depreciation, landing navigation and route charges.
Guest
Posts: n/a
How many Starships did Beech sell? How many Piaggio whatsits of similar configuration did they sell? Recovery of nonrecurring development and certification costs? enough said.
The new Boeing announcement sure looks sexy , but as has been pointed out accountants aren't sexy (don't I know)
The other problem with an aircraft that trades off high fuel burn for performnance is that the fuel costs are variable, sometimes extremely so. An aircraft that makes sense at, say, $1.50/gal becomes progressively less attractive as fuel prices go up and by the time it hits $2.00 a gallon they get white tails and parked in the desert. Given the uncertainties in the oil market it does not appear to be a prudent thing to trade fuel burn for the altitude/speed capability.
As far as the A-380 time will tell, but look at Mr. Boeing's order book... they are laughing all the way to the bank over the next few years. Moving from Seattle and diversifying...well not sure about theSeattle move but if your company was pretty much into one sector of manufacturing (airliners) and another almost similar area (military aircraft and systems) what would you want to do for your shareholders? A little diversification would get you an "A" on the exam at business school and that is who is running the company.
The new Boeing announcement sure looks sexy , but as has been pointed out accountants aren't sexy (don't I know)
The other problem with an aircraft that trades off high fuel burn for performnance is that the fuel costs are variable, sometimes extremely so. An aircraft that makes sense at, say, $1.50/gal becomes progressively less attractive as fuel prices go up and by the time it hits $2.00 a gallon they get white tails and parked in the desert. Given the uncertainties in the oil market it does not appear to be a prudent thing to trade fuel burn for the altitude/speed capability.
As far as the A-380 time will tell, but look at Mr. Boeing's order book... they are laughing all the way to the bank over the next few years. Moving from Seattle and diversifying...well not sure about theSeattle move but if your company was pretty much into one sector of manufacturing (airliners) and another almost similar area (military aircraft and systems) what would you want to do for your shareholders? A little diversification would get you an "A" on the exam at business school and that is who is running the company.
Guest
Posts: n/a
And here is another chapter form the magic book of how to buy an airliner:
Does this bird give me the ability to save 10% per seat over the airplanes it replaces? Yes, get me the thing! No? Screw you!
This is the ultimate question people will ask and that is the most important one (besides the fact that this bird here does not have the shape of making ground support work more efficiently, so therefore it will cost more in that specific peice of the equation!)
------------------
There's nothing like a three-holer...
Does this bird give me the ability to save 10% per seat over the airplanes it replaces? Yes, get me the thing! No? Screw you!
This is the ultimate question people will ask and that is the most important one (besides the fact that this bird here does not have the shape of making ground support work more efficiently, so therefore it will cost more in that specific peice of the equation!)
------------------
There's nothing like a three-holer...
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'd just like to bring the Cessna Citation X into the discussion here. This aircraft cruises at mach .91 and has a range in excess of 3000nm at that speed, making it the longest ranged Citation jet. The fuel burn for this aircraft starts to drop off drastically at altitudes greater than FL370.
Boeing says the "sonic cruiser's" cruising altitude will be in the mid 40s, and it will have a range of 9000nm.
For it's speed, the fuel burn of the Citation X is not bad at all. If Boeing is able to duplicate this kind of performance in a new airliner, they would definitely have a winner on their hands.
Here are some links to the Cessna website for the relevant specs on the Citation X.
http://citationx.cessna.com/performance.chtml
http://citationx.cessna.com/range.chtml
http://citationx.cessna.com/specifications.chtml
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 02 April 2001).]
Boeing says the "sonic cruiser's" cruising altitude will be in the mid 40s, and it will have a range of 9000nm.
For it's speed, the fuel burn of the Citation X is not bad at all. If Boeing is able to duplicate this kind of performance in a new airliner, they would definitely have a winner on their hands.
Here are some links to the Cessna website for the relevant specs on the Citation X.
http://citationx.cessna.com/performance.chtml
http://citationx.cessna.com/range.chtml
http://citationx.cessna.com/specifications.chtml
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 02 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boeing's shareholders today would never let the Co. gamble on something like the 707 or the 747, which is perhaps why the company was caught out by Airbus when it came to the Super Jumbo. Sad to see a once-great and once-innovative company resorting to this sort of nonsense.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, artist's impressions can be fun designs. But to me this just
resembles a padded out and upgraded 21st Century adaptation of the
Russian Tu-144 'Concordski'.
And don't forget that the American tax-payer, through NASA, recently put
a Tu-144 back in the air at enormous expense for an in depth research study.
Thus all the information obtained will have been made available to
Boeing, so as to be incorporated into this 'Boeingski' design package.
The forward Canards on the 144 do not interfere with jetways, as they
are retractable.
Now if Boeing, or any other manufacturer REALLY wants to take a Giant
Leap Forward, then the first to come up with a Starship Enterprise
'Energizer' people mover to beam me around the world in a split second
will really corner the market! And make all the flying machines, tens
of thousands of airline employees and the PPRuNe Bulletin Board obsolete.
resembles a padded out and upgraded 21st Century adaptation of the
Russian Tu-144 'Concordski'.
And don't forget that the American tax-payer, through NASA, recently put
a Tu-144 back in the air at enormous expense for an in depth research study.
Thus all the information obtained will have been made available to
Boeing, so as to be incorporated into this 'Boeingski' design package.
The forward Canards on the 144 do not interfere with jetways, as they
are retractable.
Now if Boeing, or any other manufacturer REALLY wants to take a Giant
Leap Forward, then the first to come up with a Starship Enterprise
'Energizer' people mover to beam me around the world in a split second
will really corner the market! And make all the flying machines, tens
of thousands of airline employees and the PPRuNe Bulletin Board obsolete.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For a description of some of the design factors for the sonic cruiser, go to this week's edition of "Aviation Week".
http://www.aviationnow.com/content/p...2/avi_news.htm
Several previous posts described the sonic cruiser as being built around the 757 tube. All the press stories I've read indicate that it will be a double aisle aircraft. Hard to believe anyone would develop a single aisle plane with a 9000 nautical mile range in this day of DVT worries.
If a second-generation SST is still decades away, then an all first-class 100 seat configuration might serve Concorde-type clientele on selected routes when Concordes reach the end of their operational lives.
Putting aside whether Boeing is trying to splash some water on the A-380 parade, a successfully designed and cost-competitive sonic cruiser would seem to be a stake into the heart of the long-term A-340 market.
Finally, several excerpts from the March 31 Seattle Post Intelligencer:
"Boeing's engineers on the new Sonic Cruiser aren't ready to tell secrets just yet.
But aviation experts say that if the company is right in its claim to be able to produce an efficient jetliner that can cruise just under the speed of sound, they have conquered a problem that has baffled airplane designers since the dawn of the jet age.
"There has to be something very clever here and they are just not releasing it yet," said John Hansman, head of the aeronautics and
astronautics department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"Those guys are smart and they understand this issue very well," he added. "They would not move forward with this plane unless they are confident they have some means to make it competitive."
...Airbus was quick to say that it studied the concept of a plane that could fly at near sonic speeds and determined it would burn 40
percent more fuel at cruising speed.
But Mike Bair, vice president for business strategy and development for Boeing's commercial airplanes, said the Sonic Cruiser will pay only a "small" fuel penalty. Even that, he said, will be offset by the jet's higher cruise speed.
"Everything we have looked at says this plane will be cost competitive with today's airplanes," he said.
There is no magical technology on the Sonic Cruiser that allows it do what other jets have not -- fly efficiently at transonic speeds.
"The design itself is what is revolutionary," Bair said.
Boeing said yesterday its top engineers on the Sonic Cruiser are not available for interviews.
Until they are willing to talk in detail, aviation experts can only speculate about the new design.
Hansman said Boeing's engineers are probably using a technique called advanced computational fluid dynamics modeling to develop a design that minimizes drag at high Mach numbers.
Such fluid dynamics modeling allows the design to be studied on computer models.
Another challenge Boeing faces, he said, is how to make the jet stable at the higher speeds.
As a jet approaches the speed of sound, he said, the center of pressure moves around, which makes the plane less stable. Aircraft
stability was the main challenge when the sound barrier was finally broken in 1947, he said.
In announcing the Sonic Cruiser development program, Alan Mulally, chief executive of Boeing's commercial airplanes, said the jet would be even more stable than current commercial planes. That stability, he said, comes from the small wing-like canards near the plane's nose.
The canards essentially perform the same function as the horizontal stabilizer at the rear of today's jets. The stabilizer can be moved in flight to trim the plane. The canards on the Sonic Cruiser also move.
Boeing will be working with about a dozen airlines from the United States, Europe and Asia as the development program goes forward.
That's what Boeing also did with the 777 program.
So far, the response from airlines to the Sonic Cruiser announcement has been enthusiastic -- assuming Boeing can do
what it claims.
Typical of the comments was one from Air Canada Chief Executive Robert Milton, who was quoted by Dow Jones News Service as saying, "It's a tactically brilliant move, if the jet is cost-effective and the price is right."
...The Boeing Co. says it wants Japan's three biggest aircraft makers to help develop its new high-speed commercial plane, replacing an
earlier plan to involve them in the wing production for a larger version of the 747 jet."
http://www.aviationnow.com/content/p...2/avi_news.htm
Several previous posts described the sonic cruiser as being built around the 757 tube. All the press stories I've read indicate that it will be a double aisle aircraft. Hard to believe anyone would develop a single aisle plane with a 9000 nautical mile range in this day of DVT worries.
If a second-generation SST is still decades away, then an all first-class 100 seat configuration might serve Concorde-type clientele on selected routes when Concordes reach the end of their operational lives.
Putting aside whether Boeing is trying to splash some water on the A-380 parade, a successfully designed and cost-competitive sonic cruiser would seem to be a stake into the heart of the long-term A-340 market.
Finally, several excerpts from the March 31 Seattle Post Intelligencer:
"Boeing's engineers on the new Sonic Cruiser aren't ready to tell secrets just yet.
But aviation experts say that if the company is right in its claim to be able to produce an efficient jetliner that can cruise just under the speed of sound, they have conquered a problem that has baffled airplane designers since the dawn of the jet age.
"There has to be something very clever here and they are just not releasing it yet," said John Hansman, head of the aeronautics and
astronautics department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"Those guys are smart and they understand this issue very well," he added. "They would not move forward with this plane unless they are confident they have some means to make it competitive."
...Airbus was quick to say that it studied the concept of a plane that could fly at near sonic speeds and determined it would burn 40
percent more fuel at cruising speed.
But Mike Bair, vice president for business strategy and development for Boeing's commercial airplanes, said the Sonic Cruiser will pay only a "small" fuel penalty. Even that, he said, will be offset by the jet's higher cruise speed.
"Everything we have looked at says this plane will be cost competitive with today's airplanes," he said.
There is no magical technology on the Sonic Cruiser that allows it do what other jets have not -- fly efficiently at transonic speeds.
"The design itself is what is revolutionary," Bair said.
Boeing said yesterday its top engineers on the Sonic Cruiser are not available for interviews.
Until they are willing to talk in detail, aviation experts can only speculate about the new design.
Hansman said Boeing's engineers are probably using a technique called advanced computational fluid dynamics modeling to develop a design that minimizes drag at high Mach numbers.
Such fluid dynamics modeling allows the design to be studied on computer models.
Another challenge Boeing faces, he said, is how to make the jet stable at the higher speeds.
As a jet approaches the speed of sound, he said, the center of pressure moves around, which makes the plane less stable. Aircraft
stability was the main challenge when the sound barrier was finally broken in 1947, he said.
In announcing the Sonic Cruiser development program, Alan Mulally, chief executive of Boeing's commercial airplanes, said the jet would be even more stable than current commercial planes. That stability, he said, comes from the small wing-like canards near the plane's nose.
The canards essentially perform the same function as the horizontal stabilizer at the rear of today's jets. The stabilizer can be moved in flight to trim the plane. The canards on the Sonic Cruiser also move.
Boeing will be working with about a dozen airlines from the United States, Europe and Asia as the development program goes forward.
That's what Boeing also did with the 777 program.
So far, the response from airlines to the Sonic Cruiser announcement has been enthusiastic -- assuming Boeing can do
what it claims.
Typical of the comments was one from Air Canada Chief Executive Robert Milton, who was quoted by Dow Jones News Service as saying, "It's a tactically brilliant move, if the jet is cost-effective and the price is right."
...The Boeing Co. says it wants Japan's three biggest aircraft makers to help develop its new high-speed commercial plane, replacing an
earlier plan to involve them in the wing production for a larger version of the 747 jet."