Boeing cancels Sonic Cruiser
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Spain
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing cancels Sonic Cruiser
According to a just published report of the WSJ Boeing has announced the cancelation o the Sonic Cruiser in favor of a so called "Super-Efficient" 767 successor.
Estimated entry into service date 2008.
As widely suspected, the entire SC-idea was somehow a marketing bulb, as the market clearly demands fuel (and not time) efficient products.
Estimated entry into service date 2008.
As widely suspected, the entire SC-idea was somehow a marketing bulb, as the market clearly demands fuel (and not time) efficient products.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Nashville
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: LHR
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a surprise! It was never going to work - why doesn't someone give Boeing a new sheet of paper? They used the only one they had on the 777! All the rest of there range is 30+ years old re-hashed...
Now that has got your blood up, I hope that they do launch an efficient new design to replace the 767, as it will simply annihilate the weakpoint in the Airbus range, the A300/310. If they have the guts to do something new, it will be a fine product.
I am, however, insulted that they thought any of us really believed the 'Chronic Loser'...
Now that has got your blood up, I hope that they do launch an efficient new design to replace the 767, as it will simply annihilate the weakpoint in the Airbus range, the A300/310. If they have the guts to do something new, it will be a fine product.
I am, however, insulted that they thought any of us really believed the 'Chronic Loser'...
' the weakpoint in the Airbus range, the A300/310'.......do you perceive that as a weak point due to size, capacity, non-FBW or any other reason?
I agree that Airbus has no product between the A321 and the A330 - and that seems a big mistake. A330 is too big and expensive for many applications, A321 far too small. I guess they really need to build something in the A310-size bracket - without the enormous 60m wingspan of the A330??
I agree that Airbus has no product between the A321 and the A330 - and that seems a big mistake. A330 is too big and expensive for many applications, A321 far too small. I guess they really need to build something in the A310-size bracket - without the enormous 60m wingspan of the A330??
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sonic cruiser was killed by september 11.
Fuel costs have been more or less flat for the last 30 years or so and will stay that way within a trading band.
What has gotten out of control (from the airline's point of view) is the crew costs. With the United pay raises that were making their way through the industry the value of speed (even an incremental increase) became quite large to the airlines as they could get more "work" ( eg.miles flown) in an hour out of a crew by going faster. So a fifteen percent increase in speed would be a 15 percent productivity gain for the airlines. That was BIG numbers and worth far more than a 15 percent increase in fuel burn.
Instead the airlines will get their productivity gains in the bankruptcy court instead, without having to buy ANY expensive aircraft, boeing or Airbus.
Cheers
Wino
Fuel costs have been more or less flat for the last 30 years or so and will stay that way within a trading band.
What has gotten out of control (from the airline's point of view) is the crew costs. With the United pay raises that were making their way through the industry the value of speed (even an incremental increase) became quite large to the airlines as they could get more "work" ( eg.miles flown) in an hour out of a crew by going faster. So a fifteen percent increase in speed would be a 15 percent productivity gain for the airlines. That was BIG numbers and worth far more than a 15 percent increase in fuel burn.
Instead the airlines will get their productivity gains in the bankruptcy court instead, without having to buy ANY expensive aircraft, boeing or Airbus.
Cheers
Wino
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on "767-SE"... is there any "shrink" potential in the A330?
If the 332 lost some frames and the centre tank would it be an interim fix to the lack of an A300/A310 replacement?
of further interest was this article in the same publication
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...boeing20.shtml
It refers to the proposal to build 767/747 on the same line being a "first". Do Airbus not manufacture 330/340 series on the same line? If not, why not? Presumably the "workshare" thing that means Hamburg builds 318s.
If the 332 lost some frames and the centre tank would it be an interim fix to the lack of an A300/A310 replacement?
of further interest was this article in the same publication
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...boeing20.shtml
It refers to the proposal to build 767/747 on the same line being a "first". Do Airbus not manufacture 330/340 series on the same line? If not, why not? Presumably the "workshare" thing that means Hamburg builds 318s.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree, 767 line is close to idle now. But how about the upcoming tanker? And the 747 has some unannounced orders hasn't it? So that might be another two year's worth as well.
Read they even might start some new final assbly for the 767follow-on elsewhere.
Read they even might start some new final assbly for the 767follow-on elsewhere.
Personally - I say again, personally - I feel that the Achilles heel of any A330 'shrink' proposal would be the 60m wing. Just too darn big for many aerodromes...
But a modernised FBW version of the A310 Combi would be a totally different kettle of fish. A310+ with anywhere between 1 to 5 additional cargo tanks would be a most interesting proposal, I would suggest.
But a modernised FBW version of the A310 Combi would be a totally different kettle of fish. A310+ with anywhere between 1 to 5 additional cargo tanks would be a most interesting proposal, I would suggest.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First?
To: Mark D
It may have been done long ago but to my knowledge the first major commercial operation building two different jets on the same production line was done by Douglas Aircraft when they integrated the DC-8 and DC-9 on the same production line. Doing so is what did them in. It was during the war in Vietnam and all available Titanium was being diverted to the war effort. It just so happened that the galley system in the DC-9 was made of Titanium and it was an integral part of the aircraft structure. As the supply dried up a lot of DC-9s on the production line could not be advanced to the next production station.
Another thing is that the DC-9s that were already complete could not get engines as the DC-9s engines were being used on a Navy Aircraft. Concrete blocks were hung from the engine mounts to simulate the weight of the engines but they do not provide much thrust.
With the blockage, the DC-8s could not be advanced and Douglas was forced to pay late delivery charges for both aircraft to the airlines. This broke them financially and with no income being generated they went under. Hopefully this does not happen to Boeing.
It refers to the proposal to build 767/747 on the same line being a "first". Do Airbus not manufacture 330/340 series on the same line? If not, why not .
Another thing is that the DC-9s that were already complete could not get engines as the DC-9s engines were being used on a Navy Aircraft. Concrete blocks were hung from the engine mounts to simulate the weight of the engines but they do not provide much thrust.
With the blockage, the DC-8s could not be advanced and Douglas was forced to pay late delivery charges for both aircraft to the airlines. This broke them financially and with no income being generated they went under. Hopefully this does not happen to Boeing.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
Point taken, maybe the A350/360/370 designations missed out refer to A300/A310 follow ons, but let's face it, a shrunk 330 is a bit more likely if the beancounters have their way. It will be very difficult to squeeze any development finance out of European govts as per the 380 given the current economic climate, whereas Boeing probably will begin touting 767SE for military applications as usual.
The 60m wingspan is a bit difficult, no question, but I reckon a 767SE will have a more 777 like wing and therefore probably be in a similar fix. Thus airports will have to eventually make up their mind as to whether they want widebodies at all post 2010 or so and if so spend the money to widen the facilities.
Of course, all this is predicated on whether 330 can indeed be shrunk, or if it were just too short for the wing.
Point taken, maybe the A350/360/370 designations missed out refer to A300/A310 follow ons, but let's face it, a shrunk 330 is a bit more likely if the beancounters have their way. It will be very difficult to squeeze any development finance out of European govts as per the 380 given the current economic climate, whereas Boeing probably will begin touting 767SE for military applications as usual.
The 60m wingspan is a bit difficult, no question, but I reckon a 767SE will have a more 777 like wing and therefore probably be in a similar fix. Thus airports will have to eventually make up their mind as to whether they want widebodies at all post 2010 or so and if so spend the money to widen the facilities.
Of course, all this is predicated on whether 330 can indeed be shrunk, or if it were just too short for the wing.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Northport, NW England
Age: 44
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its anything like the 767-400 they might as well give up!
To my knowledge Airbus have always looked at the shrink of the A330 to replace the A310/300 albeit its was on the back burner with the "Big-Bird" A380 dominating its strategy.
I was involved in a study at uni with BAE/Airbus UK into using a 767/A330 type to launch large cruise missiles through the belly of the aircraft and was privy to engineering drawings that can prove the engineering viability of the A330 "shrink" - Airbus knows it will work, its all about tweaking the wing tips, TE devices and extending the vertical Stab (think modern day 747-SP).......Airbus felt that it was just not a priority then - however if it did go-ahead my bet would be on the Airbus if you look at the total package (ie. Cross Crew Ops, fleet commonality, inherent efficiency)
I've discussed the pros & cons of both stable of a/c with several of the pilots I work with and the main advtg of the 767-300 (and Boeing A/C in gerneral) from this particular Charters point of view is we can get it in and out of places like CFU - which they beileve the 330 wouldn't get into in its present incarnation. (BTW we've seen the A330 get into other Greek Islands like Heraklion).
My concern is that 767-SE will be a re-hash of Boeings' existing designs and that it'll sacrifice performance for efficiency:
As I'm assuming Mass Reduction will be Boeings primary target in the design re-hash and will propbably replace a significant proportion of conventional materials with composites - more than likely primary structures just like in the 777 but to a greater extent. These materials can be complicated to repair - requiring specialised equipment more akin to a plastics laboratory as opposed to a hangar. Would airlines save in Fuel but Pay Out in Maintenance investment?
I think it is good that Boeing is persuing this model, though I'm dissappointed that it's dropped the sonic cruiser. I'll bet there are some engineers in Seattle seriously hacked off!. At the end of the day its good news that Boeing is persuing this design - who knows what technologies Airbus will be able to half-inch!
World of Tweed
P.s. Food for thought?? - Airbus will shrink the A330, add a sprinkling of 'super-efficient' technology and tout it as "the perfect addition to you airbus fleet" and it'll be in service probably in/or about the same time frame. Such is the beauty of a modular design.
I was involved in a study at uni with BAE/Airbus UK into using a 767/A330 type to launch large cruise missiles through the belly of the aircraft and was privy to engineering drawings that can prove the engineering viability of the A330 "shrink" - Airbus knows it will work, its all about tweaking the wing tips, TE devices and extending the vertical Stab (think modern day 747-SP).......Airbus felt that it was just not a priority then - however if it did go-ahead my bet would be on the Airbus if you look at the total package (ie. Cross Crew Ops, fleet commonality, inherent efficiency)
I've discussed the pros & cons of both stable of a/c with several of the pilots I work with and the main advtg of the 767-300 (and Boeing A/C in gerneral) from this particular Charters point of view is we can get it in and out of places like CFU - which they beileve the 330 wouldn't get into in its present incarnation. (BTW we've seen the A330 get into other Greek Islands like Heraklion).
My concern is that 767-SE will be a re-hash of Boeings' existing designs and that it'll sacrifice performance for efficiency:
As I'm assuming Mass Reduction will be Boeings primary target in the design re-hash and will propbably replace a significant proportion of conventional materials with composites - more than likely primary structures just like in the 777 but to a greater extent. These materials can be complicated to repair - requiring specialised equipment more akin to a plastics laboratory as opposed to a hangar. Would airlines save in Fuel but Pay Out in Maintenance investment?
I think it is good that Boeing is persuing this model, though I'm dissappointed that it's dropped the sonic cruiser. I'll bet there are some engineers in Seattle seriously hacked off!. At the end of the day its good news that Boeing is persuing this design - who knows what technologies Airbus will be able to half-inch!
World of Tweed
P.s. Food for thought?? - Airbus will shrink the A330, add a sprinkling of 'super-efficient' technology and tout it as "the perfect addition to you airbus fleet" and it'll be in service probably in/or about the same time frame. Such is the beauty of a modular design.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: london
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pity about the Sonic Cruiser. At last something new in aircraft development and a way of getting people to their destination quicker than anything except Concord. In my view it was an exciting project ... something to make the world sit up and take notice ... not just another boring version of the A340 or 777.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the beginning everybody knew that it was not going to work - or at least to fly at M 0.98 with the sort of design appearing on the ads!
And about the A330... detractors ususally speak about its wingspan on the ground, and supposed associated problems (turning in front of the terminal aera, and so on)
What a tortuous way to admit that it flies beautifully and efficiently in the air, and that its major weakness could be this one ! (my Ferrari is great, but a little bit difficult to negotiate the exit of my garden at the first attempt)
Long life to the Airbus family.
Smart move of Boeing to make this announcement, the Saturday before Christmas, when not too many people are listening.
And about the A330... detractors ususally speak about its wingspan on the ground, and supposed associated problems (turning in front of the terminal aera, and so on)
What a tortuous way to admit that it flies beautifully and efficiently in the air, and that its major weakness could be this one ! (my Ferrari is great, but a little bit difficult to negotiate the exit of my garden at the first attempt)
Long life to the Airbus family.
Smart move of Boeing to make this announcement, the Saturday before Christmas, when not too many people are listening.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Strategic hamlet
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pity about the Sonic Cruiser. At last something new in aircraft development and a way of getting people to their destination quicker than anything except Concord. In my view it was an exciting project ... something to make the world sit up and take notice ... not just another boring version of the A340 or 777.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Massey1Bravo, and it will suffer a pigstrike on its maiden flight!
Boeing are really turning out to be a joke, aren't they? Ford Anglias with posh stereos and spin which would put Blair to shame... I would have thought Airbus would have made a meal of this in the press, but they're too busy building good, dependable, innovative, efficient, aircraft which are a pleasure to fly!!!
Boeing are really turning out to be a joke, aren't they? Ford Anglias with posh stereos and spin which would put Blair to shame... I would have thought Airbus would have made a meal of this in the press, but they're too busy building good, dependable, innovative, efficient, aircraft which are a pleasure to fly!!!
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When pigs fly....
I would have thought Airbus would have made a meal of this in the press, but they're too busy building good, dependable, innovative, efficient, aircraft which are a pleasure to fly!!!
