Quotes about the faster new Boeing
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: CVG
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoted from USA Today, 18 JUN 2001
Boeing gambles on speed with Sonic Cruiser
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.
That is really the make or break statement, isn't it? One wonders how this will be done? John Roundhill, Boeing's vice president of marketing for the Sonic Cruiser alludes a technological breakthrough will make this a reality ...
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.
Well gee, a vague statement from a marketing guy. Not all that re-assuring. So, either it is an elaborate ruse, or Boeing will redefine the industry.
Place your bets ...
[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: SLB ]
Boeing gambles on speed with Sonic Cruiser
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.
That is really the make or break statement, isn't it? One wonders how this will be done? John Roundhill, Boeing's vice president of marketing for the Sonic Cruiser alludes a technological breakthrough will make this a reality ...
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.
Well gee, a vague statement from a marketing guy. Not all that re-assuring. So, either it is an elaborate ruse, or Boeing will redefine the industry.
Place your bets ...[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: SLB ]
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: England
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What must be remembered here is that Boeing are quoting costs (and therefore seat prices) comparable to current aircraft.
Airbus on the other hand are quoting that the A380 will be 15% - 20% cheaper than current aircraft.
Should both aircraft come to fruitition, then airlines will be able to offer the A380 at cheaper seat prices than the Sonic Cruiser.
This combined with increased demand for flights, and limited slots at international airports points in one direction - Toulouse.
Airbus on the other hand are quoting that the A380 will be 15% - 20% cheaper than current aircraft.
Should both aircraft come to fruitition, then airlines will be able to offer the A380 at cheaper seat prices than the Sonic Cruiser.
This combined with increased demand for flights, and limited slots at international airports points in one direction - Toulouse.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is headline grabbing by Boeing and I really think anyone who believes otherwise is kidding themselves.
Imagine trying to sell an aircraft now, today, that would achieve that hour off a transatlantic flight but at fuel costs of an aircraft of 10-15 years ago?? (read between the lines, Boeing clearly states the aircraft will compare to aircraft being delivered *now* and yet the timetable for delivery of the Sonic Cruiser is a *long* way away if ever).
The coments above regarding a 'sonic' check-in are the most sensible thing i've read in this thread and improving the facilities in airports to this end would be a much more cost-effective use of airlines money.
As stated above the only real markets for this aircraft are long and ultra-long haul. And frankly I suspect that by the time the sonic cruiser reaches customers (again, if ever) there will be a viable super-sonic alternative that will destroy it.
Boeing is blowing smoke up your arses folks because it's miffed Airbus is doing well with the A380.
Imagine trying to sell an aircraft now, today, that would achieve that hour off a transatlantic flight but at fuel costs of an aircraft of 10-15 years ago?? (read between the lines, Boeing clearly states the aircraft will compare to aircraft being delivered *now* and yet the timetable for delivery of the Sonic Cruiser is a *long* way away if ever).
The coments above regarding a 'sonic' check-in are the most sensible thing i've read in this thread and improving the facilities in airports to this end would be a much more cost-effective use of airlines money.
As stated above the only real markets for this aircraft are long and ultra-long haul. And frankly I suspect that by the time the sonic cruiser reaches customers (again, if ever) there will be a viable super-sonic alternative that will destroy it.
Boeing is blowing smoke up your arses folks because it's miffed Airbus is doing well with the A380.
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the unknown engineer and their mystery breakthrough -- there's some work being done on dramatically reducing drag by blowing a layer of air from vents in the skin of the a/c. I wouldn't be surprised if this or something like it was the technological kicker that makes the proposed Boeing work on paper.
R
R
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all the Boeing bashers, while the sonic cruiser may seem a publicity stunt, or some half-baked scheme thought up by Boeing PR types to steal the A-380's thunder, I ask one question; Has Boeing ever built an aircraft since the 707 that was not a sales sucess or poorly engineered? Is Boeing the type of company to not do their homework, and think things through in an intelligent fashion? I think that Boeing has to build this jet, if they want to sustain their leadership in this business, also if the cruiser is sucessful it can spawn other aircraft in this family eventually replacing the older 737, 767 etc... While others are rooting for Airbus, and I think long-term the A-380 will be sucessful, they have only sold 60 or so!!!and I expect the European taxpayers will be paying through the nose for some time. And one other point, wouldn't it be cool to say you fly the Sonic cruiser!!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: WWW
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This little baby better get up to the mid to high 40's otherwise it won't help if it could do mach 2 ...all the other guys (airbus family, even the 767, 737 etc) are all usually nicely spaced at .82-.84 ...with the exception of the odd 747-400 here and there ...which always make everyone life a misery ....mind you come to think of it ....it going to have some serious fender bending with all the biz jets zooming about in the mid to high 40's ....problemo ...major problemo ...it's like driving a Ferrari in a 120 km/h zone ...when everyone else is doing X ...you also have to go at X speed ...so much for two trips a day ...supposedly cutting an hour here and there ....
Sorry Boeing either go with the flow or don't go at all .....
Sorry Boeing either go with the flow or don't go at all .....
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK we know that what we see is only an artists impression and I claim no aircraft engineering background but -
Where is the fuel going to go to keep this thing in the air for 9000 miles? There is little wing center section where two of the big tanks usually go unless you wrap the tanks around the engine and the landing gear - Ouch -remember Concorde! What about C of G changes with fuel usage which will be very large? What about the resulting trim drag?
The gear looks as though it will need to be placed almost directly in front of the engine intakes - thrown rubber, slush, FOD ETC.
The vertical stabilizers look inadequate to handle the asymetric forces caused by the big engines in event of a failure especially with so much body section ahead of the C of G.
Will that canard and forward door location be compatable with present jetways?
What sort of body angle will this aircraft have on the approach with the relatively small wing with high lift devices and canard pitch control, especially if much lift is generated by that flattish fuselage? Remember that the highly swept forward section of the wing will be producing almost no lift at low airspeeds unless they can get it to produce a good ramshorn vortex.
My vote is still for the area ruled 747-400. Most of the aerodynamics problems are already well known. A minimum of new production jigs and machinery would be needed. Airlines would benefit from common spare parts and training requirements and ground equipment. No mysterious new discoveries are needed. The engines mountings are easily re-engineered. What is more is that the passengers and crews love the aeroplane.
I really cannot give a better comment than to quote from "Handling the Big Jets" - 1971 printing - 1971, about the original 747. "Among its very good qualities are .... its ability to demonstrate 0.97 true mach number, its lack of need for mach trimming and yaw damping ...".
Trouble is that a modified 747 does not produce enough glamour and publicity in Boeing's hour of need!
[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: BOING ]
[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: BOING ]
Where is the fuel going to go to keep this thing in the air for 9000 miles? There is little wing center section where two of the big tanks usually go unless you wrap the tanks around the engine and the landing gear - Ouch -remember Concorde! What about C of G changes with fuel usage which will be very large? What about the resulting trim drag?
The gear looks as though it will need to be placed almost directly in front of the engine intakes - thrown rubber, slush, FOD ETC.
The vertical stabilizers look inadequate to handle the asymetric forces caused by the big engines in event of a failure especially with so much body section ahead of the C of G.
Will that canard and forward door location be compatable with present jetways?
What sort of body angle will this aircraft have on the approach with the relatively small wing with high lift devices and canard pitch control, especially if much lift is generated by that flattish fuselage? Remember that the highly swept forward section of the wing will be producing almost no lift at low airspeeds unless they can get it to produce a good ramshorn vortex.
My vote is still for the area ruled 747-400. Most of the aerodynamics problems are already well known. A minimum of new production jigs and machinery would be needed. Airlines would benefit from common spare parts and training requirements and ground equipment. No mysterious new discoveries are needed. The engines mountings are easily re-engineered. What is more is that the passengers and crews love the aeroplane.
I really cannot give a better comment than to quote from "Handling the Big Jets" - 1971 printing - 1971, about the original 747. "Among its very good qualities are .... its ability to demonstrate 0.97 true mach number, its lack of need for mach trimming and yaw damping ...".
Trouble is that a modified 747 does not produce enough glamour and publicity in Boeing's hour of need!
[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: BOING ]
[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: BOING ]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: US
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with African on this one.
To my mind, a canard design has pitfalls that the press isn't really dwelling on.
Also, this almost sonic speed involves a lot of drag, as localized airflows flirt with the magic number. Seems to me the worst of all worlds. All this talk about the costs and such presuppose that the thing is technically feasible, and that's one heckuva leap of faith.
I thing Boeing has lost the bubble on this one, which could wind up meaning the death--or serious illness--of America's formerly dominant aerospace industry.
To my mind, a canard design has pitfalls that the press isn't really dwelling on.
Also, this almost sonic speed involves a lot of drag, as localized airflows flirt with the magic number. Seems to me the worst of all worlds. All this talk about the costs and such presuppose that the thing is technically feasible, and that's one heckuva leap of faith.
I thing Boeing has lost the bubble on this one, which could wind up meaning the death--or serious illness--of America's formerly dominant aerospace industry.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ....
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet more boeing bo@*$cks. 35% greater fuel consumption for 1 hour off a transatlantic flight. The pax will be happy to pay that. NOT! Just a wind-up directed at Airbus. I'll believe it when I see it (ie never)!
Cheers!
Busta!
Cheers!
Busta!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta, USA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting though, splits the market, backpackers & cargo containers one way, suits with laptops and bankers travelling at our expense the other - question is which is more recession proof ?
As the economy softens most companies will tell Bloggs to travel down the back in seat 159M (next to the snoring bloke and wailing baby) and forget the caviar so they can keep the dividends up.
Can't see the 5th freedom merchants going for Boeing's baby either, and leisure is where it is at right now.... Boeing's baby could also be emptied by more video conferencing... ahh so that's why they launched all those satellites..... Welcome Concorde2.. 30 years behind and still not up to speed !! (but no hard feelings)
As the economy softens most companies will tell Bloggs to travel down the back in seat 159M (next to the snoring bloke and wailing baby) and forget the caviar so they can keep the dividends up.
Can't see the 5th freedom merchants going for Boeing's baby either, and leisure is where it is at right now.... Boeing's baby could also be emptied by more video conferencing... ahh so that's why they launched all those satellites..... Welcome Concorde2.. 30 years behind and still not up to speed !! (but no hard feelings)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta, USA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An afterthought to my prev, but maybe the Americans have no choice as the crew duty limits are contracting so they have to make the planes go faster anyway.......
By 2050 maybe the planes will go so fast that you come off duty before you go on as it were.. (what, no allowances or perdiem, you might even have to pay the company, and worse, an unravelling log book....)
By 2050 maybe the planes will go so fast that you come off duty before you go on as it were.. (what, no allowances or perdiem, you might even have to pay the company, and worse, an unravelling log book....)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: US
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dang, I *like* Boeing, but I think this idea smells of panic and marketing Bravo Sierra. If so, might Airbus stomp Boeing into the ground? I sorta' wish both companies can do well so we've got choices. But Airbus seems to have gained a lot of momentum lately.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ExSimGuy has the correct priority: Mach 1 check-in and check-out would make passengers happier than adding Mach .12 in cruise.
Long lines and lengthy waits at airports create the most drag.
Hurry up and wait.
Long lines and lengthy waits at airports create the most drag.
Hurry up and wait.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: St. Paul, MN USA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing against Airbus, but I really think Boeing is thinking in the right direction. Great for Airbus that they are doing well, but how much of an advancement is it really? It is just the same thing only bigger. As I see it, the whole point of commercial air travel is to get from A to B as quickly as possible. The Concorde is really the right idea, but it just can't be pulled of economically, yet. I hope Boeing is successful just for the sake of moving us closer to that goal.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving probably isn't for you.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving probably isn't for you.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: U.K.
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello !?! The canard design won't work with existing jet bridges (or whatever). The A380 doesn't work with existing airports!
I hope Boeing are able to build this soon. I would love to operate it and they need a new aeroplane as the 777 is the only competitive product that they have.
No new version of a 747 will sell unless it is fly-by-wire because maintenance costs will kill it.
As for the A380 - no one, passenger or crew is going to enjoy waiting to be the last person off the flight into the busses!
The only drawback I can see to the Boeing is that if the flights are shorter then the company will make me do more of them !!
[ 25 July 2001: Message edited by: Sunshine Express ]
I hope Boeing are able to build this soon. I would love to operate it and they need a new aeroplane as the 777 is the only competitive product that they have.
No new version of a 747 will sell unless it is fly-by-wire because maintenance costs will kill it.
As for the A380 - no one, passenger or crew is going to enjoy waiting to be the last person off the flight into the busses!
The only drawback I can see to the Boeing is that if the flights are shorter then the company will make me do more of them !!
[ 25 July 2001: Message edited by: Sunshine Express ]
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia (UK expat)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corcorde is the right idea? It always was the right idea, and it was ahead of its time, but it got sunk by Boeing. By exerting enough political pressure to ensure that Concorde never got permission to land at most US airports, they also ensured that it would never become commercially viable.
Now Boeing have the nerve to come up with a pretender and claim that they're inventing new technology.
Yes, I'm a Boeing basher, but for good reason. Protectionism and market manipulation by an effective monopoly managed to sink the concept of SST for what looks like being at least a 50 year period. Breaking their hold on the market will hopefully at least ensure that it never happens again.
Onward and upward Airbus, and leave the poor old broken Boeing sobbing by the wayside!
Now Boeing have the nerve to come up with a pretender and claim that they're inventing new technology.
Yes, I'm a Boeing basher, but for good reason. Protectionism and market manipulation by an effective monopoly managed to sink the concept of SST for what looks like being at least a 50 year period. Breaking their hold on the market will hopefully at least ensure that it never happens again.
Onward and upward Airbus, and leave the poor old broken Boeing sobbing by the wayside!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Sonic Loser will never get off paper. It's going to be noisy and without afterburners it's gonna need a runway that is 25,000 ft long to get to the speeds a delta wing needs to get to for LOF.
Now I bash the A380..... It will never pass passenger evac requirements and they will never let them do the requirement by analysis. Especially after the EU regulators made Boeing add overwing escape doors on the 737. It will make a decent freighter though.
Now I bash the A380..... It will never pass passenger evac requirements and they will never let them do the requirement by analysis. Especially after the EU regulators made Boeing add overwing escape doors on the 737. It will make a decent freighter though.
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd put my money on Boeing. They've survived and prospered since Stearman, unique in that respect. Little is said of the engineering challenges of the 380, not to mention jetway access, evacuation considerations, systems reliability and on and on. Boeing has always been smart, and now they can wait and see if Airbus commits the blunder that will do them in and lose the support of their governments.