Airbus 380

[Magnus]

I am hoping to make a trip aboard the Airbus 380 within a few months. Allthough I prefer the 747, I am amazed by this elephant, which seems to defie the laws of Bernoulli as well as the ones discovered by Newton.
Now, there has been only one regular flight so far, so there are not many people yet who has experience of it in flight, but there will be more, and as time goes by, more and more people will have thoughts abt the aircraft.
If you know anyone who has experience of the 380, or if you have had the possibility of flying with it yourself, it would be very interesting if you could share your experiences.
I am also interested in any other facts: how often will it fly en route? Are there any particular problems for the moment with the aircraft? Are there any special routines going on for the first flights?
Any information and comments on the 380 are welcome!

[555-04Q2]

Do yourself a favour and stick to Boeings. If you knew the problems they have had with the plane, you wouldnt want to get on one. Hell, you wont find me taking one ever!!!

[BDunnell]

Do yourself a favour and stick to Boeings. If you knew the problems they have had with the plane, you wouldnt want to get on one. Hell, you wont find me taking one ever!!!

An exaggeration, in my opinion. In any case, the Boeing 787 is now experiencing very serious problems of its own — and who knows what will come up when it starts flight-testing?

[Mark]

I doubt there was ever any aircraft which got from design stages to full production without any problems along the way.

[Magnus]

I don´t care that much which company made the plane; it´s fascinating to fly anyway. The 787 is also very interesting, as is the planned strectched 747, but for the moment it is the 380 I am interested in, not least since I now that they have had a lot of problems and it´s interesting to see what they have achieved. As someone involved in the production said, they probably wouldn´t have built it in the first place if they knew the complexity of the project. What worries me the most, if I can get my flight, is the fatigue-cracks they encounterd in the wing attachments...hmm.. hope they have sorted that one out properly.:S

[Daniel]

Do yourself a favour and stick to Boeings. If you knew the problems they have had with the plane, you wouldnt want to get on one. Hell, you wont find me taking one ever!!!
I don't feel safer in a Boeing over an Airbus or anything. An aircraft is only as good as the pilot and the maintenance done on it :)

[Mark]

Any new aircraft design is going to be inherantly more subject to unforseen problems than an old design.

They have been flying 747's since the 1960's, lots of time to find problems, yet they are still finding them!

[Dave B]

The A380 is a wonderful piece of technology, but boy is it ugly! The 747 has a certain grace about it, whereas the Airbus just looks odd.

I really think Airbus have dropped the ball with making such a large plane that only a handful (relatively speaking) of airports can cope with it. People want to fly direct, not get shuttles to hubs.

[BDunnell]

I doubt there was ever any aircraft which got from design stages to full production without any problems along the way.

Of course. However, Boeing and Airbus have both made rods for their own backs by attempting to compress the flight-test and delivery schedules into very short periods of time indeed. Boeing has now been forced to be more realistic with the 787, and I think both have learnt their lessons.

[BDunnell]

The A380 is a wonderful piece of technology, but boy is it ugly! The 747 has a certain grace about it, whereas the Airbus just looks odd.

I agree. Its size is impressive, but it's just a great big blob of an aircraft. Surprisingly agile, though.



I really think Airbus have dropped the ball with making such a large plane that only a handful (relatively speaking) of airports can cope with it. People want to fly direct, not get shuttles to hubs.

Very possibly. However, many major carriers seem convinced that it will work for them. They probably feel that there is enough of a market in the more immediate vicinity of those hubs to help make A380 operations viable, while there seems to be no end to the development of hubs by the big carriers and airline alliances.

[Mark]

I really think Airbus have dropped the ball with making such a large plane that only a handful (relatively speaking) of airports can cope with it. People want to fly direct, not get shuttles to hubs.

I guess it's two entirely different markets really. Certainly for Europe most of the market is flying direct from your local airport to where you want to go. I know when I'm considering a holiday I look at what flights I can get from Newcastle and Teeside, and that's it, I don't consider the possibility of connecting onto somewhere else.

But the long haul market is seperate and needs different aircraft and the A380 suits that I believe. I don't expect to fly to New York or Hong Kong directly from Newcastle, and when I do want to go to one of these places it's going to be a once in 10 years type thing so won't mind spending time connecting through another airport.

[Daniel]

Thing is a lot of travel is long haul. Think of routes like Singapore - London, LA - Australia and so on :) I think Boeing have done the right thing by not going up against Airbus' halo aircraft but have gone for something which is going to sell in great volumes and which doesn't require changes in airport infrastructure.

I agree with Dave. The 747 has a definite grace and elegance about it. I just love looking through the window in a departure lounge at that lovely nose and the iconic shape :)

[PitMarshal]

Possibly the biggest problem with the 380 is that it has been built to the biggest size the airports will allow, and the full-length double deck means that really at least two entry/exit gantry's are required, so airports that expect to receive it are having to heavily modify the gate areas.

Having said that, I saw the A380 at an airshow last year and it just didn't strike me as being all that big; the 747 just seems that bit more imposing somehow.

[BDunnell]

Thing is a lot of travel is long haul. Think of routes like Singapore - London, LA - Australia and so on :) I think Boeing have done the right thing by not going up against Airbus' halo aircraft but have gone for something which is going to sell in great volumes and which doesn't require changes in airport infrastructure.

Quite what market the 747-8 is intended to fill, then, I have no idea. Airlines don't exactly seem to be queueing up to buy it.

[Daniel]

Quite what market the 747-8 is intended to fill, then, I have no idea. Airlines don't exactly seem to be queueing up to buy it.
From Wikipedia so don't shoot me if it's wrong.

As of March 2007 there were 57 firm orders for the Boeing 747-8F, from Atlas Air (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Air) (12), Nippon Cargo Airlines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Cargo_Airlines) (8), Cargolux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargolux) (13), Emirates air cargo (10), Volga-Dnepr (5), Guggenheim Aviation Partners (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guggenheim_Aviation_Partners&action=edit) (4) and Korean Air (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air) (5). Also, there were a total of 24 firm orders for the Boeing 747-8I, four from Boeing Business Jets (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Business_Jets&action=edit) and 20 from Lufthansa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa).[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#_note-FI)

[BDunnell]

What that shows (and it is correct, as far as I recall) is that Boeing hardly has any orders for the passenger version. Don't forget, it was originally designed as a freighter.

[Mark]

Only because it was being designed in the age when Concorde was being developed and it was thought that in the new supersonic age a 747 would be too slow for the majority of passneger use so it would be restricted to cargo duties. Of course that is not what happened.

[BDunnell]

Only because it was being designed in the age when Concorde was being developed and it was thought that in the new supersonic age a 747 would be too slow for the majority of passneger use so it would be restricted to cargo duties. Of course that is not what happened.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what point you're making there.

[Mark]

Boeing and the rest of the aircraft designers thought in the 1960's that in the future the majority of long haul flights would take place on supersonic aircraft both Concorde and the craft that Boeing itself was developing.

Only frieght would need large capacity aircraft such as the 747. We now know of course that assesment was entirely incorrect.

[Malbec]

When the Airbus originally came out I thought this was a big mistake because airports need to be modified to use it properly but recently I think Airbus have been able to read the future quite well.

The air travel market is quite static in Europe and the US, the growth there has come from airlines shifting downwards in the market by offering budget flights.

In Asia and the Middle East air travel is booming and people are building massive new airports so there will be both demand and capacity for the new A380. I reckon it will turn out profitable in the end.

And different airlines will be able to tailor the A380 to offer things that will give them a market advantage, whether it be conference rooms, gyms, bedrooms or the like.

I like the new Dreamliner too but I suspect given its advanced technology it will end up as delayed as the A380 was.

[Malbec]

Only because it was being designed in the age when Concorde was being developed and it was thought that in the new supersonic age a 747 would be too slow for the majority of passneger use so it would be restricted to cargo duties. Of course that is not what happened.

I think he meant that the 747-8 specifically was originally for freight use and modified for the passenger market?

[Daniel]

I think what Mark meant was that it wasn't designed for passengers because back then they though they'd all be going Mach 3 and thought the 747-8 was more suited to being a freighter so they didn't bother designing it as a passenger airplane.

[Malbec]

The 747-8 is a current design though, and won't enter service until 2010 or so.

The problem is that both the original 747 and the 747-8 were both envisioned with the freight market in mind, although Boeing initially pitched the basic 747 at airlines but expected them to lose interest after a few years when it would be reborn as a freighter. Hence the confusion on this thread....

[Daniel]

The 747-8 is a current design though, and won't enter service until 2010 or so.

The problem is that both the original 747 and the 747-8 were both envisioned with the freight market in mind, although Boeing initially pitched the basic 747 at airlines but expected them to lose interest after a few years when it would be reborn as a freighter. Hence the confusion on this thread....

Yes but these sort of things have a rather large gestation period so the decisions were made long ago.

Question. Why was the 747-8 envisioned as a freighter and not a passenger aircraft.
Answer. Because we were all going to be flying around in cheap supersonic airliners (What Mark said 3482 posts ago)

[Malbec]

Question. Why was the 747-8 envisioned as a freighter and not a passenger aircraft.
Answer. Because we were all going to be flying around in cheap supersonic airliners (What Mark said 3482 posts ago)

I'm afraid not Daniel.

The 747-8 is a recent concept though the stretching idea is old. The fact that the 747-8 is using technology specifically developed for the 787 should tell you when the decision to design it was taken, ie long after it became evident that supersonic passenger flights were a dead end, and that was clear by the late 70s at the latest.

Or are you going to tell me that it has taken Boeing 40 years to bring the 747-8 to market?

[Daniel]

I'm afraid not Daniel.

The 747-8 is a recent concept though the stretching idea is old. The fact that the 747-8 is using technology specifically developed for the 787 should tell you when the decision to design it was taken, ie long after it became evident that supersonic passenger flights were a dead end, and that was clear by the late 70s at the latest.

Or are you going to tell me that it has taken Boeing 40 years to bring the 747-8 to market?
Yes of course that's what I'm saying :rolleyes:

[Malbec]

Yes of course that's what I'm saying :rolleyes:

Then your original comment regarding the 747-8 being conceived when it looked like supersonic flight was the way ahead was wrong then ;)

[Daniel]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/Boeing_sonic.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/Boeing_sonic.jpg)

Here we see the Boeing Sonic Cruiser which would have flown at around mach .98. Clear proof that as recently as 2001 no airliner manufacturers were looking at making faster airliners rather than just big ones. NOT

[Daniel]

Then your original comment regarding the 747-8 being conceived when it looked like supersonic flight was the way ahead was wrong then ;)
Whose comments are wrong now?

[Malbec]

And yet of the thousands of jet airliners patiently plying the routes, 100% of them are subsonic, with all the forthcoming MAJOR projects in development also all being subsonic.

Also, Mach 0.98 is subsonic or transsonic. Apologies if I'm wrong but I thought your point was based around supersonic flight?

The future is going to remain subsonic partly because of carrying capacities of narrow supersonic aircraft is low, partly because they are too expensive to build and maintain and partly because the green lobby will hammer them because they are considerably less efficient.

[Malbec]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/Boeing_sonic.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/Boeing_sonic.jpg)

Here we see the Boeing Sonic Cruiser which would have flown at around mach .98. Clear proof that as recently as 2001 no airliner manufacturers were looking at making faster airliners rather than just big ones. NOT

Thank you, another subsonic aircraft design. Beautiful isn't it?

[Daniel]

And yet of the thousands of jet airliners patiently plying the routes, 100% of them are subsonic, with all the forthcoming MAJOR projects in development also all being subsonic.

Also, Mach 0.98 is subsonic or transsonic. Apologies if I'm wrong but I thought your point was based around supersonic flight?

The future is going to remain subsonic partly because of carrying capacities of narrow supersonic aircraft is low, partly because they are too expensive to build and maintain and partly because the green lobby will hammer them because they are considerably less efficient.
Did I say I think we should be flying around in supersonic aircraft? No I did not. Did I say that mach .98 is supersonic? No I did not.

My point was based around faster air travel and the Sonic Cruiser was meant to be faster than conventional travel. Comparing mach .98 to mach 1.00000001 is infantile...... However you measure it it's a fair bit faster than your 747 or the 787.

My point for the less intelligent is that aircraft companies sometimes get it wrong. They thought we wanted to travel around at 20 times the speed of sound when all we wanted to do was travel cheaply and in relative comfort. Therefore they thought we didn't want to travel in such horribly "slow" things like 747-8's so designed them as cargo planes.

[Daniel]

Thank you, another subsonic aircraft design. Beautiful isn't it?
Are you done trolling already? :confused: I thought this was a thread about aircraft and not about how to be annoying?

[Malbec]

Did I say I think we should be flying around in supersonic aircraft? No I did not. Did I say that mach .98 is supersonic? No I did not.

My point was based around faster air travel and the Sonic Cruiser was meant to be faster than conventional travel. Comparing mach .98 to mach 1.00000001 is infantile...... However you measure it it's a fair bit faster than your 747 or the 787.

My point for the less intelligent is that aircraft companies sometimes get it wrong. They thought we wanted to travel around at 20 times the speed of sound when all we wanted to do was travel cheaply and in relative comfort. Therefore they thought we didn't want to travel in such horribly "slow" things like 747-8's so designed them as cargo planes.

Daniel this isn't the first time you've changed your position during an argument.

Your argument revolved around the case that the 747-8 was conceived at a time when SUPERSONIC flight appeared to be the future. Look up this thread and you'll see your own posts containing the word supersonic. Its clear to anyone reading it that you have switched arguments halfway through.

You may find the difference between Mach 0.98 and 1.000001 infantile. I suggest to you that there are plenty of dead test pilots who died breaking that sound barrier who know otherwise. There are plenty of engineers who know that designing a plane that can reach Mach 0.98 is a totally different kettle of fish from designing one that can transcend the sound barrier.

If you wish to deride others as being less intelligent (insults in an argument eh? the first sign of defeat) you ought to ensure your own arguments have some kind of logical basis and not twist and turn to our amusement.

[Malbec]

Question. Why was the 747-8 envisioned as a freighter and not a passenger aircraft.
Answer. Because we were all going to be flying around in cheap SUPERSONIC airliners (What Mark said 3482 posts ago)

note the word supersonic (my emphasis)

[Daniel]

Daniel this isn't the first time you've changed your position during an argument.

Your argument revolved around the case that the 747-8 was conceived at a time when SUPERSONIC flight appeared to be the future. Look up this thread and you'll see your own posts containing the word supersonic. Its clear to anyone reading it that you have switched arguments halfway through.

You may find the difference between Mach 0.98 and 1.000001 infantile. I suggest to you that there are plenty of dead test pilots who died breaking that sound barrier who know otherwise. There are plenty of engineers who know that designing a plane that can reach Mach 0.98 is a totally different kettle of fish from designing one that can transcend the sound barrier.

If you wish to deride others as being less intelligent (insults in an argument eh? the first sign of defeat) you ought to ensure your own arguments have some kind of logical basis and not twist and turn to our amusement.
Does Joe Bloggs give two hoots about the technical implications of traveling at mach .98 or mach 1.00000000000001? Not really because to them getting to their destination faster is why they'd have rather travelled on Concorde than a 747.

At the end of the day Singapore Airlines might have bought the aircraft for the first commercial flight but the real customers are Joe and Joanne Bloggs. At the end of the day just like a lot of people turn the key on their car and drive away a lot of people just get on the aircraft and wait for their destination to get closer. They couldn't care less when you discuss canard foreplanes and swept wings.

If you recall it was Mark who made the originally made the point about supersonic travel being what we were all going to be doing and not myself.

[Magnus]

Uh...Yeah...OK... back to the topic fo a little while :D
And what is also fascinating with the 380 is that it is almost impossible to build a larger aircraft, the differencies between the 747 and the 380 is a neat way of looking at how out technology have evolved since the late sixties. If they built the 747 today it would probably be abt as big as the 380. Since it first came into production the 747 has lost immence amounts of weight, the weight watchers at big aircraft manus definetely gives the concept a whole new meaning...
Of course it is possible to build bigger aircrafts (look at the russian; Antonov or whatever theyre called), but taking into account environment, economy, weight and so on the Airbus is abt as big as they come. I sincerely doubt that we will se any bigger commercial aircraft within the next fifty years, and think it will take far longer than that even.

[Daniel]

Antonovs and Illuyshins are awesome to see taking off, landing and just at rest :) I remember flying into Namibia and taxiing past an Illuyshin somethingorother and just being amazed at how big it was :)

[BDunnell]

Yes but these sort of things have a rather large gestation period so the decisions were made long ago.

Question. Why was the 747-8 envisioned as a freighter and not a passenger aircraft.
Answer. Because we were all going to be flying around in cheap supersonic airliners (What Mark said 3482 posts ago)

You're wrong, Daniel. The 747-8 project began after it was realised that supersonic passenger travel was, effectively, dead in the water.

It came about, to a large degree, because Boeing realised the ongoing market for heavy freighters and recognised that it needed a new product in this sector. At the time, the A380 freighter was still looking like being a success. As for whether the project was always intended to include a passenger variant, I don't know. Some industry observers consider the passenger 747-8 to be something of an afterthought. I believe the design of the passenger 747-8 was rushed, because certain potential customers have said that it doesn't meet their needs in various ways, but that's a separate issue.

[BDunnell]

Boeing and the rest of the aircraft designers thought in the 1960's that in the future the majority of long haul flights would take place on supersonic aircraft both Concorde and the craft that Boeing itself was developing.

Only frieght would need large capacity aircraft such as the 747. We now know of course that assesment was entirely incorrect.

But the original 747 was designed as a passenger aircraft (with some freight capacity, of course). That was always intended as its primary function.

[Daniel]

You're wrong, Daniel. The 747-8 project began after it was realised that supersonic passenger travel was, effectively, dead in the water.

It came about, to a large degree, because Boeing realised the ongoing market for heavy freighters and recognised that it needed a new product in this sector. At the time, the A380 freighter was still looking like being a success. As for whether the project was always intended to include a passenger variant, I don't know. Some industry observers consider the passenger 747-8 to be something of an afterthought. I believe the design of the passenger 747-8 was rushed, because certain potential customers have said that it doesn't meet their needs in various ways, but that's a separate issue.
Thing is with technological advancements nothing is ever dead in the water. Once the whole global warming hysteria blows over people will be happy to burn lots of fuel to get there faster and it'll be on again.

[BDunnell]

Thing is with technological advancements nothing is ever dead in the water. Once the whole global warming hysteria blows over people will be happy to burn lots of fuel to get there faster and it'll be on again.

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

By the way, even though global warming will not just 'blow over' (sorry to disappoint you), this does not mean to say that means of transport can't continue to become faster. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a supersonic transport at some point in the future. However, as far as I am aware, there are no such projects currently at any meaningful stage.

[BDunnell]

Are you done trolling already? :confused: I thought this was a thread about aircraft and not about how to be annoying?

By the way, I meant to say that I thought this comment was wholly unreasonable on your part.

[Magnus]

Wow, for myself who most of the time swims around in the little pond of the forum called world rallying, this is like discovering the big world. I have never seen an argumuing like this in our pond. Hmm...better put my helmet on, even if I will not get that 380-flight

[Malbec]

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

By the way, even though global warming will not just 'blow over' (sorry to disappoint you), this does not mean to say that means of transport can't continue to become faster. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a supersonic transport at some point in the future. However, as far as I am aware, there are no such projects currently at any meaningful stage.

BDunnell, it sounds like you're in the aviation field. Over the past few years we've had military planes like the F22 introduced with supercruise abilities, do you think that could come into civilian use as well? Surely if a supersonic airliner that doesn't require afterburner use to transcend the sound barrier can be built it would be more efficient and therefore viable both economically and politically/environmentally?

[Malbec]

Does Joe Bloggs give two hoots about the technical implications of traveling at mach .98 or mach 1.00000000000001? Not really because to them getting to their destination faster is why they'd have rather travelled on Concorde than a 747.

Of course they care.

Going supersonic costs a lot more both in fuel and in requiring a very very expensive airframe which has a limited passenger capacity. Hence why tickets on Concorde across the Atlantic were 8 to 10 times as expensive as those on a 747. Slap in an environmentally friendly tax on polluting airliners and the discrepancy would have been even greater.

[Daniel]

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

By the way, even though global warming will not just 'blow over' (sorry to disappoint you), this does not mean to say that means of transport can't continue to become faster. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a supersonic transport at some point in the future. However, as far as I am aware, there are no such projects currently at any meaningful stage.

As I said in the future. Plus the whole global warming thing is unproven. But we won't have that argument again. People will forever be obsessed with speed and going fast and if an airline can offer a faster service then people will use it.


By the way, I meant to say that I thought this comment was wholly unreasonable on your part.

Not really. Dylan likes to twist people's words and ignore parts of posts. It's all good fun though when you smell and live under a bridge :)

[Daniel]

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

By the way, even though global warming will not just 'blow over' (sorry to disappoint you), this does not mean to say that means of transport can't continue to become faster. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a supersonic transport at some point in the future. However, as far as I am aware, there are no such projects currently at any meaningful stage.
I should also point out that no one would develop such an aircraft which is so inefficient when being inefficient is second only to be Hitler on the list of naughty things to do.

[BDunnell]

As I said in the future. Plus the whole global warming thing is unproven. But we won't have that argument again.

I don't like letting comments like that lie, but I think on this occasion it's best to. Suffice to say I couldn't disagree more with you.



Not really. Dylan likes to twist people's words and ignore parts of posts. It's all good fun though when you smell and live under a bridge :)

I disagree with this, too. It's not a tendency I've noticed with his posts, and I still think your remark was uncalled-for.

[BDunnell]

BDunnell, it sounds like you're in the aviation field. Over the past few years we've had military planes like the F22 introduced with supercruise abilities, do you think that could come into civilian use as well? Surely if a supersonic airliner that doesn't require afterburner use to transcend the sound barrier can be built it would be more efficient and therefore viable both economically and politically/environmentally?

Yes, I do work in a minor branch of the aviation field.

Supercruise is interesting. In fact, both Concorde and the Soviet Tupolev Tu-144 could technically supercruise, but, if I recall it correctly, getting through the sound barrier without using afterburner is more inefficient than doing so Mach 1 with afterburner because fuel burn (at least with most engines of relatively recent times) is higher owing to the length of time required to reach Mach 1. When it comes to maintaining supersonic speeds once you've reached them, pretty much the opposite is true.

There are currently various supersonic transport studies going on. The problems involved in developing such an aircraft are many and varied, because applying the sort of engine technology as used in something like the F-22 isn't easy. Bringing together an engine that's efficient (not just because of environmental issues, but also to avoid the expense of massive fuel burn), reasonably quiet and allows the aircraft to maintain supersonic speeds for sustained periods of time on regular scheduled services with an airframe that's aerodynamically capable of exceeding Mach 1 fairly quickly while carrying enough passengers to make the aircraft commercially viable from the outset (and not a dozen or so years after entering service, as was the case with BA's Concordes) is a huge challenge.

[Magnus]

May one ask what is your field of expertice BDunnel?

[airshifter]

That Airbus is one ugly aircraft. The name "Airbus" is very fitting in this case.

For long haul flights it should do well, as capacity will help. But with people having busier and busier schedules with work and personal life, the capacity may not help as much as predicted. If you only book enough flights to fill a smaller aircraft you haven't made progress based on that capacity.

I guess only time will tell, but I think it will do ok over time.


As far as supersonic projects in the future, I'd personally think it would be more likely for the smaller chartered aircraft. Unless you have a great speed difference the flight time alone doesn't justify the savings in total trip time for the average consumer.

And no matter what aircraft you are speaking of, mach .98 is not supersonic.

[BDunnell]

As far as supersonic projects in the future, I'd personally think it would be more likely for the smaller chartered aircraft. Unless you have a great speed difference the flight time alone doesn't justify the savings in total trip time for the average consumer.

It's been tried as a concept — Sukhoi teamed up with Gulfstream a few years ago on just such a project — but nothing has come of it. Supposedly, Sukhoi has continued work on it, but I have heard nothing for ages. Again, the advantages are relatively small when compared against the costs of development.

[BDunnell]

May one ask what is your field of expertice BDunnel?

Of course, Magnus. I'm just a journalist.

[Erki]

I bet Magnus feels like a journalist here too. A war journalist. ;)

[BDunnell]

I bet Magnus feels like a journalist here too. A war journalist. ;)

ERKI, GET YOUR HEAD DOWN!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

BDunnell, it sounds like you're in the aviation field. Over the past few years we've had military planes like the F22 introduced with supercruise abilities, do you think that could come into civilian use as well? Surely if a supersonic airliner that doesn't require afterburner use to transcend the sound barrier can be built it would be more efficient and therefore viable both economically and politically/environmentally?

The scram jet (supersonic combustion ramjet) will be the future of supersonic/hypersonic airliners.

The ramjet is what the SR-71 Blackbird has, and can achieve speeds of around Mach3. But the scramjet will be able to achieve Mach20. :eek:

[DonnieDarco]

The bigger they get, the more people to die in one go when one falls out of the sky as it surely will, eventually.

Wouldn't get me on one for all the tea in China :D

[BDunnell]

The scram jet (supersonic combustion ramjet) will be the future of supersonic airliners.

The ramjet is what the SR-71 Blackbird has, and can achieve speeds of around Mach3. But the scramjet will be able to achieve Mach20. :eek:

The SR-71 did not, strictly speaking, use a ramjet, though the engine did produce similar effects at high speeds.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I always thought that SR-71 was a 'hybrid' of sorts, because the engine was a turbojet inside a ramjet.

[BDunnell]

I always thought that SR-71 was a 'hybrid' of sorts, because the engine was a turbojet inside a ramjet.

It could be referred to as such, though I would always tend to say that the engine itself was a turbojet.

[Malbec]

The scram jet (supersonic combustion ramjet) will be the future of supersonic/hypersonic airliners.

Thats a bit like saying hydrogen fuel cell will power the cars of tomorrow isn't it? We're not quite sure if it'll work yet....

I'm sure the demand for supersonic travel will decline just as technology finally makes it viable, there are very very few jobs nowadays given the power of the internet that require a particular individual to be there in person. I'm sure Concorde passenger numbers must have declined as teleconferencing finally became a reality.

[Malbec]

There are currently various supersonic transport studies going on. The problems involved in developing such an aircraft are many and varied, because applying the sort of engine technology as used in something like the F-22 isn't easy. Bringing together an engine that's efficient (not just because of environmental issues, but also to avoid the expense of massive fuel burn), reasonably quiet and allows the aircraft to maintain supersonic speeds for sustained periods of time on regular scheduled services with an airframe that's aerodynamically capable of exceeding Mach 1 fairly quickly while carrying enough passengers to make the aircraft commercially viable from the outset (and not a dozen or so years after entering service, as was the case with BA's Concordes) is a huge challenge.

Thanks for the detailed answer.

Surely with noise though, the engine isn't the biggest factor (except during take off/landing) but the sonic boom is? I thought that (together with rising oil prices) finally killed off any chance of Concorde selling in the US.

[Malbec]

For long haul flights it should do well, as capacity will help. But with people having busier and busier schedules with work and personal life, the capacity may not help as much as predicted. If you only book enough flights to fill a smaller aircraft you haven't made progress based on that capacity.

I suspect capacity isn't the real selling point of the A380, more the ability to tailor the planes to individual airlines' requirements to provide a particular 'service' for marketing purposes.

At my age a lot of my friends have started young families and have had to totally abandon even the concept of long distance flights with their little darlings for holidays. Imagine how many young families they could attract to longhaul flights simply by offering a cheap creche service on board the plane? The possibilities are endless allowing airlines to cater for every niche under the sun. You could even promise first class passengers luxury not seen in the air since Zeppelin days (and charge them the earth for it).

[BDunnell]

Thats a bit like saying hydrogen fuel cell will power the cars of tomorrow isn't it? We're not quite sure if it'll work yet....

I'm sure the demand for supersonic travel will decline just as technology finally makes it viable, there are very very few jobs nowadays given the power of the internet that require a particular individual to be there in person. I'm sure Concorde passenger numbers must have declined as teleconferencing finally became a reality.

Not really, in my view. The Paris crash in 2000 caused the first major drop-off in Concorde passenger numbers; then the after-effects of the 11 September 2001 attacks, with the hit that commercial aviation as a whole took, came at exactly the wrong time for Concorde's re-introduction to service. There are other possible factors that led to the aircraft's final retirement.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Thats a bit like saying hydrogen fuel cell will power the cars of tomorrow isn't it? We're not quite sure if it'll work yet....

I'm sure the demand for supersonic travel will decline just as technology finally makes it viable, there are very very few jobs nowadays given the power of the internet that require a particular individual to be there in person. I'm sure Concorde passenger numbers must have declined as teleconferencing finally became a reality.

So basically Concorde was too slow in the current era? :p

[BDunnell]

Thanks for the detailed answer.

Surely with noise though, the engine isn't the biggest factor (except during take off/landing) but the sonic boom is? I thought that (together with rising oil prices) finally killed off any chance of Concorde selling in the US.

There are various theories as to why that was. I feel that the 1973 oil crisis was the main problem, and I also wonder whether, had Boeing proceeded with its 2707 SST project of the time, it would have met with such resistance from airports and the US public.

[BDunnell]

I suspect capacity isn't the real selling point of the A380, more the ability to tailor the planes to individual airlines' requirements to provide a particular 'service' for marketing purposes.

At my age a lot of my friends have started young families and have had to totally abandon even the concept of long distance flights with their little darlings for holidays. Imagine how many young families they could attract to longhaul flights simply by offering a cheap creche service on board the plane? The possibilities are endless allowing airlines to cater for every niche under the sun. You could even promise first class passengers luxury not seen in the air since Zeppelin days (and charge them the earth for it).

The reality, despite what Airbus in the early days of the project, and then Richard Branson, have said, is that airlines just want to fill the A380 as full of passengers as they can. The double beds in the luxurious suites inside Singapore Airlines' first A380 may have got a lot of media coverage, but in standard class, you won't notice the difference between an A380 and any other aircraft. Any airline that does anything too different to that is being foolish in economic terms.

[Malbec]

Not really, in my view. The Paris crash in 2000 caused the first major drop-off in Concorde passenger numbers; then the after-effects of the 11 September 2001 attacks, with the hit that commercial aviation as a whole took, came at exactly the wrong time for Concorde's re-introduction to service. There are other possible factors that led to the aircraft's final retirement.

Yeah, but ignoring those two minor events.....

[BDunnell]

Yeah, but ignoring those two minor events.....

Well, then, there's the alleged drop in BA commitment to Concorde while it was grounded, alleged French opposition to BA operating Concorde on its own leading to Airbus withdrawing type support...

[Rollo]

When the A380 landed in Sydney it got a full wrap-around for the front and back pages of The Sydney Morning Herald. The question of editorial comment and paid advertisement became so blurred that there's now "industrial action" at the newspaper this morning.

I saw the bird at Sydney Airport because I drove down the M5 and to be honest, when compared to A340s, 747s et al, it's not really that impressive to be waxing lyrical over and certainly not worth four pages of a broadsheet.

All the improvements in space and/or comfort will be gobbled up by extra seats where I usually sit in cattle class anyway. I think it will be like flying in any other flying bus.

[BDunnell]

When the A380 landed in Sydney it got a full wrap-around for the front and back pages of The Sydney Morning Herald. The question of editorial comment and paid advertisement became so blurred that there's now "industrial action" at the newspaper this morning.

I saw the bird at Sydney Airport because I drove down the M5 and to be honest, when compared to A340s, 747s et al, it's not really that impressive to be waxing lyrical over and certainly not worth four pages of a broadsheet.

I was under the (possibly misguided) impression that this was a paid-for advertisement of some sort.

It's definitely the biggest positive event in civil aviation for many, many years, though.

[Malbec]

Well, then, there's the alleged drop in BA commitment to Concorde while it was grounded, alleged French opposition to BA operating Concorde on its own leading to Airbus withdrawing type support...

ok ok ok.....

When looking at future demand for a Concorde replacement who will the passengers be? Most Concorde passengers seemed to be business types and I'm not sure they'll keep finding it economical to shell out for flights like that when teleconferencing is so cheap.

[Rollo]

How did I get a double post separated?

[BDunnell]

ok ok ok.....

When looking at future demand for a Concorde replacement who will the passengers be? Most Concorde passengers seemed to be business types and I'm not sure they'll keep finding it economical to shell out for flights like that when teleconferencing is so cheap.

I would agree with that.

One thing to add is that BA used to make a fair old whack on chartering Concorde out to various companies. Air France did too — of course, their aircraft that crashed was operating a charter when that accident occurred. I don't know how significant this business was to both operators in the larger commercial scheme of things, though.

[Malbec]

The reality, despite what Airbus in the early days of the project, and then Richard Branson, have said, is that airlines just want to fill the A380 as full of passengers as they can. The double beds in the luxurious suites inside Singapore Airlines' first A380 may have got a lot of media coverage, but in standard class, you won't notice the difference between an A380 and any other aircraft. Any airline that does anything too different to that is being foolish in economic terms.

Surely though those small services will have a halo effect on each brand? Few people will want to pay for the double bedrooms available on Singapore Airlines but its not going to do their image any harm is it? And in the profitable business/first class wars surely these services like gyms etc etc will draw customers even if they aren't available to economy.

[BDunnell]

Surely though those small services will have a halo effect on each brand? Few people will want to pay for the double bedrooms available on Singapore Airlines but its not going to do their image any harm is it? And in the profitable business/first class wars surely these services like gyms etc etc will draw customers even if they aren't available to economy.

All very true, but that can only work as a marketing strategy for so long. The A380 won't be special for ever.

[Malbec]

On a different tack, what have you heard as being the cause for the A380 delay? I had heard that they used a new wiring material for the A380 but had amazingly not altered the setting for the new material and its flexing attributes on the design software so when it came to building the plane the wiring wouldn't fit. I've also heard that the French have usually led the development of the aircraft but handed it over to the Germans for the A380 who then promptly messed it up. Whats the inside line?

[BDunnell]

On a different tack, what have you heard as being the cause for the A380 delay? I had heard that they used a new wiring material for the A380 but had amazingly not altered the setting for the new material and its flexing attributes on the design software so when it came to building the plane the wiring wouldn't fit. I've also heard that the French have usually led the development of the aircraft but handed it over to the Germans for the A380 who then promptly messed it up. Whats the inside line?

There were all sorts of elements to the wiring problem. According to reports at the time, which are all I have to go on, Airbus failed to take different customers' wiring requirements into account in the original designs. The computer mock-ups of the wiring system were also, allegedly, of low quality, and failed to take into account the fact that the aluminium wiring of which there is a lot in the A380 shortens more than copper wiring when it's bent. This couldn't just be resolved by sticking extra bits of wire in! Then, there were various (fairly normal) problems discovered during tests to contend with.

What has emerged is, by all accounts, a very 'mature' aircraft with no further reports of major problems over recent months.

[tinchote]

I seem to recall that the problem with the wiring was as follows: each A380 has customized wiring. A computer program designs all the wiring and produces the blueprints for each aircraft. The design process is done in Germany, and the building process in France (or the opposite). And it turned out that although both teams were using the same software, they were using different versions, and the differences were substantial.

[janneppi]

That's what I've heard too. Apparently ze Germans had quite nice equations for parts where if you changed the length of some thing, all other parts related to it would adapt their measurements.
When trying to import the models to French version of the software, it blew up. :)

[Daniel]

All very true, but that can only work as a marketing strategy for so long. The A380 won't be special for ever.
I remember when the 777 was special and now it's not. It's just an aircraft :) But that said everyone (well most people) knows what a 747 looks like :)

[Dave B]

I'd say that if you asked people on the street to identify airliners the only two they'd get right would be Concorde and the 747. It's entirely possible that they A380 would join them, but I still don't believe that anybody barring a few nerds book their flights on the basis of which aircraft they'll be flying in.

[Mark]

Like you are guaranteed that anyway?
When I went to America it was supposed to be 747 out and 777 back, I got the exact opposite. Not that it mattered the 777 is just a 747 without an upper deck :p

[Magnus]

I'd say that if you asked people on the street to identify airliners the only two they'd get right would be Concorde and the 747. It's entirely possible that they A380 would join them, but I still don't believe that anybody barring a few nerds book their flights on the basis of which aircraft they'll be flying in.

Ooops... I guess I am a nerd now asweel, lucky I put my helmet on earlier... :D

[leopard]

All I can suggest for those air minded is to scrutinize it has adopted certified airworthiness and posses standard operating procedure and vehicle maintenance.

[Daniel]

Like you are guaranteed that anyway?
When I went to America it was supposed to be 747 out and 777 back, I got the exact opposite. Not that it mattered the 777 is just a 747 without an upper deck :p
Small matter of two less engines on the 777 as well :p

[Mark]

That changes the view out of the window and little else. After BA has finished with them the 777 and 747 look idenitcal inside.

[Daniel]

That changes the view out of the window and little else. After BA has finished with them the 777 and 747 look idenitcal inside.
Which is my point from before. No one cares about canard foreplanes or whether it has 2 or 4 engines. As long as it's comfortable and gets you there quickly it's all good.

[555-04Q2]

An exaggeration, in my opinion. In any case, the Boeing 787 is now experiencing very serious problems of its own — and who knows what will come up when it starts flight-testing?

To name but one of the thousands of major problems they have experienced, when they tried to connect two hundred thousand electrical connections together, they realized that the French connectors were different to the German ones. Now if they can overlook something as trivial as that, what else have they overlooked :?:

I'll stick to the tried and tested 747 thank you very much ;)

[Daniel]

To name but one of the thousands of major problems they have experienced, when they tried to connect two hundred thousand electrical connections together, they realized that the French connectors were different to the German ones. Now if they can overlook something as trivial as that, what else have they overlooked :?:

I'll stick to the tried and tested 747 thank you very much ;)
I think you're oversimplifying it a little :) These aircraft have to go through lots of tests. I remember seeing the 777-300ER flying into Perth Airport on a test flight. They landed it with no reverse thrust and with the brakes at maximum wear and it stopped comfortably. I can't remember the tests they ran on takeoff though :mark: I'll wager Airbus have done similar tests with the A380.

[Daniel]

http://archive.motorsportforums.com/vb2/showthread.php?threadid=105360&perpage=20&display=&pagenumber=2

I found my post :)


I remember over a year ago when the 777-300ER came into Perth on a test flight http://archive.motorsportforums.com/vb2/images/smilies/biggrin.gif It was just simply gorgeous in it's Boeing test livery http://archive.motorsportforums.com/vb2/images/smilies/facelick.gif They did a landing with totally knackered brakes and no reverse thrust (On purpose so they could test how it performed) and it stopped up nearly as well as a 777-200 coming in from Singapore using reverse thrust. This I know from sitting on the grass watching the afternoon Singapore and Malaysian 777's come in many a time :p lanespotter:http://archive.motorsportforums.com/vb2/images/smilies/dorky.gif

[Malbec]

I seem to recall that the problem with the wiring was as follows: each A380 has customized wiring. A computer program designs all the wiring and produces the blueprints for each aircraft. The design process is done in Germany, and the building process in France (or the opposite). And it turned out that although both teams were using the same software, they were using different versions, and the differences were substantial.

I seem to recall that for once everyone blamed the Germans for messing up the engineering!

[Magnus]

Well, this thread, as opposed to its subject, shure got of to a flying start. As a engineer of combustion engines, or what ever it is called in this language, I was somewhat baffled by the amount of air which the engines of the 380 sucks in every second: over 1000 kilos each. Thats quite a lot, and it also gives a hint abt the fuel-consumption given a stochiometric burn-rate...but, the burn-rate on gas-turbines will never be that good...

[Magnus]

Despite this the airbus 380 will consume less than three liters of fuel per passenger over 100 kilometers . the engines of the 777 is however more powerful with a max. trust of over 40000 kgs

[airshifter]

It's been tried as a concept — Sukhoi teamed up with Gulfstream a few years ago on just such a project — but nothing has come of it. Supposedly, Sukhoi has continued work on it, but I have heard nothing for ages. Again, the advantages are relatively small when compared against the costs of development.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that.

It just seemed to me that it would be more likely that big dollar business types would be more likely to pay for time savings. Problem is, there aren't enough of them to fill large aircraft all the time.


Something that might be of interest to you being in the field you are. I was stationed in Okinawa, Japan shortly before they retired the SR-71s from the Air Force. Quite an awesome aircraft to watch, and quite a light show at night taking off.

After moving back here to the east coast, one day working outside we heard a distinct sonic boom. During one of the final flights they did the New York to LA run just to break the record and show their hand in speed a little bit. My father is a retired F-4 pilot, and during the Vietnam era they flew escort of the SR-71s out of that same base. Though the F-4s were fairly fast aircraft themselves, the Blackbirds would just accelerate away.

Having worked with the military long enough, I'd guess that very few people actually know just how fast the SR-71s are. It's rare that they make the full capabilities of such things public.

I think some of the last SR-71s are right up the road from where I live now, operated by NASA out of a local air base.

[BDunnell]

There are no SR-71s flying any more, sadly.

[tinchote]

That changes the view out of the window and little else. After BA has finished with them the 777 and 747 look idenitcal inside.

You're saying that BA's 777 don't have the usual 2-5-2 seating? They have 3-4-3?

[Malbec]

Despite this the airbus 380 will consume less than three liters of fuel per passenger over 100 kilometers . the engines of the 777 is however more powerful with a max. trust of over 40000 kgs

I had read that long distance flight is unbelievably inefficient because the planes are so heavily loaded they have to be at a high AoA to keep in the air which is in itself aerodynamically inefficient and therefore consumes much more fuel.

I can't remember the numbers but the amount of fuel saved by stopping off midway between London and Sydney compared to a direct flight was rather incredible.

[Magnus]

Hmm, dylan h, that is directly opposed to the thoughts I have had in the matter. From my point of view you get more efficience, the larger you can build the airplane. The reason for this is the interaction between two-dimensional factors and three- dimensional factors; if you have an airplane with very small wings it will have to fly very fast to stay flying, and on the other hand, if you have an overloaded plane, disregarding construction issues, it to will have to fly very fast to stay in the air.
Boeing 737 are actually flying faster than their structural design would allow them to do. The 737 have slighly smaller wings than they should have. The reason for ths is that they, and other small planes, will keep upp with larger airplanes, which have more appropriate wings for their fuselage-size. The 737 would thus be more conomic if you put bigger wings on it, from a fuel consumption pow, but on the other hand it would be slower, and less attractive to customers.
It all comes down to this point: if you anyway are going to cause turbulece in the air, it is better to do it with a large object, than a small. The diameter+it wings is a factor which only grows by a X^2 factor when you build it bigger, the volume, and the available space gfor people on the other hand grows by a factor X^3. This simple mathematical fact makes it more economic to build bigger planes, and boats and so on.
There are dozens of other aspects on this matter, but this is basically how I have thought abt the reasons for building bigger planes (and boats.)

[Hondo]

Quite frankly, I hope I never have to fly on a larger Boeing or an Airbus 380. Nowadays when you arrive at the jetway, even on a 737, it takes forever to get off the damn plane, especially with people hauling everything they own as "carry-on" luggage. I can only imagine it would be worse carrying huge amounts of passengers with people trying to get stuff out of the overheads, from under the seats, looking for their kids, caught up in the roadblock behind a couple of fat folks wedged in the aisle, etc.

Airbus 380 will probably spawn the first documented case of pedestrian "road rage" on an airliner.

[leopard]

Actually there are many factors why the plane can fly and stay flying.
The simple factor is identified by difference between air pressure between top and down of wing while it gains power going forwards from the engine. At this point construction of the wings to gain the pressure difference and the shape of body from the plane to give minimum resistance on the air, determine much.

In order to stay flying there are some force involved like the way why do the bike can go forward in two wheels or even one wheel and the flies can fly for producing a force to resist gravity.

In the event any other factors are equal, I think those with the heavier load must consumes fuel more than the lighter. And those with transit flight as it must run slower should consume fuel more than direct flight. Give or take just like car.

[555-04Q2]

I think you're oversimplifying it a little :)

Probably ;) but you aint gonna find me dead on an A380 :(

[Daniel]

Probably ;) but you aint gonna find me dead on an A380 :(
So if you turned up at the airport and you were going to go on an A380 you'd refuse to go :mark:

[Malbec]

To name but one of the thousands of major problems they have experienced, when they tried to connect two hundred thousand electrical connections together, they realized that the French connectors were different to the German ones. Now if they can overlook something as trivial as that, what else have they overlooked :?:

I'll stick to the tried and tested 747 thank you very much

I'm certain that if you look carefully at the development of just about any aircraft you'll find hundreds, thousands of errors that had to be corrected. Thats the point of development and testing after all.

The 'tried and tested 747' used to have catastrophic structural failures both at the tail and occasionally at the front end where the double floored section suffered from metal fatigue due to stress. Over 500 people died when a JAL 747 tail sheared off in flight thanks to metal fatigue.

The Airbus will have gone through pretty strict testing before delivery. Since the Comet the industry knows that if a model has a serious flaw and still makes it to market then the manufacturer will not survive. The A380 is as safe as any other plane.

[Malbec]

There are dozens of other aspects on this matter, but this is basically how I have thought abt the reasons for building bigger planes (and boats.)

I'm not entirely sure we're talking about the same thing.

My point was that if you take a plane and load it up to its maximum payload it will take a lot of fuel to take it up to altitude and even more to keep it there as the plane maintains a high angle of attack and therefore drag in order to produce enough lift to keep it up in the air.

As the fuel burns off and the plane gets lighter the angle of attack can then come down, reducing drag and therefore the amount of fuel that needs to be burnt to keep cruising at a constant altitude.

If you then split the journey in two you have a much lighter aircraft to start off with as it doesn't need as much fuel, less needs to be burnt to take off and get to altitude and the angle of attack is lower producing less drag and therefore again requiring less fuel to be burnt. The difference therefore between a single flight from London to Sydney and one that stops halfway is quite substantial apparently in terms of fuel burnt.

[airshifter]

Quite frankly, I hope I never have to fly on a larger Boeing or an Airbus 380. Nowadays when you arrive at the jetway, even on a 737, it takes forever to get off the damn plane, especially with people hauling everything they own as "carry-on" luggage. I can only imagine it would be worse carrying huge amounts of passengers with people trying to get stuff out of the overheads, from under the seats, looking for their kids, caught up in the roadblock behind a couple of fat folks wedged in the aisle, etc.

Airbus 380 will probably spawn the first documented case of pedestrian "road rage" on an airliner.

Very good point.

I've noticed that on several occasions where I took smaller "commuter" type aircraft the boarding and disembarking were much quicker. And for most flights they are just as comfortable as well.


Then again, I've made several very long flights in the back of military aircraft while having nothing other than cargo net seats to sit on, all while dealing with a lot of gear on our bodies. You would be surprised just how comfortable the hood of a vehicle is after 8 or 10 hours in the air fighting for space. :laugh:

[BDunnell]

I'm certain that if you look carefully at the development of just about any aircraft you'll find hundreds, thousands of errors that had to be corrected. Thats the point of development and testing after all.

The 'tried and tested 747' used to have catastrophic structural failures both at the tail and occasionally at the front end where the double floored section suffered from metal fatigue due to stress. Over 500 people died when a JAL 747 tail sheared off in flight thanks to metal fatigue.

The Airbus will have gone through pretty strict testing before delivery. Since the Comet the industry knows that if a model has a serious flaw and still makes it to market then the manufacturer will not survive. The A380 is as safe as any other plane.

Exactly right.

[Magnus]

But did not the crash of the JAJ 747 come down to mishap during a large overhaul, in which they had attached the bolts which hold the aft of the fuselage to the rest, in a somewhat faulty way?

[dchen]

They had damaged the rear pressure bulkhead due to tail strike, and the repair performed on the airplane wasn't done correctly. Instead of double shear, they only use single shear. The rear pressure bulkhead failed due to fatigue from pressurization, and rips apart the tail of the airplane.

It wasn't a design problem on the 747, it was the maintenance issue. Just like most airplane accidents out there...

[Dave B]

Talking about airplane accidents, as we were 4 years ago, this clip demonstrates why you shouldn't get too close to a massive airliner like the A380:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/04/11/new.york.plane.incident/

The commuter plane is tossed aside like a toy :s

[Daniel]

Talking about airplane accidents, as we were 4 years ago, this clip demonstrates why you shouldn't get too close to a massive airliner like the A380:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/04/11/new.york.plane.incident/

The commuter plane is tossed aside like a toy :s

That's poor.....

[Roamy]

The thought of "flying frogs" is scary in itself :)

[anthonyvop]

Talking about airplane accidents, as we were 4 years ago, this clip demonstrates why you shouldn't get too close to a massive airliner like the A380:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/04/11/new.york.plane.incident/

The commuter plane is tossed aside like a toy :s

How much you wanna bet that the ground controller who was guiding the Airbus will be put on "Administrative Leave" with pay for a week then be back on the job?

[Roamy]

So if you turned up at the airport and you were going to go on an A380 you'd refuse to go :mark:

well i don't know about you but i am a little bit aware of flight details before i show up. matter of fact when possible i will avoid the airbus because it overrides the pilot. in the case of the a380 i have no interest in flying on that plane

[Camelopard]

Flew Melbourne to Singapore to Heathrow on a Qantas one 4 weeks ago. Then 747 from Frankfurt to Singapore and 380 again from Singapore to Melbourne last week. I guess a lot depends on how the layout is done, Qantas is configured for about 450 passengers which isn't that many more than the 747. It seemed quieter and steadier than the 747, the seats were good in cattle class and the video screen was larger, although I really don't think there was any more leg room. Obviously everything is new, where as the Qantas 747's are getting old and this shows in the toilets for example.

Out of the flights the best was the 747 one as we had 3 seats for the 2 of us.

I went out of my way to book a 380 flight, but don't think I would bother next time. Qantas has had problems with the engines which led to the fleet being grounded, however they have also had a hole punched though the fuselage on a 747 from an exploding oxygen bottle.

I read somewhere that the Reunion Island's Air Austral will be configured to have 840 all economy seats. Now wouldn't that be fun!

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/airline-to-turn-a380-superjumbo-into-sardine-can-20090116-7imb.html

[Roamy]

I think the Dreamliner will be quite a feat if the wings stay on. Hard to believe but a engineer from boeing told me they flex better than the current planes. The scarebus in the 320 and 330 is a pretty comfortable airplane until you realize the pilot get overridden in an emergency. Now Bill Gates landing in an emergency is about as scary as one can get

[Camelopard]

I think the Dreamliner will be quite a feat if the wings stay on. Hard to believe but a engineer from boeing told me they flex better than the current planes. The scarebus in the 320 and 330 is a pretty comfortable airplane until you realize the pilot get overridden in an emergency. Now Bill Gates landing in an emergency is about as scary as one can get


Yep, but one can reasonably bet that an Airbus 380 wouldn't be run by a crap operating system like windoze..................... :)



There is more than one way to run a computer system regardless of whether it is making your coffee or keeping tabs on your where abouts.. :)



Long live MVS!

[Roamy]

WOW MVS is that sh!t still around??? :)

[Steve Boyd]

How much you wanna bet that the ground controller who was guiding the Airbus will be put on "Administrative Leave" with pay for a week then be back on the job?
Only if they can keep him awake long enough to tell him!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13085245

[Camelopard]

WOW MVS is that sh!t still around??? :)



Well technically no as it has long developed into z/OS, I'm curious to know if you have used MVS, or it's successor.

I first started with MVS/XA, when I retired my employer was running z/OS.

Z EOD

[Roamy]

Well technically no as it has long developed into z/OS, I'm curious to know if you have used MVS, or it's successor.

I first started with MVS/XA, when I retired my employer was running z/OS.

Z EOD

I used to do recruiting for large financial institutions. 3033 MVS DB2 - pretty interesting how it has all evolved

[Mark]

It's amazing how Americans feel the need to question the safety of Airbus - all the time. Presumably to protect 'their' Boeing aircraft. Does it really matter?

[BDunnell]

It's amazing how Americans feel the need to question the safety of Airbus - all the time. Presumably to protect 'their' Boeing aircraft. Does it really matter?

It is pathetic and unfounded in fact.

[Roamy]

It's amazing how Americans feel the need to question the safety of Airbus - all the time. Presumably to protect 'their' Boeing aircraft. Does it really matter?

Well actually Mark it could matter. Depending on the final outcome of the Air France crash. In addition pilots worldwide question the final computer override of the pilot. There are documented cases of computer error. So I think you comment about Americans can actually be expanded worldwide. Again you are just showing your prejudice against Americans.

[Daniel]

Well actually Mark it could matter. Depending on the final outcome of the Air France crash. In addition pilots worldwide question the final computer override of the pilot. There are documented cases of computer error.

Of course, but there are also well documented cases of human error. Neither system is perfect. One of the modules I did at university when I did a year of my aviation degree and lets just say there are millions of ways that a pilot can get things wrong and just because there's a co-pilot sitting beside him is no guarantee of his/her performance being error free.

[Mark]

Again you are just showing your prejudice against Americans.

Not at all. I just find constant bashing, whoever is doing it, tiresome.

[Roamy]

Of course, but there are also well documented cases of human error. Neither system is perfect. One of the modules I did at university when I did a year of my aviation degree and lets just say there are millions of ways that a pilot can get things wrong and just because there's a co-pilot sitting beside him is no guarantee of his/her performance being error free.

It depends on who you want to have the last say so - In my case I want the pilot. Also I would prefer a minimal back up hydraulic control system. Some now are completely fly by wire although they probably have dual wire systems in place. Many of the Airbus planes are in fact more comfortable than Boeing being wider and better leg room. The Air France crash has a few questions. When I first saw the radar showing the storms it appeared the plane missed the slot and apparently flew into the most intense part of the storm. I have been in some horrendous thunderstorms in planes and I never wish to be in one again. Sometimes airlines just need to cancel flights.

[Roamy]

Not at all. I just find constant bashing, whoever is doing it, tiresome.

forums consist of differences in opinion which can be construed as bashing when it becomes intense. There are many Christian site that may be a little softer if you prefer.

[Mark]

I would imagine them to be much worse :D

[Big Ben]

I don´t have any preference between airbus and boeing. I've only flown with Airbus so far and didn't die yet so it's not that bad. I would like to fly both with 747 and A380. I wouldn´t get on a MD though.

[edv]

I finally only SAW an A380 for the first time this week in Beijing.
It looked smaller than I expected.
I prefer the Airbus products over the Boeing products, which I tend to view as several generations old and based more on 1950s military projects than on anything modern.
It will be interesting, though, to contrast the upcoming products 787 vs A350 - both planes heavily into composites and energy efficiency.

And I always preferred VM/SP to MVS. But that's just me.

[Roamy]

so we all can agree that both planes fly - so it is really just a preference on who has last control
computer or pilot - I choose pilot.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

so we all can agree that both planes fly - so it is really just a preference on who has last control
computer or pilot - I choose pilot.

Maybe it is a generation gap, but I will always choose computer. It is just a fact that I computer will make errors less often than a pilot.

[BleAivano]

so we all can agree that both planes fly - so it is really just a preference on who has last control
computer or pilot - I choose pilot.

before you choose i suggest that you read this article and its sources and references, perhaps you will look at it in a slightly different way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_error#Human_error

[Mark in Oshawa]

I seem to recall that the problem with the wiring was as follows: each A380 has customized wiring. A computer program designs all the wiring and produces the blueprints for each aircraft. The design process is done in Germany, and the building process in France (or the opposite). And it turned out that although both teams were using the same software, they were using different versions, and the differences were substantial.

Talk about a horse designed by committee!!

[Mark in Oshawa]

When it comes to airplanes, I will always take Boeing products if I have a choice. It isn't that I don't think the Airbus is safe, on the contrary, I don't think any modern commericial air products are dangerous. The trip to the airport in your car is far more fraught with risk. No, I like Boeing because their technology has been tried and true, their wing designs and products in general are evolutions going back to the original swept wing of the B-47. Boeing in each new design is building on a long line of good and safe products. They may change the materials, and they may change how they build the planes, but the evolution is untouched and Boeing has never really had a bad commerical product. What is more, most airline customers (the operators of the planes) are still more inclined to go to Boeing first.

Airbus products are fine, I have flown on them, I didn't see they were appreiciably less as aircraft from my experience, but all the talk of the fly by wire, and other issues that Airbus has had have NOT been found to the same level on Boeings. That Airbus that dropped off Brazil a few years back is a definate mystery and no one is sure what caused that. If you look at the last time a 747 fell out of the sky without help, you will be looking long and hard. It is to me still the king of passenger aircraft. That A 380 is just a bigger sardine can......

[Zeakiwi]

Who makes the brakes for the a380 ?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/landing-was-least-of-qantas-a380s-problems/story-e6frg6nf-1225969198894

[gloomyDAY]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHb9gjOFEbA&feature=related

NUTS!!

[Stuartf12007]

Airbus make better planes than boeing

[Daniel]

Who makes the brakes for the a380 ?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/landing-was-least-of-qantas-a380s-problems/story-e6frg6nf-1225969198894

Obviously a company which did a very good job. Think of this like stopping a car from speed with just one of the wheels being braked......