Boeing Sonic Cruiser aka 'Project 20XX' aka 'Project Glacier'

[flateric]

Holy Banana! John Ostrower have found stadium seating mutation!
! http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2008/11/boeings-sonic-cruiser-revived.html

 

[Triton]

News conference with Alan Mulally, President & CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, unveiling the Sonic Cruiser design to the press on March 29, 2001. Service entry was expected in late 2007 or early 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W_lRl1uVrg

Photographs of Alan Mulally and the Sonic Cruiser model from the March 29, 2001 press conference.

 

[Triton]

Photograph of the inlets of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser, according to Boeing 787 Dreamliner by Mark Wagner and Guy Norris, Zenith Press, 2009:

An innovative design feature of the Sonic Cruiser was its low drag inlets beneath the wings. Similar in cross section to the ovoid F-16 inlet but skewed outward, they stood proud from the airfame and clear of the boundary layer, ensuring a flow of "clean," undisturbed air into the shallow S-ducts feeding the buried engines. The configuration, revealed for the first time at the 2001 Paris Air Show, also posed some challenges, particularly with foreign-object ingestion.

 

[Triton]

According to Boeing 787 Dreamliner by Mark Wagner and Guy Norris, Zenith Press, 2009:

To get around airline infrastructure concerns, Boeing presented airlines with alternative configurations. One was a "midwing" design that combined fairly conventional wings and tail surfaces with a "wasp-waisted" or area-ruled fuselage. The concept was configured with two main cabin cross sections, a wide cabin in the fore body and aft body, and a slimmer midbody section. The design resurrected a far reaching 1972 Boeing-NASA study that evaluated area-ruling in several concepts optimized for cruise speeds in the Mach 0.9 to .98 range.

I presume that this is an artist's impression based on Figure 1C, Figure 1D, and Figure 1E attached by flateric above from US Patent 6705567.

 

[Stargazer]

Has anyone got an article (or a link) that would explain exactly why and how the Sonic Cruiser was canceled? This was the first transport program that I was really thrilled about and I never quite understood what killed it. All I know is that whenever "Sonic Cruiser" is pronounced, there always seem to be snide or derogatory remarks, if not outright laughs...

 

[Evil Flower]

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.

 

[Kevin Renner]

Well, it makes nice wallpaper anyway.

 

[Sundog]

Has anyone got an article (or a link) that would explain exactly why and how the Sonic Cruiser was canceled? This was the first transport program that I was really thrilled about and I never quite understood what killed it. All I know is that whenever "Sonic Cruiser" is pronounced, there always seem to be snide or derogatory remarks, if not outright laughs...

I think it's due to the fact that the airline industry is extremely conservative in nature and not very into "change." I too thought the Sonic Cruiser was the most exciting design going since the SST years, but it was too "radical" for the airline industry. Also, everything is about the perspective from the bean counters; they want maximum profit. Period. As such, they're more interested in greater efficiency than they are speed/minimum time flights. Therefore, Boeing went back to the drawing board and came up with a maximum efficiency "safe" design, the 787. I say safe in the sense that people making the decisions think it looks the way an airplane is supposed to look. When, in fact, the 787 is probably more radical than the sonic cruiser was, due to it's structure and systems.

I've encountered this behavior in some of my engineering jobs, where I've designed something that looked quite different from what has been done before, but is actually quite safe from an engineering POV. Although, I did it to make the machines easier to manufacture, modify, and maintain. But then there is push-back from sales, "How are they going to sell that," and it isn't like what everyone else is doing. I thought the point was for us to NOT look like whatever one else is doing, to set us apart and be better; stupid f'n me.

Also, a side note; the customer isn't always right and I've let them know that. I've been in trouble a few times for that, but it sure felt good letting them know it. ;D

 

[Stargazer]

Thank you Sundog for sharing this interesting bit of personal experience.

I too thought the Sonic Cruiser was the most exciting design going since the SST years, but it was too "radical" for the airline industry.

Glad to hear from other people who were equally enthused as I was...

Boeing went back to the drawing board and came up with a maximum efficiency "safe" design, the 787. I say safe in the sense that people making the decisions think it looks the way an airplane is supposed to look. When, in fact, the 787 is probably more radical than the sonic cruiser was, due to it's structure and systems.
I've encountered this behavior in some of my engineering jobs, where I've designed something that looked quite different from what has been done before, but is actually quite safe from an engineering POV. Although, I did it to make the machines easier to manufacture, modify, and maintain. But then there is push-back from sales, "How are they going to sell that," and it isn't like what everyone else is doing. I thought the point was for us to NOT look like whatever one else is doing, to set us apart and be better; stupid f'n me.

For some reason this reminds me of the way that some people will trust anyone with a suitcase, a suit and a tie, even if they are the worst crooks around, just because that's the way a respectable person is supposed to look. I find this lack of inventiveness and narrow-mindedness are sad, but they are just all around. If you try to be in business, in politics, in religion, in most anything that deals with selling stuff or ideas to people and you're not dressed the way people expect you too, you are discarded right away and ill-considered, whatever the quality of what you're trying to sell or however sound and valid your arguments.

the customer isn't always right and I've let them know that. I've been in trouble a few times for that, but it sure felt good letting them know it. ;D

Again I totally concur with you. Sadly, the mass media tend to consider that the public is always right, and that however base, stupid, immoral or pointless the show that people demand to watch, you've got to give them what they want... I believe that many people's ideas, views, notions are sometimes rough, misguided or ill-informed and that to some extent they need to be educated. You don't give people what they want, you strive to give them what you think they'd want if they knew better. This may sound terribly pretentious to some I guess, but if you don't feel like you can bring something new to people and make a difference, what's the use?

 

[Triton]

According to Boeing 787 Dreamliner by Mark Wagner and Guy Norris, Zenith Press, 2009, airlines voiced concerns over the canard and the clearing of jet bridges and the use of other airport infrastructure. This led Boeing to remove the canard altogether, which moved the wing forward near the middle of the aircraft requiring the "Coke bottle"-shaped fuselage and the addition of a horizontal tail.

US airlines began to lose interest in the Sonic Cruiser when the economy began to soften and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks reduced demand for air travel in the United States. With the recession, US airlines experienced a decrease in business travelers, were under increased price pressure from low-cost carriers like JetBlue, and went into survival mode.

In addition, according to Wagner and Norris, the Sonic Cruiser fell foul of the volatile relationship between Europe and the United States over the environment and the US refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol on limiting greenhouse gases. The Sonic Cruiser was the target of vitriolic attack by European Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom in an open letter to Boeing Vice Chairman Harry Stonecipher. In the letter, Wallstrom writes "I find it hard to believe that anyone today could afford himself the luxury of 'let's not think about tomorrow' attitude which runs diametrically opposed to the aims of sustainable development." Questioning the entire speed concept, Wallstrom asked "whether a one hour time saving on a transatlantic flight is worth a significant increase in carbon dioxide emissions contributing to climate change. In my view, this environmental price is simply not worth paying." (page 20)

Wallstrom continues "Instead of building faster planes, your industry should work toward improved environmental performance, dramatically improving the efficiency of aircraft and powering aircraft by alternative fuels." (page 20)

Rising fuel costs during this period also caused the airlines concern, even though Boeing claimed that fuel consumption was similar to the 777. The Sonic Cruiser's higher cruise speeds also meant earlier arrival and departures, particularly in transpacific routes. This caused logistical challenges of slotting in the aircraft's unusual timings into hub and spoke connections.

For these reasons, many airlines lost interest in the Sonic Cruiser and became more interested in increased fuel efficiency.

 

[Stargazer]

Thank you very much for this precise and interesting account, Triton. Certainly helps a lot in understanding how this beautiful project, which could really have changed the face of airports, never came to be. Airliner design is just so dull on the whole that a Sonic Cruiser would have made a great change, and possibly would have reassured the public that different aircraft configurations are possible and even desirable.

 

[LowObservable]

The Sonic Cruiser died because it made no sense in the first place. The total trip time savings for the passenger (from door to door) were attractive on very long sectors, but the price in terms of operating cost was very large.

At the root of the problem was that the airplane was heavy. The wing was oversized because of the difficulty of installing effective flaps and because it needed a huge strake to carry fuel near the cg (the Starship problem). The engine installation threw away the bending-load relief of underwing engines (the VC10 problem). Then, to propel the aircraft in a high-drag zone, you needed more power (and more weight). I do not believe the design ever converged properly. As Norris points out, the aircraft needed a 90000 pound-class engine - a hell of a lot more than a 787 or A350 with similar or better payload and range.

So who was going to pay for those operating costs? Not the price-driven market in the back, and not always/necessarily the people in the front, except where the extra speed could turn an overnight into a day flight, or achieve a similar quantum improvement in schedule. And it was a complete nonstarter for the low-fare carriers who had bought a lot of A330s.

The SC's origin was as a what-if study based on supersonic designs - there's a clear paper trail from Boeing-Sukhoi inspired studies. I suspect that it was promoted because it looked "neat" and "cool" as Mulally would have put it, and because Boeing desperately needed something to make it look like Airbus was not cleaning their clock. It emerged just as yet another attempt to stretch the 747 and 767 had bitten the dust, and as the A330 was killing the 767, with the A380 selling strongly. It may have been serious, but it was never mature.

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks for this interesting contribution, LowObservable!

 

[Sundog]

At the root of the problem was that the airplane was heavy. The wing was oversized because of the difficulty of installing effective flaps and because it needed a huge strake to carry fuel near the cg (the Starship problem). The engine installation threw away the bending-load relief of underwing engines (the VC10 problem). Then, to propel the aircraft in a high-drag zone, you needed more power (and more weight). I do not believe the design ever converged properly. As Norris points out, the aircraft needed a 90000 pound-class engine - a hell of a lot more than a 787 or A350 with similar or better payload and range.

Now that makes sense to me. Also, based on that example, if you're going to go through all of that trouble, then just make a supersonic design anyway. Because what you're saying is that it was a subsonic design with many of the disadvantages of a supersonic design with the exception of the sonic boom problem. Although, IIRC, the engines on the wings reduce torsional load, not bending load, correct?

 

[CFE]

The Sonic Cruiser died because it made no sense in the first place. The total trip time savings for the passenger (from door to door) were attractive on very long sectors, but the price in terms of operating cost was very large.

Obviously the engineering challenges to make Sonic Cruiser work would have been daunting if the program carried on. Do you think that things would have been any easier if Boeing chose the more traditional wasp-waisted transonic design for its Sonic Cruiser?

 

[LowObservable]

"Do you think that things would have been any easier if Boeing chose the more traditional wasp-waisted transonic design for its Sonic Cruiser?"

Not much. Plus you'd have had a horrible interior design problem.

 

[flateric]

no, Sonic Cruiser mutations are not final at Boeing (even if corpse is 9 years dead)
http://www.google.com/patents?id=gFCiAAAAEBAJ

surely moving engines on pylons and adding chevrons should make many say "Nya!"

 

[Triton]

Model of Boeing Sonic Cruiser.

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/boeing/2009/04/

 

[flateric]

PacMin 1/100 BOEING SONIC CRUISER MODEL - NEW IN BOX

LENGTH: 28"
WINGSPAN: 20"

Current bid: US $241.38
Bidders:9
Bids:13
Time left:5 days 14 hours 53 mins

ouch!

 

[Triton]

PacMin 1/100 BOEING SONIC CRUISER MODEL - NEW IN BOX

 

[Triton]

Additional photographs of Pacmin Boeing Sonic Cruiser model.

 

[OM]

Thanks for this interesting contribution, LowObservable!

...And despite all the naysaying about why it was doomed to EPIC FAIL on paper, it's still one of the more attractive SST designs we've seen in the past couple of decades. One of the sad sides to delving into the world of concept aircraft is that one has to develop a thick skin when it comes to encountering concepts like this; a thick skin that softens the blow that such fantastic, aesthetically pleasing concepts are forever doomed to remain on paper in favor of totally boring and "cost effective" designs, a tradition that continues today, as the new Airbus designs so disgustingly demonstrate.

Potential New OM's Law: The more aesthetically pleasing an aircraft design is on paper, the higher the odds that some dipshit in accounting will keep the design from leaving the drawing board.

 

[Stargazer]

I can but agree 100% with OM, unfortunately. Airliner design (and much of mainstream aviation design, for that matter) has become pretty boring, because it's all about saving costs, taking little risk and optimizing everything by computer, so everyone pretty much reaches the same results in the end!

 

[flateric]

2003 mid-wing Sonic Cruiser patent

http://www.google.com/patents/download/10_681_790_Integrated_aircraft_windshiel.pdf?id=2x6JAAAAEBAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U3MmHE97ci_bKs9K2qB2shI5gwmUw

Integrated aircraft windshields and associated methods
Inventors: Kevin M. Retz, Nicholaas Voogt, Michael G. Friend, Christopher R. Holtorf, Mannon L. Wallace, Andrew Sones
Assignee: The Boeing Company
Patent number: 6817571
Filing date: Oct 8, 2003
Issue date: Nov 16, 2004
Application number: 10/681,790

 

[Skybolt]

Uh oh, looks they were slowly going back to the early '70s transonics of the Mlodel 767 series...

 

[Basil]

Does anyone know how the relative high bypass engine of the SC could have been operated economically at nearly Mach 1? It is my understanding that in these flight regimes the ideal bypass ratio should be much lower than that of a huge fan in front of the hot section.

 

[Triton]

Boeing Sonic Cruiser sales brochure from 2001.

Source:
http://airchive.com/html/memorabilia/boeing/2001-boeing-sonic-cruiser-sales-brochure/8224
http://airchive.com/html/memorabilia/boeing/2001-boeing-sonic-cruiser-sales-brochure/8225

 

[Caravellarella]

I suspect "B" are still embarrassed by the whole episode......

Terry (Caravellarella)

 

[Stargazer]

I suspect "B" are still embarrassed by the whole episode......

Terry (Caravellarella)

It would have been much more of an embarrassment if an actual flying article had been built and found to be an under-performer...

 

[Triton]

I understand that the research that Boeing performed in developing the Sonic Cruiser was applied to the 787 project: carbon fiber reinforced plastic for the fuselage and wings, bleedless engines, cockpit and avionics design.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a very interesting article concerning the development of the Boeing 787 and how it relates to the Boeing Sonic Cruiser project:

Wallace, James. "How the 787 'Dream' was born". Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 29, 2007.
http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/How-the-787-Dream-was-born-1242144.php

 

[shockonlip]

Does anyone know how the relative high bypass engine of the SC could have been operated economically at nearly Mach 1? It is my understanding that in these flight regimes the ideal bypass ratio should be much lower than that of a huge fan in front of the hot section.

There is technology developed for what GE calls Variable Cycle Engines (VCE) or P&W calls
Variable Stream Control Engines (VSCE) which should be able to contribute to a
suitable engine for an aircrft like the Sonic Cruiser.

This technology came from a desire, going back 20-30 years or more, for a turbine engine with
the capability of a high bypass turbofan (for low speed efficiency) and a turbojet (for high
speed efficiency). These engines support multiple internal flowpaths which can be changed to
optimize efficiency.

If a Sonic Cruiser like aircraft design needs aspects of this capabilty, there is technology to go
look at here.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[Triton]

Model of Boeing Sonic Cruiser located in the Boeing Archives Bellevue, Washington.

Source:
http://airchive.com/html/museums/boeing-archives-bellevue-washington-usa/boeing-sonic-cruiser-model-and-727-200-prototype-2001/19140

http://airchive.com/html/museums/boeing-archives-bellevue-washington-usa/boeing-sonic-cruiser-model-and-727-200-prototype-2001/19141

 

[Triton]

Artist's impressions of Boeing Sonic Cruiser.

 

[Arjen]

Spotted on Aviation Week's Leading Edge blog.

Not to be beaten on the quiet airliner front, Boeing has refreshed its Sonic Cruiser design with a new patent (8,016,233, filed in 2006) that focuses on the canard double-delta configuration's ability to shield the noise from overwing-mounted engines.The patent also notes that the configuration's broad inboard wing section (and twin outboard vertical tails) could provide shielding of infrared radiation in a military application and shockwaves from the propulsion system in a supersonic configuration.

 

[Triton]

Model of Boeing Sonic Cruiser.

Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/airchive/

 

[flateric]

Some correction/integration. Actually the sonic cruiser look-alike appeared on the cover of the NASA Office of Aeronautics Annual Report for 1999 "IS" a Boeing concept, more precisely configuration model 2154, one of the last developed during the HSCT program.

Boeing Model 1080-2454 HiSCAT in 'sanitized' and 'de-sanitized' form.

 

[hesham]

Some correction/integration. Actually the sonic cruiser look-alike appeared on the cover of the NASA Office of Aeronautics Annual Report for 1999 "IS" a Boeing concept, more precisely configuration model 2154, one of the last developed during the HSCT program.

Boeing Model 1080-2454 HiSCAT in 'sanitized' and 'de-sanitized' form.

very cool,thank you my dear Flateric.

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Boeing Sonic Cruiser from Boeing Images

Source:
http://www.boeingimages.com

 

[jrlucariny]

View: https://youtu.be/_cl9m80BSqg