Boeing's Sonic Cruiser revised to Mach 1.8 ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Boston, MA, USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing's Sonic Cruiser revised to Mach 1.8 ?
The story reported on Telegraph's website:
Boeing unveils new Concorde
Boeing unveils new Concorde
By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 07/12/2001)
PLANS for a successor to Concorde which would be three times cheaper to fly are being drawn up by the American manufacturers, Boeing.
The company said yesterday that it had been asked by airlines to revise its designs for a "Sonic Cruiser" to produce an aircraft capable of flying at 1.8 times the speed of sound, roughly 1,200mph.
Boeing's initial concept, announced nine months ago, envisaged a plane that would travel at 0.98 of the speed of sound, about 10 or 15 per cent faster than conventional jets.
However, a group of leading carriers believes that the time gain offered by the original version will be insufficient, and wants to offer passengers much more radical reductions in journey times.
Wind tunnel tests on the basic Sonic Cruiser have shown that its unique front-located winglets and outward-leaning twin tails have reduced to almost zero the buffeting effect expected as the aircraft approaches the sound barrier.
Work is also proceeding on adapting the shape of the main double-delta wings to decrease the impact of the sonic boom, opening the possibility that supersonic flight over land might become achievable for the first time.
Pete Rumsey, Boeing's director of aircraft development, said advances in technology would allow the twin-engined aircraft to be as fuel-efficient per passenger as any existing jet.
Boeing unveils new Concorde
Boeing unveils new Concorde
By Paul Marston, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 07/12/2001)
PLANS for a successor to Concorde which would be three times cheaper to fly are being drawn up by the American manufacturers, Boeing.
The company said yesterday that it had been asked by airlines to revise its designs for a "Sonic Cruiser" to produce an aircraft capable of flying at 1.8 times the speed of sound, roughly 1,200mph.
Boeing's initial concept, announced nine months ago, envisaged a plane that would travel at 0.98 of the speed of sound, about 10 or 15 per cent faster than conventional jets.
However, a group of leading carriers believes that the time gain offered by the original version will be insufficient, and wants to offer passengers much more radical reductions in journey times.
Wind tunnel tests on the basic Sonic Cruiser have shown that its unique front-located winglets and outward-leaning twin tails have reduced to almost zero the buffeting effect expected as the aircraft approaches the sound barrier.
Work is also proceeding on adapting the shape of the main double-delta wings to decrease the impact of the sonic boom, opening the possibility that supersonic flight over land might become achievable for the first time.
Pete Rumsey, Boeing's director of aircraft development, said advances in technology would allow the twin-engined aircraft to be as fuel-efficient per passenger as any existing jet.
ENTREPPRUNEUR
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airlines wouldn't say 'Can we have a plane that flies at 1200 mph'. Stripping out the journalese we are left with 'Nobody wants the Sonic Cruiser'. What a surprise.
I'll be interested to see Boeing's share price.
I'll be interested to see Boeing's share price.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so the good idea of flying this wonderful aircraft at M0.98 is already discarded?
it seems the americans want to build another Concord : good luck...
Reducing the sonic boom (?) - diminishing the sonic vortices with the winglets -
Good to start the day with some laughs
(I have been flying aircraft at Mach 2.2 in the past - I have some ideas about it)
it seems the americans want to build another Concord : good luck...
Reducing the sonic boom (?) - diminishing the sonic vortices with the winglets -
Good to start the day with some laughs
(I have been flying aircraft at Mach 2.2 in the past - I have some ideas about it)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M.98 seemed a lot of effort for little benefit, 1.8 makes much more sense.
As for supersonic over land, I would have thought everyone knows that it would not have been banned if Concorde had been made by the US!
As for supersonic over land, I would have thought everyone knows that it would not have been banned if Concorde had been made by the US!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
When my Grandfather called his congressman and pitched a bitch about sonic booms, it was because military aircraft had cracked the wall in his house. He couldn't have cared less about the Concord. An F-104, probably out of Big Spring, had passed right over our place, and not only was the house damaged, but half our cows freaked out and jumped the fence.
When I was a kid, sonic booms knocked the windows out of my old school building on a regular basis.
You guys can cry all you want, but the real reason that supersonic flight over the continental US was banned, was because the tax payers demanded it. They were tired of their property being damaged, not to mention being shaken out of bed at 0300. The ban may have had the effect of rendering Concord even more non profitable than it already was, but trust me, nobody was thinking about that anyway. The ban helped to put Boeing out of the supersonic transport business as well, and they weren't happy about that as it cost them a ton of money.
I suggest that instead of sniping at the (Super) Sonic Cruiser, a more profitable tactic might be to participate in the project, or British Aerospace might go the way of Norton and BSA.
When my Grandfather called his congressman and pitched a bitch about sonic booms, it was because military aircraft had cracked the wall in his house. He couldn't have cared less about the Concord. An F-104, probably out of Big Spring, had passed right over our place, and not only was the house damaged, but half our cows freaked out and jumped the fence.
When I was a kid, sonic booms knocked the windows out of my old school building on a regular basis.
You guys can cry all you want, but the real reason that supersonic flight over the continental US was banned, was because the tax payers demanded it. They were tired of their property being damaged, not to mention being shaken out of bed at 0300. The ban may have had the effect of rendering Concord even more non profitable than it already was, but trust me, nobody was thinking about that anyway. The ban helped to put Boeing out of the supersonic transport business as well, and they weren't happy about that as it cost them a ton of money.
I suggest that instead of sniping at the (Super) Sonic Cruiser, a more profitable tactic might be to participate in the project, or British Aerospace might go the way of Norton and BSA.
Victim of Blackmailing Scouser
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zürich, Switzerland (But a Brit)
Age: 59
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mach.
Nice rant.
Presumably the F104's that knocked out your school windows were flying a wee bit lower than FL500?
Incidentally, BAE Systems are highly unlikely to go out of business anytime soon, seeing as they've got a rather large piece of the Joint Strike Fighter pie. Er... unlike Boeing.
TW
Nice rant.
Presumably the F104's that knocked out your school windows were flying a wee bit lower than FL500?
Incidentally, BAE Systems are highly unlikely to go out of business anytime soon, seeing as they've got a rather large piece of the Joint Strike Fighter pie. Er... unlike Boeing.
TW
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I highly doubt that it will cruise supersonic with the current design. All the airline customers clearly want cost, fuelflow and noise to be no more expensive than a 767. Concorde Mark 2? Well if they need to develop a special engine only for it that might work financially.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tricky, although a little rough, Mach pretty well has it right. You must remember that it was in the 60’s when Boeing was designing the US answer to the Concorde. The United States, and a lot of Europe, was going through a period of anti-everything. Anti-war, anti-government, anti-bra (well that bit was alright), anti-establishment, anti-older generation, etc.
These were the ‘Nixon’ (The fact that Johnson was president matters little.) years. The media was just in the infancy of rabid reporting of “Anything to sell and increase rating” type news. For the younger generation (The “Don’t trust anyone over thirty.” Crowd.) the only true driving force was the bigger the headlines the better. Remember Woodstock, LSD, Timothy Leary, sit-ins, “Drop out, tune in.”, race riots. The SLA (Patty Hearst), well, I could go on forever, but I think you get my drift.
In 1965 (I think) the U.S. Air Force was directed to conduct supersonic flights over a medium sized city in the United States. That city was Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I don’t know why we were so lucky. Oklahoma City could be considered to be the buckle of the ‘Bible Belt’ of the United States. One would be hard pressed to find a area in the United States that was more conservative or patriotic then as well as today. One can only speculate that the government’s thinking was that if the citizens of Oklahoma City complained there was a true problem with sonic booms.
The first airplanes used were, in fact, F-104s. As the war in Viet Nam heated up the F-104s were replaced by F-106s. As this happen a long time ago my memory (like everything else about me) may be a bit rusty. However as I recall there were three flights a day. The first around 08:00, 12:00 and 17:00. The altitudes varied from very high, around 50,000ft to ridiculously low, 18,000ft. I believe these flights lasted for over three months.
The damage claims amounted to over 10’s of millions or dollars. Hens stopped laying eggs, cows stopped producing milk, chicken farms lost thousands chickens, building walls and foundations cracked, windows were shattered (this was from the low altitude runs), dishes fell from cabinets and more of the same type claims. The local newspapers were flooded with letters complaining about the sonic booms, preachers in churches gave sermons on the Devil’s work in creating the sonic boom (well I told you that Oklahoma City is the buckle of the ‘Bible Belt’
. Although I must say a lot of Oklahomans said they really were not against the sonic booms, they just wanted them to be moved to Texas. Oklahoma and Texas don’t get along to good together, especially during football season.
Because of the results of the flights over Oklahoma City and the current mood of the country Congress refused to fund any more monies to Boeing for the SST. This was devastating to Boeing. Boeing lost 100’s of millions of dollars and had to layoff thousands of workers. In fact there was a billboard on the Interstate highway leaving Seattle to the south that said “Would the last person leaving Seattle please turn off the lights.”
That is the real reason why the Concorde was banned from flying over the United States land mass. It had nothing to do with the fact that Boeing did not build the SST. In fact there was a large movement by a lot of people in the US to not even let the Concorde land or takeoff anywhere in the United States. Fortunately their views were unheeded by Congress and the wonderful Concorde was allowed to operate in and out of the United States.
There is humorous story I must relate about the sonic boom flights over Oklahoma City. A popular radio station had a talk show and as one can imagine a lot of the calls concerned the sonic boom flights. One morning a man called the station to complain about the sonic booms.
Radio show host; “Yes sir, what is your problem about the sonic booms?”
Caller; “I get woken up way too early in the morning because of the blasted things.”
Host; “Well how early are you woken up?”
Caller; “4:30 in the morning.”
Host; “4:30 in the morning! The first boom is not until 8am, what are you talking about?”
Caller; “Yeah, I know. I fly the first morning flight and I got to get up at 4:30 and I’m sick and tired of it!”
[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: con-pilot ]
Ok, put in the "e", sorry about that.
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: con-pilot ]
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: con-pilot ]
These were the ‘Nixon’ (The fact that Johnson was president matters little.) years. The media was just in the infancy of rabid reporting of “Anything to sell and increase rating” type news. For the younger generation (The “Don’t trust anyone over thirty.” Crowd.) the only true driving force was the bigger the headlines the better. Remember Woodstock, LSD, Timothy Leary, sit-ins, “Drop out, tune in.”, race riots. The SLA (Patty Hearst), well, I could go on forever, but I think you get my drift.
In 1965 (I think) the U.S. Air Force was directed to conduct supersonic flights over a medium sized city in the United States. That city was Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I don’t know why we were so lucky. Oklahoma City could be considered to be the buckle of the ‘Bible Belt’ of the United States. One would be hard pressed to find a area in the United States that was more conservative or patriotic then as well as today. One can only speculate that the government’s thinking was that if the citizens of Oklahoma City complained there was a true problem with sonic booms.
The first airplanes used were, in fact, F-104s. As the war in Viet Nam heated up the F-104s were replaced by F-106s. As this happen a long time ago my memory (like everything else about me) may be a bit rusty. However as I recall there were three flights a day. The first around 08:00, 12:00 and 17:00. The altitudes varied from very high, around 50,000ft to ridiculously low, 18,000ft. I believe these flights lasted for over three months.
The damage claims amounted to over 10’s of millions or dollars. Hens stopped laying eggs, cows stopped producing milk, chicken farms lost thousands chickens, building walls and foundations cracked, windows were shattered (this was from the low altitude runs), dishes fell from cabinets and more of the same type claims. The local newspapers were flooded with letters complaining about the sonic booms, preachers in churches gave sermons on the Devil’s work in creating the sonic boom (well I told you that Oklahoma City is the buckle of the ‘Bible Belt’
. Although I must say a lot of Oklahomans said they really were not against the sonic booms, they just wanted them to be moved to Texas. Oklahoma and Texas don’t get along to good together, especially during football season.Because of the results of the flights over Oklahoma City and the current mood of the country Congress refused to fund any more monies to Boeing for the SST. This was devastating to Boeing. Boeing lost 100’s of millions of dollars and had to layoff thousands of workers. In fact there was a billboard on the Interstate highway leaving Seattle to the south that said “Would the last person leaving Seattle please turn off the lights.”
That is the real reason why the Concorde was banned from flying over the United States land mass. It had nothing to do with the fact that Boeing did not build the SST. In fact there was a large movement by a lot of people in the US to not even let the Concorde land or takeoff anywhere in the United States. Fortunately their views were unheeded by Congress and the wonderful Concorde was allowed to operate in and out of the United States.
There is humorous story I must relate about the sonic boom flights over Oklahoma City. A popular radio station had a talk show and as one can imagine a lot of the calls concerned the sonic boom flights. One morning a man called the station to complain about the sonic booms.
Radio show host; “Yes sir, what is your problem about the sonic booms?”
Caller; “I get woken up way too early in the morning because of the blasted things.”
Host; “Well how early are you woken up?”
Caller; “4:30 in the morning.”
Host; “4:30 in the morning! The first boom is not until 8am, what are you talking about?”
Caller; “Yeah, I know. I fly the first morning flight and I got to get up at 4:30 and I’m sick and tired of it!”
[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: con-pilot ]
Ok, put in the "e", sorry about that.
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: con-pilot ]
[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: con-pilot ]
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trickey Woo-
Yeah, they were flying pretty low. Low altitude training routes abound in the West Texas area, even today. Given the occasional nav error, they sometimes came right over our small town of 6000 inhabitants. I heard a story once of a guy finding a long piece of telephone cable draped over his house. Folks said that a jet must have snagged it somewhere, and that it must have fallen off the jet, and onto this guy's house......I guess its possible.
Back in the 60's the military blasted around at full throttle, not much higher than the tree tops. I remember seeing nearly every type of the "century series" zooming down the Brazos river. After they passed, the fish would quit biting.
In the late 70's I was a roughneck in the oil fields. Every time we moved the rig, you could bet that within the next day or two we would get bounced by RF-4's out of Bergstrom, or T-38's out of Sheppard, or Air Guard 105's from God knows where.
They were subsonic (well mostly) then, but it was a hoot to see a simulated bomb run from the victim's vantage point. Once we asked our derrick man, a guy we called "side-ways" if he had seen that plane. He responded, "Hell man, I saw the pilot!"
I understand that the Italians and Germans used 104's for the low level strike mission a long time after the USAF parked all theirs. Something about the high wing loading producing accurate bomb delivery in the afternoon bumps, and ride comfort for the crews.
I always thought that was a cool plane...
Yeah, they were flying pretty low. Low altitude training routes abound in the West Texas area, even today. Given the occasional nav error, they sometimes came right over our small town of 6000 inhabitants. I heard a story once of a guy finding a long piece of telephone cable draped over his house. Folks said that a jet must have snagged it somewhere, and that it must have fallen off the jet, and onto this guy's house......I guess its possible.
Back in the 60's the military blasted around at full throttle, not much higher than the tree tops. I remember seeing nearly every type of the "century series" zooming down the Brazos river. After they passed, the fish would quit biting.
In the late 70's I was a roughneck in the oil fields. Every time we moved the rig, you could bet that within the next day or two we would get bounced by RF-4's out of Bergstrom, or T-38's out of Sheppard, or Air Guard 105's from God knows where.
They were subsonic (well mostly) then, but it was a hoot to see a simulated bomb run from the victim's vantage point. Once we asked our derrick man, a guy we called "side-ways" if he had seen that plane. He responded, "Hell man, I saw the pilot!"
I understand that the Italians and Germans used 104's for the low level strike mission a long time after the USAF parked all theirs. Something about the high wing loading producing accurate bomb delivery in the afternoon bumps, and ride comfort for the crews.
I always thought that was a cool plane...
Glasgow's Gallus Gigolo .... PPRuNeing is like making love to a beautiful woman ... I take hours.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I just be pedantic, and say that the aeroplane is called Concorde! If I get flamed for that, fair enough... 
(Edited to get the smiley working).
[ 08 December 2001: Message edited by: Capt Homesick ]
(Edited to get the smiley working).
[ 08 December 2001: Message edited by: Capt Homesick ]
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing doesn't need a big jump in speed to make the Sonic Cruiser (or Supersonic Cruiser) to be successful.
Superfically, the 0.98M aircraft is really not much: 15% increase in speed over the current generation of commercial aircraft. However, its potential to increase productivity is immense. In the best case scenario, an airline can use one aircraft to serve a daily US West Coast trans-Atlantic flight instead of the current two. That's a 100% increase in productivity. The 15% increase in speed just happens to be enough to allow airlines not to idle their aircraft on ground as often as they do now. Nowadays, good airlines can average around 12-14 hours of utilization of their long-haul jets. With a .98M aircraft, it has the potential to increase daily utilization rate to 16-18 hours (there are many examples similar to the US West Coast trans-Atlantic flights). Accounting for the 15% increase in speed, this is equivalent to 18.4-21.6 hours of utilization of a .80+M aircraft. This means airlines can increase the productivity of each aircraft by an astounding 50+%. Would I mind paying 20-30% more money for fuel (which increase the unit cost by about 5%) to increase the productivity of my aircraft by 50%? Of course I will.
Just take a look at how turboprops replaced piston-powered propellor planes, how turbojets replaced turboprops. You don't need to fly a whole lot faster and higher to be successful. The basic premise of a .98M aircraft is extremely sound. Don't be fooled by that small 15% increase in speed. It actually can be very valuable.
Superfically, the 0.98M aircraft is really not much: 15% increase in speed over the current generation of commercial aircraft. However, its potential to increase productivity is immense. In the best case scenario, an airline can use one aircraft to serve a daily US West Coast trans-Atlantic flight instead of the current two. That's a 100% increase in productivity. The 15% increase in speed just happens to be enough to allow airlines not to idle their aircraft on ground as often as they do now. Nowadays, good airlines can average around 12-14 hours of utilization of their long-haul jets. With a .98M aircraft, it has the potential to increase daily utilization rate to 16-18 hours (there are many examples similar to the US West Coast trans-Atlantic flights). Accounting for the 15% increase in speed, this is equivalent to 18.4-21.6 hours of utilization of a .80+M aircraft. This means airlines can increase the productivity of each aircraft by an astounding 50+%. Would I mind paying 20-30% more money for fuel (which increase the unit cost by about 5%) to increase the productivity of my aircraft by 50%? Of course I will.
Just take a look at how turboprops replaced piston-powered propellor planes, how turbojets replaced turboprops. You don't need to fly a whole lot faster and higher to be successful. The basic premise of a .98M aircraft is extremely sound. Don't be fooled by that small 15% increase in speed. It actually can be very valuable.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: London
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or if you were really, really clever, you could dove tail a west coast, followed by an east coast........
I think airline scheduling and fleet utilisation is on top of this particular one!
But you might just be right for a Europe - Far east route though
I think airline scheduling and fleet utilisation is on top of this particular one!
But you might just be right for a Europe - Far east route though
On the subject of sonic boom..
Surely every time the space shuttle comes in to land the locals of Florida are subjected to a double sonic boom. I remember hour building out in Titusville a few years back when one returned from a galaxy beyond... NEARLY SHAT MYSELF!!!! Thought I was back in Northern Ireland.
So what's the difference? If the space shuttle had been built in any other part of the world would it be allowed?
[By the way there could be a health link cos the chickens in Florida aren't producing milk, the cows wont lay eggs, but I think the citrus groves are unharmed!]
[ 08 December 2001: Message edited by: rhythm method ]
Surely every time the space shuttle comes in to land the locals of Florida are subjected to a double sonic boom. I remember hour building out in Titusville a few years back when one returned from a galaxy beyond... NEARLY SHAT MYSELF!!!! Thought I was back in Northern Ireland.
So what's the difference? If the space shuttle had been built in any other part of the world would it be allowed?
[By the way there could be a health link cos the chickens in Florida aren't producing milk, the cows wont lay eggs, but I think the citrus groves are unharmed!]
[ 08 December 2001: Message edited by: rhythm method ]
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am wondering how something can be three TIMES cheaper. If this reporter and his editors are trying to say the current price for a Concord ticket is three Times the cost of what a ticket on Boeing's new proposed craft will be, I could understand their journalistic reference but as it stands I am a little worried about their out math ability.
One must assume that this is a release that went through the Boeing PR folks. I hope that somewhere in their other calculations they have not used their "new" math to figure out something other than the cost of the ticket. Are not these Boeing guys susposed to be graduate engineers with some math background?
Just a thought.
One must assume that this is a release that went through the Boeing PR folks. I hope that somewhere in their other calculations they have not used their "new" math to figure out something other than the cost of the ticket. Are not these Boeing guys susposed to be graduate engineers with some math background?
Just a thought.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good on Boeing - Mach 0.98 would have been a pointless addition to their line-up. However - Mach 1.8 is still nowhere near the Mach 2.2 of Concorde that was developed 30 years ago. Concorde has shown that people pay to go fast so why bitch about cost? I say beat Concorde! With current technology it can't be too hard to travel faster than Concorde at a price far less than Concorde costed to develop (in excess of 1 billion pounds sterling in 1960/70's currency
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To All the detractors out there,
I don't understand all the animosity out there for this jet?, Who wouldn't want to fly such a machine? Concorde is a fantastic aircraft, but why do pilots doubt that 40 years later we can't build a better machine? remember, who would have thought we could build jets invisible to radar? or land on the moon? Good luck Boeing! I only wish I may have the opportunity to fly one of these Cruisers!
I don't understand all the animosity out there for this jet?, Who wouldn't want to fly such a machine? Concorde is a fantastic aircraft, but why do pilots doubt that 40 years later we can't build a better machine? remember, who would have thought we could build jets invisible to radar? or land on the moon? Good luck Boeing! I only wish I may have the opportunity to fly one of these Cruisers!