Airbus A380 Test Flight

Len Lanetti

Len Lanetti

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
1,199
Location
Malvern, PA
Display Name
Display name:
Lenny
LATEST NEWS
Pittsburgh Business Times - 12:15 PM EDT Monday
Massive Airbus plane to be tested Wednesday

Vincent Lara-Cinisomo [font=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]The Airbus A380, potentially the world's largest commercial airliner, will have its maiden test flight Wednesday, European aircraft maker Airbus said Monday.

The Airbus A380, which is so massive its prototype boasts beds, gambling halls, showers and shops, will undergo its first airborne test near Airbus headquarters in Toulouse in southern France, an Airbus spokeswoman said.

The superjumbo jetliner is being constructed using aluminum and fasteners manufactured by Pittsburgh's Alcoa Inc. (NYSE:AA). The plane's wingspan is almost the length of a football field -- and it is almost entirely made of Alcoa's aluminum alloys, the company said.

The twin-deck plane has been compared to an ocean liner and can be configured to carry as many as 800 passengers.

The first commercial flight is expected in 2006, said Airbus, which is 80 percent owned by the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and 20 percent by BAE Systems of Britain.

The maiden flight has been postponed several times. Airbus had initially wanted it to take place at the end of March or early April, then in early April it said it would happen in the second half of the month.

So far, only 60 airports are equipped to host the A380, and several international hubs are having to make extra space.

Pittsburgh International Airport "could handle it right now" for sporadic visits, said Jeff Martinelli, the airport's public affairs manager, but he said the airport "would have to make some modifications" if the Airbus were to make regular flights from here.

[/font]

© 2005 American City Business Journals Inc.
 
Nope Len. Don't want one. No sliding canopy.
 
You know, that airplane will serve a purpose on long haul, heavy demand markets, but it makes me wonder if they didn't make it big enough. It is larger than a 747, but not so much larger as to be the same revolution the 747 was over the 707. To do that, it'd need to carry 1,300 pax and fly 20% faster. :)
 
Whirlwind said:
You know, that airplane will serve a purpose on long haul, heavy demand markets,
Click to expand...

To which Boeing has said that there isn't enough of those these days to make building that airplane worthwhile. Time will tell who is right. I think and hope it is Boeing.

Len
 
Whirlwind said:
You know, that airplane will serve a purpose on long haul, heavy demand markets, but it makes me wonder if they didn't make it big enough. It is larger than a 747, but not so much larger as to be the same revolution the 747 was over the 707. To do that, it'd need to carry 1,300 pax and fly 20% faster.
Click to expand...

20% faster than the 747 isn't likely for any airliner as that would be pushing compressibility and critical mach just too much -- even the Sonic Cruiser would not have been that fast. Only the HSCT would get us up in speed, and the market for that seems too uncertain to encourage anyone to invest in it. But for extra passengers, Airbus has conceptual designs for stretched A380's with up to 800 pax.
 
bstratt said:
Can you imagine the line ups for customs/baggage!
Click to expand...

No worse than two 747's arriving at once, which happens all the time at Heathrow and other major international portals. What I want to see is the FAR 121.291 emergency evacuation test -- 555 untrained pax plus crew out the door and down the slides in 90 seconds in the dark with loose baggage obstructing the aisles and exits and half the exits simulated unusable! I'd pay good money for the video, which oughta be better than Larry, Curly, and Moe being chased by the Marx Brothers with Laurel and Hardy choreographing the whole operation. See Part 121 Appendix D for the details of how this works.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=0d26aae7041559ccb05fbdc153667752&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.4.19&idno=14#14:2.0.1.4.19.24.11.4.50
 
Ron Levy said:
20% faster than the 747 isn't likely for any airliner as that would be pushing compressibility and critical mach just too much -- even the Sonic Cruiser would not have been that fast.
Click to expand...

That may be true, I was just saying what I thought it needed to do in order to really be the standout that the 747 was over the 707.

Only the HSCT would get us up in speed, and the market for that seems too uncertain to encourage anyone to invest in it. But for extra passengers, Airbus has conceptual designs for stretched A380's with up to 800 pax.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, the existing A380 can hold 800 pax if in an all coach config, which I'm sure some of the Asian airlines will do (they do it with the 747 today and get 550 pax in them (compared to the 435 pax in a 3 class config).
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Levy
20% faster than the 747 isn't likely for any airliner as that would be pushing compressibility and critical mach just too much -- even the Sonic Cruiser would not have been that fast.

Whirlwind said:
That may be true, I was just saying what I thought it needed to do in order to really be the standout that the 747 was over the 707.
Click to expand...

At the same time, if you look at the economics (including things like dispatch reliability, gallons per passenger mile, and maintenance hours per flight hour), not just raw performance numbers, I think you will find the A380 is as much more a "standout" over the 747 as the 747 was over the 707. To a great extent, we've reached the limits of subsonic performance, but we are still improving reliability and (at least in real monetary terms, not current year money) cost per seat mile. I think the same would be true if you compared the new 787 with the 757 it is designed to replace -- numbers of passengers and speed are not much better, but the economics are substantially improved.
 
Ron Levy said:
No worse than two 747's arriving at once, which happens all the time at Heathrow and other major international portals.
Click to expand...

I agree but one 747 per gate vs one of these babies per gate still adds up to a lot more people. Heathrow has to be the world's worst airport - I regularly wait for 2-3 hours for my luggage there.

Much prefer Gatwick.
 
bstratt said:
I agree but one 747 per gate vs one of these babies per gate still adds up to a lot more people. Heathrow has to be the world's worst airport - I regularly wait for 2-3 hours for my luggage there.

Much prefer Gatwick.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Gerbil Cage as I call it. I usually go into LGW on Delta, which is about as far as possible from Immigration and Customs. I think they had a maze designer layout the airport.

I agree, though, that Gatwick is a much better airport to fly into. Though Heathrow has improved ever since they started the express train service.
 
Ron Levy said:
At the same time, if you look at the economics (including things like dispatch reliability, gallons per passenger mile, and maintenance hours per flight hour), not just raw performance numbers, I think you will find the A380 is as much more a "standout" over the 747 as the 747 was over the 707.
Click to expand...

Ahh, well you make a good point there... I suppose this is why I don't run an airline. :)

To a great extent, we've reached the limits of subsonic performance, but we are still improving reliability and (at least in real monetary terms, not current year money) cost per seat mile. I think the same would be true if you compared the new 787 with the 757 it is designed to replace -- numbers of passengers and speed are not much better, but the economics are substantially improved.
Click to expand...

What amazes me is that the 757 is being replaced... I remember flying on the 727 on American Airlines as a kid thinking it was the coolest thing in the world, and was rather bummed when they replaced them all.

To think the 757 was the replacement for the 727, and itself is about to be replaced... Makes me feel old. :(

*wonders what the 797 will end up being...*
 
Ron Levy said:
No worse than two 747's arriving at once, which happens all the time at Heathrow and other major international portals. What I want to see is the FAR 121.291 emergency evacuation test -- 555 untrained pax plus crew out the door and down the slides in 90 seconds in the dark with loose baggage obstructing the aisles and exits and half the exits simulated unusable! I'd pay good money for the video, which oughta be better than Larry, Curly, and Moe being chased by the Marx Brothers with Laurel and Hardy choreographing the whole operation. See Part 121 Appendix D for the details of how this works.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=0d26aae7041559ccb05fbdc153667752&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.4.19&idno=14#14:2.0.1.4.19.24.11.4.50
Click to expand...
It was failure in this area of operation that kept the MD80 certified at 171 pax, rather than the 205 that MD wanted to certify. They had a few have to go to the hospital- broken bones, etc.
 
Whirlwind said:
Ahh, well you make a good point there... I suppose this is why I don't run an airline. :)
Click to expand...

Don't worry, even Warren Buffett couldn't handle it. :)

-Rich

Oh and P.S. your avatar is way way WAAAY too distracting (not that there's anything wrong with that)
 
The other thing to consider is what insurace company in the world will write a liability policy for an aircraft that is transporting 800 people based on previous history anytime a commercial aircraft one goes down. Or a better question what airline can afford the cost of coverage. Just something else to consider when thinking about the uses for this aircraft.
Dale H.
 
rpadula said:
P.S. your avatar is way way WAAAY too distracting (not that there's anything wrong with that)
Click to expand...
...says the man who's avatar is a bunny (four-legged rabbit-type bunny, that is) wearing a pancake on its head... :rofl: there's got to be a story in there somewhere?
 
Ron Levy said:
No worse than two 747's arriving at once, which happens all the time at Heathrow and other major international portals. What I want to see is the FAR 121.291 emergency evacuation test -- 555 untrained pax plus crew out the door and down the slides in 90 seconds in the dark with loose baggage obstructing the aisles and exits and half the exits simulated unusable! I'd pay good money for the video, which oughta be better than Larry, Curly, and Moe being chased by the Marx Brothers with Laurel and Hardy choreographing the whole operation. See Part 121 Appendix D for the details of how this works.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=0d26aae7041559ccb05fbdc153667752&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.4.19&idno=14#14:2.0.1.4.19.24.11.4.50
Click to expand...

The news tonight was talking about setting up coach configuration as 800 pax. Laurel and Hardy would have a rough time choreographing that one regardless of the talent available.

I'd buy the video too.
 
gkainz said:
...says the man who's avatar is a bunny (four-legged rabbit-type bunny, that is) wearing a pancake on its head... :rofl: there's got to be a story in there somewhere?
Click to expand...

Greg,

I originally found that picture on Fark in one of the Photoshop contests. There was text on it that said "I have no idea what you're talking about...so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head." Cracks me up every time.

The rest of the story is that it fits with my theories of "levels of comedy." The basest level is physical humor: Tom & Jerry cartoons, and Ron's aforementioned Three Stooges exit from an A380 (see, I'm staying on topic). The next level up is what I call "juxtaposition of incongruous items" - things that make absolutely no sense together, but look damn funny when they do. Ergo, bunny with a pancake on its head.

Dunno what levels are above that, because I don't think men's brains function that high :D


-Rich
 
rpadula said:
Don't worry, even Warren Buffett couldn't handle it. :)

-Rich

Oh and P.S. your avatar is way way WAAAY too distracting (not that there's anything wrong with that)
Click to expand...

Ahh, you mean this one? :D

RebeccaGayheart2.jpg
 
bstratt said:
I agree but one 747 per gate vs one of these babies per gate still adds up to a lot more people. Heathrow has to be the world's worst airport - I regularly wait for 2-3 hours for my luggage there.

Funny you should mention this, I may have to add Heathrow to my list of bad airports......I was "mugged" there last month by a wheel cart recovery person. Aparently, I didnt move far enough out of his way, so he simply pushed me. I landed on a startled Pakistani. Had I been able to stop laughing I would have shown him where to put his cart.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
At the same time, if you look at the economics (including things like dispatch reliability, gallons per passenger mile, and maintenance hours per flight hour), not just raw performance numbers, I think you will find the A380 is as much more a "standout" over the 747 as the 747 was over the 707. To a great extent, we've reached the limits of subsonic performance, but we are still improving reliability and (at least in real monetary terms, not current year money) cost per seat mile. I think the same would be true if you compared the new 787 with the 757 it is designed to replace -- numbers of passengers and speed are not much better, but the economics are substantially improved.
Click to expand...
That's exactly the game right now. Another benefit of the improved reliability and efficiency is the range and in the case of twins the ETOPS numbers are way up.

Passengers don't like to stop and you'll see layover destinations like Tokyo being skipped. Singapore Airlines currently flies the longest duration flight and the longest distance flight with their A340-500's. Newark to Singapore is the distance and LAX-SIN is the endurance (19+ hours)

I had some intersting discussions with Asian airlines that don't bode well for the A380 in the short term. It goes like this:

"If we (airline) buy the A380 the government will require us to pitch in to pay for airport upgrades. If we wait for the foreign carriers to buy it the gov't will have to upgrade the airport so the foreign carriers can land here. After the airport is upgraded, then we will order the A380."

Don't know how true this is and it is going to be an interesting dogfight now that the 747 Advanced is launching.

A350 vs 787
A380 vs 777 and 747 advanced

Place your bets - aviation is back - Yay!
 
Dan Deutsch said:
Passengers don't like to stop and you'll see layover destinations like Tokyo being skipped. Singapore Airlines currently flies the longest duration flight and the longest distance flight with their A340-500's. Newark to Singapore is the distance and LAX-SIN is the endurance (19+ hours)
Click to expand...

I can see some benefit to that (spoken as one who is flying SEA-NRT-SIN and then SIN-NRT-SEA next week). Still, I'm not a fan of Airbus and would much rather fly in Boeing iron any day.
 
Ghery said:
I can see some benefit to that (spoken as one who is flying SEA-NRT-SIN and then SIN-NRT-SEA next week). Still, I'm not a fan of Airbus and would much rather fly in Boeing iron any day.
Click to expand...
Northworst? I hate that narita stop although if you are in the new terminal in Narita it is a little better.

There's only one thing worse that a 19 hour flight. That's stopping twice and making it a 25 hour flight.
 
Dan Deutsch said:
Northworst? I hate that narita stop although if you are in the new terminal in Narita it is a little better.

There's only one thing worse that a 19 hour flight. That's stopping twice and making it a 25 hour flight.
Click to expand...

No, United. Their lounge at Narita is nicer than Northworst's. And, yes, I've been to both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top