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."
sPh
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.
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
The Sonic Cruiser, while cool-looking, is not that much faster than today's aircraft -- it would only cut one hour off the flight time from LA - NYC. It is still sub-sonic. More efficient airport procedures on the group, on both sides could probably cut at least an hour off the total travel time just as well.
Personally, I feel the airline industry could do with being shaken up a bit. The basic business model hasn't changed at all in the past 40 years. It's simply a case of sell tickets as cheaply as possible by putting as many people as you can onto a plane.
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).
You are absolutely correct, but Boeing is also touting fuel efficiency as well. The design of the wing and fuselage is closer to a lifting body as another person mentioned, with the wing that far back, the ride is bound to be a lot smoother for everyone. Instead we will get another design by committee incremental improvement.
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.
"I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating. And in fourteen days, I had lost exactly two weeks. Joe E. Lewis
come out with a plane that has the following features:
- 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?
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Their own flight profiles didn't give the range to even accrue a 2 hr savings.
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.
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?
11*43+456^2
Flight itself is pretty cheap, I'd like to see airport fees and taxes come down. Heck half the price of a ticket from Calgary to Edmonton is user fees.
Boeing sure knows how to keep people excited about their products. Why, their new five year product will look exactly like a 767/757/707/Airbus but will get up to 15% better gas mileage. I can see all the little kids lining up to build models of that one to hang in their bedrooms.
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.
Rule number one of business:
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.
Both the new Airbus A-380 and Boeing's sonic cruiser could have been useful additions to todays aircraft. There are people willing to pay a premium to go from LAX to Tokio in a 15% shorter time. Look at the Concorde between Heathrow/CDG and JFK. Obviously there's a market for fast aircraft.
There is however also a market for large (450+ ppl) aircraft on inter-continental lines. Major players on the trans-atlantic route are: BA, Lufthansa and Air France and on the US side United, American, Delta, etc. They all have full planes on that route. If you can operate an A-380 at the same cost of a 747 or 777, you make more money. When I'm on my way across the pond, I could wish a 30% reduction in flight time, which I can't afford, or a plane with seats roomy enough to spend 7 hours in. I'd rather have the latter.
The airlines with the highest profit margins are indeed the 'price-fighters' like Soputhwest, EasyJet, RyanAir. But unlike the big US carriers, the major European carriers BA, Lufthansa, Air France and KLM are not in the red as much.
Companies like southwest, EasyJet and RyanAir are useful, but the often do land at the same big hubs trans-continental flight land on. If I want to go from Amsterdam to Columbia, SC, I tend to pick one airline to fly with. EasyJet may be the cheapest between A'dam and London, but since EJ doesn't land on Heathrow I'd have to spend time traveling through London. I'd rather pay $100 more to do it easy and have BA fly me from A'dam to Heathrow, to JFK to Columbia.