|From||To||Distance||Time (Mach.84)||Time (Mach.95)||Time (Mach1.2)|
Those air times include flight time and 1 hour 20 minutes of cycle time. All flight times are gained using the Great Circle Mapper
The implicatons are really interesting for airlines and equipment usage. For instance, if the SC really was a two-node aircraft efficient at mach .98 and mach 1.2, then if it was placed on the EWR-LHR route, effectively a flight that was on an 8 hour cycle would become a flight on a 6 hour cycle.
Here's the comparison:
777: On a 24 hour cycle, there are 1 1/2 round trips that are possible. 2 aircraft needed to serve 3 frequencies daily from both sides, assuming that we round the cycle time to 8 hours.
Sonic Cruiser: On a 24 hour cycle, there are 2 round trips that are possible. 2 aircraft can serve 4 roundtrips daily from both sides since the cycle time is 6 hours.
See the savings?
777: On a 72 hour cycle, there are 3 possible round trips.
Sonic Cruiser (at mach .95): On a 72 hour cycle there are 4 possible round trips.
The savings are dramatic for EWR-NRT at mach .95. Instead of 2 aircraft running the route, all you need is 1 aircraft if you have extremely good ground crews.
Similar savings could be achieved if the Sonic Cruiser went between EWR and HKG at mach 1.2. Instead of 2 aircraft running the route, you only need 1.
Essentially, the SC allows for more frequencies and better aircraft utilization, effectively making an aircraft the size of a 767 into the size of a 777 on EWR-LHR, and doubling the effective capacity of airlines on EWR-NRT and EWR-HKG. From what I've heard, it is going to utilize new productive techniques so as to lower costs considerably on the line and make it so the plane still costs less.
If the plane burns more fuel, it's acceptable since the airline is making way more revenue per day with the plane and the fixed cost of aircraft financing goes down.
No wonder American wanted to buy the first two years of production of the bird.