Absolutely we need to fly supersonic again . We got the technology to do so . If we did it in the seventies we sure can do it today ,we can’t go backwards.
Actually, the Sonic Cruiser design with a pointier nose and slightly slimmer fuselage will be perfect for a mid-supersonic airliner operating in the Mach 1.4~1.8 range. The side strakes allow for lots of fuel without the wing needing to be particularly thick which you'll need if you plan on crossing the pacific. The engine placement and the area ruling on the aft fuselage is great. The reduced sweep of the outer wings is actually highly beneficial to approaches and climb outs when you are not above Mach 1. At Mach 1.8 the sonic cone is only going to be at ~34 degrees; in spite of the reduced sweep the outer wings are not going to run into the nose shock.
@Logan Book Actually, a Trans-Pacific supersonic would have suceeded where the concorde has failed. It wasn;t fuel consumption or ticket prices that killed the Concorde. It was the fact that it couldn;t fly over land at supersonic speeds and it barely had enough range to cross the atlantic. JFK-CDG and JFK-LHR being the only viable city pairs means an order book of 14 jets. What a supersonic jet needs to succeed, assuming it still fly supersonic over land, is not lower ticket prices it's a 6000nm range.
At some point the Concorde accounted for 20% of BA's revenue so a failure it certainly wasn't at least for BA also really good point on the trans-Pacific issue what eventually forced to Concorde to retirement was chain of unfonate events 9/11 the air France crash coupled with all the costs for the upgrades and the falling demand for jfk ro Heathrow route
@@Thanos.m Concorde WAS PROFITABLE for BA and AF. But it was a total failure as a commercial aircraft because only 14 were ever sold and it was a total loss in terms of turning a profit for its manufacturers. And, the reason only 14 were sold was that with its inability to fly over land, the only viable transoceanic routes for it's 4,500 nm range were Paris-NY and London-NY. That only supported a market of 14 aircraft. A 6,000 nm supersonic will have 10~20 times the over water (or trans polar) market if not more. That makes all the difference. -- The magic number is 6,300nm which happens to be the range of the 787-10, the early 777s and the 747-300. It is what covers 80~85% of the world's long haul city pairs.
You need the sweeep to be quite a bit more than the cone, or you are going to get one heck of a sonic boom. There is a other issue... we need new supersonic engines. The one used on fighter jets are to small, and also to inefficent. I guess they could take a geared turbine and change to low pressure fan, not needing to redesign everything.
@@dwightlooi I would disagree with that fuel-consumption was not a issue. Concorde was profitable due to heavy cannibalization, that is really not a economic model. Now the Concorde was not really quite as thirsty as people may think. Compare it to the 707, the Concorde drinks about the same fuel for equivalent amount of mass. While the Concorde take fewer passengers, that is really only due to the cabin being narrower. Of Concorde where to compete with the 707... or really even the 727, fuel economy would not be a issue. The problem is that it where to compete with the 737 and the 747. Just calculate the cost in fuel for a Atlantic crossing (London to NYC), current fuel prices (about $1/L) would be $670 for Concorde, $450 for a hypothetical 6 a breast Concorde, $290 for a 707, $264 for a 737-100 (to short range to make it) and $254 for a 747.... And lest put a A321neo here to.... $94, that is one heck of a diffrance. But there is one more thing. Range. Concorde range is limited by the weight of the fuel they carry. That is, the range can´t be extended, simply because it can´t lift any more fuel. In fact, almost 50% of the fuel, is consumed to carry the fuel... The same number for A321 is 15%, that is why A321XLR is a thing, and Concorde XLR is not. This is made worse by Concorde fuel is actually mostly in the fuselage, the plane having almost no transport space under the floor, the bags is on the passenger level, cutting out spaces for 20 passengers. So not only is 50% of the fuel burned to carry fuel, something like 15% of it is burned to carry the part of the plane that carries the fuel. All this is to make the plane reach USA. If it was made for a shorter range, it would be a lot more fuel efficient.
Boeing's recent mistakes aside, they did make the right decision betting on point to point travel being more important as Air travel Capacity increased. Airbus betting on a more hub and spoke model with the A380, although a fine aircraft, didn't meet production targets.
Well, it wasn't any success with the larger 747 either, and fewer chose the 787 instead of the Airbus 350. Boeing have been rush too much with a negative outcome.
@@udontknowme7798 Boeing's 747 program as a whole was very successful, the A380 however didn't sell enough Airplanes to recoup their initial investment, hence why it's being discontinued in 2022, because planes like it and the 747 no longer fit into the point to point model and are quickly being replaced By the B787 carrying 248 to 294 Passengers, The B777X will seat up to 426 passangers, A330, carrying between 250 to 440 Passangers and the A350 carrying between 300 and 350 passengers. 1154 B787s have been sold, 1504 A330s have sold thus far, and 930 A350s sold. The 777 has 2049 orders placed, and the new 777X just released. But yes, I do agree that Boeing needs to get it's act together and stop running the company purely as a buisness and ignoring their own engineers.
What's happening actually is that Airbus is the big winner despite the failure of the hub to hub market and the A380. Fuel efficiency meant direct flight between many more destinations, which is the market Airbus has always dominated. Boeing dominated market, the jumbo market, has stagnated.
When the Sonic Cruiser was announced, supercruise engines were already a reality for the military. I felt certain that Boeing was anticipating the eventual availability of supercruse engines for commercial aircraft, and had designed the Sonic Cruiser with an eventual upgrade in mind. With an appropriate airframe already certified, they could have a big time advantage in getting an SST to market, that didn't need afterburners.
It's kind of the same type of strategy when they first designed the Boeing 747. They knew that in any event if the market for passenger airline travel were to take a plunge, at best, the airplane design could be refitted to serve as cargo airplaines.
Just so as you are aware, engines don't make an sircraft supercruise. There is no such thing as a 'superctuise engine'. It is the overall aircraft design, that dictates whether an aircraft will supercruise or not.
It’ll be a long time before they’re FAA certified and the universal equivalent, but they got it. I hope Boeing revives this project, even though it evolved into the 787
Its really just a matter of time. But they probobly would need tp fly even higher. There is a other benefit to fly faster. If the aircraft fly faster than 8 hours, they only need two pilots, if they fly slower, they need 3. The same is true for i think the next level is 14 hours. Not only cut down one pilot, but the whole crew also works 2 or 3 hours shorter. That is a huge saving. Its just a matter of the engines being sufficently efficent for the crew cost to dominate
@@matsv201 Wow. this is really good to know because this would encourage airlines to buy faster planes instead of slower planes to save fuel. Honestly, we already past the 2nd decade into 21st century, it's a disgrace that we are still flying long hours. We should be able to get to anywhere in less than 8 hours.
@@davidhollenshead4892 The Sonic Cruiser wouldn't sacrifice this, the cabin would have been just like the 787 which is considered the most comfortable airliner..
The whole point of air travel is SPEED. Boing should forget about the 737-SMACKS, and make the Sonic Cruiser. Until then we'll have to wait for the Boom Overture.
Stuart Lee you can't have it both ways.. the problem is not making a super sonic passenger plane ...that... was already done decades ago .....the problem is the infrastructures required for such planes take off and landing..and It's unacceptable impact to the noice environment....around. not all cities have the space or the resources to build these specially large airports...that's why they decided to take a step back to then be able to satisfy immediate concerns and regulations and maintain market share of air travel....while at the same time preparing for the next giant leap forward into the future... which has proven to be a Very Very. Wise decision by boing and will no doubt allow the company to continue and even to expand its market-share for. Now and many year into the future..and they've achieved both..... Boeing's ability to listen to the needs and concerns of cities ..and passengers and provide them with ideal working models that have set the standard in the industry is actually what sets it apart and makes it a great American aviation corporation. providing a service for the whole world.........
Someone (Boeing) didn’t seem to remember the fate of the Convair 990...a little extra speed but significantly more to operate (and I bet to produce as well).
@@aguywhodoesstuff1116 yea. A lot of People are supriced about that, but its actually logical. Its the economy of scale. Its cheaper to make a plane go fast (per ton certied) the larger it is. Also true for ships. That is why most ocean lineres is faster than most small speed boats
Now, this is _much_ more informative video than the one on Branson's supersonic business jet ambition. Two nitpicks: - The regime of flight around the speed of flight is called _trans-sonic._ Simply "sonic" was marketing speech. - 2:00 - the vast majority of passengers who pay for their own tickets have _one_ criterion for choosing the flight: price. Yes, they do complain that competing airline A has better seat pitch than airline B they took, or that meals (if any) are better, or that luggage gets lost less frequently, but in the end, they simply buy the cheapest ticket available. But then, the airlines profit mostly from people flying on our dime, "business" travelers.
Thanks! there really wasn't much information to go off for the virgin plane, they are keeping their cards to their chest (or perhaps more likely, they are just pulling off a PR stunt). As for your other points, good to know for the first one, I didn't know that! The 2nd, yes thats very true. Its too bad that airlines have become commoditised and now even flag carriers are becoming low cost carriers (looking at you United/American/Delta/BritishAirways/AirFrance)
This channel really love to get in depth for some failed aircraft projects. Hope we can see the the N-2130 aircraft failed project to be discussed in this channel :)
That was very interesting: During the (ongoing) MAX 10 debacle I'd thought "whatever happened to that futuristic looking fast plane they had on the books?". Now I know. Triple aisle oval fuselage us the future, says I.
Planes are already fast enough, I think what passengers want is a smoother more streamlined check in process & not having to wait in long lines & having aircraft that are comfortable where they can stretch out & relax in a comfortable environment with excellent service during the trip!
Indeed they do but most of what you mention has nothing to do with the aircraft. The other things will make air travel more costly and will therefore also not happen.
vondahe Well you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts most people who try to predict the future turns out to be wrong & in some cases very, very, wrong! What I was talking about was the overall experience, not just how fast we can travel from point to point on the globe! I agree the other things probably won’t happen because of the expense & business decisions are made on profitability & at this point with the technology we have, who the hell needs to get to London in an hour?
the trouble with the Sonic Cruiser is that is just wasn't fast enough to make it worthwhile. Its faster speed was simply marginal. In practice, airport ground delays, bad weather etc. would have seriously eroded its mild speed advantage - not to mention higher fuel costs and higher passenger ticket prices
Not to mention that standard airliners with well planned routes and cooperative weather can go just as fast. And that happens more often than most realize (Last time I flew JetBlue, part of the itinerary was LAX-BOS, and our ground trace speed was over 600-650 mph crossing the rockies, and like 680-690 the rest of the way until descent. flight was scheduled for almost 6 hours, made it under 5.)
There was a comparable aircraft in the past, the Convair CV 880/990. They had 4 turbojets, which were also used (plus an afterburner) for the Mach 2 bomber B-58 Hustler. It also flew faster than the competitors, and they were the models which were the fastest airliners until Concorde entered service. However, in the transsonic speed range drag increases much more than the advantage in time, that's why others only fly Mach 0.8. They were infamous as gas guzzlers, even in the 60s when fuel was cheap and this aircraft were in active service. In the opinion of the airlines the advantage in time was not worth the additional fuel costs, and they sold only 100 aircraft.
8:54 This clip briefly shows that the 787 was originally designed with 8 abreast seating in economy class. Too bad the airlines insisted on making it a 9 across sardine can instead.
Like others, I just found your channel. Well done from all standpoints. It is interesting how the high-speed concept has challenged all comers for decades without true success. As one who has flown internationally for years, I loathe the whole check-in process today. The only plane I want to fly is my brother's. Commercial flying has too many challenges the airlines and investors are not even trying to remedy. The A-380 was impressive and luxurious for those flying with deep pockets, but like the Concorde, it became not only a status symbol for some, but also a negative statistic. I can't imagine why space travel should be appealing, but for the novelty of the experience. Who knows what lies ahead. I will be a subscriber to your channel. Thank you for your graphics, camera work, and research.
There was never a big demand from passengers for post red eye flights that arrived in the wee hours of the morning. Having a curfew helps the airport perform critical facility maintenance and allows them to keep costs down for administrative employees by only having two shifts of such people on duty most days.
I still think the idea behind the sonic cruiser is a viable and attractive one. Really would be nice to see. I remember, at the time, reading that Boeing was having some power issues, of all things, on that plane. The way the engine shroud around the engine was designed, was actually restricting pretty significantly the amount of power input. That, plus no engine was yet available to produce the power needed to maintain the high speed cruise that Boeing was operating for the sonic cruiser. All the factors you mention, along with the engine headache, is what I heard was the reason for shifting to the 7E7.
I hope they can build this. Seems to be the answer to faster travel and the design is adaptable. Just think how well a scaled down 10-12 passenger version for business travel might sell.
The Sonic Cruiser is a good all-rounder, and should be built, even if it's only three, for a start. International airports management need to change their way of thinking in terms of the future of passenger flights. The Sonic Cruiser would, in the long term, help to make a lot more money for the international airports. It's called the numbers game.
Fuel efficiency is king and will remain king for the foreseeable future. The only way we'll see a successful high-speed airliner is to have one that is faster *and* cheaper to operate. That's a tall order for even the best engineering teams.
Airbus was taking on the 50 year old 747, while Boeing was looking into the future of the airliner - the Sonic Cruiser a new radical design, that looks so different from the conventional airliners.
Actually Boeing’s best answer was nothing at all, or you could say the birth of the long haul 777 and 787. They had no need for a similar class A-380 rival. At the time they still had the 747 being used as well.
@Mark Grudt a lot of the research of the a380 went into all new airbus airplanes, the 350 and the neos. So they mostly lost the investment on the fuselage.
A great idea, that came along at a really bad time. Looking forward to seeing a similar project. Today super-cruise, supersonic dry thrust engines are a real game changer. Still such planes will have to wait for a more competitive environment. Once the current pandemic craze runs it's course. Recovery of surviving airlines will be a must. Even so, higher speeds, higher altitudes and higher profits. Will one day come to the company; with the ability to make it work. Given current conditions; one wonders when that will be.
Hal Bentham why don’t you go and see the Concorde history, engines have nothing to do with that failure and the more efficient engines you talk about are turbofans with humongous air intakes, hardly suited for supersonic flight. The problems for supersonic flight are with drag and heat generated therefore limiting fuselage size, than the sonic booms that no country allowed over their land.
@@Nivola1953 My Brother My statement was about Super Sonic Flight YOU mentioned Concord, which by the way was a gas guzzler.... I built jet engines ; So when I say Engines have gotten more efficient ....it's cause I KNOW WTH I'M talking about....
@Karma81 Todays engines derive more power from fans, much higher bypass ratio than concord engines.... concord had ABs .... which guzzle gas... Composites in engine and body construction... future looks good if they can make it cost effective... if the savings is passed on to the traveler ....
@Karma81 the concord didn't ... First thou possible , you shouldn't believe military specs... truth is the F22 was a colossal failure... Engine wise the difference between turbo jet and turbo Fan ; is just that (fan) this Fan is basically a multi blade propeller in a housing most of the AIR goes around the actual turbine not through it... The Concord gained power by burning immense amount of fuel... Both in the turbine and the afterburners (ABs)
I prefer comfort over speed. Especially in economy class. Softer seats with more legroom especially on long haul flights. I forgot to mention. Quieter engine. Not enough that you don't hear anything but enough that you can hear the air moving like a comfortable sound of a breeze blowing fast and quiet like a luxury car at 70 miles an hour.
I agree with the speed. Profitable business customers may not actually have needed the speed of concorde but when current London/Paris/Frankfurt to NYC is 5-6hrs, something that takes 2-3hrs means actual destination time incl checkin/boarding and airport to destination flying time would be much easier to consider paying the premium. Few but the hardiest want to fly the massive long haul distances like Sydney-London unless deep vein thrombosis and horrendous jet lag is a minor blip. Post covid, perhaps few will want to fly in big A380 sized planes either no matter what the comfort.
There is a very delicate balance to make the ideal plane but the more quiet and fuel efficient the more acceptable it is for the governing aviation authority so that is the goal now for any aircraft maker.
I see a lot of comments saying, that reduction in time isn't as important to them as comfort. As someone who has a strong fear of flying i highly disagree. I honestly don't care if I'm seated on a small seat like in a bus or in one of those super luxury first class cabins because i will feel extremely uncomfortable in both of them as the circumstances are the same. Every minute i spent in the air in an airplane is filled with my fear of turbulence. So even an hour less flight time is in my eyes a gift and a blessing. I live in Europe and my sister moved 3 years ago to Chicago and i wasn't able to visit her because i simply couldn't imagine myself sitting in an airplane for over 9 hours. My longest flight was 3 hours and it was barley bareable for me. I swear if the Concorde would still fly, i would maybe even save up those 5000€ for a ticket just so i can be in 3 hours in the U.S.
The Sonic Cruiser was an ill-conceived configuration from the start. The thin 'supersonic' wing was used to get the cruise Mach number above 0.9. But that thin a wing is really meant for speeds well above Mach 1. So you pay the structural penalty (weight) for having a very thin wing yet gain, at best, a 20% speed increase instead of a factor of 2 or greater. As in most political environments, anyone voicing a negative opinion is deemed "not be a team player". So at Boeing it was best to just be quiet and let the configuration die its inevitable death. Which, of course, it did. A Mullaly folly at best.
No one has discussed pollution, as that was a heavy concern over the Concord. I know BOOM claims its not an issue for them as they use traditional turbo fans instead of the old cold war engines with afterburners. Boeing has not addressed this on their concept. I think once BOOM comes to market and if successful Boeing and Airbus will follow. Established players are always ALWAYS conservative allowing new comers to shake things up.
Just like NASA, Boeing and the startup space X. Boeing said only a few years ago Space X will not fly = and now they lost the contract for the moon lander.
Same faith as the Convair 990 or the VC10. Faster does no mean better. By the way all actual airplanes are variants of either the B707 or the Caravelle. People forget how nice this last one was and pilots loved it.
I happen to love flying (except on the 737, any and all models). I love ultra long distance travel, 12 hours and above, because it affords time to sleep. But in order to sleep well, you need several things. One is comfort, not a commodity in Y class with 17 inch wide seats, and 31 inch seat pitch. Next is OXYGEN, a rarified commodity in most aircraft. Jet lag usually starts with flight that are 3 hours or longer, and much of the physical discomfort is a result of oxygen deprivation. Cabins pressurize to an altitude of 8,000 feet. Not quite double the altitude of Denver. And as you remove oxygen from the environment, they also remove water vapor. Breathing on Mars is never pleasant. It's only modestly better on a long distance 777. And then there is the cabin noise. Advertised as "whisper quiet" in the early days of jet flight, that "whisper" is the equivalent of putting a steel wash tub on your head, and banging it with a metal hammer for hours and hours and hours straight. The new generation of jet aircraft, the Airbus A350, and the Boeing 787 family, and next generation 777 family correct a lot of that. More oxygen, higher cabin humidity, much, much quieter cabins, and overall, much more passenger comfort, even in steerage. With added comfort, better quality air, quiet, those ultralong flights become extremely tolerable. I would rather fly slower and sleep, for a lower priced ticket than having to pay an exorbitant premium, which ultimately killed Concorde and the Sonic Cruiser. And build a smaller aircraft that flies profitably with only a 65% load of passengers as opposed to 95% (the A380), you have a winner. That's the Boeing family (and why the 747's time has passed), and certainly the Airbus models. Now if I could only buy a ticket to a country that would let me in...
The use of a super cruise engine can help with the development of the future Boeing aircraft designs with high speed and fuel management plus the use of wings with a 45 degree front angle sweep for less drag and a thinner wing.
Maybe the Sonic Cruiser would return, especially for this race for the supersonic transport stage Make it more aero dynamic, can travel faster than the speed of sound without creating sonic booms
From someone who loves to fly and has, for much of his career, been a 75,000-100,00/year flyer, I think cutting 2 hours off a 13 hour flight is a big deal. Comfort and speed are not mutually exclusive. I felt the A380 and the 787, from a passenger’s perspective, were both significant but not revolutionary steps forward. And I agree that, basically, we have variations on the 707 for 50 years.
There is work being done on reducing the sonic boom and with such work should also forge ahead with passenger aircraft traveling above the speed of sound.
The limiting factor in aircraft design since Orville and Wilber has been engines. When the Sonic Cruiser was proposed non-radar transoceanic flights were required, in most cases, to maintain assigned mach numbers to insure aircraft separation. Contrary to the video, while the Sonic Cruiser may have been capable of flights in the 40's most of the time in the non-radar track system the ideal altitude for the aircraft was mid-thirties. This is the altitude band that gives the most efficiency to the engines. Unless the Sonic Cruiser was first to cross the first oceanic waypoint it would be trapped flying the same speed as the slowest aircraft in front of it. Back then the North Atlantic track system did not allow much flexibility. There were other operational considerations that were of greater concern to the operators than to the aircraft designers, like parking an aircraft with a big canard at a jetway, but while the aircraft was an interesting design It did not fit all of the operational requirements of the airlines . In thirty plus years of airline flying I lived by the mantra "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going". I see no reason to change now. BTW thanks Dave for the information.
Airlines must offer faster Aircrafts & Boeing I am sure will be successful with this new Sonic Cruiser. Thanks to Boeing for giving some Fantastic Aircrafts... 👍👍
Yes, I do think that, generally, passenger flight speeds should continually gradually increase. I want to see low orbit paths used. I'd like to see commonplace matter transmission, but I'm probably too old for that. Oh well. Forward, ever!
I think passengers are more interested in comfort (re: the ever shrinking seats suck) , amenities and not getting charged for every damned little thing ! When you buy a ticket it should cover everything!
9:48 No. Faster travel always means burning more fuel and making more noise unless there's a new break through in either fuel or material science. More efficient transportation that can include faster speeds to get a passenger to his destination on time is more preferable, unless it's for a vacation route. Greener propulsion that can offer efficient or more efficient at the expensive of longer travel times is probably what's going to eventually replace traditional jet engine transports. It also depends on how much fossil fuel is left to be extracted from the Earth.
For someone who gets restless after 2 hrs stuck in a very small seat in a hermetically sealed tube, I would welcome any reduction in flight time. While I love airliners, flying on them is one of my least favorite things to do. That said, my favorite parts of flying is takeoff and landing. It’s the In between time that is too long for me.
Like it or not, and despite the comparative safety record compared to there modes of transportation, the prospect of getting into a passenger aircrafrat quite anxiety-producing. A change in the appearance of an aircraft, especially one seen for decades, is a mark of security. Even if it makes no financial sense for those who pocket the profits. That's why what YOU do is so important. To quote a Buffalo New York advertising slogan: 'an educated consumer is our best customer'.
Every one is tired of sitting in the plane for a long time. Now it's 21 century we need a faster plane. No matters a high price we wanted to get there sooner.
Archie Waldron They’re already obsolete, the only people that needs to fly are those flying out of necessity, because they need to attend to a loved one located in a far away place or they are going on a vacation to a far away place! So other than the president who has his own jet, he never travels commercially, no one else other than the military & they have their own airplanes! So if I’m the CEO of a major fortune 500 company, I already have my own jet & if I am a big-time celebrity like Tyler Perry, I also have my own jet, so I don’t need to fly commercially either, so ask yourself a question, who else really needs to fly? Remember after 911, all air travel was shut down, but our businesses didn’t shut down, but airlines were completely shut down, yet we didn’t go out of business! Not even the news media was flying! So flying commercially is quite unnecessary when you really get down to the nitty-gritty of the matter! I am happy we have the option & the capability, but it’s not a necessity for most people!
The G forces on the liftoff would be hard on some people, for example, the elderly. I think we'll see a mix of both, traditional airliners, and SpaceX to haul cargo (DHL) and those that can afford the ticket.
Efficiency is the way to go. I'd rather imagine interchangeable passenger units which would be cleaned, loaded, boarded and to some degree refueled while the planes which are supposed to carry them haven't even arrived.
An additional two hours on a London-Singapore flight is not a problem for me. I'm not that self-importantly busy and if I actually was, then who or whatever was waiting for me in Singapore could just wait a little longer.
I believe there needs to be an aircraft like the Sonic Cruiser except it needs to be supersonic and needs to fly at an altitude somewhere around 60,000 to 70,000 feet. Faster point-to-point air travel in the thinner atmosphere so it is still very fuel-efficient. Whoever could build that plane would dominate the market.
The Boeing Sonic Cruiser is a good concept, but some modifications are needed. Extra speed is not needed, but the added safety of being able to land on a body of water, without the risk of cartwheeling & sinking. Get rid of the canards, increase the surface area of the wings & move them forward. This Sonic Cruiser deserves a second try.
At some point it pays just to leave air behind and go semi-orbital. No noise along the "flight" track with the noise footprint, although intense, limited to a small circle around the take off and landing areas. If the turnaround can be accomplished expediently, multiple transcontinental trips can be executed in a day. No place on Earth would be further than 45 minutes away (+ the TSA security show). Not to say that there are no serious technical, social, physiological, or political issues this concept, but it would be pretty cool.
How longtarmacis needed? Which London Airport could accomodate this one? Which ew York one, Paris one? How much commuti timeisto e added? How much keroxine , then fuel cost occur? Estimated ticket price? Noise at airports? Estimated most economic range? Eg a9 minute walk within Australia may be too short to take off for?
It would be nice if airlines did offer more point-to-point direct flights rather than layovers in hubs. Often, the deciding factor for my family's travel choices and destinations are based on the shortest drive+flight+drive opposed to only driving. I live 1.5-2 hrs drive from several major airports yet only 30 minutes from a small regional airport with limited seasonal direct service; however, I can fly to and return from Charlotte twice a day from my local regional airport to connect to basically anywhere else I chose... I just chose not to layover unless the ±2 hour drive to an international airport is less of a bother.
With travel time to and from airports, time taken for check in and security checks, reduction in flight time is is not a big deal, if it cost more money.
@@johnp139 Completely agree with those numbers, but given that the savings (large as they may be due to advanced materials) they are limited to the components we are referring to - fuselage and structure, which isn't the main contributor to the total weight of the aircraft by itself. So, to state that that much percentage of the total weight can be achieved by reducing even 90% of that component when its total contribution is (exaggerating here just to make a point) 70% pic the total aircraft weight is mistaken (I'm that imaginary case, the reduction would be 63%, IF the total weight of the fuselage was reduced to just 10% of the original AND the weight of said fuselage was 70% of the whole aircraft).
Boeing should consider using boom technology such as composite materials, bypass turbofan engine without afterburner and use sustainable aviation fuel for that sonic cruiser.
Three choices for airlines, 200 miles to Minneapolis St. Paul, 230 to Milwaukee, 303 to Chicago, then you only get flights to other major way over crowded airports, need to get another flight or rent a car to drive to your destination. O'Hare averages over 2550 flights per 24 hour day meaning extremely long inspection lines. And if driving there trying to find a place to park with extreme parking rates. Flying from one over crowded airport to another, means extremely long lines, if to a foreign country, super slow lines checking your passport and luggage. Then the latest change if your airplane is not completely sold out, will cancel that flight, and you don't get the next flight because you are on standby. Who ever came up with this system loves to torture people. Smaller planes at smaller airports is needed.
If they were to make an airplane that is expensive to operate, they could have at least make it a super sized ultra long range airplane, to make more sense for the premium. The transatlantic and transpacific routes would certainly be profitable.
After thinking it through, it is just a little too early for a sonic cruiser. Ultra high by-pass engines operate very efficiently at low altitudes and the old turbo-jet operates very efficiently at high altitudes. Neither operates efficiently at any other altitude than the above. You need a combined cycle engine for the concept to work with decent low fuel use. Materials such as plastic composites as used on the 787 may not work well in the hot spots that may temporarily develops on a sonic cruiser. I would say the aircraft skin problem isn't insurmountable but would require research never-the- less. The sonic cruiser is a good idea but a little ahead of its time. In 10-15 years who knows; perhaps a sonic cruiser will appear if these other 2 developments pan out.
Known as the Chronic Snoozer within the industry, anyone that knows anything about aerodynamics could tell you increased drag at high Mach equals increased fuel burn. The drag-divergence Mach number is the Mach number at which the aerodynamic drag on an airfoil or airframe begins to increase rapidly as the Mach number continues to increase. This increase can cause the drag coefficient to rise to more than ten times its low-speed value.
I don't think air passengers would be willing to pay a great deal more for a ticket on a Boing Sonic than a regular. However, the design concept looks interesting.
3 solutions Boeing needs, 1- less compressed passengers, 2- higher flight as less complants of sonic flights rocket afterburn convertion over the tropicsphere. 3- greater interior/recreation space... faster, more private, less health pandemic, clear safer paths. This vid almost imposses the opposite.
Convair 990A - Coronado had the same concept. It could make a NY to London in almost one hour less than a 707 or a DC8. Or the same in a NY to LA flight. But it took less passengers and, worse, had a much smaller range. Varig - brazilian company - operated this plane, whitch received from other company, REAL Linhas Aéreas, witch merged to Varig. But it was really a problem, ‘cause all international flights in the 70’s started in Rio de Janeiro - the destinations were NY, Lisbon, Paris, Rome - and all those the 990-A Coronado was unable to proceed a direct flight. It was only capable to fly direct to Buenos Aires or Santiago - or so. It was an interesting plane, but had a short life.
i find this idea of flying close the the speed of sound like .95 to .99 Mach a bit strange. I’m no aeronautical engineer but this is what i found on wikipedia “Transonic airspeeds see a rapid increase in drag from about Mach 0.8, and it is the fuel costs of the drag that typically limits the airspeed”, the same piece also says that at that speed some part of the plane, like the rear of the wing and fuselage are actually supersonic. My feelings is that this is just a marketing pitch never going to happen because it’s against the rules of physics and economic flight.
Absolutely we need to fly supersonic again . We got the technology to do so . If we did it in the seventies we sure can do it today ,we can’t go backwards.
Actually, the Sonic Cruiser design with a pointier nose and slightly slimmer fuselage will be perfect for a mid-supersonic airliner operating in the Mach 1.4~1.8 range. The side strakes allow for lots of fuel without the wing needing to be particularly thick which you'll need if you plan on crossing the pacific. The engine placement and the area ruling on the aft fuselage is great. The reduced sweep of the outer wings is actually highly beneficial to approaches and climb outs when you are not above Mach 1. At Mach 1.8 the sonic cone is only going to be at ~34 degrees; in spite of the reduced sweep the outer wings are not going to run into the nose shock.
@Logan Book Actually, a Trans-Pacific supersonic would have suceeded where the concorde has failed. It wasn;t fuel consumption or ticket prices that killed the Concorde. It was the fact that it couldn;t fly over land at supersonic speeds and it barely had enough range to cross the atlantic. JFK-CDG and JFK-LHR being the only viable city pairs means an order book of 14 jets. What a supersonic jet needs to succeed, assuming it still fly supersonic over land, is not lower ticket prices it's a 6000nm range.
At some point the Concorde accounted for 20% of BA's revenue so a failure it certainly wasn't at least for BA also really good point on the trans-Pacific issue what eventually forced to Concorde to retirement was chain of unfonate events 9/11 the air France crash coupled with all the costs for the upgrades and the falling demand for jfk ro Heathrow route
@@Thanos.m Concorde WAS PROFITABLE for BA and AF. But it was a total failure as a commercial aircraft because only 14 were ever sold and it was a total loss in terms of turning a profit for its manufacturers. And, the reason only 14 were sold was that with its inability to fly over land, the only viable transoceanic routes for it's 4,500 nm range were Paris-NY and London-NY. That only supported a market of 14 aircraft. A 6,000 nm supersonic will have 10~20 times the over water (or trans polar) market if not more. That makes all the difference.
--
The magic number is 6,300nm which happens to be the range of the 787-10, the early 777s and the 747-300. It is what covers 80~85% of the world's long haul city pairs.
You need the sweeep to be quite a bit more than the cone, or you are going to get one heck of a sonic boom.
There is a other issue... we need new supersonic engines. The one used on fighter jets are to small, and also to inefficent.
I guess they could take a geared turbine and change to low pressure fan, not needing to redesign everything.
@@dwightlooi I would disagree with that fuel-consumption was not a issue. Concorde was profitable due to heavy cannibalization, that is really not a economic model.
Now the Concorde was not really quite as thirsty as people may think. Compare it to the 707, the Concorde drinks about the same fuel for equivalent amount of mass. While the Concorde take fewer passengers, that is really only due to the cabin being narrower. Of Concorde where to compete with the 707... or really even the 727, fuel economy would not be a issue.
The problem is that it where to compete with the 737 and the 747.
Just calculate the cost in fuel for a Atlantic crossing (London to NYC), current fuel prices (about $1/L) would be $670 for Concorde, $450 for a hypothetical 6 a breast Concorde, $290 for a 707, $264 for a 737-100 (to short range to make it) and $254 for a 747.... And lest put a A321neo here to.... $94, that is one heck of a diffrance.
But there is one more thing. Range. Concorde range is limited by the weight of the fuel they carry. That is, the range can´t be extended, simply because it can´t lift any more fuel. In fact, almost 50% of the fuel, is consumed to carry the fuel... The same number for A321 is 15%, that is why A321XLR is a thing, and Concorde XLR is not.
This is made worse by Concorde fuel is actually mostly in the fuselage, the plane having almost no transport space under the floor, the bags is on the passenger level, cutting out spaces for 20 passengers. So not only is 50% of the fuel burned to carry fuel, something like 15% of it is burned to carry the part of the plane that carries the fuel. All this is to make the plane reach USA. If it was made for a shorter range, it would be a lot more fuel efficient.
Boeing's recent mistakes aside, they did make the right decision betting on point to point travel being more important as Air travel Capacity increased. Airbus betting on a more hub and spoke model with the A380, although a fine aircraft, didn't meet production targets.
Well, it wasn't any success with the larger 747 either, and fewer chose the 787 instead of the Airbus 350.
Boeing have been rush too much with a negative outcome.
@@udontknowme7798 Boeing's 747 program as a whole was very successful, the A380 however didn't sell enough Airplanes to recoup their initial investment, hence why it's being discontinued in 2022, because planes like it and the 747 no longer fit into the point to point model and are quickly being replaced By the B787 carrying 248 to 294 Passengers, The B777X will seat up to 426 passangers, A330, carrying between 250 to 440 Passangers and the A350 carrying between 300 and 350 passengers. 1154 B787s have been sold, 1504 A330s have sold thus far, and 930 A350s sold. The 777 has 2049 orders placed, and the new 777X just released. But yes, I do agree that Boeing needs to get it's act together and stop running the company purely as a buisness and ignoring their own engineers.
@@L33tSkE3t q
What's happening actually is that Airbus is the big winner despite the failure of the hub to hub market and the A380. Fuel efficiency meant direct flight between many more destinations, which is the market Airbus has always dominated. Boeing dominated market, the jumbo market, has stagnated.
@@L33tSkE3t I'm a boeing person, you?
When the Sonic Cruiser was announced, supercruise engines were already a reality for the military. I felt certain that Boeing was anticipating the eventual availability of supercruse engines for commercial aircraft, and had designed the Sonic Cruiser with an eventual upgrade in mind. With an appropriate airframe already certified, they could have a big time advantage in getting an SST to market, that didn't need afterburners.
Oh snap! thats some 4d chess there! Wow I didn't think of it!
It's kind of the same type of strategy when they first designed the Boeing 747. They knew that in any event if the market for passenger airline travel were to take a plunge, at best, the airplane design could be refitted to serve as cargo airplaines.
Just so as you are aware, engines don't make an sircraft supercruise. There is no such thing as a 'superctuise engine'. It is the overall aircraft design, that dictates whether an aircraft will supercruise or not.
You really modelled the entire plane in some software. Nice 👍. I can see you really put a lot of work into this vid.
Great, as usual
Thanks so much for watching! Yes it really adds another level to the videos to get the points across!
Or bought for 100 bucks. ;)
I can't wait to fly on the BooM
Hopefully it doesn't Boom other than Sonic Boom. it would be impressive to see.
@@jpasby779 I believe in them, they are making great progress.
It’ll be a long time before they’re FAA certified and the universal equivalent, but they got it. I hope Boeing revives this project, even though it evolved into the 787
Honestly, if I had a choice, I'd rather get there 2 hours faster than watching more 8n flight movie or getting a more comfy chair.
I would take the comfy chair, better pressurization and less fuel burned...
Its really just a matter of time. But they probobly would need tp fly even higher.
There is a other benefit to fly faster. If the aircraft fly faster than 8 hours, they only need two pilots, if they fly slower, they need 3. The same is true for i think the next level is 14 hours.
Not only cut down one pilot, but the whole crew also works 2 or 3 hours shorter. That is a huge saving.
Its just a matter of the engines being sufficently efficent for the crew cost to dominate
@@matsv201 Wow. this is really good to know because this would encourage airlines to buy faster planes instead of slower planes to save fuel. Honestly, we already past the 2nd decade into 21st century, it's a disgrace that we are still flying long hours. We should be able to get to anywhere in less than 8 hours.
@@davidhollenshead4892 The Sonic Cruiser wouldn't sacrifice this, the cabin would have been just like the 787 which is considered the most comfortable airliner..
I don’t see a problem with long international flights going like Mach 2.4 or so as long as it’s over water 💧.
The whole point of air travel is SPEED. Boing should forget about the 737-SMACKS, and make the Sonic Cruiser.
Until then we'll have to wait for the Boom Overture.
I have a need- a need for speed!
Is it really important to get to Germany in 8 hours instead of 10 ?
Stuart Lee you can't have it both ways.. the problem is not making a super sonic passenger plane ...that... was already done decades ago .....the problem is the infrastructures required for such planes take off and landing..and It's unacceptable impact to the noice environment....around. not all cities have the space or the resources to build these specially large airports...that's why they decided to take a step back to then be able to satisfy immediate concerns and regulations and maintain market share of air travel....while at the same time preparing for the next giant leap forward into the future...
which has proven to be a Very Very. Wise decision by boing and will no doubt allow the company to continue and even to expand its market-share for. Now and many year into the future..and they've achieved both.....
Boeing's ability to listen to the needs and concerns of cities ..and passengers and provide them with ideal working models that have set the standard in the industry is actually what sets it apart and makes it a great American aviation corporation. providing a service for the whole world.........
@@CHMichael YES IT IS!
@@dukegotpowers I do not care nor abide opinions from environmental wackos. GO AWAY AND GO VOTE FOR YOUR BIDEN, FOOL!
Someone (Boeing) didn’t seem to remember the fate of the Convair 990...a little extra speed but significantly more to operate (and I bet to produce as well).
Thatis one of those recent internet myth. While it was the fastest aircraft at the time, the 747-200 was actually faster
@@matsv201 I was surprised when i first found out how fast the 747 was.
EDIT: Top speed of the Convair 990: mach 0.871 Top speed of the 747: mach 0.92
@@aguywhodoesstuff1116 yea. A lot of People are supriced about that, but its actually logical. Its the economy of scale. Its cheaper to make a plane go fast (per ton certied) the larger it is. Also true for ships. That is why most ocean lineres is faster than most small speed boats
That was with 1960’s mechanical expertise and materials
That was a truly revolutionary plane for its time
Now, this is _much_ more informative video than the one on Branson's supersonic business jet ambition.
Two nitpicks:
- The regime of flight around the speed of flight is called _trans-sonic._ Simply "sonic" was marketing speech.
- 2:00 - the vast majority of passengers who pay for their own tickets have _one_ criterion for choosing the flight: price. Yes, they do complain that competing airline A has better seat pitch than airline B they took, or that meals (if any) are better, or that luggage gets lost less frequently, but in the end, they simply buy the cheapest ticket available. But then, the airlines profit mostly from people flying on our dime, "business" travelers.
Thanks! there really wasn't much information to go off for the virgin plane, they are keeping their cards to their chest (or perhaps more likely, they are just pulling off a PR stunt).
As for your other points, good to know for the first one, I didn't know that!
The 2nd, yes thats very true. Its too bad that airlines have become commoditised and now even flag carriers are becoming low cost carriers (looking at you United/American/Delta/BritishAirways/AirFrance)
This channel really love to get in depth for some failed aircraft projects. Hope we can see the the N-2130 aircraft failed project to be discussed in this channel :)
I just found this channel and my tech enthusiast self is hooked!
That was very interesting: During the (ongoing) MAX 10 debacle I'd thought "whatever happened to that futuristic looking fast plane they had on the books?". Now I know. Triple aisle oval fuselage us the future, says I.
Planes are already fast enough, I think what passengers want is a smoother more streamlined check in process & not having to wait in long lines & having aircraft that are comfortable where they can stretch out & relax in a comfortable environment with excellent service during the trip!
Indeed they do but most of what you mention has nothing to do with the aircraft. The other things will make air travel more costly and will therefore also not happen.
vondahe Well you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts most people who try to predict the future turns out to be wrong & in some cases very, very, wrong! What I was talking about was the overall experience, not just how fast we can travel from point to point on the globe! I agree the other things probably won’t happen because of the expense & business decisions are made on profitability & at this point with the technology we have, who the hell needs to get to London in an hour?
Nonsense, I wanna live in the Philippines and Work in Europe.
I need that Hypersonic airliner that makes my commute to work easier.
Carlos Leon Well your attempt at sarcasm isn’t lost on me!LOL!🤣🤣🤣
David Shaw I think you’re missing the point!
Loved the making of this
the trouble with the Sonic Cruiser is that is just wasn't fast enough to make it worthwhile. Its faster speed was simply marginal. In practice, airport ground delays, bad weather etc. would have seriously eroded its mild speed advantage - not to mention higher fuel costs and higher passenger ticket prices
Not to mention that standard airliners with well planned routes and cooperative weather can go just as fast. And that happens more often than most realize (Last time I flew JetBlue, part of the itinerary was LAX-BOS, and our ground trace speed was over 600-650 mph crossing the rockies, and like 680-690 the rest of the way until descent. flight was scheduled for almost 6 hours, made it under 5.)
There was a comparable aircraft in the past, the Convair CV 880/990. They had 4 turbojets, which were also used (plus an afterburner) for the Mach 2 bomber B-58 Hustler. It also flew faster than the competitors, and they were the models which were the fastest airliners until Concorde entered service. However, in the transsonic speed range drag increases much more than the advantage in time, that's why others only fly Mach 0.8.
They were infamous as gas guzzlers, even in the 60s when fuel was cheap and this aircraft were in active service. In the opinion of the airlines the advantage in time was not worth the additional fuel costs, and they sold only 100 aircraft.
@@simonm1447 good info - thx
8:54 This clip briefly shows that the 787 was originally designed with 8 abreast seating in economy class. Too bad the airlines insisted on making it a 9 across sardine can instead.
It will always be the proper concept, going into the future, and yes, faster but safely!!
Like others, I just found your channel. Well done from all standpoints. It is interesting how the high-speed concept has challenged all comers for decades without true success. As one who has flown internationally for years, I loathe the whole check-in process today. The only plane I want to fly is my brother's. Commercial flying has too many challenges the airlines and investors are not even trying to remedy.
The A-380 was impressive and luxurious for those flying with deep pockets, but like the Concorde, it became not only a status symbol for some, but also a negative statistic.
I can't imagine why space travel should be appealing, but for the novelty of the experience. Who knows what lies ahead. I will be a subscriber to your channel. Thank you for your graphics, camera work, and research.
Every airport I’ve been to has Always been open. Didn’t know airports had office hours. What in the airports with attitudes is going on here.
There was never a big demand from passengers for post red eye flights that arrived in the wee hours of the morning. Having a curfew helps the airport perform critical facility maintenance and allows them to keep costs down for administrative employees by only having two shifts of such people on duty most days.
Very high quality vid man, I’m subscribing
Welcome!
I still think the idea behind the sonic cruiser is a viable and attractive one. Really would be nice to see. I remember, at the time, reading that Boeing was having some power issues, of all things, on that plane. The way the engine shroud around the engine was designed, was actually restricting pretty significantly the amount of power input. That, plus no engine was yet available to produce the power needed to maintain the high speed cruise that Boeing was operating for the sonic cruiser. All the factors you mention, along with the engine headache, is what I heard was the reason for shifting to the 7E7.
I hope they can build this. Seems to be the answer to faster travel and the design is adaptable. Just think how well a scaled down 10-12 passenger version for business travel might sell.
The Sonic Cruiser is a good all-rounder, and should be built, even if it's only three, for a start. International airports management need to change their way of thinking in terms of the future of passenger flights. The Sonic Cruiser would, in the long term, help to make a lot more money for the international airports. It's called the numbers game.
Okay, this is my new fave never-built.
Fuel efficiency is king and will remain king for the foreseeable future. The only way we'll see a successful high-speed airliner is to have one that is faster *and* cheaper to operate. That's a tall order for even the best engineering teams.
Airbus was taking on the 50 year old 747, while Boeing was looking into the future of the airliner - the Sonic Cruiser a new radical design, that looks so different from the conventional airliners.
Actually Boeing’s best answer was nothing at all, or you could say the birth of the long haul 777 and 787. They had no need for a similar class A-380 rival. At the time they still had the 747 being used as well.
@Mark Grudt a lot of the research of the a380 went into all new airbus airplanes, the 350 and the neos. So they mostly lost the investment on the fuselage.
A great idea, that came along at a really bad time. Looking forward to seeing a similar project. Today super-cruise, supersonic dry thrust engines are a real game changer.
Still such planes will have to wait for a more competitive environment. Once the current pandemic craze runs it's course. Recovery of surviving airlines will be a must. Even so, higher speeds, higher altitudes and higher profits. Will one day come to the company; with the ability to make it work. Given current conditions; one wonders when that will be.
The World needs super sonic flight... Engines are more efficient now
Hal Bentham why don’t you go and see the Concorde history, engines have nothing to do with that failure and the more efficient engines you talk about are turbofans with humongous air intakes, hardly suited for supersonic flight. The problems for supersonic flight are with drag and heat generated therefore limiting fuselage size, than the sonic booms that no country allowed over their land.
@@Nivola1953 My Brother My statement was about Super Sonic Flight YOU mentioned Concord, which by the way was a gas guzzler.... I built jet engines ; So when I say Engines have gotten more efficient ....it's cause I KNOW WTH I'M talking about....
Super sonic flight isn't needed
@Karma81 Todays engines derive more power from fans, much higher bypass ratio than concord engines.... concord had ABs .... which guzzle gas... Composites in engine and body construction... future looks good if they can make it cost effective... if the savings is passed on to the traveler ....
@Karma81 the concord didn't ... First thou possible , you shouldn't believe military specs... truth is the F22 was a colossal failure... Engine wise the difference between turbo jet and turbo Fan ; is just that (fan) this Fan is basically a multi blade propeller in a housing most of the AIR goes around the actual turbine not through it... The Concord gained power by burning immense amount of fuel... Both in the turbine and the afterburners (ABs)
Thank you. Just found your youtube site today I have subscribed today hope to watch more
Awesome, thank you! i make these videos for people like you :) i will have more videos like this one soon!
What a great shame that this aircraft never came into being. The 787 is great and all, but who knows what changes this might have unleashed
Great video. And we can definitely use more speed!
Right on! Well judging by my latest video, things are about to change
I think Boeing sonic cruiser look very awesome looking plane.
I remembered the Boeing Sonic Cruiser being a part of the Star Saber in Transformers Armada.
I prefer comfort over speed. Especially in economy class. Softer seats with more legroom especially on long haul flights.
I forgot to mention. Quieter engine. Not enough that you don't hear anything but enough that you can hear the air moving like a comfortable sound of a breeze blowing fast and quiet like a luxury car at 70 miles an hour.
Great video again!
Thank you! Cheers!
Nice
I agree with the speed. Profitable business customers may not actually have needed the speed of concorde but when current London/Paris/Frankfurt to NYC is 5-6hrs, something that takes 2-3hrs means actual destination time incl checkin/boarding and airport to destination flying time would be much easier to consider paying the premium. Few but the hardiest want to fly the massive long haul distances like Sydney-London unless deep vein thrombosis and horrendous jet lag is a minor blip. Post covid, perhaps few will want to fly in big A380 sized planes either no matter what the comfort.
There is a very delicate balance to make the ideal plane but the more quiet and fuel efficient the more acceptable it is for the governing aviation authority so that is the goal now for any aircraft maker.
I see a lot of comments saying, that reduction in time isn't as important to them as comfort. As someone who has a strong fear of flying i highly disagree. I honestly don't care if I'm seated on a small seat like in a bus or in one of those super luxury first class cabins because i will feel extremely uncomfortable in both of them as the circumstances are the same. Every minute i spent in the air in an airplane is filled with my fear of turbulence. So even an hour less flight time is in my eyes a gift and a blessing.
I live in Europe and my sister moved 3 years ago to Chicago and i wasn't able to visit her because i simply couldn't imagine myself sitting in an airplane for over 9 hours. My longest flight was 3 hours and it was barley bareable for me. I swear if the Concorde would still fly, i would maybe even save up those 5000€ for a ticket just so i can be in 3 hours in the U.S.
The Sonic Cruiser was an ill-conceived configuration from the start. The thin 'supersonic' wing was used to get the cruise Mach number above 0.9. But that thin a wing is really meant for speeds well above Mach 1. So you pay the structural penalty (weight) for having a very thin wing yet gain, at best, a 20% speed increase instead of a factor of 2 or greater. As in most political environments, anyone voicing a negative opinion is deemed "not be a team player". So at Boeing it was best to just be quiet and let the configuration die its inevitable death. Which, of course, it did. A Mullaly folly at best.
No one has discussed pollution, as that was a heavy concern over the Concord. I know BOOM claims its not an issue for them as they use traditional turbo fans instead of the old cold war engines with afterburners. Boeing has not addressed this on their concept. I think once BOOM comes to market and if successful Boeing and Airbus will follow. Established players are always ALWAYS conservative allowing new comers to shake things up.
Just like NASA, Boeing and the startup space X. Boeing said only a few years ago Space X will not fly = and now they lost the contract for the moon lander.
Same faith as the Convair 990 or the VC10. Faster does no mean better. By the way all actual airplanes are variants of either the B707 or the Caravelle. People forget how nice this last one was and pilots loved it.
Great info, good narration and a catchy background music. What tune did you use in this video?
Project Glacier? That’s pretty clever tbh. Had me chuckling
I happen to love flying (except on the 737, any and all models). I love ultra long distance travel, 12 hours and above, because it affords time to sleep. But in order to sleep well, you need several things. One is comfort, not a commodity in Y class with 17 inch wide seats, and 31 inch seat pitch. Next is OXYGEN, a rarified commodity in most aircraft. Jet lag usually starts with flight that are 3 hours or longer, and much of the physical discomfort is a result of oxygen deprivation. Cabins pressurize to an altitude of 8,000 feet. Not quite double the altitude of Denver. And as you remove oxygen from the environment, they also remove water vapor. Breathing on Mars is never pleasant. It's only modestly better on a long distance 777. And then there is the cabin noise. Advertised as "whisper quiet" in the early days of jet flight, that "whisper" is the equivalent of putting a steel wash tub on your head, and banging it with a metal hammer for hours and hours and hours straight. The new generation of jet aircraft, the Airbus A350, and the Boeing 787 family, and next generation 777 family correct a lot of that. More oxygen, higher cabin humidity, much, much quieter cabins, and overall, much more passenger comfort, even in steerage. With added comfort, better quality air, quiet, those ultralong flights become extremely tolerable. I would rather fly slower and sleep, for a lower priced ticket than having to pay an exorbitant premium, which ultimately killed Concorde and the Sonic Cruiser. And build a smaller aircraft that flies profitably with only a 65% load of passengers as opposed to 95% (the A380), you have a winner. That's the Boeing family (and why the 747's time has passed), and certainly the Airbus models. Now if I could only buy a ticket to a country that would let me in...
I would happily have two extra flight hours if it meant it was a more comfortable and or sustainable flight, in a jet plane or future power.
Sounds really good as long as it doesnt inadvertently decides its going to nosedive in the ground.
This design would fly very well.
You could call it the 797.
P.S. I like this channel it reminds me of a similar channel I watch but you have your own flavor. I'll check back in for more thank you
Check back now! Just dropped a new video
I enjoy flying in a380 for the quiet cabin and comfort
Airlines didn't want faster, they wanted more efficient.
The use of a super cruise engine can help with the development of the future Boeing aircraft designs with high speed and fuel management plus the use of wings with a 45 degree front angle sweep for less drag and a thinner wing.
Maybe the Sonic Cruiser would return, especially for this race for the supersonic transport stage
Make it more aero dynamic, can travel faster than the speed of sound without creating sonic booms
Who wants to waste hours in a flight when you can be at your destination quicker. Hell yes we need these planes today not tomorrow
From someone who loves to fly and has, for much of his career, been a 75,000-100,00/year flyer, I think cutting 2 hours off a 13 hour flight is a big deal. Comfort and speed are not mutually exclusive. I felt the A380 and the 787, from a passenger’s perspective, were both significant but not revolutionary steps forward. And I agree that, basically, we have variations on the 707 for 50 years.
Love to travel with class and comfort... speed doesn't matter at all....
There is work being done on reducing the sonic boom and with such work should also forge ahead with passenger aircraft traveling above the speed of sound.
The limiting factor in aircraft design since Orville and Wilber has been engines. When the Sonic Cruiser was proposed non-radar transoceanic flights were required, in most cases, to maintain assigned mach numbers to insure aircraft separation. Contrary to the video, while the Sonic Cruiser may have been capable of flights in the 40's most of the time in the non-radar track system the ideal altitude for the aircraft was mid-thirties. This is the altitude band that gives the most efficiency to the engines. Unless the Sonic Cruiser was first to cross the first oceanic waypoint it would be trapped flying the same speed as the slowest aircraft in front of it. Back then the North Atlantic track system did not allow much flexibility. There were other operational considerations that were of greater concern to the operators than to the aircraft designers, like parking an aircraft with a big canard at a jetway, but while the aircraft was an interesting design It did not fit all of the operational requirements of the airlines . In thirty plus years of airline flying I lived by the mantra "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going". I see no reason to change now. BTW thanks Dave for the information.
9/11 rating good video
Airlines must offer faster Aircrafts & Boeing I am sure will be successful with this new Sonic Cruiser. Thanks to Boeing for giving some Fantastic Aircrafts... 👍👍
Should I tell him?
The project was from 2001 :(
Yes, I do think that, generally, passenger flight speeds should continually gradually increase. I want to see low orbit paths used. I'd like to see commonplace matter transmission, but I'm probably too old for that. Oh well. Forward, ever!
I think passengers are more interested in comfort (re: the ever shrinking seats suck) , amenities and not getting charged for every damned little thing ! When you buy a ticket it should cover everything!
9:48 No. Faster travel always means burning more fuel and making more noise unless there's a new break through in either fuel or material science. More efficient transportation that can include faster speeds to get a passenger to his destination on time is more preferable, unless it's for a vacation route. Greener propulsion that can offer efficient or more efficient at the expensive of longer travel times is probably what's going to eventually replace traditional jet engine transports. It also depends on how much fossil fuel is left to be extracted from the Earth.
Thanks
For someone who gets restless after 2 hrs stuck in a very small seat in a hermetically sealed tube, I would welcome any reduction in flight time. While I love airliners, flying on them is one of my least favorite things to do. That said, my favorite parts of flying is takeoff and landing. It’s the In between time that is too long for me.
Like it or not, and despite the comparative safety record compared to there modes of transportation, the prospect of getting into a passenger aircrafrat quite anxiety-producing. A change in the appearance of an aircraft, especially one seen for decades, is a mark of security. Even if it makes no financial sense for those who pocket the profits.
That's why what YOU do is so important. To quote a Buffalo New York advertising slogan: 'an educated consumer is our best customer'.
Every one is tired of sitting in the plane for a long time. Now it's 21 century we need a faster plane. No matters a high price we wanted to get there sooner.
The SpaceX Starship will make high speed airliners obsolete.
I will make a video about this!
No it won't It'll cost orders of magnitude more and will not have nearly the safety record.
Archie Waldron They’re already obsolete, the only people that needs to fly are those flying out of necessity, because they need to attend to a loved one located in a far away place or they are going on a vacation to a far away place! So other than the president who has his own jet, he never travels commercially, no one else other than the military & they have their own airplanes! So if I’m the CEO of a major fortune 500 company, I already have my own jet & if I am a big-time celebrity like Tyler Perry, I also have my own jet, so I don’t need to fly commercially either, so ask yourself a question, who else really needs to fly? Remember after 911, all air travel was shut down, but our businesses didn’t shut down, but airlines were completely shut down, yet we didn’t go out of business! Not even the news media was flying! So flying commercially is quite unnecessary when you really get down to the nitty-gritty of the matter! I am happy we have the option & the capability, but it’s not a necessity for most people!
Haha. That would nice. Get to your destination before you finish your first drink??
The G forces on the liftoff would be hard on some people, for example, the elderly. I think we'll see a mix of both, traditional airliners, and SpaceX to haul cargo (DHL) and those that can afford the ticket.
Efficiency is the way to go. I'd rather imagine interchangeable passenger units which would be cleaned, loaded, boarded and to some degree refueled while the planes which are supposed to carry them haven't even arrived.
It depends in the same way as the original concept, speed only counts if it is convenient.
An additional two hours on a London-Singapore flight is not a problem for me. I'm not that self-importantly busy and if I actually was, then who or whatever was waiting for me in Singapore could just wait a little longer.
I believe there needs to be an aircraft like the Sonic Cruiser except it needs to be supersonic and needs to fly at an altitude somewhere around 60,000 to 70,000 feet. Faster point-to-point air travel in the thinner atmosphere so it is still very fuel-efficient. Whoever could build that plane would dominate the market.
a good candidate for the air force one replacement program
Well they are no longer building the A380. So that says something.
Got to feel for all the airports who spent so much to upgrade their facilities to accommodate the A380. What a waste of money.
But the Boeing 747 is also toast.
Gladius Maximus26 : that’s true. I think it’s the end of the giant airliner. Most companies (pre covid) we’re changing the way they fly.
Faster service will always have its plus, especially with taking away the unnecessary Hub connection. Lighter,faster,less fuel....give it a go!
The Boeing Sonic Cruiser is a good concept, but some modifications are needed. Extra speed is not needed, but the added safety of being able to land on a body of water, without the risk of cartwheeling & sinking. Get rid of the canards, increase the surface area of the wings & move them forward. This Sonic Cruiser deserves a second try.
Love it!
So glad!
Hypersonic lover.. 🥰🥰✌️
At some point it pays just to leave air behind and go semi-orbital. No noise along the "flight" track with the noise footprint, although intense, limited to a small circle around the take off and landing areas. If the turnaround can be accomplished expediently, multiple transcontinental trips can be executed in a day. No place on Earth would be further than 45 minutes away (+ the TSA security show). Not to say that there are no serious technical, social, physiological, or political issues this concept, but it would be pretty cool.
How longtarmacis needed?
Which London Airport could accomodate this one?
Which ew York one, Paris one? How much commuti timeisto e added?
How much keroxine , then fuel cost occur?
Estimated ticket price?
Noise at airports?
Estimated most economic range? Eg a9 minute walk within Australia may be too short to take off for?
It would be nice if airlines did offer more point-to-point direct flights rather than layovers in hubs. Often, the deciding factor for my family's travel choices and destinations are based on the shortest drive+flight+drive opposed to only driving. I live 1.5-2 hrs drive from several major airports yet only 30 minutes from a small regional airport with limited seasonal direct service; however, I can fly to and return from Charlotte twice a day from my local regional airport to connect to basically anywhere else I chose... I just chose not to layover unless the ±2 hour drive to an international airport is less of a bother.
With travel time to and from airports, time taken for check in and security checks, reduction in flight time is is not a big deal, if it cost more money.
Yes I would like to see faster jets
Yes, we need an acceptable replacement for the Concorde.
5:38 titanium is heavier than aluminum and ceramics is about the same weight so clearly you cant make it 70% lighter.
Exactly. He should've said the weight would be reduced to 70% (30% less)
Titanium is slightly more dense than Aluminum but 3x as strong, and the composites are even lighter.
@@johnp139 aluminum density is 2,7g/cm while titanium is 4,5 so that is not "slightly" again somebody before you said it should be 30% lighter not 70
@@johnp139 Completely agree with those numbers, but given that the savings (large as they may be due to advanced materials) they are limited to the components we are referring to - fuselage and structure, which isn't the main contributor to the total weight of the aircraft by itself. So, to state that that much percentage of the total weight can be achieved by reducing even 90% of that component when its total contribution is (exaggerating here just to make a point) 70% pic the total aircraft weight is mistaken (I'm that imaginary case, the reduction would be 63%, IF the total weight of the fuselage was reduced to just 10% of the original AND the weight of said fuselage was 70% of the whole aircraft).
If it's heavier but much stronger, you can use much less, thus save weight.
Boeing should consider using boom technology such as composite materials, bypass turbofan engine without afterburner and use sustainable aviation fuel for that sonic cruiser.
Three choices for airlines, 200 miles to Minneapolis St. Paul, 230 to Milwaukee, 303 to Chicago, then you only get flights to other major way over crowded airports, need to get another flight or rent a car to drive to your destination. O'Hare averages over 2550 flights per 24 hour day meaning extremely long inspection lines. And if driving there trying to find a place to park with extreme parking rates. Flying from one over crowded airport to another, means extremely long lines, if to a foreign country, super slow lines checking your passport and luggage. Then the latest change if your airplane is not completely sold out, will cancel that flight, and you don't get the next flight because you are on standby. Who ever came up with this system loves to torture people. Smaller planes at smaller airports is needed.
If they were to make an airplane that is expensive to operate, they could have at least make it a super sized ultra long range airplane, to make more sense for the premium. The transatlantic and transpacific routes would certainly be profitable.
After thinking it through, it is just a little too early for a sonic cruiser. Ultra high by-pass engines operate very efficiently at low altitudes and the old turbo-jet operates very efficiently at high altitudes. Neither operates efficiently at any other altitude than the above. You need a combined cycle engine for the concept to work with decent low fuel use. Materials such as plastic composites as used on the 787 may not work well in the hot spots that may temporarily develops on a sonic cruiser. I would say the aircraft skin problem isn't insurmountable but would require research never-the- less. The sonic cruiser is a good idea but a little ahead of its time. In 10-15 years who knows; perhaps a sonic cruiser will appear if these other 2 developments pan out.
Known as the Chronic Snoozer within the industry, anyone that knows anything about aerodynamics could tell you increased drag at high Mach equals increased fuel burn. The drag-divergence Mach number is the Mach number at which the aerodynamic drag on an airfoil or airframe begins to increase rapidly as the Mach number continues to increase. This increase can cause the drag coefficient to rise to more than ten times its low-speed value.
Wow you are way smarter than me!
When i saw the 787 flying above the sonic cruiser cloud, *i felt bad for a plane*
I don't think air passengers would be willing to pay a great deal more for a ticket on a Boing Sonic than a regular.
However, the design concept looks interesting.
3 solutions Boeing needs, 1- less compressed passengers, 2- higher flight as less complants of sonic flights rocket afterburn convertion over the tropicsphere. 3- greater interior/recreation space... faster, more private, less health pandemic, clear safer paths. This vid almost imposses the opposite.
Faster service should always be the goal we move towards.
Found And Explained
mustard collab
Hmmm ... given the slick production values of these videos ... I hope the narrator didn't say "expecially," at 5:32 ...
Convair 990A - Coronado had the same concept. It could make a NY to London in almost one hour less than a 707 or a DC8. Or the same in a NY to LA flight.
But it took less passengers and, worse, had a much smaller range.
Varig - brazilian company - operated this plane, whitch received from other company, REAL Linhas Aéreas, witch merged to Varig.
But it was really a problem, ‘cause all international flights in the 70’s started in Rio de Janeiro - the destinations were NY, Lisbon, Paris, Rome - and all those the 990-A Coronado was unable to proceed a direct flight. It was only capable to fly direct to Buenos Aires or Santiago - or so.
It was an interesting plane, but had a short life.
i find this idea of flying close the the speed of sound like .95 to .99 Mach a bit strange. I’m no aeronautical engineer but this is what i found on wikipedia “Transonic airspeeds see a rapid increase in drag from about Mach 0.8, and it is the fuel costs of the drag that typically limits the airspeed”, the same piece also says that at that speed some part of the plane, like the rear of the wing and fuselage are actually supersonic.
My feelings is that this is just a marketing pitch never going to happen because it’s against the rules of physics and economic flight.
Convair offered such aircraft in the 60s (CV 880/990), they sold only 100, because they were infamous as fuel guzzlers even when fuel was dirt cheap.