Boeing Sonic Cruiser Project Shelved 329
jonerik writes "The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is reporting that Boeing is set to announce the cancellation of its Sonic Cruiser project tomorrow; not because the technology wasn't mature enough, but because the company was unable to make the case for an airliner that would fly at just under the speed of sound in the airline industry's post-9/11 business environment. Too bad, too. It was a very cool-looking plane. Instead, the company will focus on a new ultra-efficient airliner - codenamed 'Yellowstone' - that will look very much like its existing 767 and 777 models. The new aircraft is expected to be ready to enter service in 2008, two years after Airbus' mammoth 555-seat A380 is expected to be ready for service."
That's too bad (Score:5, Funny)
Close (Score:5, Insightful)
Boeing used to make the inspiring projects that kids got excited about. And it worked as a business model. There isn't a plane that Boeing did that was risky and innovative that didn't pay off. The 707, 727, 737 and 747 were all radical for their day. And these innovations built Boeing and excited a generation of kids in the 1960s. And these risky designs were hugely successful against a huge number of competitors.
From 1970 on, though, Boeing became risk-averse and has built nothing but 707 look-alikes that have been marginally successful even when they only had one competitor in Airbus.
It's also worth noting that the lack of innovation happened first and the lack of competitors later. It wasn't a lack of competition that killed innovation. It was a lack of innovation that allowed the bean counters to drive each other out of a generic business.
Next U.S. bomb truck (Score:3, Informative)
Note that while Boeing disclaimed that the Sonic Cruiser design ever had any military applications in mind, observers were quick to point out that many of the features of the proposed design were clearly chosen with military applications in mind, such as the "stealthy" engine inlets.
What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:5, Interesting)
sPh
Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:2, Interesting)
A blended-wing plane, while potentially able to increase passenger numbers even more, would likely need major terminal redesign - something which will simply not happen at most airports today.
Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with that, though, is that airlines are having a hard enough time filling their existing planes. The A380 will replace the 747-400 on some high traffic, long-haul routes, like LA and DFW to Sydney, London to Sydney, New York to Hong Kong, and London to Singapore.
What the US domestic market needs is actually more sub-hundred-passenger aircraft. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the problem then becomes the airports.
But to see how airlines ought to work, just look at Southwest Airlines. They're, as far as I know, the only profitable national airline flying today. They fly one plane-- the 737-- on all their routes, and they fly into smaller airports. Rather than flying into JFK they fly into Islip. Rather than flying into DFW they fly into Dallas Love. Their service is impeccable, if not exactly first class, and their ticket prices are low, low.
Re: Southwest (Score:2, Insightful)
No, Southwest shows that Americans like freedom of choice. When I fly Southwest, if I don't want to sit next to some sweaty 400-pounder who hasn't bathed in a month, I don't have to. If some woman with a litter of bratty, ill-mannered, obviously undisciplined "because-we-don't-believe-in-striking-children" screaming brats sits down next to me, I can (and do) move.
Friend, if it's so horrible, fly somebody else! There are lots of airlines out there that offer assigned seating.
Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:5, Insightful)
What thay are saying is that the jet airliner industry is now "mature". Until the next major technological innovation, aircraft will continue to look and perform as they do now. So capitalise on the large-scale market and leave the edges to someone else. Be Ford, not Ferrari.
What surprises me is replacing the 767 rather than the much older 737. The technology must be dated despite the many facelifts, and there must be a lot of planes up for replacement. Are thay abandoning that market to Airbusses 319/320/321?
Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:5, Informative)
The only resemblance between the original 737 and the 737-900 is that the planes are roughly the same size. Virtually every component has been upgraded-- engines, avionics, cockpit, everything. Even the airframe and the wing have been substantially upgraded.
767 is a dog (Score:2, Informative)
It is a shame that the Sonic Cruiser is going into mothballs.
Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:3, Insightful)
All of the traditional air carriers are in trouble and the entire industry to due for a shakeout. Southwest, JetBlue, and RyanAir are setting the new standard in cheap, efficient travel.
Making a gargantuan aircraft introduces more liabilities than benefits. Insurance rates will be higher, airport terminals will be stressed too much and the cost will be too high to support any kind of volume.
Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:2, Interesting)
I honestly thought that the supersonic jet would be the savior of this company. Now all we can hope for is that they die peacefully (without gov't bailouts) and some company that actually wants to innovate will rise from the ashes.
Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:5, Informative)
2. All the tech from JSF (which wasn't going to win) is going into UCAVs
3. Boeing still makes Apaches, V-22, RAH-66, F-18E/F, F-18, F-15, systems for B-1,B-2,B-52 and F-22. They have a contract for the KC-135 replacment, the C-17, the replacment for the KC-135 replacment as well as supporting KC-10 and KC-135.
Boeing is also involved in the PAC-3 upgrade to Aegis, the YAL-1 laser, and a whole load of missiles and missile defence systems.
Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:2)
Their supersonic airliner project (the 2707 [boeing.com]) was canceled more than 30 years ago. I don't think that has any bearing on how Boeing is doing today.
(Read more about the Boeing 2707 here [chariot.net.au].)
Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they're not really quitting competing with Airbus. In fact, what they're doing could be described as increasing competition with Airbus, rather than pursuing wacky pie-in-the-sky designs that no airline can afford. Airbus might want to do the same vis-a-vis its A380. I think the A380 is a cool plane (double decked!), but I just don't see the increased demand for long-range air transport the airlines would need to support purchasing such a HUGE plane.
Or do they have some secret plan (a blended-wing-body design perhaps) dramatic enough to break them out of their current rut, and are just waiting for the right time to announce it? Cause the way Boeing is going they won't be a factor in commercial sales in 5-7 years.
There's a time for revolutionary designs, and a time for sitting back and polishing the ones you've already got. These are pretty lean times for the airlines, so it's likewise a lean time for aircraft manufacturers. The only time airlines upgrade their fleets is when they have money to burn. Aircraft aren't like computers. An airline can keep an aircraft for 20-30 years, so they can afford to wait. Besides, I don't think Boeing is dumping their R&D department on the street; they're just cancelling a project whose time has not yet come.
Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, the way air travel has taken a hit the last year and a half, I'm not sure the A380 is such a good idea as it was 2-3 years ago. Having such a large aircraft means you must fill a lot more seats than you would normally in order to cover investment and operating costs. The A380 has had the best luck with preorders in Asia (all preorders I am aware of came in before 9/11), where they currently fill a 7x7 with smaller seats, pack all the passengers in, and fly a lot of short- to medium-range flights (e.g. HK to Singapore). But even in Asia travel has taken a huge hit, and they already have trouble filling the seats of those 747's. How on earth do you think airlines are going to fill 1.5 to 2 times as many seats on an A380? Flying fewer flights works to offet operating costs to an extent, but remember that the airlines will have to pay for these shiny new airplanes, and the only way to do that is more flights, so it's a catch-22.
Boeing already has a couple of platforms that have done very well for them in that market segment, and they also have a strong UAV (and UCAV) program with the Predator. They evaluated the market for Sonic Cruiser, and decided that it was a losing proposition. If they can pull off an efficient version of the 767 I think they could capture that "middle" of the market back from Airbus.
Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:3, Informative)
Transpacific flying is one place where we see the demand; for example, Singapore Airlines easily fills their transpacific flights on the Singapore-Hong Kong-San Francisco and Singapore-Taipei-Los Angeles routes most of the year with their 747-400's. Indeed, Singpore Airlines Flights 001/002 (which flies the Singapore-Hong Kong-San Francisco route) is perhaps that airline's most profitable route due to the large number of Hong Kong and Indian subcontinent ex-patriates that fly these two flights. This is why I expect the airline to switch from the 747-400 to the A380-800 by the late spring of 2006 on this very route due to the consistently high demand in all classes on this route.
Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Airbus is betting that the airlines will continue to move large numbers of people between a relatively small number of giant hubs.
That's it in a nutshell.
They arn't selling to consumers... (Score:2)
Partial answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Hub and spoke requires big airliners to crowd ever more people into airports at the same time so they can make connections. Passengers like the connectivity but can't stand the cattle car planes and mammoth terminals and transfer problems; when airlines don't keep to their schedule, people miss connections.
Direct flights require more airplanes but smaller ones. People like the direct flights and smaller airplanes, but you can't get the same coverage as with hub and spoke. Direct flights skim the cream, sort of, and have been one of the reasons for the growth of regional airlines with small turboprop planes, which fill in the connectivity.
As for which will win out, my personal guess is that hub and spoke is reaching its limits, and bigger planes will be needed to keep them going. But these will only replacements for the current big planes, not new growth, because you can only get so many planes into one airport at the same time. True growth will be in direct connections, because these don't have to be prime time flights.
Also, business travel is the one that requires flights all around the clock, and especially the prime time flights, whereas tourists are more willing to take off peak flights and save money. Business travel is probably going to shrink as video conferencing, email, etc, takes the sting out of needing face to face meetings. Whereas tourism will only grow. I see this as favoring direct flights.
I believe, personally with not much facts, and not being in the industry, that Boeing has the right long term outlook, but things will change so slowly that the Airbus 380 will still sell well enough to pay for itself. It just won't have the impact of the 747. Airbus is following the old trend to its conclsuion, Boeing is going with the long term growth.
Re:Partial answer (Score:3, Insightful)
I've had the displeasure of taking cheap charter flights when I was younger to Europe where the entire plane is basically lower class and there's only two ticket agents checking in 450 people. It's hell let me tell you. Never again...
Interesting concepts from elsewhere (Score:3, Informative)
By parking parallel, every door on that side of the airplane coudl be used simultaneously, a tremendous speedup in getting people on and off. The terminals would also be smaller and simpler, and it would be easier to move planes in and out.
Boeing internals - Blended Wing vs. Sonic Cruiser (Score:4, Informative)
There was an interesting article in a recent BusinessWeek magazine (sorry, online version requires subscription) that discussed the internal fighting going on about the future of Boeing's commercial aircraft division.
There is large support from some for the full development of a Blended Wing Body (BWB) airliner, and there are significant arguements for that development. The concept is over 50 years old (Northrop), the current design is at least 10 years old (acquired when Boeing bought McDonnell), and an implementation exists as the B-2 stealh bomber. There is very high interest from airlines and the military due to lower operating costs (more people, less fuel), increased payload, and ability to operate within current airports. Reportedly one airline has offered to pitch in $1 billion to develop the concept further, and the thought is that Boeing could get the US Government to grant at least several $billion more, since the plane has military applications.
The opposing side (unfortunately including the head of Boeing's commercial aircraft business) seems to really dislike the BWB, and favor(s/ed) the Sonic Cruiser. Tube and wings approach. The BWB isn't "sexy" enough. They claim that the downsides of the BWB are no windows for most passengers, and too much pitch in turns for the outside passengers (far from the roll axis). The first really is a silly reason to shelf a revolutionary idea, and computer simulations show that the second isn't really a problem if the pilot doens't act like he is flyinhg a fighter plane. Problem is, no one really WANTS the thing. It has increased fuel requirements (operating costs) for a small speed gain, and the airlines can't see the benefit to their bottom line.
The thrust of the article was that Boeing, or at least the pro-BWB faction inside Boeing, should keep up the research and development, keep pitching the idea upward (where *some* senior Boeing management seem to be keen on it - Phil Condit (CEO) for one).
Now that the Sonic Cruiser has been canned, it will be interesting to see if the other (r)evolutionary design, the BWB, gains traction and sees a greater chance of production.
Re:Boeing internals - Blended Wing vs. Sonic Cruis (Score:2)
Yes people want more direct flights and yes people want more cheaper flights. But there is one thing that Airbus excels at. A pilot for Axxx can fly Axxx. That is the appeal of Airbus. For Boeing you have to have a license for each plane. This means that an airline could buy some smaller Airbus's and the A380 and shift their pilots depending on the demand.
Actually the BWB had lower operating costs and fuel costs than regular planes. I think the reason why Boeing is shelving the project is because they do not have the desire to move forward with a new design. For a beancounter it is too risky.... Na ja...
What are you gonna do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares about the sonic cruiser... (Score:2)
Did whoever won that thing actually show up to claim it?
- A.P.
Ah geez. (Score:3, Interesting)
There has been a lot of rumbling in the aerospace industry that Boeing is a sick company. I wanted to believe that they were wrong because Boeing was getting out the Sonic cruiser and the Delta IV rocket (their successful EELV design). It looked to me at the time that the the people claiming such were just wanking and wanting a Big Aerospace (tm) to choke. (there is an undercurrent in some aerospace circles, not unlike some software circles that being BIG is bad).
Part of the reason I had thought that Boeing's Sonic Cruiser would do well is because, frankly, they'd been saying they'd had the airlines lined up from the get-go. However, Post 9/11 might have changed some airlines minds.
Which just sucks. IDK about the rest of you, but when I get on a trans atlantic flight, I'd *LOVE* for it to take only 80% of the time it would have.
80% of the time... (Score:2)
Then it takes less than half the time...
IN 1975.
Slashdot lameness compliant
Unable to make the case post-9/11? (Score:2, Funny)
A plane that goes faster makes up for lines at the gate that are getting longer and longer.
Re:Unable to make the case post-9/11? (Score:2)
They aren't going to be selling these planes today though. They won't be flying for years yet.
The airline industry will return to normal, eventually. People still need to go places, and with each passing day the emotional impact of 9/11 fades.
Just look at these proposals for the new WTC that were unveiled this week, and compare them to the proposals submitted some months back. Back then, nobody dared suggest building anything that rivaled the scale of the WTC for fear it would attract the attention of terrorists once again.
This time around we had at least two entries that were on that scale, including one I think that if built would be the world's largest building.
I think this story underscores capitalism's apparent inability to provide and maintain massive infrastructure. Specifically, it appears that successfully running an airline -- or building airliners -- requires a kind of long-term thinking that is seldom rewarded in the business world. So nobody bothers.
I do not understand... (Score:4, Insightful)
No I think the reason why the other airlines are on the edge is because they mismanaged their companies. They focused on the wrong things and result they are totally unprofitable....
9/11 may have taken some hits, but not as much as the airlines are whining about...
SonicCruiser: Mach .98, but 747 goes at Mach .85 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SonicCruiser: Mach .98, but 747 goes at Mach .8 (Score:2, Interesting)
I have heard that one of the biggest problems in Aerospace and defense is the demise of the true large scale project teams. People just don't understand the tasks of coordinating large project teams for large development projects anymore.
Re:SonicCruiser: Mach .98, but 747 goes at Mach .8 (Score:2)
BTW, I was told by an ex-Boeing employee that anytime she had to take a business flight somewhere for the company that Boeing would pay to upgrade flights of over 4 hours to first class; so perhaps the company (or at least her part of it) had applied its passenger discomfort studies to use in is human resources dept. as well as in design.
Re:SonicCruiser: Mach .98, but 747 goes at Mach .8 (Score:2)
Does this policy have anything to do with why she is an ex-employee?
Re:SonicCruiser: Mach .98, but 747 goes at Mach .8 (Score:2)
Can you imagine what is does with the flight from La to Amsterdam, London, Paris or Berlin...
Stop being so US centric please. There is a whole world outside the US of A
So it only cuts off a little over 2 hours from an LA to (european city) flight. He was giving an example based on what he knew (LA-NYC is 5 hrs) as an illustration that shaving %20 off flight time isn't a big deal for any one flight. The only real advantage would be the cumulative time savings for the airlines.
Re:SonicCruiser: Mach .98, but 747 goes at Mach .8 (Score:2)
Very well. It cuts less than 2 hours off a 14 hour flight from LA to Sydney. I don't see this as a huge win for the flying public.
This is a shame (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing wrong with this in principle - it works, and it drives the costs of flights down. It does tend to discourage risk taking though.
Still, it would be nice to give an airline the chance to compete on something other than cost. A faster plane would be preferable to may people than a marginally cheaper ticket. This also would have given greater flexibility since presumably there would be more planes, so flights would be more frequent.
This would also mean that there would be more point to point services. Since two planes can go to two airports, whereas a single 747 can only go to a single airport, requiring a second plane to travel the short distance to the alternative airport (hub and spoke model).
Re:This is a shame (Score:3, Informative)
Some of the newer airlines, like JetBlue, provide much nicer and pleasenter service - and they are making money.
The other option is to build an airline with small airplanes (like Eclipse [eclipseaviation.com]) and create a airline network that takes advantage of the thousands of smaller airports around the US to provide faster door-to-door transportation.
Re:This is a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually the business model changed significantly after airline deregulation. Many slashdotters are probably too young to remember that air travel was once primarily for the wealthy or business travellers. Cheap airlines with no-frills service like Southwest really started making money after deregulation allowed them to adopt a "cattle car" mentality. The major airlines had to adopt some of the same measures and slash prices to compete. Complain about only getting a bag of peanuts and not having enough legroom if you want (or you could always shell out the money for 1st class you cheap b@$#@&%), but now even college students can afford to fly home for Christmas! And the airlines discovered that they could make a whole boatload of money by going with lower cost but much higher volume. This was a major change to the basic business model. It required significant investment in new aircraft, but the profits made that investment worthwhile... Unfortunately the airlines didn't spread enough of that profit around the beltway; congress raised fuel taxes on the now richer airlines*. Airlines that had counted on using those riches to pay off the airplanes they had just financed where hit hard, and some (like Pan Am) were killed by it. Yet, amazingly the same congressmen that hiked the fuel taxes on the airlines blamed "deregulation" for Pan Am's demise; everyone knows, after all, that congress can run airtravel better than private companies... just look at what a great job they do with space travel and passenger trains. It would be really nice if congress spent some of that increased fuel tax money on building more airports or NASA aeronautical research, but I'm not holding my breath. Aeronautical research at NASA seems to get hind tit to things like the ISS.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there hasn't been a change in business model in 10-20 years. The cheap, readily available but somewhat crowded airtravel of today was not around in 1962.
* That is the problem with changes in gov't policy when the gov't is so large. You can have the best business plan in the world but you can never be sure that an unforseeable change in tax structure or regulation won't destroy your plans completely. It is like sleeping with a hippo. It can be warm and cozy for right now, but you never now when your bedmate might roll over and crush you.
Re:This is a shame (Score:2)
The airline business in Europe is changing very rapidly at the moment, with the rise of budget airlines (EasyJet, Ryanair, etc) offering previously unheard of fares on short-haul flights (i.e. intra-europe). A flight from, say, London to Rome could easily cost EUR150 on a major airline such as BA, but I did that route recently on EasyJet for EUR30 return!
The huge success of these companies (EasyJet just made what I believe is the largest single new aircraft order EVER with Airbus) shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are more than willing to give up "luxuries" in exchange for savings. The budget airlines cut costs in many ways, for instance they have less crew, no hot meals, drinks are not complimentary etc etc. They also often fly to regional airports near the cities, rather than the main airport itself. Given the congestion around major airport hubs, in my experience this actually doesn't cost you any extra time in transit.
The other thing about these airlines is that they are all point to point. In fact, they don't even do return flights, all fares are one way. Ryanair has something like 50 or 60 routes over europe, with some interconnecting, but no real "hubs".
Re:This is a shame (Score:2)
Very Sad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Very Sad... (Score:2)
So... you are saying that since the airlines are prepared for an attack they won't be attacked.... so therefore they do not need to be prepared for an attack? I am getting on a plane for home later today, and I think that I am willing to deal with the changes if they do act as a deterrent.
The really stupid thing to do is nothing in the face of an obvious threat and hope that people just get tired of doing the same old thing.
Don't be sad. It never really existed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't be sad. It never really existed. (Score:2)
Why don't they... (Score:5, Interesting)
- Sub-space and trans-sonic capability (like the "hypersonic jet" talked about years ago) that would take passengers from NYC to Tokyo in 2 hours. Or at least go as fast as the late, lamented sonic cruiser.
- Explosion-resistant cargo bay to enhance survivability should a bomb make it on board.
- At check-in time, luggage is placed (carefully, gently, by robots) into Mylar-wrapped, bullet-proofed boxes to contain and reduce the impact of bombs. Damage by throwing and dropping will be eliminated by the mechanical process of loading and unloading.
- Detachable passenger cabin; in the event of an extreme emergency, rather than simply falling to the ground or thudding into a mountainside, the passenger and crew compartments would detach from the expendable portions of the craft and huge parachutes would lower them to the surface. Note: the design goal of the plane is survivability, not efficiency.
- 15" LCD displays in every seat, hooked up to satellite internet broadband connections. Unlimited browsing. Headphones would let people listen to streaming media available on the net. Interactive games also available.
- Pilot cabin inaccessible from passenger compartment except through a large, lock-able door. Pilots have guns. Two air marshalls on every flight, armed with guns and non-lethal pacifying tools; they'll be highly paid and well treated (unlike today).
- Vertical takeoff and landing capability for emergencies (or for regular use, if it could be made efficient)
- Any other ideas?
Re:Why don't they... (Score:2)
sPh
Re:Why don't they... (Score:5, Funny)
They could use steel reenforced concrete. It would be impervious.
-B
Re:Why don't they... (Score:2)
> Any other ideas?
All those ideas pale in comparison to having chairs with heat and massage!
Re:Why don't they... (Score:2)
Re:Why don't they... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why don't they... (Score:2)
So's electricity generation, Sparky. If you can get the world to say okay to nuclear fission, then large-scale electrical transportation will make sense environmentally. But plenty of people have a negative opinion of fission, what with Chernobyl and all.
Re:Why don't they... (Score:2)
I guess it all depends what your life is worth to you.
I'd rather pay more money and get there.
I suspect that the average family will make up the difference of higher prices for tickets in lower premiums for their life insurance, travel insurance, etc.
Re:Why don't they... (Score:2)
How does that compare to the fatality rate in crashes when the plane has no ejection system at all? Given current aviation safety records, I'll take a 50/50 chance in a catastrophic midair disaster any day.
The only accidents that people walk away from are ones which involve the plane landing almost complete normally. I'd say most airplane accidents fall into two areas - minor and catestrophic. If it is minor (an engine dies) the plane makes an emergency landing at a nearby airport. If it is catestrophic (a wing falls off) everybody dies - end of story. If the pilot had a "we're gonna die!" button to hit when all he sees is dirt in the window and the trees seem to be getting bigger, then I think we'd safe quite a few more lives than the current solution...
Actually, all you would need to do is have explosive bolts detach the wings, engines, and tail, and have a huge parachute deploy out the front (so everyone lands back-first braced by their seats).
Re:Why don't they... (Score:2)
Overheard at Boeing (Score:5, Funny)
Recent moves away from hub/spoke toward regional (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of my recent flights have been on a 50-seat jet build in South America. Prior to that, I remember going to/from major hubs on much bigger planes, largely empty. It makes me wonder about the real economy of coming up with an airplane family that starts at 555 seats. IMHO, "eating low" in the airline chain is the way to go.
The new Boeing plane looked interesting in this respect, though I suspect pursuit of greater operating economy is more important than the speed. As someone else mentioned, delays at airports are more important than airspeed to the total travel time.
This is old news... (Score:5, Informative)
More importantly, going near
I agree. (Score:2)
1. The plane would travel around Mach 0.97, which does not offer that much in the way of speed improvements compared to a 747-400 except on extremely long routes (routes over 4,500 nautical miles in length).
2. The plane only will carry around 200 passengers, which could lead to pretty high seat-mile costs.
I think Boeing is much more wise to develop what amounts to a Next Generation 767. Take a fuselage length somewhere between the 767-300 and 767-400, but replace it with a new nose, new tail design, all-new, lower-drag wings, and use the latest in high-bypass engines. The result is a plane capable of seating 225-250 pax but can fly around 7,000 nautical miles and also cruise as high as Mach 0.89. I think not a few airline would be interested in such a plane, especially for the Mach 0.89 cruising speed.
Re:This is old news... (Score:4, Informative)
The very interesting thing for fluid dynamicists (I used to be one...) is that the moment the flow of a fluid supersedes the speed of information in the fluid itself (i.e. the speed of sound), the laws of fluid dynamics pretty much reverse themselves. This, coupled with the non-constant speed of air around an aircraft make for a very unpredictable flow just around Mach 1.
The traditional solution to that is to put more power to the engines to compensate and make sure you can get out of that region. But if you can do that, why not go a bit further and go supersonic? The drag actually decreases past the transonic region, so it makes sense.
However, Boeing cannot do that, as supersonic travel means way more complex avionics, higher costs and lots of regulation (cannot fly supersonic over land). So they chose the sonic compromise, which makes sense one way (regulations, cost) but doesn't in another (cost/performance, which is the killer).
The Sonic Cruiser was vaporware. It was announced just around the time that Airbus announced a bunch of pre-orders for the A-3XX (now A-380) while no airline was interested in the re-heated burrito that was the 747 X (? or was it the 900?).
Boeing Pelican: big, slow, and cheap (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Boeing Pelican: big, slow, and cheap (Score:2, Insightful)
I routinely fly in both jets and turboprop aircraft, and you wouldn't want a turboprop for a long flight. They're too damn noisy.
Re:Boeing Pelican: big, slow, and cheap (Score:2, Informative)
More links:
Daily Telegraph UK [dailytelegraph.co.uk]
FuturePundit.com [futurepundit.com]
Seattle Times [nwsource.com]
Boeing Frontiers [boeing.com] with larger image [boeing.com]
Re:Boeing Pelican: big, slow, and cheap (Score:2)
Depending on where you sit, a turboprop isn't necessarily that much noisier than a jet. Also, most turboprop planes are pretty small. With a bigger plane, you have more room for sound-deadening.
Re:Boeing Pelican: big, slow, and cheap (Score:2, Informative)
It would essentially take a whole new infrastructure development (not very many seaplane ports left on Earth) along with some reorganization or expansion of sea lanes and tying all the environmentalists to their chairs to make these things viable for large-scale transit.
Picture of Pelican (Score:3, Informative)
The article mentions flying at 20 feet above the ocean to exploit the effect which makes me wonder how they'll handle the odd rogue wave. [sciencenews.org]
if the airline business... (Score:2)
Re:if the airline business... (Score:2, Insightful)
But it's not going to pick up with a bunch of big ass planes like we got in the 70s and 80s.
The trend is towards smaller planes.
737, 757, Bombardier CRJ, Brazilias, 717, etc.
http://www.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_1/3_1_1.html
I'm going to give a "US-centric" example, cause thats where I live.
You have a small city - Rapid City. With a USAF base - 85,000 people, with around 130,000 that use that airport as thier "hub". In the past to get anywhere for connecting flights you got to go to one of the three regional hubs - Denver, Salt Lake City to go West and South or the Twin Cities to go East and South. That's great, but when weather slams SLC, it's usually slamming Denver too.
Now it's changing. Now that there are cheaper, longer range faster small jets like the CRJ-700 the airlines are putting in point to point routes from Rapid City. Rapid to Las Vegas, Rapid to Pheonix are the first two coming in.
Or places like Medford OR, where to connect to had to shuttle to Sacramento or Portland, now has direct conections to Pheonix, Las Vegas, LA in regional jets.
UK is building more airports, just don't expect to see 777s, 747s and A-340s and 380s at them all.
Good enough (Score:2, Insightful)
Boeing to Airbus: (Score:2)
9/11 not responsible for bad management (Score:5, Informative)
The cause of the recession was the internet and business traveler protest. The internet allowed casual travelers to get rock bottom prices. Business travelers, who have traditionally paid the costs of the airlines, were becoming increasing angry at the high prices they had to pay, which were often several times that of the casual traveler. If one looks at the pre-9/11 stories, one sees an industry responding to these crisis by dropping prices, dropping commissions, dropping services, and dropping profits.
Add to this other salient facts. Airbus is getting more contracts now, at the expense of Boeing(New Zealand in July). Many travelers who might have the money to fly on these jets are increasingly flying on private jets. Security is a prime justification to purchase private jets. The airline companies that are doing well, like Southwest, are focused of price and a very defined level of service. They do not randomly spend money on new toys.
A few observations (Score:3, Interesting)
An hour less to London in day and age is trivial. Between ground delays and head winds you can spend over 11-13 hours on a plane going from Heathrow to Dulles. I do.
An A380 is a terrible idea. How many routes are going to be able to support this unless airlines stop offering more than one a day someplace? I mean look like if airlines do this then air travel will look more like steamships. Everyone will line up for half a day for the daily flight to who-knows-where.
Re:A few observations (Score:3, Interesting)
Just under the speed of sound (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought that most commercial airliners were already just under the speed of sound, whereas the Concorde was between mach 1 and 2. I seem to remember mach 1 being somewhere around 600mph, and airliners I've flown on for years are cruising in the 500's. What was so special about this anyways?
Re:Just under the speed of sound (Score:2, Informative)
It's not a huge difference, but you tell me that next time you're 12hours through a 13hour flight and the mach0.97 guy has landed.
Re:Just under the speed of sound (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been lucky enough to do a four hour flight from the Middle East on it and it's without a doubt the most incredible experience - travel faster than most fighter jets whilst sipping champagne.
It's an eternal shame that such advanced concepts and ideas seem to have gone to waste in Passenger Aviation.
Boeing can fall back on other projects. (Score:2)
Blended Wing Body (Score:2)
Personally.... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.eclipseaviation.com [eclipseaviation.com]
I would love to see some sort of airline based on a fleet of planes like these, flying out of local airfields, and offering service like NY-Boston for under $50.
Re:Personally.... (Score:2)
It's freakin' cool as all get out. I want one.
A380... a whole new meaning for "DeathTrap" (Score:2)
I remember I was on an A330 during my overseas flight to France this summer. It's absolutely disgusting to fly in a tube with over 200 whining smelly bitching people
I'd rather swim than do it with 550. (and I can't afford first class.. sorry).
--Zuchini
P.S. No this is not at all a 9/11 related comment, not EVERYTHING is about 9/11.
Re:A380... a whole new meaning for "DeathTrap" (Score:2, Insightful)
Airbus is gaining market shares. It broke the monopoly of Boeing for large body aircraft. Some might say at the back of tax payers. But Boeing is still using 80's technology, and Airbus did invest into new techniques and aircrafts, and airlines, even in the US are switching to Airbus because of effectiveness, reliability and cost.
And Boeing is not playing fair, with those exclusivity contracts, where the airlines will buy Boeing for the next ten years.
The return of the story : More and more Airbus aircraft in the US. Northwest, US Airways, United Airlines, American Airlines are using Airbus. So be prepared to board a flight in the US, flown by an Airbus aircraft.
Same story as the original SST (Score:3, Interesting)
The same question plaguees current proposals for commercial supersonic and hypersonic transport. It has nothing really to do with post-9/11 travel fears, but with the mundane realities of business: Even in good times, are there enough people who will pay ten to twenty times as much to fly three times faster?
Well... (Score:2)
Faster is Better (Score:2, Interesting)
But someone does need to make a faster plane. Like one that goes at least 3 times as fast, and can still use current runways, ain't too big, and isn't unbelievably loud.
It is this kind of value added service that have and always will help businesses. Would provide a huge image boost too.
I mean, seriously, if you could go between Tokyo and NY in like, 6 hours, it will be packed all year. Heck, you wouldn't even have to sleep on the dam plane.
The economy might be bad, but the rich are still rich in many countries BTW IYHAN.
Wow. Better mileage. Wow. I'm so inspired. (Score:5, Interesting)
Back when Boeing was actually run by people who loved building airliners there were products designed for more than corporate accountants.
Let's look at the Boeing Commercial Jets and what made the cool from a consumer point of view. What got people caring about the planes they flew in. What made Boeing a household name.
707 - First Really Successful Jetliner!
727 - Three Engines! In the Tail! Rear Exit Ramp Built In! WhisperJet Quiet!
737 - Tiny! Landed at little airports where there'd never been jets! Had oval engines!
747 - Huge! Two stories with a spiral staircase! Had a humped body when every other plane was a boring tube!
757 - Boring. Looks like a 20 year old 707.
767 - Boring. Looks like a 20 year old 707.
777 - Boring. Looks like a 30 year old 707.
747X - New look! Super-huge mega-jet! Killed
Sonic Cruiser - Radical new design! Canards! Higher speed! Killed
High Efficiency - Boring. Will look like a 45 year old 707 with winglets.
The lack of innovation started long ago and blaming it on short term downturns and 9/11 is bogus. American was excited enough about the Sonic Cruiser to pre-order the first two years production just to keep it out of the hands of their competitors. The airlines are desparate for some way to differentiate themselves. Boeing and Airbus, on the other hand, are desperate to prove they can build the same, identical, boring, generic products. Odd, how they're so risk averse when every risk they've taken paid off and every boring generic plane is in a tight fight against Airbus' boring generic planes.
Oh, and as for the efficiency increases, we've seen those in the 737 and 747 upgrades. Perhaps Boeing needs to look around to see why the 737 and 747 fleets are still out there. Perhaps its because those innovative planes actually did something new.
Re:Wow. Better mileage. Wow. I'm so inspired. (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't fix what isn't broken.
Don't build radically new when what you have already works fine.
We don't see radical new car designs every year. Instead, we see minor improvments on last year's model. Or they take a truck and add a van frame and call it an SUV. Or they shorten a van and call it a minivan.
Or they take an existing model and make it cost 15% less to operate.
15% is big. Really big. Less fuel = less cost = cheaper tickets. Would you fly on a "cooler" airbus for 30% more? Perhaps, but probably not. Few people fly first/business class.
Airbus is looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Re:Wow. Better mileage. Wow. I'm so inspired. (Score:3, Insightful)
Feel free to show a business that's succeeded by catering to the beancounters while refusing to innovate for the end-user. Really. Good luck in finding one.
Re:Unfortunate (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Unfortunate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunate (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd rather see more efficient planes than faster planes; given enough fuel savings, the cost of flight might actually come down a bit.
Re:Unfortunate (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Strike one down for innovation.... (Score:2)
What keeps our society going is that the bean counters own stock (as do lots of other people)Boeing answers to the bean counters and must show an EXPECTED return on any project. If the market doesn't warrant innovation you have to go in a different direction. Going to the moon is cool but we can not yet achieve practical gains and thus we are not going. It is sad, I would love to see such a plane.
Re:Strike one down for innovation.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that history does not bear it out. Successful companies are built when risk-takers (i) come up with good ideas (ii) implement those ideas they way they think is right, regardless of what the spreadsheets say. See the history of General Electric, du Pont, DEC, Microsoft, etc.
Typically those companies start to die when the bean counters arrive and formalize everything with "rate of return" studies. See DEC for the the most extreme example of such a process, and consider that there could never have been a "rate of return" study for Ford Motor Company, since the market Henry Ford wanted to serve did not exist before his company created it.
sPh
Re:Strike one down for innovation.... (Score:2)
No, that is nowadays the truth. The company has NO right to be a risk taker unless its' shareholders are. In modern corporate America if the company takes an unapproved gamble and loses, the shareholders can go after them in civil court (though they usually lack size and organization to do so) and the Govt. may file criminal charges. Enron was close to that scenario. Corporations like Boeing are large committee driven creatures risk taking behavior tends to minimize in that scenario.
Companies do a lot of study before "creating a market" If you think that Henry Ford had no idea wether or not the car would take off, you underestimate his brilliance. The reason he designed his manufacturing process (that is really what he is famous for) was that he knew that he would need to mass produce his product.
The fact that I believe that reality does not usually reflect your comments does not mean that I do nnot personally agree with them. I love innovative, bold companies and their products.
Re:Strike one down for innovation.... (Score:2)
Keep in mind you're talking about two things - getting a company to exist - which takes lots of risk, and keeping a company alive - which involves playing it safe by comparison.
Keep in mind that for every DEC success story there are 50 equally large efforts which result in bankrupcy. But everybody talks about DEC - not about the risk-takers who ended up broke.
Now, for the original entrepeneur, the risk is mitigated by the fact that he has nothing to lose. On the other hand, Boeing has a lot to lose.
If major corporations took the same risks that small businesses took, they would have similar failure rates. Imagine opening the paper every day and seeing a headline that a company the size of IBM just closed its doors - EVERY DAY. Obviously that wouldn't be sustainable.
If you have a better idea for building an airplane, by all means hire a few engineers and put it together. The reason that Boeing doesn't do this is that it has a lot to lose. When you're at the bottom there is nowhere to go but up, when you're at the top...
Re:completely retarted move.. (Score:2)
Firstly, it is "retarded" not "retarted"
Anyway, moving on, do you realise how many more forms of terrorism there are than flying a plane into a building? Lockerbie? Taking crew and passengers hostage? Smuggling arms/explosives/drugs/money? It's all a little more complex than you would like to think.
Your ideas are stupid, and would never be implemented. You can't justify the sacrifice of a crew for the passengers. You also grossly overestimate the power of an auto pilot.
Re:Reliability vs lost of an engine (Score:2, Informative)