- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
I believe there will be different versions of that flying cattle wagon. They can actually fit 900 seats. No way I'd set foot on such a prime target.
OH MY GOSH , AIrbus A380 makes first flight!!
- Thread starter Korean_redneck
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
If you start listing participating nations, then you shouldn't miss any.
You'll feel much safer after the full cavity search that all passengers will have to endure
as much as I respect the English and Spanish engineers, i don't think they can ovecome the French and Italian engineering....quote:
Originally posted by moribundman:
If you start listing participating nations, then you shouldn't miss any.
now, have left anyone un-offended?
The thing that struck all who attended the first flight was how much quiter it was on takeoff than all the other aircraft departing that day.
737 similar problem
http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm
And I bet the sound wont be half as bad as a Boeing 767 tearing itself apart at 24,700ft and at a speed of 0.78 Mach as the left engine goes into reverse thrust unintentionally. Boeing denied design errors but later admitted to such. 223 dead, remember that one? ALL aircraft manufacturers make mistakes, always have and always will.
http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm
And I bet the sound wont be half as bad as a Boeing 767 tearing itself apart at 24,700ft and at a speed of 0.78 Mach as the left engine goes into reverse thrust unintentionally. Boeing denied design errors but later admitted to such. 223 dead, remember that one? ALL aircraft manufacturers make mistakes, always have and always will.
Yes, with a FULL passenger load. How many times have you been on a plane with EVERY seat loaded, and that was not during the holidays?
I suggest that all should read the book "NUTS!" It's kinda a bio on Herb Kelleher (SP?) and South West AL. A very interesting read, and it was part of one of my undergrad engineering/economics classes.
MolaKule
Staff member
Wonderful accomplishment, but are the economics there? European govt.'s can take up the slack if it doesn't pay off and it wins some prestige for the engineering, but........how many can they actually sell and at what profit?
Wonderful engineering achievement, but may not be a financial success, imho.
A winged Edsel?
Wonderful engineering achievement, but may not be a financial success, imho.
A winged Edsel?
I'll bet the future problems incurred by this giant Airbus will become evident once it's been in sevice a while. Before it even took off they had to spend millions trying to find a way to save more weight. Why didn't the computer figure this out ahead of time? I read that they went way over budget fixing the weight issue.
I'll take a 737, 747, 767, 777, 787, over flying in that behemoth. Regardless of the former rudder problem (fixed), the 737 has had more succesful cycles than any other passenger aircraft in history. The safety rate is second to none. I'm not so sure I would fly on the A380....especially as they begin to age. No, Boeing isn't perfect....but I still prefer it over Airbus. (And from what I've read, so do most pilots).
I'll take a 737, 747, 767, 777, 787, over flying in that behemoth. Regardless of the former rudder problem (fixed), the 737 has had more succesful cycles than any other passenger aircraft in history. The safety rate is second to none. I'm not so sure I would fly on the A380....especially as they begin to age. No, Boeing isn't perfect....but I still prefer it over Airbus. (And from what I've read, so do most pilots).
"Yes, with a FULL passenger load. How many times have you been on a plane with EVERY seat loaded, and that was not during the holidays?"
actually quite often on the flights to/from the far east, in/out of Singapore especially altho it's been a few years since I made that awful trip. DFW-Narita was often full. Narita to Singapore was almost always full. LA- Taiwan was always full.
There may have been a few empties but rarely more than a dozen or so. That's the market, albeit limited, that the A380 is intended for.
It's not for the Atlanta-Greenville hop.
actually quite often on the flights to/from the far east, in/out of Singapore especially altho it's been a few years since I made that awful trip. DFW-Narita was often full. Narita to Singapore was almost always full. LA- Taiwan was always full.
There may have been a few empties but rarely more than a dozen or so. That's the market, albeit limited, that the A380 is intended for.
It's not for the Atlanta-Greenville hop.
Exactly. The long distance flights to Asia/Pacific rim are usually totally full; I've heard a few people say with the current infrastructure there is alomst a lack of supply in essence for passenger capacity for Flights from say, LA/NewYork to Hong Kong/Tokyo etc. GLOABALIZATION
MolaKule
Staff member
The plane will make money for airlines that fly between congested airports like London and Tokyo. Direct operating costs always go down when the flights are longer and there are more (full) seats.
The economic questions are how many airplanes will be sold and how many need to be sold at what price to make a profit for Airbus.
The Boeing 787 will not "wow" the public and media in the same way as the A380. It is a much more interesting plane from an engineering standpoint. The fuselage will be all-composite, a first for a large transport. There will be no air bleed from the engines to power aircraft systems, which is revolutionary and responsible for much of the increased efficiency.
The economic questions are how many airplanes will be sold and how many need to be sold at what price to make a profit for Airbus.
The Boeing 787 will not "wow" the public and media in the same way as the A380. It is a much more interesting plane from an engineering standpoint. The fuselage will be all-composite, a first for a large transport. There will be no air bleed from the engines to power aircraft systems, which is revolutionary and responsible for much of the increased efficiency.
The A380 makes sense for one market, China (pacific rim). The other routes are few, of course airlines like to advertize the latest and greatest as their flagship in TV commercials. Boeing may be right on this one, however only time will tell if they made the right choice. Boeing has bet the company on every new airframe they built, but they always had airline commitments before the first tool was built. You are right about the 747 the Gov. wanted a high wing freighter, Boeing said let us build you a low wing plane, the gov. said no thanks so they made it into a cash cow passenger plane that ruled the sky for 30 years. Not bad!
Speaking of cargo planes - the reason the 747's cockpit is on the upper deck is so that cargo can pass thru the nose (the nose of the cargo version opens up). I am surprised Airbus did not do the same with the A380.
I've been on many jets suprisingly. I found the airbus quieter and nicer. Maybe because they are all newer. When I went to the Philipines in 2002 on Eva Air (VERY VERY GOOD AIRLINE!!) I was on an awesome Boeing 747. Fly the economy deluxe or something like that.. it was one above coach but below business.... personal TV in each seat and seats that reclined to a good angle.
who makes the engines for the A380?
the only engine makesr I know are Rolls Royce, GE (Same as Pratt/Whitney?)
the only engine makesr I know are Rolls Royce, GE (Same as Pratt/Whitney?)
The A380, as I understand it, has engines from a company called CFM. This is a joined cooperative group of Snecma and General Electric.
Rolls Royce is another main jet engine maker (they aquired Allison, a former well known name). Also, BMW and Rolls Royce have teamed up to produce some engines. International Aero Engines is another group company. It combines Pratt and Witney, Rolls, Japan Aero, and Fiat (yikes).
- Status
