April 30, 2001

11:14 PM

Boeing's new boatwill be able to fly 6,000 nautical to 10,000 nautical miles nonstop which means it could circle the earth having to only refuel twice. The linked page includes a nice rendering of what the plane will look like (with concords permanently grounded, boeing might actually pull this off)
posted by Zebulun (16 comments total)

Boeing's new boat? I see a plane.
posted by mathowie at 11:39 PM on April 30, 2001

and the Concorde isn't permanently grounded
posted by owillis at 11:46 PM on April 30, 2001

The linked page and the actual press release looks and reads like Microsoft press releases. Pie in the sky promises trying to halt potential customers from buying any competing products.
posted by tamim at 12:04 AM on May 1, 2001

And the range performance images look more like copied from Airbus.

I want to fly non-stop to Pago P'ago.
posted by tamim at 12:13 AM on May 1, 2001

Everything I've read about the Sonic Cruiser talks about speed of 0.95 Mach (Transonic speeds). Current generation airliners hit 0.87-0.88 Mach. So, the speed improvement is a paltry 0.08-0.10 Mach, for a much higher manufacturing cost (aerodynamics change dramatically from below 0.9 to above 1.1 Mach, with the region in between being a total mess). I just don't see it. Unless Boeing has figured out a way (active controls perhaps) to make transonic flight economical, this just sound like vaporware to me --especially after they backed off the 747X idea...
posted by costas at 1:05 AM on May 1, 2001

In spite of all the problems which, in the scheme of things, shake out as minor, air travel is a modern miracle. And anyone worried about the environment, overcrowding, the rain forest, ocean pollution, etc. has only to look out the window while flying cross-country to know how arrogant we are to assume we humans can truly mess it up.
posted by tenbroeck at 6:56 AM on May 1, 2001

I must both agree and disagree with you tenbroeck, by saying that probably the best thing that we could do for the planet is to make it unhabitable by humans.
posted by donkeymon at 7:33 AM on May 1, 2001

One thing's for sure: Airbus' plans for that bigger plane are dellusional; like something out of a failed 1970's Fred Silverman or Aaron Spelling TV show. Does anyone find the idea of a jet with 600 passengers on it attractive (other than terrorists?).
posted by ParisParamus at 7:54 AM on May 1, 2001

What's this? 600 is too many? But 400 on a 747 is acceptable? Come on, ParisParamus... the 747 is the most popular jet in the world and it boasts the best safety record in history. Moving hundreds of people thousands of miles in hours is a great human achievement. Meanwhile, you're still watching reruns of Fantasy Island and bemoaning the demise of Supertrain.
posted by tenbroeck at 8:13 AM on May 1, 2001

Matt, it's a boat in the same sense that a 1976 Buick Electra 225 was a boat.
posted by rodii at 8:23 AM on May 1, 2001

Ok, this is a dumb question, but can't supersonic planes, or at least the nasa one, fly so high that we don't really hear the boom?
posted by mecran01 at 8:34 AM on May 1, 2001

Tenbroeck: you gotta make your sarcasm a little clearer...
posted by ParisParamus at 9:02 AM on May 1, 2001

Here's a picture of the new Boeing. I like it!
posted by rodii at 9:46 AM on May 1, 2001

Speaking of big, fast boats...
posted by fusinski at 10:09 AM on May 1, 2001

by boat i meant large vessel.. i was speaking figuratively -- rodii got it
posted by Zebulun at 4:02 PM on May 1, 2001

You think that's a fast boat? Take a look at this. Is it a boat, is it a plane? Or is it...an ekranoplan?
posted by davidgentle at 4:13 PM on May 3, 2001