Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Sonic Cruiser Project Shelved
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."
one of the links mentioned that the sonic cruiser would reduce flight times by about 15% to 20% though...not 50%. if it did reduce the flight times by 50%, chances are they would not have shelved it since the benefits would be more substantial.
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) and create a airline network that takes advantage of the thousands of smaller airports around the US to provide faster door-to-door transportation.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
...it's been rumored for at least a couple of months. As an aero engineer, I have to say that the project was suspicious from the very beginning. The Sonic Cruiser would have been only fractionally faster from a super-jumbo (say the upcoming A-380): .87 vs .97 Mach (roughly 60-80mph difference) for about a third to a half the number of passengers.
.9 Mach means that the aircraft is smack in the middle of the "transonic" region, where parts of the aircraft would unavoidably be going sonic/super-sonic. The fluid dynamics in that speed region are not that well understood or easy to simulate. In other words, the Sonic Cruiser would have been a lot more expensive to develop for a very small benefits.
More importantly, going near
Maybe Boeing is just going to concentrate on turning the Pelican into a commercial aircraft. The Pelican is twice the size of the 747 (you could play a game of arena football inside it) and is designed to fly cheap, slow, and low --just above sea level. Right now, it's in development for the military, but there are obvious commercial airliner possibilities.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
What surprises me is replacing the 767 rather than the much older 737.
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.
I write in my journal
As a consequence, the A380 is designed to use the existing slots more efficiently (by transporting more people per slot)
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.
I write in my journal
1. It wasn't supersonic.
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.
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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.
Actually, there are a number of routes that could use that A380-800 right now, even in today's depressed airline economy.
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.
It is a shame that the Sonic Cruiser is going into mothballs.
This would do 0.97mach rather than the 0.87 or so the super jumbos would.
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.
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.
The latest Aviation Leak has an article on some think tank out of Reston VA who have several interesting ideas to speed loading and unloading. First, a high wing transport with engines above rather than below the wing. This has two benefits: one, engine noise is reflected upwrds by the wing. Two, it can park parallel to the terminal instead of nose in, and the passenger terminal can be ground mounted instead of having to slide out over the wing. To facilitate this parallel parking, they propose castering steerable landing gear, like on a B-52, so the airline can move at least somewhat sideways, even if it still has a forward movement at the same time.
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.
Infuriate left and right
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.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.