Talk:Boeing Sonic Cruiser/Archive 1

Efficiency
"According to Boeing's own estimates, the Sonic Cruiser would burn 15-20% more fuel than conventional aircraft. However, it was estimated the aircraft would burn roughly the same amount of fuel as a conventional aircraft flying the same route due to the faster travel-time."

Can we have a clarification on this? Perhaps this should read "According to Boeing's estimates, although the Sonic Cruiser would burn fuel 15-20% more quickly than conventional aircraft, the craft would use roughly the same amount of fuel due to shorter travel times." Danielx 11:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.51.76 (talk)

Link
The link "Boeing Sonic Cruiser Webpage" does not work anymore. Boeing seem to have deleted that page. Can anyone involved check that and remove the link if necessary?. Thanks, 194.246.46.15 07:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sonic Cruiser morphs into 787?
This article (as well as the 787 article) lead the reader to believe the Sonic Cruiser project somehow morphed into the 787 project. To me they seem like two completely different aircraft with absolutely no commonality.  Lester  22:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you get the morphing thing. The 787 article does not get into that.  This article says the technology from the Sonic Cruiser was applied to the 787 in the Outcome section.  Composite structure was the main technology carried over.  This does not mean actual components though. But maybe I'm missing where that's implied.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Fnlayson. I tried a slight rephrase of the sentence about the 7E7. For those not familiar, it could have been confused with the Sonic Cruiser. I attempted to make it clearer that we're talking about 2 different aircraft. Thanks,  Lester  04:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the word "fall" needs to be internationalized". Should it be Autumn or Fall or Herbst? Actually, a date or month would be better than a season. Cheers,  Lester  05:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. "Third quarter 2002" would be the quick fix.  Should be able to find a month for that though.  -Fnlayson (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your assistance, Fnlayson. I think the article is clearer now. Lester  21:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks. I familiar with this aircraft and 787 so a fresh view is good.  Looks like the 7E7 artwork was released in Jan. 2003 here.  That would be a better fit in the 787 article though.  -Fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Super-sonic cruiser
The Sonic Cruiser was actually a supersonic plane plan, meant for M1.2 or more (possibly M1.6 top). It was not realized, because the F-119 / F-120 cores cannot maintain supercruise for long distances.

The supersonic pupose was obvious from the start, since nobody would build a brand new untried canard-delta airframe for a mere 0.1 (!) Mach advantage over existing B-707-derivative jetliners. However, the promise of 35-40% less fligh-time on pacific routes would warrant the development of the Sonic Cruiser. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Going through Mach 1 is inefficient, which is critical for airliners. Suggesting a Mach 1.2+ speed seems like wishful thinking to me.  Talk pages are for improving the articles, not a discussion forum. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was indeed planned as a mach 1.2 (versus 2 for Concorde) aircraft that would have the efficency at that speed of a subsonic aircraft thanks to supercruise technologies and produce much less of a sonic boom, this was scaled back post 9/11 to a cruising speed of 0.95 (only 10% faster than rivals) that final 0.5 is where most of the efficency is lost as a craft has to push through its own soundwave but even subsonic aircraft can produce mini sonic booms. Sorry I dont have the time to go hunting for the media sources at the moment. 86.143.189.22 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly what was called Boeing 20XX before the Sonic Cruiser name. I can't find any articles on it mentioning Mach 1.2 except a blurb from Jane's. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Speed of sound
The speed of sound is 342 m/s or about 1235 km/h. That makes .95 of the speed of sound something in the 1170 km/h range. The article incorrectly says that the plane would do 1010 km/h. I've been in jets that have gone that fast with a tailwind already (most of us have). _ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.254.42 (talk)


 * You missed the key phrase: "At altitude" in aviation generally refers to an aircraft's cruising altitude, which in this case would have been in excess of 40,000 ft (12,000 m). The speed of sound at sea level is roughly 767 mph (1235 km/h), but around 654 mph (1,062 km/h) above 36,000 ft (11,000 m). That's a crucial difference, and the reason I've reverted your change. Also, you'd changed the km/h figure, but not the mph one, which made the sentence even more incorrect. - BillCJ (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ^ Well put Bill. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro
Fnlayson, you're killing me. The intro paragraph is choppy; it reads like a list of keywords from the article, instead of a nice summary that leads into the content. The switch from 7E7 to 787 is adequately explained in that article. The insistence on including the word "subsonic" adds further clutter; everyone who reads about the Sonic Cruiser either knows Mach less-than-1 is subsonic, or will find out by reading about Mach number. You're sacrificing clarity and readability in favor of excessive completeness and accuracy. There's plenty of room for those distinctions in the article body. 89.211.58.141 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Stable version
I have added the stable version template to this article talk page, to protect it against article rot in the future. More information about why can be found in the documentation of the template; if anybody is strongly opposed to the usage of this template here, feel free to discuss it here and to remove it. Falconus p t   c 11:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Too bad the image I posted was removed
It's too bad the image I added to the article several years ago was removed awhile back. As usual, the justification was 'improper fair use rationale,' which was probably inaccurate even under the new fair-use policy (Wikipedia changed the wording and format of its policy a number of times since the image was posted; so it may have needed an update in the wording, but that's about it). An image included in a press release usually falls under fair-use, so it's really too bad a perfectly good image was removed. If someone wants to add a similar image from a press-release back in, I'd say it'd do wonders for this article. I'd do it myself, but it's honestly too frustrating to add fair-use images to this project and have them deleted. Too many paladins in the kitchen, or something like that. I'll contribute to articles in other ways from now on. Cheers. --Xaliqen (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

New Development
A google search reveals tons of articles out there suggesting that Boeing has renewed interest and development on the concept. Perhaps that might be incorporated into this article. - 71.34.73.127 (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) (AbstractClass ... locked out of my account, can someone help me get it back? My email changed and I forgot password.)


 * Most of articles, like this one on FlightGlobal, are about 2 years old already. From reading the FlightGlobal blog, it may never really come to anything useful. This is especially as airlines are even more focused on efficiency now because of the increasing global warming/climate change mass hysteria than when the SC was first proposed over a decade ago. - BilCat (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This article has one sentence on the 2012 patent application, and that's probably all that's needed at this time. - BilCat (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)