Talk:Boeing Sonic Cruiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)