Quotes about the faster new Boeing
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Washington, DC USA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paying someone market value (even if it's a very limited marked) to produce something for you -- research, experimental vehicles, military transports, joint strike fighters -- is hardly a subsidy. Pumping money into a company for the sole purpose of keeping it solvent is. Apples and oranges.
It's amazing, considering the the level of cynicism displayed here by our Euro friends, that "you lot" ever innovate at all...
It's amazing, considering the the level of cynicism displayed here by our Euro friends, that "you lot" ever innovate at all...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to go back to the discussion of the hub vs direct-routing question.
Isn't it true that one of the main reasons that many airports have a shortage of runways (i.e. takeoff slots) is because at many of the hub airports, planes are constantly arriving and departing with passengers going to a final destination other than the hub airport (or surrounding area)? If planes flew more point-to-point, wouldn't this reduce the congestion at the hub airports? This of course would increase the takeoffs and landings at the more outlying airports, but many of these are currently under utilized.
This argument depends on the exact nature of the developing runway congestion problem. If the congestion is mainly at the hubs (instead of system wide), then Boeing has the winning strategy with the Sonic Cruiser (as well as it's slower point-to-point aircraft). The A380 would only marginally help the problem if the congestion is focused mainly at the hubs, as more point-to-point aircraft would seem to be a better solution.
Isn't it true that one of the main reasons that many airports have a shortage of runways (i.e. takeoff slots) is because at many of the hub airports, planes are constantly arriving and departing with passengers going to a final destination other than the hub airport (or surrounding area)? If planes flew more point-to-point, wouldn't this reduce the congestion at the hub airports? This of course would increase the takeoffs and landings at the more outlying airports, but many of these are currently under utilized.
This argument depends on the exact nature of the developing runway congestion problem. If the congestion is mainly at the hubs (instead of system wide), then Boeing has the winning strategy with the Sonic Cruiser (as well as it's slower point-to-point aircraft). The A380 would only marginally help the problem if the congestion is focused mainly at the hubs, as more point-to-point aircraft would seem to be a better solution.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Spain
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I`m missing one major point:
With 700 h a year in FL 490 the Sonic Cruiser guy`s will most likely not reach their 55th birthday as radiation increases exponentialy with Latitude/Altitude.
Even today`s FL350-Crews have definetly a lower life expectancy ( and significant higher cancer rates) compared to Jo Public.
With a couple of hundred SonicCruisers flying, these numbers will decline more and more to our disadvantage.
And how are you going to explain your beancounter, that you`d like to fly just 200 h a year to survive your job???
I really appreciate any kind of smart innovation, but this one definitly not with me.
With 700 h a year in FL 490 the Sonic Cruiser guy`s will most likely not reach their 55th birthday as radiation increases exponentialy with Latitude/Altitude.
Even today`s FL350-Crews have definetly a lower life expectancy ( and significant higher cancer rates) compared to Jo Public.
With a couple of hundred SonicCruisers flying, these numbers will decline more and more to our disadvantage.
And how are you going to explain your beancounter, that you`d like to fly just 200 h a year to survive your job???
I really appreciate any kind of smart innovation, but this one definitly not with me.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
driftwood-
So just where do you come up with the theory that any design employing canards does so because of a major underlying design flaw?
As I've pointed out earlier in this thread, several VERY GOOD aircraft have been designed around the canard concept. XB-70 was a very successful design which met all its performance goals, only to be killed because of advancments in SAM and ICBM technologies. The Swedes built Viggen, and more recently Grippen, which were/are successful types. Rafale employs canards, as well the Eurofighter.
Civilian aircraft using canards include the Beech Starship, which although was not particularly successful in the marketplace (mostly because of FAA blundering and the consequent "weighing up" of the airframe causing it to fall short of performance goals) is nevertheless a fine aircraft. Of course the experimental types such as the Burt Rutan VariEZ and LongEZ, and other various offshoots are well known. Rutan's globe girdling Voyager was a canard design.
The Piaggio Avanti goes one step further with a "three lifting surface" design. Improved manufacturer support should jump start the market success of this type, which boasts a cabin equal in size to the Hawker 800 and cruises at FL410 doing 400kts....with propellors....on a fuel burn of just over 600pph. Why would anyone buy a Citation?
The canard principle is well proven, and as with any other engineering exercise, if it is well thought out, it will work just fine. My guess is that the Cruiser will take advantage of materials/manfuacturing advancments pioneered by the B-2. With the compound curvatures shown in the illustrations of the Cruiser, it's my guess that the structure will primarily be composite with minimal use of aluminum and other metals. Properly executed, this should result in a major weight advantage.
Bottom line. The USA has the technological edge. If Boeing builds the Cruiser, and I hope they do, Airbus will be caught flat-footed for at least a decade.
So just where do you come up with the theory that any design employing canards does so because of a major underlying design flaw?
As I've pointed out earlier in this thread, several VERY GOOD aircraft have been designed around the canard concept. XB-70 was a very successful design which met all its performance goals, only to be killed because of advancments in SAM and ICBM technologies. The Swedes built Viggen, and more recently Grippen, which were/are successful types. Rafale employs canards, as well the Eurofighter.
Civilian aircraft using canards include the Beech Starship, which although was not particularly successful in the marketplace (mostly because of FAA blundering and the consequent "weighing up" of the airframe causing it to fall short of performance goals) is nevertheless a fine aircraft. Of course the experimental types such as the Burt Rutan VariEZ and LongEZ, and other various offshoots are well known. Rutan's globe girdling Voyager was a canard design.
The Piaggio Avanti goes one step further with a "three lifting surface" design. Improved manufacturer support should jump start the market success of this type, which boasts a cabin equal in size to the Hawker 800 and cruises at FL410 doing 400kts....with propellors....on a fuel burn of just over 600pph. Why would anyone buy a Citation?
The canard principle is well proven, and as with any other engineering exercise, if it is well thought out, it will work just fine. My guess is that the Cruiser will take advantage of materials/manfuacturing advancments pioneered by the B-2. With the compound curvatures shown in the illustrations of the Cruiser, it's my guess that the structure will primarily be composite with minimal use of aluminum and other metals. Properly executed, this should result in a major weight advantage.
Bottom line. The USA has the technological edge. If Boeing builds the Cruiser, and I hope they do, Airbus will be caught flat-footed for at least a decade.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VnV2178B and Tcas Climb:
There is no question that the US, as a whole, has much bigger defense industry and has more government-sponsored aerospace-related R&D than the EU. However, if you compare Boeing with EADS and BAE Systems combined (namely, Airbus's parent companies), you will find out that EADS and BAE have more government-funded projects than Boeing. While everyone knows about NASA, NASA doesn't have a lot of commercial-aircraft-related R&D. EADS and BAE Systems (and Airbus, of course) have benefited from research done by government agencies such as Britain's DERA, France's ONERA, Germany's DLR, the Netherlands' NLR, just to name a few. Face it, Airbus is competitive because they are able to develop a family of aircraft within a three-year period (namely, the A320 in 1984 and the A330/340 in 1987). This could only happen because they were heavily subsidized by the government. If they were held to have demonstrated that they had a commercially viable product (the A320) before proceeding with the second project (the A330/340), McDonnell Douglas would probably be still around for at least another ten years. In fact, Airbus had not even demonstrated that they could make money with the A300/310 (well, they never could have done so), but they were given the money to build the A320 anyway. It took the Europeans nearly 40 years of subsidies to finally built a financially viable aircraft (the A320), I think it's just ludicrous to justify the subsidies because Boeing's first commercial jet nearly 50 years ago had a heavy military link. 50 years ago, the Eurpoean governments were heavily subsidizing their budding commercial jet aircraft industry, too. The only difference is they built so many aircraft that no one really wanted.
There is no question that the US, as a whole, has much bigger defense industry and has more government-sponsored aerospace-related R&D than the EU. However, if you compare Boeing with EADS and BAE Systems combined (namely, Airbus's parent companies), you will find out that EADS and BAE have more government-funded projects than Boeing. While everyone knows about NASA, NASA doesn't have a lot of commercial-aircraft-related R&D. EADS and BAE Systems (and Airbus, of course) have benefited from research done by government agencies such as Britain's DERA, France's ONERA, Germany's DLR, the Netherlands' NLR, just to name a few. Face it, Airbus is competitive because they are able to develop a family of aircraft within a three-year period (namely, the A320 in 1984 and the A330/340 in 1987). This could only happen because they were heavily subsidized by the government. If they were held to have demonstrated that they had a commercially viable product (the A320) before proceeding with the second project (the A330/340), McDonnell Douglas would probably be still around for at least another ten years. In fact, Airbus had not even demonstrated that they could make money with the A300/310 (well, they never could have done so), but they were given the money to build the A320 anyway. It took the Europeans nearly 40 years of subsidies to finally built a financially viable aircraft (the A320), I think it's just ludicrous to justify the subsidies because Boeing's first commercial jet nearly 50 years ago had a heavy military link. 50 years ago, the Eurpoean governments were heavily subsidizing their budding commercial jet aircraft industry, too. The only difference is they built so many aircraft that no one really wanted.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few thoughts on hub-and-spoke vs. point-to-point
The simple fact is hub-and-spoke will not go away, but point-to-point will inevitably grow at a faster rate than hub-and-spoke because the latter will likely to have more capacity constraints. With this said, I still think Airbus's logic is slightly flawed. The A380 will no doubt help some airlines to carry more passengers to the hub cities with the same number of flights. However, long-haul flights account for a very small percentage of any major hub airports total operations. Bringing in more non-O&D traffic into a hub means you need more regional capacities to carry those passengers to their final destinations. It really doesn't help reducing the congestion at the hub cities. Let's look at Heathrow. If this time AA and BA's new alliance is approved, it's more than likely that airlines like Continental, Delta, etc. will be given rights to fly into LHR. With more competition, it will be even harder to fill a 550-seat aircraft day in and day out. The B747 thrived in the Far East when the region had only two airlines on many of the major routes. Now, the Far East market is more open, correspondingly, smaller aircraft like the B777 and A330/340 are being used more often in the region. If Boeing can build a Sonic Cruiser that is economical, then airlines can use the aircraft to draw premium traffic from the hub-to-hub routes. Then, the lower unit operating cost of the A380 would mean nothing if they can't fill the plane with high-yield traffic. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be a handful of airlines that can make good use of the A380, but I am not so sure that the demand will be enough to allow Airbus to make money on the A380.
The simple fact is hub-and-spoke will not go away, but point-to-point will inevitably grow at a faster rate than hub-and-spoke because the latter will likely to have more capacity constraints. With this said, I still think Airbus's logic is slightly flawed. The A380 will no doubt help some airlines to carry more passengers to the hub cities with the same number of flights. However, long-haul flights account for a very small percentage of any major hub airports total operations. Bringing in more non-O&D traffic into a hub means you need more regional capacities to carry those passengers to their final destinations. It really doesn't help reducing the congestion at the hub cities. Let's look at Heathrow. If this time AA and BA's new alliance is approved, it's more than likely that airlines like Continental, Delta, etc. will be given rights to fly into LHR. With more competition, it will be even harder to fill a 550-seat aircraft day in and day out. The B747 thrived in the Far East when the region had only two airlines on many of the major routes. Now, the Far East market is more open, correspondingly, smaller aircraft like the B777 and A330/340 are being used more often in the region. If Boeing can build a Sonic Cruiser that is economical, then airlines can use the aircraft to draw premium traffic from the hub-to-hub routes. Then, the lower unit operating cost of the A380 would mean nothing if they can't fill the plane with high-yield traffic. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be a handful of airlines that can make good use of the A380, but I am not so sure that the demand will be enough to allow Airbus to make money on the A380.
Guest
Posts: n/a
By using a romantic name Boeing has got many people hallucinating. This "Sonic Cruiser" is only increasing cruise speeds by a piddly 0.1 mach! This is the difference in cruise speeds between a 737 and a 727.
Technology leap? This is a technology slump. Why the heck are we considering spending bunches of money and burning tons of extra fuel to gain such a pathetic speed improvement? I spent many hours cruising around at 0.95, thirty years ago! Either produce something worthwhile, like a reduced sonic boom aeroplane flying at least 1.5 mach, or save our money.
Now there's an idea, if we could make the boom acceptable that would be worth something.
Technology leap? This is a technology slump. Why the heck are we considering spending bunches of money and burning tons of extra fuel to gain such a pathetic speed improvement? I spent many hours cruising around at 0.95, thirty years ago! Either produce something worthwhile, like a reduced sonic boom aeroplane flying at least 1.5 mach, or save our money.
Now there's an idea, if we could make the boom acceptable that would be worth something.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the hub-and-spoke vs point-to-point question. Here's a link to an FAA report on current and future (10 year projected) airport capacities for 31 of the larger airports in the US.
http://www.faa.gov/events/benchma rks/DOWNLOAD/pdf/airport_capacity_benchmarks.pdf
What's interesting is the projected future capacity limits and delays at the US airports most often used for international (long haul) flights such as LAX, JFK, ORD, etc. Some of these airports cannot tolerate a lot of hub-and-spoke growth.
[ 05 August 2001: Message edited by: Flight Safety ]
http://www.faa.gov/events/benchma rks/DOWNLOAD/pdf/airport_capacity_benchmarks.pdf
What's interesting is the projected future capacity limits and delays at the US airports most often used for international (long haul) flights such as LAX, JFK, ORD, etc. Some of these airports cannot tolerate a lot of hub-and-spoke growth.
[ 05 August 2001: Message edited by: Flight Safety ]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lookout Mtn Tennessee
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be interesting to see how this project progresses, without military contracts to "subsidize" r&d, no civil airplanes would exist period, without up to 48% "discounts" on airplanes, airbus would have a very different market share...a "measly" .10 mach cruise would sure have made me happy more than once when operating on the back side of the clock, and we didn't even have the phenomenal range that airliners are capable of today....so let's wait and see how it transpires...Boeing did make an unfortunate comment to the press that enraged the "greenies"...which could be the whole project's undoing in the end...fingers crossed
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Englands newest City
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which passenger checks the aircraft type before booking. Not many at a guess. It will be down to price for ticket against journey time. The majority of pax just want to get to there destination as quickly and cheaply as possible 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boing-
When you were cruising at .95 thirty years ago, how much did jet-A cost, what was your fuel flow, and more importantly what was the range at that speed?
Yeah, the Convair 880 would outrun just about anything short of a B-58, but it SUCKED gas worse than a 426 Hemi at full throttle!
A freind of mine once owned a 427 El Camino that would flat smoke anything in town, but he couldn't pass a gas station without stopping to fill the tank. A lot of fun, but basically useless (well, he did put Astroturf in the back, for some reason
).
The Cruiser will give us back the speed of those halcyon days of cheap fuel, with range and costs in line with today's realities.
When you were cruising at .95 thirty years ago, how much did jet-A cost, what was your fuel flow, and more importantly what was the range at that speed?
Yeah, the Convair 880 would outrun just about anything short of a B-58, but it SUCKED gas worse than a 426 Hemi at full throttle!
A freind of mine once owned a 427 El Camino that would flat smoke anything in town, but he couldn't pass a gas station without stopping to fill the tank. A lot of fun, but basically useless (well, he did put Astroturf in the back, for some reason
).The Cruiser will give us back the speed of those halcyon days of cheap fuel, with range and costs in line with today's realities.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The point is, MachO, that Boeing is an aiframe producer. The aerodynamic part of the high speed cruise problem has been solved for years. Boeing is producing nothing new or exciting (unless you are a 737 driver).
I grant you we used a lot of gas in the "old" days but you must allow me to put modern engines in my old airframe and then run comparisons. I did not fly that magnificent aeroplane but I would bet you that an airliner based on the aerodynamics of the Victor bomber with new engines would be a worldbeater compared with the Sonic. (It would also look a lot prettier!!!)
As for your Chevy the parallel still applies. Upgrade the engine to a modern 32 valve, tweak the suspension and you would get more use of the Astroturf at a fraction of the cost of a Ferrari!
I grant you we used a lot of gas in the "old" days but you must allow me to put modern engines in my old airframe and then run comparisons. I did not fly that magnificent aeroplane but I would bet you that an airliner based on the aerodynamics of the Victor bomber with new engines would be a worldbeater compared with the Sonic. (It would also look a lot prettier!!!)
As for your Chevy the parallel still applies. Upgrade the engine to a modern 32 valve, tweak the suspension and you would get more use of the Astroturf at a fraction of the cost of a Ferrari!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I reading this stuff never ceases to amaze me. I often wonder why there are so many cynical, bitter and twisted people out there that immediately feel the need to shoot down anyone that comes up with a good idea. Why don't we just wait and see what Boeing can do? They've got a good idea, admittedly, not perfect, but it's a move in the right direction... It may not cruise at mach 10, but I'm sure they'll gel alot out of just trying to built this thing that will go a long way to flying at mach 10. Good on them for trying. At least it shows a little imagination, which is more than I can say for alot of these posts...
Have a nice day!
Have a nice day!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Birmingham, England (sometimes)
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok,
my original post WAS a bit of a wind-up. I actually subscibe to Mapshift's viewpoint that without the backing of the military establishment none of this would have got as far as it has.
Also, there is still a fundamental difference between the American and European approaches. It seems the Americans do things because they can see the future and see the potential whereas in Europe things seem to be done for the glory of doing them.
Anyway, long may both sides persue their goals, it keeps us engineering types in a job!
VnV...
[ 07 August 2001: Message edited by: VnV2178B ]
my original post WAS a bit of a wind-up. I actually subscibe to Mapshift's viewpoint that without the backing of the military establishment none of this would have got as far as it has.
Also, there is still a fundamental difference between the American and European approaches. It seems the Americans do things because they can see the future and see the potential whereas in Europe things seem to be done for the glory of doing them.
Anyway, long may both sides persue their goals, it keeps us engineering types in a job!
VnV...
[ 07 August 2001: Message edited by: VnV2178B ]
