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."

Comments

This is old news...

[costas]

...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.

More importantly, going near .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.

Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

Re:What IS Boeing's business strategy?

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

9/11 not responsible for bad management

[fermion]

Every business failure has been blamed on 9/11. It is convenient sacrificial lamb and covers up bad management. While 9/11 increased the speed of the airlines demise, the industry was set for recession before that event.

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.