Airliner for 21st century grew out of silver suitcase. Interesting perspective from James Wallace.

From Seattle PI:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...amliner29.html

 

I had a professor who used to say the Sonic Cruiser was nothing more than a diversion created for Airbus so they would not think the 787 was in development. As it turns out, there is credence to this theory lent by the fact the Sonic Cruiser was dropped by Boeing, plus the fact that Airbus is late developing a high-efficiency composite airliner of their own. The main support for my professor's idea was that aircraft aerodynamics are very difficult to manage in the transonic range. All aircraft, either subsonic or supersonic avoid the transonic range by staying well below it or else bursting through it on to supersonic cruise. To design an aircraft to "hang out" at Mach 1 is folly among aerodynamicists, but a good way to mislead anyone who doesn't know enough about it. A fake project would have been alluring to Airbus while they chased aerodynamic smoke and mirrors. Boeing has long had an an excellent fluid dynamics modeling ability, and aside from NASA whom they collaborate with, whatever they do is considered cutting edge. They probably never intended to make a sonic cruiser and the efficiency would not have been what they said it was, namely equivalent to other aircraft flying at 0.85.

 

Airbus can't be that dumb, can it? Hard to believe.

 

Read about Airbus and their last year doing business. I wouldn't put it past them.

 

If Boeing thought this professor would believe it they were mistaken; he made the statement to his students and I think he was sincere. Cruise at Mach 1 defies aerodynamic rationale for the most part, and it would have been amazing if Boeing had found a way to do it efficiently. Belief plays a role in science in that one must believe they can prove something in order to prove it. Some beliefs are unsupported by theory and must be identified as unlikely.

Modern aerodynamic theory far exceeds the present capacity of computer calculation. The Navier Stokes Equations of compressible flow are intractable open-form equations that supercomputers cannot manage. Aerodynamic engineering is therefore a mix of simplified equations and experimental data. If one does not share the results of their actual experiments, then assuming they have truly found something noteworthy it puts the competition at a great disadvantage. It is not inconsequential for parties to engage in disinformation campaigns under such circumstances. Much of the intelligence activity of WWII was dedicated to unraveling scientific truths thought to be known to the enemy. Business is similar in that if you beat the competition to a better product you can dominate the market in that product. Such is the case with 787, Boeing has made an airplane that exceeds others in its category. It took a lot of hard work plus a little bit of subterfuge to accomplish it. In summary, I consider it very likely the sonic cruiser was a fake project.

 

Anybody catch the unvelling of the 787? I watched the live webcast from boeing's website. Looks like i nice airplane.

 

Airbus put all their eggs into one basket that has caused major aerospace companies to bail out of commerical aviation on more than one occasion. On top of that, said basket has very few parties that can justify it. Boeing, on the other hand, chose to go to a market that was already in existience and hasn't been touched in 20+ years. The same market appeals to airlines of every size regardless of cargo or passenger.

Now the next big question is who will jump into the 737/A320 market replacement.

 

I agree the 787 is a beautiful aircraft, however, was the creation of a new model necessary? I thought a passenger load niche was already created in the 767-300 and 400?...not to mention the 737-900.

 

The 787-3 is an answer to the needs of mainly Asian and Indian operators where high density seating, high efficiency, and less pollution are needed on short trunk routes. If you look at the corporations that bought the early delivery places for the first 700 airframes you notice nearly none are American or Western. NWA and Continental are the only ones.

787 comes in long range variations (-8, -9) which are by far the longest range aircraft in the midsize weight class. The 777 is about 28% larger. 787-8, 9 fills a niche where 777-200ER, -LR have the range, but not the smaller capacity needed for prevailing market conditions. More carriers are going longer distances but with less seats sold per plane.

787 also looks better and is supposed to be more comfortable than 757, 767, and 777. My company makes me ride coach so I look forward to the larger seats, but I doubt we will see very many here in the US.

 

I mention the 787 looks better than the others which is silly, because we all know aerodynamics drives the shape of windswept surfaces. But looks are a consideration. Case in point, a professor I had claimed that Boeing started sweeping vertical tailfins on its planes because they sell better with it. I thought he was kidding at the time. Vertical tailfins do not require sweep to avoid drag divergence aerodynamically, yet they are swept because they look good.

Here is a Comet Mark 4, circa 1955. the first jet airliner. A lot has changed since then.