The Sonic Cruiser
 

Trying to get away from the current QF debate. Thought I might try this:

About 18 months ago I read that the "break-even" cost for the A380 for Airbus was around 650 hulls. To my knowledge, slightly less than 200 have sold (no expert here).

No sure what this has done to Airbuses bottom line - will have to dig up the latest annual report. It may be a white elephant or a very long term investment.

Is the world ready for the sonic cruiser OR is a plane with the range for any city on the planet the next step forward?

I think 2030 would prob be reasonable for the sonic cruiser if it was given the go ahead today?

Yep, I think Airbus has sold about 200 A380s and is always banging on about having commitments for more, but these never seem to mature.

I read somewhere break-even used to be around 300, but with all the program's troubles, that has soared above 500!

I'll be buggered how anyone is supposed to make money out of long haul...if the fuel isn't too expensive, the competitors aren't predatory, and the Euros aren't trying to tax you to hell, you might stand a slim chance...

The big problem with the Sonic Cruiser idea was simple enough- the cost of fuel.

The proposed 777-8LR has London-Sydney range with a decent payload, and would no doubt have a nich market, as the current 777-200LR does.

But the money is always going to be in heavily patronaged, medium length routes on which you can put a decent sized aircraft and fill it, without having to use to much fuel.

Range becomes a diminishing return because of the extra fuel-burn required just to caryy the fuel in the first place, and speeds above aroung .85 necessarily bring a penalty in burn, no matter how clever the design.

The A380 order book stands at about 260 and hasn't budged since it was launched (I think it's been a net reduction over the last couple of years) and 90 of those are for Emirates. if EK canceled, it would probably end the program.

It will never make a cent for Airbus.

Rumour(!) has it that EK's 90 A380's was a "shock and awe" tactic played on the industry - apparently the length of the delivery schedule is such that the second 45 airframes are just replacements for the first 45.

Rumour #2 EK have four A380's sitting at Toulouse and they are refusing to take delivery "until the wings are fixed" but the real reason is a business slowdown.

Anyone from the sandpit care to confirm the above?

As for the Sonic Crusier - one sexy beast:
http://www.gustavhall.se/wp-content/...iser-pic05.jpg

and proposed performance here: HowStuffWorks "How Sonic Cruisers Will Work"

The official reason Boeing dropped the Sonic Cruiser was the price of fuel but there was some speculation at the time that Boeing was never serious and the whole thing was an elaborate ploy by Boeing to distract Airbus while the real game changer - the 787 program "slipped under the radar".

Of course the 787 program hasn't quite gone as well as Boeing had hoped - at least they have a huge order book to try and make a $ at the end of the day.

Wiz, you have to stop listening to Boeing FM all the time. 4 380s ordered in 2009, 32 ordered in 2010 and 19 ordered in 2011.

Ek have been having wings fixed prior to delivery and will be receiving another 9 prior to the end of 2012. Over 40 380s in the fleet prior to the end of 2013 so the rumours by D.Lamination seem a bit suss.

The Don

Sexy beast...yeah!
 

18 hours cramped up in that little KY tube, nup!

At least in the Walrus you can go for a jog, bog and a... warren. :E

Bring on the MACH 6 son of Concorde, skipping off the ozone, hyper something, no big bang, sort of thingy :ok:

Just my thoughts, but as I see it, the A380 contributes to increased congestion at major hubs and is pivotal to the schedule of every other aircraft around it for on-carriage. Boeing's intent was/is to provide capabilities to airlines to avoid hubs or at least to level demand for resources. As a passenger, I hate multiple flight legs if I can do the flight non-stop. There are not many things worse than a stopover, but a stopover with a long wait between flights ranks right up there. I think Boeing focussed on aircraft designs that allow for considerably more scheduling flexibility (more frequency rather than greater volume) than the A380 allows and aren't so dependent upon other flight schedules and vice versa. I assume it allows airport operators to schedule ground resources better as well.

Re: the sonic cruiser...18 hours from NY to SYD in a thin tube? Might work for first class passengers, but I'd be going crazy. Non-stop would be okay, but 18 hours!!! Short of a seat that reclined into a double bed with an inbuilt barfridge and onboard showers, I think I'd prefer to be sharing a jail cell for the same time. After 14 hours in economy, I'm busting for a stretch, a wash, a change of clothes and to focus my eyes on a range of objects further away than 5 metres. Don't know what the psychs would say, but 14 hours seems close to my limit. After 18 hours, the cabin staff would have to get me with a stretcher.

I think Boeing are closer to that blended wing thingy than the Sonic Cruiser. The blended wing has pax sitting like pegs on a clothes-line in the leading edge. Fascinating stuff, not much of a view in icing conditions though. A bird strike could cause a change in religion/underpants.

I think I'd like a seat in the flap section. Seats recline for take-off and landing. It'd suck to be in the outboard seats in turbulence.

Yo Don!

Yes all true- but who were most of those orders from?

I didn't spread the above rumours re EKs deliveries- it appears it's back to "Flank speed and to hell with the ice-burgs"- hope that works out for us!!!

I've never said other than that the Whale will make money fo EK on the right routes- I'm still skeptical there are 90 Airframes worth of those, but we'll see.

I maintain it will NEVER show a profit for Airbus, and even the figures you quote mean they haven't sold nearly enough.

EK is not just in the business of making profit, its also in the business of costing others profit. Sucking up all the volume of traffic will soon send others broke.

They don't care. Airbus is an EU project, meant to counterbalance Boeing and the US. The A380 was always a politically based development meant to project EU power by building the biggest jet. Airbus is to big to fail. The taxpayer will bail it out in the end if it all goes pearshaped.

As the GFC proved, "too big to fail" is a fallacy. And with the scarcity of money in the money go round that is the Eurozone, bailing out whole countries might prove more attractive than bailing out prestige projects. But, who knows? I don't think Airbus could fail merely on the unprofibility of that one design.

AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATION - Patent application

This link has some interesting stuff regarding the Sonic Cruiser. The last patent for some of the technology was filed in April 2012.

Basically looks like a concord with engines on top of the wing. Looks like it would go a lot faster than the original 0.95M suggested.

The VFW-614's engines were mounted on top of the wing !.

Go Boing
 

I dont know about that, the Large Hadron Collider is still sucking up huge amounts of EU money (no pun intended) and it doesn't actually do anything.:confused:

Another option for the B797
 

http://i466.photobucket.com/albums/r...BoeingB797.jpg
I believe that motion sickness (for pax in outboard seats) during turns and turbulence is an issue that will have to be resolved before this fuel efficient design becomes reality.

Oh, I don't know. All those colliding Hadrons must be doing something.
Reminds one of the processes within Fair Work Australia. :)