I think that the point regarding the 30%plus increase in fuel burn is the significant factor against this aircraft.

I used to be a great Boeing fan until converting to an Airbus. I just think that its very sad to see what was a once great company, getting it so very wrong. They took their eyes of the ball and are now losing the game. :(

that 30 percent increase in fuel burn is airbus's idea, not boeing, and capital expenses (EG price of the aircraft) are such a huge part of the balance sheet that more productive (IE faster) aircraft can offset the slightly higher fuel bill, because it is like getting 2 aircraft for the price of 1. Certain routes like JFK Narita require 3 aircraft to have daily service. if you can do it with 2 that is enourmous and would offset ALOT of fuel expenses, not to mention the one less crew....

I don't think Boeing is wrong on this. And you don't see any airlines offering to take the first 3 years worth of production for the A380. Several have made the offer for the sonic cruiser.


Cheers
Wino

Speed (Mr.Boeing's entry) VS Capacity (Mr. Airbus' entry)

With everybody now having identified the main reason for ATC delays being RWY capacity, I don't see the Sonic Cruiser (New Boeing-Fast-Jet) having a major advantage. Not until more RWYs are built anyway. More, faster, smaller aircraft is not going to improve the situation much. It sounds to me that putting more self-loading-cargo onto each aeroplane and reducing the number of aeroplanes in the sky could help a little.

There is a market. But I see it limited to the direct routes via non-hub airports and on short to medium routes that are high capacity like from Wollongong to Vladivostock for instance. Provided (as has been said here) the premium is acceptable.

On the other hand. There will be self-loading-cargo that will be very happy to pay a premium to have their own first class cabin in the sky. Onboard the A380. Even if it means traveling an extra hour or two while you relax in comfort. I see the critical factor to be the amount of space airlines are going to give their A380 self-loading-cargo. Including the sardine-class.

With rising fuel prices, any new aeroplane is going to have to be very economical to have enough endurance to wait out the holds and spin the bucks.

But then again, history has proven that the greatest advances in technology doesn't happen until it is forced to happen. Either by war or by economics.

Gentlemen...you have a race. And its going to be interesting watching this one from the side line.

Skytalker

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: Skytalkert ]

The posts indicate a belief that these aircraft are competing with each other but that is not the case. It would be disasterous for both companies if Boeing sunk billions into the development of a megajumbo. The Market can't absorb two of these types. Boeing is simply focasing on a different segment. I'm not sure that your average joe is willing to pay extra to get across the pond earlier but that time adds up. I'm sure the airlines would be interested in being able to add an extra leg per day onto that aircraft. I'm sure both aircraft will be well designed and operate as advertised. I'm also sure there's a nitch in the market for each. That said, if I ran a airline I'm not sure I'd want a behemoth that would be difficult to redeploy in a down market.

AfricanSkies-

"Raging inflation"? Where? Certainly not here in the States. "$40.00/bbl oil"? Not likely. My family is in the oil biz. We're figuring a stabilized price of around $20.00/bbl for the long haul. Exploration/production technology improvements are increasing the known reserves, not contracting them. The bottle neck is in refinery capacity. There's plenty of blame to go around for that.

Self Loading Freight-

It's called "boundry layer control" and has been around a long time. Very heavy and complex as well as difficult to maintane.

BOING-

I'm no engineer, but I've flown the LongEZ. Deck angle during approach is no problem. In fact, with the power off you can get a HUGE sink rate with the nose almost level. No flaps, but high lift of canard configuration gives decent runway performance, considering the low power installation... (wow, with 300 hp this thing would be a rocket).

Grippen and Rafale, as well as the upcoming Eurofighter all use canards, one reason is for reduced runway lengths as compared to the comparable American products when flown at similar wing loadings.

---------------------------------------------

Just an opinion, but I think Boeing has a major score. As others have pointed out the 747 can be grown, if desired, to compete with the A380, particularly in the heavy freight market. This with minimal development costs. Airbus has nothing (as yet) to match the Cruiser. Any competitive product will likely have to wait untill the A380 is finished. By that time the Cruiser will have established itself.

Or, the Cruiser may just be a ploy to force Airbus into commiting to the A380, while Boeing develops something even bigger. Blended Wing Spanloader anybody?

At any rate, It'll be interesting to see how things shake out. I predict success for both the A380 and the Cruiser.

Oh yeah, I read where the Cruiser has another "sweet spot", just above mach 1.

I still say.......there is a major point which everyone is overlooking .....that is ..by the time this baby rolls out the hangar for the first time the skies would be so crowded , albeit dirst flight/free flight would have been implemented ....all the rest are going to following each other nicely space out at a uniform acceptable Mach.84 or thereabouts ....and along comes Boeing little baby wanting to worm it's way along jam packed airways doing Mach or wanting to go Mach .95 ....yea it will fly higher ....higher than most commercial airliners ...but as I said before if does'nt top the biz jets levels it going to stuck in the traffic jams .....much the same as trying to fly concorde across the Atlantic at F310/F350 ....at if can't reach a portion of the skies where it do 'it's thing speed wise ...it will be virtually useless .....

Original thread ..
This little baby better get up to the mid to high 40's otherwise it won't help if it could do mach 2 ...all the other guys (airbus family, even the 767, 737 etc) are all usually nicely spaced at .82-.84 ...with the exception of the odd 747-400 here and there ...which always make everyone life a misery ....mind you come to think of it ....it going to have some serious fender bending with all the biz jets zooming about in the mid to high 40's ....problemo ...major problemo ...it's like driving a Ferrari in a 120 km/h zone ...when everyone else is doing X ...you also have to go at X speed ...so much for two trips a day ...supposedly cutting an hour here and there ....
Sorry Boeing either go with the flow or don't go at all .....
null

:cool: :) ;)

Got this from a friend of mine in the know...


Hi Y'all,

Here's a tidbit for you. I've been processing the records of the former High Speed Research program's aerodynamic configuration manager for the last few days. As I've told some of you, the "Sonic Cruiser" is just the 1999 version of the NASA/Boeing "High Speed Civil Transport" minus the fancy supersonic inlets, engines, and nozzles. Today I ran across the 1999 drag chart for the configuration: no transonic drag rise at all until after Mach .98. No drag rise, no fuel burn increase, Sonic Cruiser's a no-brainer from the Direct Operating Cost standpoint.

Sucks to be Airbus. No wonder the EU Propaganda Ministry is in maximum spin mode. Airbus has to know this by now too. If the "Sonic Cruiser" siphons all the first and business class pax off the A380 (which we know it will if Boeing builds it), the A380 is a $15 billion corpse.

Look for the EU to try to impose discriminatory rules on the Cruiser based upon "high altitude emissions"--the Cruiser will have better noise characteristics than the A380, so this is their only option to block it. After Boeing defeats the "it'll burn more fuel" argument through major airline sales, the EU will shift their argument to "higher cruise altitude poses more risk to the ozone." Count on it.

Wino-

Right on target.

Without access to the wind tunnel data, who's to say that the Cruiser will in fact burn more gas?

Also, given the U.S. advantage in composite technology, who's to say that the Cruiser won't have the capability to operate at higher altitudes (higer differential pressure) than an aluminum airplane of comparable weight? It's entirely possible that the Cruiser will be able to take advantage of higher altitudes and avoid traffic bottle necks. The FAA has experience in certificating turbine powered composite aircraft.

One thing which has not been addressed in this forum is the possible military applications. I'm thinking that a .98 mach (and maybe faster) tanker would be of great interest to the USAF. A perfect adjunct to the Raptor, with it's no-reheat super-cruise, I would say. I would be surprised if the Air Force brass weren't salivating at such a long range/high speed tanker prospect. What of the repurcussions of military funding of R&D? The phrase "low economic risk" comes to mind. Uncle Sam is way fat on cash. He's also been needing a new tanker for along time now.

Now then, if the EU lets us fly our new tanker in their airspace (in support of their operations, of course :), then how can they justify banning the civil version?

Disagree with the last posts. Even Boeing admits that the SC will have a (slightly) higher fuel burn. Below the line considering productivity gains and crew scheduling they hope to end up with equal cost. Could you imagine airlines opting for higher fuel burn, one of the very few financial aspects of air traffic they can really influence? While their competition uses ultra efficient (slower) types?
My best guess: The tanker design is going to be a BWB (if they can keep the 767 out). This will be the very key technology for future aircraft design.
Unless the SC comes up with some unknown Bingo-feature we don't know about it is already dead.

woodyalookatthis..... :eek: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices...y/bna/xb70.htm :(

somebody's "been there, done that"...almost..!

Slightly faster, wasn't it?
More like three Sonic Cruisers...

Wino -

If the EU do what you say, then they will only be following in the path of what US protectionism did in the early seventies with Concorde. C.f. my earlier post on this.

[ 02 August 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]

I thought that the Brits crunched the numbers and wanted out of the concord program during early development. To bail, though, contactually required the French to concur and that wasn't going to happen so they were stuck. National honor and all that.

Covenent, as the concord only has the range to reach Washington or NY and it serves both of those places, I am curious EXACTLY how the US stopped the concorde. Furthermore, I am pretty sure that we have nothing to say about London the Jedha or Southafrica service!

You just like to blame us for the FACT that the concorde didn't live up to expectations.

If it was a good aircraft and the US blocked it, it would still be serving the rest of the world. But its crap, its beautiful crap but crap none the less.

Sorry dude, you Cannot pin that one on us.

Cheers
Wino

Wino,

I've got a book you need to read...."Concord[e] and the Americans". Send me your boardmail address and you can have it.

Your eyes will be opened wide if you read it! The facts will speak for themselves.

However if I was Boeing, I'd be trying to divert all the attention I could AWAY from the FACT that I was developing a modified heavy lift B777 to compete with any possible A380. Hence the Sonic Cruiser (why would you name an aeroplane after a drive in?)

Let Airbus do all the market surveys they want. Boeing can match anything Airbus builds, providing of course Southwest isn't the launch customer!

Cheers,dd.
(how come one only spots spelling mistakes AFTER one's posted?).

[ 03 August 2001: Message edited by: dallas dude ]

My next door neighbor is a retired PANAM pilot Captain Jack Alber. He was one of 3 that flew the Concorde during the eval program prior to the Date that PANAM was to pickup their options.

Panam refused the aircraft because it could not carry the people AND their bags and any mail at all from JFK to anywhere! It could take people or their bags to London but didn't do both well.

Could they have fixed it later with better engines? Probably, but the facts are that the British and the french Didn't as they were already tapped out and it did not have the range performance to be Useful to PANAM (A company with NO domestic network at the time so overland noise was not a consideration)

I have read many accounts of how we alledgedly sabotaged the concorde, and yet, no one has explained why it didn't go to any other markets. Are there really no other cities in the world other than AMerican ones? I guess America really is the whole world and if we don't want it...

Once you explain why it isn't flying in Asia or the Gulf and how WE did it, then you can start your case.

Cheers
Wino

PS DD sending you a private message with the boardmail address.

birdbrain stole my piece :-)

Does any one else think that the Sonic Cruiser looks a little like the XB-70 or even the SR-71 for that matter. The tails and engine nacelles do look similar. It might make sense especially seeing Boeing does have a bit of history with joint developing civil and military aircraft. I also didnt even think of the tanker option, which would probably be the mose useful military use as i cant see the Sonic Cruiser being a great freight lifter. Also what about a replacement for the RC-135's and other slower survelliance/spy aircraft?? With its speed, almost like a pocket SR-71/U-2 and those tails look like they could be pretty stealthy, same with the engines.

And, of course, the money that Uncle Sam might put into a military version wouldn't be a subsidy like those nasty European governments 'give' Airbus would it...

VnV...
(heading for the foxhole, INCOMING!!!!)

VnV2178B

You forgot to mention the huge amount of money, that Boeing gets from NASA to do research in different fields. And what about black projects? Does theese cost Boeing money? My guess is that Boeing gets very well compensated in theese fields, and has a lot of advantages from theese projects due to the fact they don't need to envent the wheel twice. But I guess that is not a subsidy, in the eye of an american????? :rolleyes:

And, while we are at it, can we Brits claim copyright on the name, as John Brunner used the term 'Boeing Sonicruiser' in his 1970 novel 'Jagged Orbit'!!

VnV...

(and it was set about 2008ish too)