0
Merkur

Unveiling of the New Airbus 380

Recommended Posts

330,000 lbs. (150 metric tons) of payload within 40,000 cubic feet of space with a range of about 6,000 nautical miles
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

330,000 lbs. (150 metric tons) of payload within 40,000 cubic feet of space with a range of about 6,000 nautical miles


i LOOKS LIKE A CRUISE SHIP WITH WINGSB|
and YES...
This sport does not care who you are, How much experience you have, or how nice you are...It WILL kill you if you screw up.
(I have learn and accept your statement :|)
_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're making big noises about how it will have bars and exercise rooms and sleepers and whatnot, but I suspect that once they realize they can squeeze another 40 rows of economy seating in there that will evaporate very quickly.

I wonder how airports will deal with it? It takes half an hour to load a 747, even with two jetways. A plane that has to spend two hours at the gate to load and unload is going to have some economic disadvantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They're making big noises about how it will have bars and exercise rooms and sleepers and whatnot, but I suspect that once they realize they can squeeze another 40 rows of economy seating in there that will evaporate very quickly.

I wonder how airports will deal with it? It takes half an hour to load a 747, even with two jetways. A plane that has to spend two hours at the gate to load and unload is going to have some economic disadvantages.



And we'll be 20 miles in-trail because it produces so much wake turbulence no one can fly within 2 states behind it. It'll reduce the efficiency of the pavement we have. Well, that's my guess anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>It'll reduce the efficiency of the pavement we have. Well, that's my guess anyway.

Except that even if you have to increase following distances by 50%, you come out ahead in terms of people serviced per runway.

Besides, isn't the 757 worse than the 747 in terms of wake turbulence, despite being a lot smaller?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>It'll reduce the efficiency of the pavement we have. Well, that's my guess anyway.

Except that even if you have to increase following distances by 50%, you come out ahead in terms of people serviced per runway.

Besides, isn't the 757 worse than the 747 in terms of wake turbulence, despite being a lot smaller?



Don't know about worse. Both of those planes have rolled my plane up on its side equally and scared the piss out of my passengers.
Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems like it is the solution to the air transport issues of 30 years ago. If there was a huge demand for this jobbie, I'd think we'd see more stretch 747's than stubby ones.

It'll probably do OK on the New York-Paris, San Francisco-Tokyo stuff, but it just seemed to me that people are really moving toward smaller planes that take them right where they want to go.

And there's the little problem of it never having flown yet, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It seems like it is the solution to the air transport issues of 30 years ago. If there was a huge demand for this jobbie, I'd think we'd see more stretch 747's than stubby ones.

It'll probably do OK on the New York-Paris, San Francisco-Tokyo stuff, but it just seemed to me that people are really moving toward smaller planes that take them right where they want to go.

And there's the little problem of it never having flown yet, right?




Oh, I'm sure it'll fly just fine. Airbus has been designing planes for quite awhile now. I expect it'll fly exactly as they expect....mostly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I saw video of the engine test (our ignition system) and that looked odd. I forgot what airframe it was mounted on but the engine looks huge



The engine that goes with it is a RR tent600, I think they produce 110k pounds of thrust. (I could be 100% wrong ... well maybe not a 100)

I used to work on the Fan for the PW4098, which was 113" across. That was big. I have never felt so small when in the altitude chamber with it.

I don't know about planes. OK. So you have a huge plane, with a huge fuel load. You have a bird stike on take off. When the fuel is dumped before an emergency landing ... where does it go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



I wonder how airports will deal with it? It takes half an hour to load a 747, even with two jetways. A plane that has to spend two hours at the gate to load and unload is going to have some economic disadvantages.



From their web site:

"And because Airbus has taken care of the boarding and deplaning issue, cutting out choke points by using ergonomic research to design two sets of doors, turn-round time is significantly lower. This allows schedules to be kept tight and extra flights flown."

http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_economics.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


And there's the little problem of it never having flown yet, right?




Oh, I'm sure it'll fly just fine. Airbus has been designing planes for quite awhile now. I expect it'll fly exactly as they expect....mostly.



Yeah, that's what The Harland and Wolff shipyard said about the 'Titanic'...[:/]:S







Just a jest...I'm sure it will be fine. And I'm sure I'll never see the inside of it! ;)
~Jaye
Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>cutting out choke points by using ergonomic research to design two sets of doors . . .

Most large aircraft have at least two sets of doors. They usually don't get used because a 'standard' gate doesn't have two jetways that will mate to the two doors. Perhaps airports will add a second jetway to gates to accomodate A380's - but that would be a lot of money to support a plane that will make up a small percentage of any fleet.

Edited to add - they're claiming between 90 and 126 minutes for turnaround, based on being able to load 555 passengers in 22 minutes with two jetways. That seems really, really optimistic. 13 passengers a minute per door? That's a passenger every 4 seconds. I've never seen a plane (an airliner used by the public at least) board that quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Later versions of the 777 have about that level of thrust, the A380 is big enough to need four of them.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In Reply To
And there's the little problem of it never having flown yet, right?


Oh, I'm sure it'll fly just fine. Airbus has been designing planes for quite awhile now. I expect it'll fly exactly as they expect....mostly.

Yeah, that's what The Harland and Wolff shipyard said about the 'Titanic'...





Yeah, they never could get that fucking boat to fly, huh?

:P
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

In Reply To
And there's the little problem of it never having flown yet, right?


Oh, I'm sure it'll fly just fine. Airbus has been designing planes for quite awhile now. I expect it'll fly exactly as they expect....mostly.

Yeah, that's what The Harland and Wolff shipyard said about the 'Titanic'...





Yeah, they never could get that fucking boat to fly, huh?

:P



:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Dave, ever wonder what flavored bottled water feels like coming out of your nose?? :P:D Let's just say I don't anymore...B|:S
~Jaye
Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evacuation from the upper deck of either the 747 or the A380 would be, well, a thrill.

Wouldn't want to do it if it was an ordered evac just because of like running off the runway and getting stuck in mud or something. I think I'd want to sneak down to the lower level. :ph34r:
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I saw video of the engine test (our ignition system) and that looked odd. I forgot what airframe it was mounted on but the engine looks huge



The engine that goes with it is a RR tent600,



no the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 are on the 777 I'm not sure whats on the A380 but it diffently not a RR trent 600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0