A B747-500?

A B747-500? Probably not.

The latest issue of Flight International (the Airline Directory M-Z issue) has an article on the Sonic Cruiser which reveals why Boeing has all but opted to go that way rather than compete with Airbus head-on. It also includes an editorial on this very subject.

The A380 is an idea whos time has come, and Airbus will finally move out from under the shadow of Boeing. The A380 is gaining momentum, and has captured the imagination of the airlines, because it is finally going to offer the economies of scale hoped for for so long. Airport and airway congestion are very serious issues, and this aircraft addresses that head-on.
Boeing market forcasts predicted that there would only be room for one such type in the near-term, and the way the order split has gone between the 747X and the A380 confirms Boeing’s market predictions. One can see in hindsight that the development of the 747X has been seen to be a ‘half-hearted’ effort, and the reality is that the 747 is perceived by the airlines to be a very old design which shows when compared to the A380.

Boeing would refuse to accept being eclipsed by its rival without a fight, and the Sonic Cruiser will provide the weapon for that fight. Boeing has said that it will NOT be supersonic; that it will in fact be designed to fly as close to the sound barrier as possible, circa Mach .98. Boeing has said that the fuselage cross section size will fit somehwere between the 777 and 767. This, in my opinion, is a mistake. I believe it should share as much commonality with the 777 as possible, including its cross section, to reduce development costs.

RE: A B747-500?

I have to agree with the coment from Airbus, do we really need a sonic cruiser? Will knocking 1 hour off of a London – New York flight be that great? Boeing say they are aiming for 1 hour per 3,000 miles but with the extra costs to fly at that speed I personnally can’t see a massive market for this aircraft, its use possibly being limited to the business routes such as LHR-JFK.
The one other interesting point on this subject, take a look at the airliner world poll, the fastest flight being bottom of the pile.

RE: A B747-500?

From Boeing point of view it is also guestion of money. Design and everything else involved in new airplane models would cost a lot of money for Boeing.

RE: A B747-500?

Well Paul, you seem to make it look a little to easy. Its not easy to make an aircraft as u must be knowing it. Just comin to this, think why didnt Airbus build a plane like the 747 when it was launched, thats becasue Boeing launched it first and they will have a monopaly on it. Meanwhile Airbus worked out the A380 and of cource its there brainchild so airlines are gonna opt for it. Know Boeing needs to make some new thing. The Sonic Cruiser i think is great. Small and FAST, thats the word to concentrate on. If we can reach our destinations early we wont be needing the luxuries of the A380. Ofcource if the luxuries of the A380 can be combined with a sonic crusier nothin like it;-).

RE: A B747-500?

I don’t really understand why they can’t bring out a double decker 747. If airbus can do it with a similar airframe design, why can’t Boeing. Stick a few Trents on the thing and increase the upper deck area and there you go; a double decker! I know CofG e.t.c. has to be taken into consideration but I’m sure that it’s not beyond the realms of immpossibility……..

Any Ideas?

Paul.

RE: A B747-500?

Hi there,
Do we really need a super sonic aircraft? I think the B747-500 would be a more realistic approach to things. The Concorde, is for the elite, not for anyone, and everyone
Matthew Murray
AirtoursVA@yahoo.co.uk
CEO of Air 2000 Virtual Airways
flightcity.multiservers.com