"It sure is a big bet. There is a very good chance that higher operating costs will kill this plane. There is even a good chance that Mulally expects as much and ordered up the release of the radical design more as a morale booster than as a serious business proposition."
GOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 3587 times:
The link didn't work, you had to be a registered user.
Anyway I agree. I think that the operating costs will kill the Sonic Cruiser. The Sonic Cruiser is just a dream and I don't think that it will ever fly.
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2712 posts, RR: 48 Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3465 times:
That's a very stupid reaction I must say.
What you're saying is something like:
Ok, I've jumped out of an airplane whithout parachute, I'm falling down to earth very quickly, but at present I haven't hit the ground yet so everything is fine for me! Yes, well ...Who knows, you might even survive...
By now even the most optimistic Airbus hater knows the A380 will be built and delivered to (at present) over 60 customers.
As for that fake Boeing Concorde, there still is a long road ahead.
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3445 times:
The A380 is now a real aircraft to all intents and purposes. Orders have been placed for the finished product, detailed designs are with sub contractors for final quotation/mock up/prototypes of parts and the whole operation is underway.
The Sonic Cruiser is a long way behind this. Doesn't stop Boeing moving quickly, but the technology might.
The use of current engines is likely to cause some headaches particularly in the area of in take design which will take some engineering for handling air at speeds greatly accelerated from current performance.
Control surface and stability problems have always been a problem to be overcome in the trans-sonic zone. The aircraft is going to operate in this zone and will have to show capabilities at and above the speed of sound, even if only for recovery purposes from accidental overspeed.
Then there is the radical design and its fit on airport ramps and compatibility with existing handling equipment...we'll probably see a number of compromises there before the final design is signed off.
All takes time and whilst the A380 is still not around in the metal, the SC is hardly on paper.
Wingman From Spain, joined May 1999, 2028 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3417 times:
Looks like the same people who thrash Boeing for building planes from the Middle Ages while Airbus produces wonderful Star Trek airplanes with joysticks now instantly thrash Boeing for coming up with a revolutionary design. So what do you people want? Make up your minds and let us know.
Gearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3424 times:
How about this scenario. Boeing is undergoing a major corporate makeover. The new HQ is going to Chicago in order to make it more central to all it's business units. Boeing's acquisitions in recent years has increased it's involvement in military and weapons systems development. Is it possible that this is where Boeing sees it's future? Boeing does not want to spend the money to build a 747 replacement and thought that the world is happy with the present 747!!! It predicts far less need for VLA than AI does and simply does not want to go head to head with the A380. So it tries to remain true to IT'S market forcasts, retires gracefully from the competition (saving face in the process, one hopes) and for good measure throws out this sonic cruiser nonsense just to make everyone think that the show ain't over yet at the Boeing Commercial Airplane Division. All the time of course the really big show in town is the Military business units where the development dollars are really needed. So lets keep stretching 737's, 757's, 767's and spend the R&D on F15, F16, B52, B1 replacements and space based weapons. After all, in this area, Airbus Industrie is no competition at all and not likely to be in the near term! Just a few thoughts!
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3407 times:
Exactly, 100 years ago, the airplane was considered an impossible machine. It wouldn't work. Look where we are now 100 years later.
Until final assebly begins, it is a paper airplane. If for some reason, hypothetically, the A380 was cancelled today, it would be a "paper airplane". So of course the "sonic criuser" is a paper airplane.
Boeing has stated all along that this aircraft may not have the same operating costs as existing widebodies. They are working on getting it relatively close. The aircraft so far has been marketed as a high end passenger aircraft. First and business class being emphasized. Those passengers will be more than willing to pay extra to not have to be on an aircraft one to three hours more than normal.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 24 Reply 14, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3389 times:
Sabenapilot is one of those people who will trash anyone who says anything remotely bad about Airbus.
No matter what you might want to believe, the A380 still does not exist. Until Airbus builds the prototype, its still a paper airplane. (And Yes, I know they will build it, but last time I checked, it still hasn't been built)
A330-243 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 251 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3354 times:
No I don't think Sabenapilot will trash anyone who says something bad about Airbus. I have noticed his posts are very informative and it is very interesting to read a pilot's view. You seem to forget how many people create threads knocking Airbus products. Perhaps Sabenapilot knows more about the situation (i.e. he flies an Airbus) and simply wishes to defend Airbus?
Its's funny how each time somebody doubts/questions the Sonic Cruiser, the response will be something along the lines of:
Well the A380 doesn't have that too.
Why bring the A380 into it? They are not true competitiors? .
Instead of sharing your knowledge/opinions on how Boeing plans on overcoming these diffculties, and thus contributing to the discussion, you choose to attack the Sabena airlines managment.
IIRC, this was orignally meant to be a post on the SC. It had the potential to be an informative debate, maybe somebody would have posted a detailed explanation on Boeing's view.
Now people are just making jokes/attacks. Is that the best you can do?
Makes me wonder how much you really know about the SC...
A320FO From Austria, joined Oct 2000, 211 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3352 times:
Well just a couple of comments:
First of all this post is heading back to the good old A versus B....
No, now back to some FACTS:
100 years ago aerodynimic knowledge was near zero, that's why nobody believed in aviation as we know it today.
Todays aviation is limited by the aerodynamic knowledge, which is very far developed, making the former large jumps ahead in technology smaller and smaller.
Just compare the 1903 aircraft with the ~1933 design of the DC-3: a huge improvement in 30 years. Today we are still flying aircraft based on a 30 year old design (A300, B747, etc), with improvements in details and way smaller.
We are already operating with highly optimized designs, where just small efficiency increases come with a huge price tag, due to the huge amount of research required. Just look at what CFM is investing in the CFM56 series engine just to reduce costs (operating, fuel consumption, etc) by ONE to TWO percent!
So to get back to the A versus B bashing (at least for some of you out there):
The A380 is a conventional airplane, limited AND designed within known aerodynamic laws, just at slightly larger dimensions. On the paper, already in design freeze.
The Sonic Cruiser is a new airplane, limited by known aerodynamic laws, with still UNKNOWN ways of resolving known aerodynamic limitations.
I am always fascinated by new designs, and a lot of airlines are also fascinated by the fact of faster travel, but at the current stage, Boeings project is a mere idea, and aerodynamics won't make an exeption for Boeing.
Boeing might quite well solve some of the problems, but that will take a long time, so the time frame sounds a little to optimistic.
A similar example was the Concorde. Quite many airlines signed for options, but how many really operated them? Just a little increase in operating costs doomed the entire program. And energy costs definately won't be as low (on average) anymore as they were over the last two decades....
Notarzt From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 642 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (12 years 7 months 1 week ago) and read 3312 times:
The airline industry decides if the Sonic Cruiser will become reality or not. I just heard that Branson of Virgon Atlantic announced his firm interest in the project...
Indeed, there'S no need to deny that the A380 is paper work - for the moment. Disregarding the "orders" already received, we must consider that quite a number of these "orders" are still (and just) letters of intent and similar "commitments". This goes, at least, for FedEx (and, thus, for ALL A380 freighter orders) as well as for Qatar Airways. Furthermore, I was told that Qantas made a certain step back - may be, another member can comment on this.
AirbusDriver From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 255 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (12 years 7 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3229 times:
sombody made the comment that the Citation X cruise a mach 0.92, that true but at that speed it's burning as much fuel as a Falcon 2000.
i think the sonic cruiser is a good idea and will most surely be build but on thing is for sure it will cost more to operate than the same plane cruising a 0.85.
also a 15% increase in speed does not mean a 15% reduction in time, more and more we are restricted a lower speed for a longer period of time by atc so 15% of reduction of the time at cruise speed mean a 7 to 10% reduction in actual flt time.
25 SJC>SFO: The people at Boeing aren't stupid. Many airlines have expressed great interest in the SC, and Boeing will try to make it work; time is money. It may
26 Hkgspotter1: Wingman, Have you forgotten Concorde ??, this was the start of Airbus. Boeings idea has taken them almost 30 years to think up !!!!!!!!!!!!!
27 Eg777er: Seeing we're into quoutes: "This aircraft is all about speed. Anyone who criticises Concorde is missing the point." British Trade Minister, 1976. BUT
28 Fly-By-Pilot: The problem isnt really efficiency at altitude but efficiency throughout the whole flight. I think this double delta wing is the key in maintaining bo
29 NoUFO: SJC > SFO On another note, I think something needs to be understood about part of the A v B war. I just need to say that in the US there is alot of re
30 LZ-TLT: (Here in Germany, approx. one spy per week is expelled back to the US and according to some major papers it is very likely that governmental authoriti
31 NoUFO: Don't be ridiculous!!!Major papers? Which ones...I'm very very sorry for you, if you mean "Spiegel", "Stern" or even "Focus". "Die Zeit" and "Der Spie
32 A320FO: Just concerning subsidies, direct or indirect, what made Boeing HQs move to Chicago? NO, not that Seattle is off the map and Chicago in the middle of
33 LZ-TLT: I don't have the intention to focus this post on the A vs B topic but merely make a comparison to clarify the "paper plane"-definition and look if it
34 Rabenschlag: do you think boeing would have built the 767 without being paced by the A300? the 777 without the 330/340? who came up with the idea of widebody twins
35 RayChuang: Actually, the 767 was going to be built anyway because three airlines--AA, DL and UA--during the middle 1970's were looking for a plane with the feel
36 Jwenting: AFAIK work on the 7x7 also started before plans for the A330 were published. If Boeing had prior knowledge they would have been stupid to make it that
37 B808/A400: Work on the 747 started when Airbus wasn't around yet. As for SC, if it has the 10000 nm range, it will fly literally anywhere in the world. I think B
38 B744F: well. comments to prepious posts: 1. Yes, we already have airliners able to cruise over M0.9. But, who tell you that these aircraft ACTUALLY flying th
39 Prebennorholm: There must be something wrong with my pocket calculator, and even more strange, Mr. Bill Gates put the same flaw into my Excel license. Everybody talk
40 RIX: A real time saving won't be its speed (though, to save some hour or two in a long route is not bad at all) but its range that will allow to avoid conn
41 Navion: I'm not sure what you were saying in your post, so pardon me if this response is wrong. 1) Nothing has taken Boeing 30 years to catch up. Boeings SST
42 ScottB: One thing which many people forget about the Sonic Cruiser is that while fuel costs may be higher for this aircraft at M0.95 (potentially 20-30% highe
43 Jwenting: IAS is not groundspeed. When flying M0.97 at FL490, you have a higher groundspeed than you do when flying M0.97 at FL390.
44 D L X: Hey Preben, I think Scott just found your factor of 2 bug. Well done. Gotta think outside the box on this one. The S.C. won't be flying like a convent
45 Singapore_Air: What wonderful posts! I may congratulate myself in getting over 1000 views Thanks to you all!