Boeing Sonic Crusier

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Peter Kline, Jan 23, 2002.

  1. Peter Kline

    Peter Kline Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 1999
    Messages:
    2,393
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Shawn Shultzaberger

    Shawn Shultzaberger Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2000
    Messages:
    705
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find this plane very interesting. I believe there was some debate about whether Boeing could pull it off or not. The engines and the frame come to mind.
    If they can do it then more power to them. Air Bus' attempt was to go with a much larger passenger capacity but still stay at current speeds (I might be off in the speed area [​IMG] )
    air bus - slow, comfortable, more people
    boeing - much faster, comfortable, less people
    The passengers will decide who stays and who goes.
     
  3. Chuck C

    Chuck C Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm fascinated by the fact that it would take 1 hr to go from NY to LA and From NY to London....
    [​IMG]
    How do these times compare to Concordes?
    I read that the speed would be between Mach .95 and .98...is this so there is no sonic boom?
     
  4. AjayM

    AjayM Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2000
    Messages:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whoops....That image above is a "flight time savings" list, not a total flight time list. So right now a NY to London flight on the Concord is like 2.5-3 hrs, on a regular plane it's like what 6-7hrs, this new plane saves an hour off the regular flying time (which is pretty good). Tokyo to California is what, a 15hr or so flight, cutting 2 hours off of that one isn't to bad either.

    Andrew
     
  5. Todd Hochard

    Todd Hochard Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 1999
    Messages:
    2,312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those times are time SAVINGS over current planes.

    If those were the times, that would translate to about Mach 5+!
     
  6. Shawn Shultzaberger

    Shawn Shultzaberger Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2000
    Messages:
    705
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope, no sonic boom. I think one of the hurdles was speed vs. cost. Keeping it subsonic probably reduced the cost plus reduced their headaches with having to put up with noise pollution. Lots and lots of people would have complained about the sonic boom.
    I think the Concorde goes faster than Mach 1 but at a huge price (both cost and pollution). The Concorde also flies so high that the cabin is shielded (for lack of a better word) because of radiation. The atmospshere don't protect to well at their altitudes. [​IMG]
     
  7. Kevin Coleman

    Kevin Coleman Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1999
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Concorde can go Mach2.
    I just got layed off from Boeing. We were hearing rumors that they were testing a model of the SC in a wind tunnel of speeds north of Mach 1.5. The whole point is the sonic boom. They are trying to get a design where the sonic boom will be much reduced. Surely you guys don't think they are going to cruise around a .98 all of the time and not punch through? It is actually cheaper to run just above Mach1 than just below it. They don't call it the SONIC Cruiser for nothing.
    Too bad it will probably be mostly built in Japan.
    Kevin C. [​IMG]
     
  8. Rob Lutter

    Rob Lutter Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,523
    Likes Received:
    1
    how much? [​IMG]
     
  9. Neil Joseph

    Neil Joseph Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 1998
    Messages:
    8,332
    Likes Received:
    1
    Real Name:
    Neil Joseph
    I heard this thing would have scramjet and "super ramjet" engines. At least that was the design proposal a few years ago. They seem to have toned down the speeds considerably.
     
  10. Chuck C

    Chuck C Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    1
     
  11. RobertR

    RobertR Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 1998
    Messages:
    9,696
    Likes Received:
    165
    I don't understand why people get all in a tizzy about a sonic boom. What's the big deal? It doesn't damage anything, and sonically it doesn't seem any worse than nearby thunder (I've heard the boom when the Space Shuttle comes in to land at Edwards AFB).
     
  12. Bill Catherall

    Bill Catherall Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 1997
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    0
    I seem to recall from my fluid dynamics class in college that supersonic jets should have a pointed nose cone (like the Concord) if they intend to break the sound barrier. Something to do with the "bow wake" and how a rounded nose actually creates more drag at supersonic speeds. So I'm curious as to why this jet has a rounded nose.
     
  13. Philip_G

    Philip_G Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,030
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  14. CharlesD

    CharlesD Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. Todd Hochard

    Todd Hochard Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 1999
    Messages:
    2,312
    Likes Received:
    0
     

Share This Page