Sonic Cruiser?

norcal · Sun Mar 20, 2005 6:57 am

Has the Sonic Cruiser been canned, or has it just been put on the back bone for a while?

m404 · Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:17 am

It grew through airline preference into the 787. Until technology becomes more affordable to gain the few miles an hour it promised it will remain a paper plane.

aerlingus330 · Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:18 am

I read somewhere that It has been canceled. However, the efficant technology was used to devolop the 787. But boeing may start the program up again

**Correct me If I am Wrong

AerLingus330

norcal · Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:39 am

yeah I guess that makes sense, with fuel prices as they are these days the last thing airlines need is another concorde

MidnightMike · Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:55 am

Quoting NorCal (Thread starter):
Has the Sonic Cruiser been canned, or has it just been put on the back bone for a while?

The Sonic Cruiser was cancelled and Boeing took a writeoff on the program. Some of the technology that was slated to be used for the Sonic Cruiser Program are being used in the 787 program & future Boeing programs.

ua777222 · Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:51 pm

First off Welcome NorCal. I see you live in Maroga not too far from here in Orinda! If you are a student do you train at CCR?

Though the Sonic Cruiser was canned for the time being I have a feeling that somewhere down the longggggggggg road in Boeing's eyes that this might become a new a/c. I think with the launch of the 787 that this a/c, and its tech. and advances, will allow Boeing to build a new line of a/c. With up to date technology (the current fleet does as well) and great fuel awareness I think that the Sonic Cruiser might have another chance.

Anyone else agree?

Matt

lightsaber · Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:03 pm

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 5):

Anyone else agree?

I disagree. The sonic cruiser is dead. It requires 777 fuel burn for a 767 capacity; not exactly thrilling economics in the era of $57/bbl oil. Ok, fuel economy wasn't as bad as the Concorde (no other airframe burned fuel like that baby. More than a 767 fuel load for less than a 737 passenger count).

The Concorde had a total of 13 fuel tanks with a maximum capacity of 31,510 gallons (119,280 liters). from http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0199.shtml
compared to 25,200 gallons for a 767-300ER.

The sonic cruiser needed a lot more thrust than Boeing was hinting to in its public statements. They were counting on the engine manufacturers stepping up to the plate with an even more efficient engine than the 787 is equipped with. As I said, one would be carrying 777 levels of fuel for 767 levels of capacity... The airlines were not exited.

On the other hand, the 787 will sell well. Did anyone else note in Aviation week that they're looking for 160% to 200% of the interval between D checks due to the lack of corrodible materials in the airframe! Now that's improved economics.

Lightsaber

Areopagus · Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:04 pm

The 787's fuselage is from the Sonic cruiser, although they changed the cockpit window design in the artist's conception pictures. Boeing said that the SC's wing was to be built like a regular wing but with a glove extending the inboard section. So, there could still be a Sonic Cruiser in our future. But it may well actually be mildly supersonic. Boeing said that the SC had two sweet-spot cruising speeds, one being supersonic.

ua777222 · Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:13 pm

Lightsaber,

I couldn't agree any more.

What I was trying to get at was that the idea of a Sonic Cruiser could become a reality again with the advancement in Boeing products based on the 787's success. With airlines tapped into this new source of a/c, so to say, Boeing can take a stab at using 787 technology, though the 787 is from the Sonic Cruiser, to make a better fuel efficient Sonic Cruiser. I think it was a very smart move on Boeing's part to close the idea seeing how it probably would have turned into another Concord. High costs, low numbers, special care and flights, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks,

Matt

BA380 · Sun Mar 20, 2005 8:15 pm

"Until technology becomes more affordable to gain the few miles an hour it promised it will remain a paper plane."

wow - how do you pressurize a paper plane? Is it thick cardboard, or do they use a sort of papier mache?

HAWK21M · Sun Mar 20, 2005 8:42 pm

Wouldn't travelling faster be Important in the Future.
If one can travel between A - B faster,& save time.Why not.
Bring the Sonic cruiser back....But with some changes to cater to Economics as well.
regds
MEL

IanatSTN · Sun Mar 20, 2005 10:42 pm

Quoting BA380 (Reply 9):
wow - how do you pressurize a paper plane? Is it thick cardboard, or do they use a sort of papier mache?

I think they mix the paper with a new super strength glue to make the papier mache, mould it around a mash of the plane, wait a few hours and voila! A paper airline capable traveling at Mach 2.2 at 50,000ft!

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 10):
If one can travel between A - B faster,& save time.Why not.

I think at this present time, the price of oil along with the required technology are the only things stopping a "Sonic Cruise" from being built. However, I don't think the price of oil is going to fall any time soon...

Cheers,
Ian.

Alessandro · Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:30 am

The only airline interested I think was Qatar Airways?
Anyway, everybody compare fast passenger airplanes with the Concorde or
large passenger airplanes with B747, two hard acts to beat!

aerlingus330 · Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:08 am

The sonic cruiser would not have even been in the same league as Concorde. This is because the sonic cruiser was supposed to cruise at Mach 0.98 and concorde cruised at Mach 2.00.

AerLingus330

imatams · Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:43 am

I think the sonic cruiser for Boeing was more of a 'concept plane', like car manufacturers develop concept cars. Like a design platform to test idea's, some of which will be used on production models, but not really a production plane (granted, with the difference that a prototype Sonic Cruiser obviously was never built) The 787 inherited a lot of features developed for the Sonic Cruiser concept, and maybe a future design will have more/ other ideas that were developed in that program, like the high speed/low fuel burn principle, if and when the market and the technology are there to support it.

m404 · Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:33 am

BA380 / Ianatstn

I have to ask since both of you are posted as being from GB but are you serious about not know what "paper airplane" is? I did not know it was only an American term meaning that the design is on paper only, never having been committed to construction. What would the term for that be at your home?

I say hood, you say bonnet. I say non-stop, you say direct.

Lockheed1011 · Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:48 am

It might come back again in a couple of years. If not from Boeing, maybe from Airbus or some other manufacture. I would love to see LOCKHEED getting back in the commercial business! Smile

AF, BA and VS will be needing a replacement for the unforgettable Concorde. It is not a huge market but there are Business customers willing to pay if they can fly non-stop much, much faster. Also the pride of a luxurious carrier to offer that kind of service.

ConcordeBoy · Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:03 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 6):
Ok, fuel economy wasn't as bad as the Concorde (no other airframe burned fuel like that baby. More than a 767 fuel load for less than a 737 passenger count).

...and yet, the irony being: Concorde's engines had a more relatively energy-efficient cruise than any other aircraft's that has or will (within the foreseeable future) exist. crazy

9-P

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 10):
Wouldn't travelling faster be Important in the Future.
If one can travel between A - B faster,& save time.Why not.

That was the general idea, but the Sonic Cruiser wasn't fast enough to provide the utilization gains that such a strategy would be contingent upon.

Now, if it could've offered Concorde-level-speed at the efficiency levels that Boeing was promoting, then it would've completely changed the face of commercial aviation as we know it. But alas, it couldn't.

FriendlySkies · Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:30 am

Quoting Lockheed1011 (Reply 16):
I would love to see LOCKHEED getting back in the commercial business!

After the L-1011, I doubt Lockheed will ever consider reentering the commercial market...just too risky, and they have a good thing going with the defense contracting.

m404 · Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:53 am

Lockheed/Martin will probably never do anything again that has much of a gamble involved. Not without guaranteed profits. But being from Burbank I'd love to see an active flight prep line again. Last passenger liner their was the Electra.

norcal · Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:56 pm

Thanks for the welcome UA777222, yeah I used to train out at CCR, now I'm in the flight program at Purdue university. Thanks for your opinion on the sonic cruiser

Sonic Cruiser?

Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

RE: Sonic Cruiser?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net