NOTE: the following has not been updated and is over 3 years old. For background, this story came about as a research project into the now-defunct Sonic Cruiser story.   Most people that know me know that aircraft, either supersonics and/or hypersonics, are in my blood.  And I just thought Boeing's efforts were not complete, so to speak.  So I chellenged them, via a public aviation discussion board.  No new material will be posted here as the thread at Airliners.net was archived in late Oct 2001.
NOTE: the following has not been updated and is over 3 years old. For background, this story came about as a research project into the now-defunct Sonic Cruiser story.   Most people that know me know that aircraft, either supersonics and/or hypersonics, are in my blood.  And I just thought Boeing's efforts were not complete, so to speak.  So I chellenged them, via a public aviation discussion board.  No new material will be posted here as the thread at Airliners.net was archived in late Oct 2001.
Sonic Cruiser needs some changes
          I see problems with Boeing's Sonic Cruiser.  It has nothing to do with the concept, that is required; it is the shape.  This will be long because of my explanations, as you read, there will be some pictures I drew for you to look at, so sit tight, a'ight?


          I have actually always admired Boeing and praised their aircraft until in 1999 when I read a brochure on upcoming products dated from 1996.  In it showed all the derivatives of  737 to the 777 and that is when the monopolistic attitudes of Boeing suddenly came to mind.  I also read in an article of Aviation Week that said Boeing's dominance of the commercial market dropped from 70% in 1990 to 60% in 2000 mostly due to Airbus, needless to say, they got upset.  I am betting Boeing wants it back and by pursuing 20XX rather than a VLA to compete against the A380, they get it.  But they wont get it with the design they got now, I guarantee it.


          Before I read about the 20XX project, I thought Boeing was much too derivative profit happy (DPH) to progress further, I still think that.  I am not against being DPH, it is just that there should be a limit and with nine versions of a 737, it kind of makes you wonder.  This shape is not based on whether it will work as planned or not, it is based on the need to get back on top, regardless of how much research they did.  They need a different shape, and since they have no version 2.0, I made one up based on their DPH philosophy.

          Such features as the double-delta wing has no subsonic purpose.  This is a high subsonic, true, so a sharp wing would reduce some drag at a higher speed.  Boeing says that the increase in speed would cause it to burn more fuel than thier slower counterparts.  This proves to me that a sharper wing does not help since more fuel is being burned.
          
          Shape is too extreme, all moving canards and twin rudder fins?  I am sure Boeing is very capable of producing any airplane they think would be successful, but based on Boeing's previous work with advancements beyond the planes that they have, none have pulled through (i.e. 2707 series, 747-500/600, HCST, 747X.)  I don't trust them. 

          This is a modification I came up with and I think it should represent Boeing's 20XX project, Version 2.1.  I do not have a scanner or a digital camera, so I had to draw this on a bitmap program.  Believe me, I am sure there are better ways to draw on computer.  I took me several weeks to do this because I really had to think about it as it is not a simple sketch.  Take a gander, criticize it if you like a,d you can check back here for updates on these pictures.
Copyright © 2001-2003. Pavan Biliyar
The initial scale will remain at 1:240.
Again, by all means, ask questions, or comments about ANYTHING  on this site.  This is my first time making a webpage and criticing an aircraft and I would like to know what you are thinking.  For those who claim that 20XX is still in its infancy, what better time to make some changes than right now. 
Last updated:   032303@1102 MST
You're one of many.
First update was that the inlet needed to be bigger.  I found out that the inlet I put in was with respect to wing root and not where the inlet actually was.  For more air at low speed, a vent was added at top-forward section of engine housing. Bare in mind that just because the inlet is on topof the wing does not mean that a lower pressure will choke the engine.  The scaled engine main fan diameter was calculated to be approximately between 88 and 90 inches, so I drew in a fake engine.  I also put in a view with a Pratt&Whitney 4000 series engine to see if it would fit, and sure enough, it did (check out second pix).
You guys must have already noticed by now that on the updated top/side view,  those look like pretty large flaps, huh?  Well there's a simple explanation, since the wing was already thin and I want to have a multi-element aerofoil with high lift devices, I have to basically invent a new aerofoil (next pix). 
It has a standard slat and main aerofoil but the main flap has its own secondary flap; there was no room for a vane. This led to problems of naming and since I have never seen this type of configuration, I can only predict how it will respond. Figure #4 shows a predicted boundary layer behavior for this multi-element aerofoil.
Previously updated:   100101@1327 PST
Well after so serious revisions, the aircraft has been changed, slightly.  The fuselage has been waisted, the main wing was move back, a small gloved delta was added to the wing root, a pair of canards was added, and the vertical tail was made larger for stablity.
Why was the fuselage waisted?  This was a consideration of bothe the airflow density as the Vmax approaches M1.0 and the area rule.  Calculating the area rule was abitch becuase it ruined the original, in fact Version 2.2 needs to be calculated in order to see how this layout manages.  After further analysis, the original proved unworthy interms of pitch movement. 

The original purpose of the delta gloves was actually the planned close-coupled canards, however this is where the error occured, The aerofoil itself would have had to pitch to really high angles of attack, to the point of stalling, in order to change the pitch of the aircraft, so I decided to make they slats.  I placed another pair up in front, initially I neglected to place them near the nose thinking of how they would disrupt the pilots overall view.  After thinking about the "gloved canards'" purpose I decided to make them a permanent part of the wing.

What's up with the cockpit windows?  Well this is my own creation (whether or not it already exists is not my problem simply because I was never aware of it).  NASA did some research on elliminating the drooping nose characteristic from the Concorde in their HSCT program.  The idea was to place large sreens in front of the pilot in place of the windows, they were supposed to be connected to a series of cameras outside the airplane.  The problem was getting the resolution necessary so that the pilot can see the air traffic just as well as if he was given his forward looking windows.  I do not agree with getting rid of the forward windows completely, and it would probably cost too much to develop the resolution needed, according to NASA, it has to be the same as the human eye -- which is on the order of a few hundred thousand lines.  I prefer some windows and, instead of large sreens, virtual reality headsets directly connected to the cameras out side, I called it the Spycam System back in 1996 when I first came up with it.
Also I have already checked to see if this wheel arrangement will fit into the fuselage when they retract.  Despite its relative size (164' x 124' x 49') comparative to a 757, it weight is greater mainly due to the wing.  This is why it was necessary to have the bogies at 3x2.  The manuverablity of the bogie is that it is in two pieces where as both swing independently as the aircraft turns, like a 777 does.