PDA

View Full Version : A380



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Glom
2004-Nov-25, 11:52 PM
The Super Jumbo cometh. (http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_backgrounder.asp)

That is one fiercesome aircraft.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-26, 12:20 AM
I still do not see why they will not return to some type of Giant luxury Blimp. Cruise liners of the skies.

People are still afraid of Hindenburg crud i guess.

Andromeda321
2004-Nov-26, 03:16 AM
I think the blimp would go a tad bit slow Humphrey. At least that's the impression I get.

EvilBob
2004-Nov-26, 03:23 AM
They can put a man on the moon, but they can't make a supersonic blimp? For shame!
:D

I'm with Humphrey. Bring back the airships...

Ut
2004-Nov-26, 03:33 AM
Japan has 'em. Some company purchased two Zepplins back a year or two ago.

paulie jay
2004-Nov-26, 03:53 AM
These mega-jumbos are going to mean major modifications for a lot of airports - the ultra wide wing span will make sure of that!

I like the idea of the Zeppelin too - a very civilised way to fly!

Humphrey
2004-Nov-26, 04:38 AM
I think the blimp would go a tad bit slow Humphrey. At least that's the impression I get.Thats the point. A very slow luxury cruise form a thousand feet up. Fly over the States, Water, cros atlantic, you get the idea.

Like i saidk, Cruise liners of the sky. Not a means of transportation, but instead of vacation.

Install a few landing areas in key tourist spots. Land for a day, then take off again. With the square acerage on a blimp you probobly can use many solar cells to power at least a portion of the structure. Have it carry a few hundred lucky people. Full Cruise Liner Ameneties. The only problem you wouls have to solve is Water. Real Cruise liners can easily make their own. How would a modern blimp do it? LArge water tanks? That would lessen the amount of supplies or people they could carry. Make it themselves? How? Hydrogen cells could do it, but would they make enougth water?

Humphrey
2004-Nov-26, 04:40 AM
These mega-jumbos are going to mean major modifications for a lot of airports - the ultra wide wing span will make sure of that!

I like the idea of the Zeppelin too - a very civilised way to fly! With the Mega Jumbos, is the added passengers really sufficient to add in the increased costs of weight and feul? Meaning, is it more cost efficient to carry less people on a smaller plain then to pack as many in on as large a craft as possible?

Candy
2004-Nov-26, 11:04 AM
The A380, which will seat 555 passengers in a typical three-class interior layout, will enter airline service in 2006.

That is an aweful lot of people. I wonder if and/or how they factored in the boarding and deplaning times. :o

Laguna
2004-Nov-26, 11:07 AM
The A380, which will seat 555 passengers in a typical three-class interior layout, will enter airline service in 2006.

That is an aweful lot of people. I wonder if and/or how they factored in the boarding and deplaning times. :o
Be sure, they did.

"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."

Candy
2004-Nov-26, 11:22 AM
"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." I talked to our Operations Department. The 777's, 747's, and sometimes 767's use the 2 exits (International flights).

The Manager even suggested an exit for the upper deck for the A380. Of course, that would require more or modified airport equipment, etc...

Simply amazing! 8)

Maksutov
2004-Nov-26, 11:39 AM
These mega-jumbos are going to mean major modifications for a lot of airports - the ultra wide wing span will make sure of that!

I like the idea of the Zeppelin too - a very civilised way to fly! With the Mega Jumbos, is the added passengers really sufficient to add in the increased costs of weight and feul? Meaning, is it more cost efficient to carry less people on a smaller plain then to pack as many in on as large a craft as possible?
I expect that smaller plains would be more acceptable. Consider the topography of Kansas for example. Even when flying over that plain in a plane, it's almost boring to look out the window. Imagine the ennui if one were actually on that plain in, say, a car. I doubt there would be any enthusiasm for the experience, and the majority would avoid it.

Nicolas
2004-Nov-26, 12:39 PM
Boeing's vision is that smaller planes (7e7, small is relative) will be the future, Airbus claims there is a market for the superjumbos, mainly for intercontinental travel, ebut Japan planned on using them between the islands (even in a standing places version of 1000 passengers, but that plan ain't gonna make it I thought). In the maximum standard layout (normal seats), this version of the A380 will carry some 800 passengers.

The airports that will have the A380 flying to them are modificated already (or are in the process). Modification may include: change runway lights, runway strength, peer layout, size, and second peer level. The number of modifications an airport will do depends on what the y will use the A380 for. tehcnical landings only would need the runway being fitted, cargo haul not much either (Schiphol will welcome cargo A380's!). If you want full passenger facilities, the modifications to the terminals will be severe.

The A380 does fit in the standard 80*80 plane parking lot, it is specifically designed to it. (having 2 lots would amongst others increase the landing costs).

The roll out of the first A380 (for static ground tests) happened some months ago, so the plane is getting "real".

The market for airships (with the Zeppelin company constructing new types now and indeed selling them to japan a.o.) is more in the vacation/heavy lifting market, with the later yet to be developed. Hundreds of people in a blimp would resquire some development too, as the original Zeppelins didn't carry that many people (but were huuuuuuuuuge).

Candy
2004-Nov-26, 01:04 PM
Boeing's vision is that smaller planes (7e7, small is relative) will be the future, Airbus claims there is a market for the superjumbos, mainly for intercontinental travel, ebut Japan planned on using them between the islands (even in a standing places version of 1000 passengers, but that plan ain't gonna make it I thought). In the maximum standard layout (normal seats), this version of the A380 will carry some 800 passengers.
Nicolas, do you know the procedure for exiting the aircraft (when an emergency situation happens)? Is there a timing factor for safety reasons? Don't most people die from smoke inhalation, as opposed to the actual crash? I get concerned about these kind of details. 8-[

Laguna
2004-Nov-26, 01:09 PM
The A380 has emergency doors on the upper and on the main deck.
So it should be no big difference to any other plane.

Bawheid
2004-Nov-26, 01:35 PM
Cargolifter (www.cargolifter.com) for all your airship needs.

Laguna
2004-Nov-26, 01:38 PM
Cargolifter (www.cargolifter.com) for all your airship needs.
The cargolifter company no longer exists.

kucharek
2004-Nov-26, 01:45 PM
Cargolifter (www.cargolifter.com) for all your airship needs.

You know they went bankrupt last year after spending millions of government and investors money and nearly produced nothing? The giant hangar is currently converted into a tropical arborium for entertainment.
The whole thing was highly suspectible.

Nicolas
2004-Nov-26, 04:33 PM
Nicolas, do you know the procedure for exiting the aircraft (when an emergency situation happens)? Is there a timing factor for safety reasons? Don't most people die from smoke inhalation, as opposed to the actual crash? I get concerned about these kind of details.

No need to be concerned (not more than with other planes).

Yes the Airworthiness regulations (like FAR/JAR) describe the maximum amount of time in which a fully loaded plane should be empty through the emergency exits. I thought this was 100 seconds, but I'm not sure. The reason for this is that when a plane crash lands in a fire, after this time the aluminum skin starts to melt so everybody should be out by that time.

The A380's fuselage is made to a large extent from GLARE, which is a Al/FLM material (aluminum and fibre reinforced plastic layers on top of each other). GLARE is better temperature resistant, and therefore the FAR/JAR allowed the A380 to evacuate in more than 100s. (I don't know the number either)

These evacuations are actually tested: they load a ground based plane with the maximum capacity (usually students), they put on a stopwatch and reward the first 30 out of the plane with say 50 dollar. This is a quite accurate simulation :).

The A380 is stuffed with emergency exits and slides and the like, in order to make the emergency evacuation procedure in accordance with the FAR/JAR (which is very strict)

There have been interesting safety discussions with the A380, like the following:
"Shouldn't we just leave all doors closed in case of a fire and wait inside till the fire is is under control, it is maybe safer than going outside into the flames and smoke" This is completely not-done in aircraft business, but it should be considered now that new materials get into use which have better fire retardant properties than aluminum. After all, if the material is good, you are sitting in a nice airtight shell while you wai for the firefighters to arrive, instead of goiing outside into the inferno. Of course, sometimes it is safe to exit on one side of the plane. So when should you evacuate, when shouldn't you? What if some people want to go outside and others don't? Difficult matter.

teemo
2004-Nov-26, 04:49 PM
It's 90 seconds.




25.803

Emergency evacuation.

[(a) Each crew and passenger area must have emergency means to allow rapid evacuation in crash landings, with the landing gear extended as well as with the landing gear retracted, considering the possibility of the airplane being on fire.
(b) [Reserved.]
(c) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers, it must be shown that the maximum seating capacity, including the number of crewmembers required by the operating rules for which certification is requested, can be evacuated from the airplane to the ground under simulated emergency conditions within 90 seconds. Compliance with this requirement must be shown by actual demonstration using the test criteria outlined in Appendix J of this part unless the Administrator finds that a combination of analysis and testing will provide data equivalent to that which would be obtained by actual demonstration.
(d) [Reserved.]
(e) [Reserved.]]

Nicolas
2004-Nov-26, 05:05 PM
Thank's for the info, I couldn't find it that fast through google or in my FAR/JAR excerpts. Now if anyone finds the allowed evacuation time for the A380? (I really can't remember, though I certainly heard it once or more). There have been some discussions about the evacuation of that many people http://www.itf.org.uk/english/civilaviation/a380evac.htm, but for the moment all regulations are OK.

Parrothead
2004-Nov-26, 05:27 PM
Neat to see the plans near completion. I realize the idea behind the plane was for long-haul flights without refuelling. Probably the biggest problem was in solving the problem of shipping the wings from Wales to Toulouse, France for assembly. I believe Discovery Channel had a program at some point (a year or two ago), showing how they finally were shipping the wings by land and sea (concerns of trucks carrying the wings being able to make the turns through some small town along the way?). Once they knew it could be done, the project went ahead.

Nicolas
2004-Nov-26, 05:31 PM
It's not that every part of the project was halted because of this (in the case it couldn't be done from one location, they could have built certain parts at other locations). But indeed it was a difficult task to find a suitable and economical way of transporting the parts to the main assembly location. And certainly the adaptation of certain building locations was postponed till after a full transport research. There were quite some politics involved in this separated construction sites as well. The man who did the transport research from England to France has an aerospace engineering grade, so he's now doing something a bit beyond his studies (but a very interesting and nice job). He said it was a difficult task to get to know all the transport rules, possibilities of road, water and air transport and the like.

Glom
2004-Nov-27, 01:17 PM
These mega-jumbos are going to mean major modifications for a lot of airports - the ultra wide wing span will make sure of that!

The A380 is useable at major airports. It was designed with that in mind although modifications will optimise it.

The B747 required major modifications to airports when it came along.

Economies of scale can work out. Sure a 250 passenger airliner is cheaper to operate, but it is cheaper to operate one 500 passenger A380 than two 250 passenger airliners. The advantage is that they only need one slot, which reduces congestion.

sarongsong
2004-Nov-27, 02:54 PM
Oops---here come the lawyers:
"...European governments, the US complaint charges, have collectively loaned Airbus about $15 billion in so-called "launch aid" subsidies to develop the A380, while the EU has countered with claims that Boeing has been the recipient of more than $23 billion in government largesse since 1992, as well as an additional $3 billion in tax incentives from the company's home-state of Washington..."
http://tinyurl.com/5mezr

Trebuchet
2004-Nov-27, 05:38 PM
....The only problem you wouls have to solve is Water. Real Cruise liners can easily make their own. How would a modern blimp do it? LArge water tanks? That would lessen the amount of supplies or people they could carry. Make it themselves? How? Hydrogen cells could do it, but would they make enougth water?

Actually Zeppelins in the 1930's extracted water from their engine exhausts, to replenish the ballast tanks as the fuel burned off. I don't know if they used it for drinking purposes.

Candy
2004-Nov-27, 05:56 PM
The Super Jumbo cometh. (http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_backgrounder.asp)

That is one fiercesome aircraft.
Since you are destined to make $213/hour... buy me one... :P

I'll let you fly me around. 8-[

Candy
2004-Nov-27, 06:00 PM
Economies of scale can work out. Sure a 250 passenger airliner is cheaper to operate, but it is cheaper to operate one 500 passenger A380 than two 250 passenger airliners. The advantage is that they only need one slot, which reduces congestion.
The Manager at OPB (Operations) said as long as there is a market, the plane is full, and there are 2 pilots at the helm, it literally pays for itself.

Now, if all the bankrupt/nearly bankrupt airlines in the US could just afford one. :-k

crateris
2004-Nov-27, 06:16 PM
I wonder if the A380 will enjoy the long-term success of the 747 family. The 747 surely is a hard act to beat.

C.

Candy
2004-Nov-27, 06:25 PM
I wonder if the A380 will enjoy the long-term success of the 747 family. The 747 surely is a hard act to beat.

C. My two cents: I don't see it.

It will certainly be popular in the freight department. With the global economy unstable, I can't see how anyone could afford to gamble right now.

I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. 8-[

kucharek
2004-Nov-27, 06:31 PM
I wonder if the A380 will enjoy the long-term success of the 747 family. The 747 surely is a hard act to beat.

C. My two cents: I don't see it.

It will certainly be popular in the freight department. With the global economy unstable, I can't see how anyone could afford to gamble right now.

I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. 8-[

When you start such a project when the economy is boosting, you may be ready for the market just when it is going onto its next downhill run. Maybe they are lucky and in two years the economy looks much better and then they are ready to sell the planes.

2004-Nov-27, 06:32 PM
Sorry guys, I thought you were discussing a road!!! :oops: :oops: :oops:

Candy
2004-Nov-27, 06:41 PM
When you start such a project when the economy is boosting, you may be ready for the market just when it is going onto its next downhill run. Maybe they are lucky and in two years the economy looks much better and then they are ready to sell the planes.
I sure hope so. United starts paycuts across the board soon. From the news (so I don't get in trouble for divulging any information), United is attempting to disassemble the Union.

I am going to assume another mass lay-off is next with all the technology being implemented.

[crosses fingers]I feel secure in my position.[/crosses fingers].

I know Germany's Airbus has downsized big time, too. I hope two years makes a big difference.

Perhaps, I will apply for a position at Virgin, if I get the boot. 8-[

Waarthog
2004-Nov-27, 11:14 PM
Candy,
Is United planning on buying this monstrosity?


I personally do not like any of the airbus line. They have odd design philosophies and a good deal less structure than a comparably sized Boeing so if one of them piles it in, it will be less surviveable than a similar crash in a Boeing.

We got to crawl around an A320 and a B757 during one of our aviation safety courses. I was much more impressed with the crashworthiness of the 757 and that was the beginning of my distaste for Airbuses.

As for the evac tests, the ones conducted by the manufacturer are not even close to realistic. Only if the fuselage is completely intact can this goal be met.

Try the test with smoke in the cabin, people disoriented from the impact, no lights or just the floor lights, a fire burning somewhere, the overhead racks collapsed onto the passengers and aisles with a few seat rows torn from their mounts in the bargain. NOW try to evacuate in 90 seconds.

Candy,

You were correct that a significant number of people die from the smoke, but in most high impact crashes, they die from the secondary impacts as the seats and overhead compartments let go. If the seats hold, but the overheads don't, now people are ttrapped under them and or unconcious from being hit by them. That is when the smoke will get them. If the fire is in the cabin, they actually have less than about 45 seconds to get out from the time the fire starts involving stuff in the cabin before the flashover and anyone still left inside is likely gone.

I don't mean to scare anyone, but with significant impact and post crash fire, this is exactly what will happen.

Yes, I DO still fly on the airlines but only when I can't avoid it. I hate security and I am not a small man and the seats are uncomfy for one of my... bulk.

Richard of Chelmsford
2004-Nov-28, 12:22 AM
I rather hope this A380 won't have a mid-air collision with another A380 and fall on another one on the ground.

Don't you?

Candy
2004-Nov-28, 07:02 AM
Candy,
Is United planning on buying this monstrosity? Goodness, no. :o

I personally do not like any of the airbus line. They have odd design philosophies and a good deal less structure than a comparably sized Boeing so if one of them piles it in, it will be less surviveable than a similar crash in a Boeing. Ditto with the structure part. I just hate when I hear the cargo shifting around below me. It scares me half to death. I avoid flying on Airbus planes, as much as I can. 8-[

[Sorry Thorsten!]

I hate security... It depends who's frisking me. :P

2004-Nov-28, 09:28 AM
I took part in some of evac tests we had after the Manchester aircrash/fire in the 'eighties. I think that the point was to see if the emergency exits could be better positioned or something; quite a few peopled died from smoke-inhalation in that crash/fire because they didn't get out fast enough.

I had bruises for weeks afterward, but I can't see a better way of finding these things out. It sure was an experience... :)

Maksutov
2004-Nov-28, 09:56 AM
I took part in some of evac tests we had after the Manchester aircrash/fire in the 'eighties. I think that the point was to see if the emergency exits could be better positioned or something; quite a few peopled died from smoke-inhalation in that crash/fire because they didn't get out fast enough.

I had bruises for weeks afterward, but I can't see a better way of finding these things out. It sure was an experience... :)
Man, that was a really realistic evac test! (see bolded area of quote.) The dedication of some people to assuring the safety of others is amazing!

Candy
2004-Nov-28, 12:53 PM
I took part in some of evac tests we had after the Manchester aircrash/fire in the 'eighties. I think that the point was to see if the emergency exits could be better positioned or something; quite a few peopled died from smoke-inhalation in that crash/fire because they didn't get out fast enough.

I had bruises for weeks afterward, but I can't see a better way of finding these things out. It sure was an experience... :)
Man, that was a really realistic evac test! (see bolded area of quote.) The dedication of some people to assuring the safety of others is amazing! I don't think he meant exactly what he wrote. :wink:

2004-Nov-28, 01:54 PM
I took part in some of evac tests we had after the Manchester aircrash/fire in the 'eighties. I think that the point was to see if the emergency exits could be better positioned or something; quite a few peopled died from smoke-inhalation in that crash/fire because they didn't get out fast enough.

I had bruises for weeks afterward, but I can't see a better way of finding these things out. It sure was an experience... :)
Man, that was a really realistic evac test! (see bolded area of quote.) The dedication of some people to assuring the safety of others is amazing! I don't think he meant exactly what he wrote. :wink:

Yes, I can see how I might have worded things a little better... :oops: :oops:

Nicolas
2004-Nov-28, 10:42 PM
I personally do not like any of the airbus line. They have odd design philosophies and a good deal less structure than a comparably sized Boeing so if one of them piles it in, it will be less surviveable than a similar crash in a Boeing.

We got to crawl around an A320 and a B757 during one of our aviation safety courses. I was much more impressed with the crashworthiness of the 757 and that was the beginning of my distaste for Airbuses.

As for the evac tests, the ones conducted by the manufacturer are not even close to realistic. Only if the fuselage is completely intact can this goal be met.

Try the test with smoke in the cabin, people disoriented from the impact, no lights or just the floor lights, a fire burning somewhere, the overhead racks collapsed onto the passengers and aisles with a few seat rows torn from their mounts in the bargain. NOW try to evacuate in 90 seconds.


Is there statistical or measured evidence of Boeing planes being safer than Airbus? The lighter structure not necessarily is the weaker or more dangerous one (it might have better load paths or better force absorption to name a few things). All comparable planes have the same structural demands as described by the FAR/JAR, which are based on a "acceptable" safety level (I know this "acceptable" is subjective); this demands have to be verified by ground force, moment and fatigue tests up to destruction of the airframe . Which are the odd design philosophies of Airbus you are referring to?

Your part about the safety tests, was this still part of the Boeing/Airbus comparison or a general remark? I don't know if different manufacturers have substantially different ways of testing the evacuation. I do agree that the evacuation tests only are a benchmark for general layout checking, and do not simulate real evacuation situations. I think however that air safety officials are aware of this fact, and have calculated it into the 90 second rule.



Ditto with the structure part. I just hate when I hear the cargo shifting around below me. It scares me half to death. I avoid flying on Airbus planes, as much as I can.


I think this has more to do with the ground personnel placing and strapping the boxes than with the plane's structural integrity, I doubt whether it is the structural deformation that is causing the majority of the boxes' movement. Planes do deform during flight however, which is calculated into the design. Designed-in deformations are taken care of during development and shouldn't be dangerous when correctly designed.

Candy
2004-Nov-28, 11:06 PM
Ditto with the structure part. I just hate when I hear the cargo shifting around below me. It scares me half to death. I avoid flying on Airbus planes, as much as I can.


I think this has more to do with the ground personnel placing and strapping the boxes than with the plane's structural integrity, I doubt whether it is the structural deformation that is causing the majority of the boxes' movement. Planes do deform during flight however, which is calculated into the design. Designed-in deformations are taken care of during development and shouldn't be dangerous when correctly designed. I've only experienced it on Airbus and the smaller CJ's. I don't like the noise 'misplaced' cargo makes. :o

I compare the noise to an elevator ride going up. I know elevators are safe, but when you hear the screeching weird noise followed by a tiny jolt. Well, you tend to take the stairs on the way down. 8-[

Fortis
2004-Nov-28, 11:13 PM
I personally do not like any of the airbus line. They have odd design philosophies and a good deal less structure than a comparably sized Boeing so if one of them piles it in, it will be less surviveable than a similar crash in a Boeing.

We got to crawl around an A320 and a B757 during one of our aviation safety courses. I was much more impressed with the crashworthiness of the 757 and that was the beginning of my distaste for Airbuses.

Is there statistical or measured evidence of Boeing planes being safer than Airbus? The lighter structure not necessarily is the weaker or more dangerous one (it might have better load paths or better force absorption to name a few things).
Weight, and amount of "structure", aren't necessarily a monotonically increasing function of survivability. Look at the design of F-1 cars which tend to be light, but are also designed to be relaitively safe in high speed impacts.

martin
2004-Nov-28, 11:14 PM
Ditto with the structure part. I just hate when I hear the cargo shifting around below me. It scares me half to death. I avoid flying on Airbus planes, as much as I can.


I think this has more to do with the ground personnel placing and strapping the boxes than with the plane's structural integrity, I doubt whether it is the structural deformation that is causing the majority of the boxes' movement. Planes do deform during flight however, which is calculated into the design. Designed-in deformations are taken care of during development and shouldn't be dangerous when correctly designed. I've only experienced it on Airbus and the smaller CJ's. I don't like the noise 'misplaced' cargo makes. :o

I compare the noise to an elevator ride going up. I know elevators are safe, but when you hear the screeching weird noise followed by a tiny jolt. Well, you tend to take the stairs on the way down. 8-[

I flew by Russian airplane a long time ago, and the luggage was stored between the passenger compartment and the cockpit. Before landing, the door opened and some stacks of luggage fell. If the flight continued any longer, some luggage would be sliding down the aisle.

Martin

Candy
2004-Nov-28, 11:22 PM
I flew by Russian airplane a long time ago, and the luggage was stored between the passenger compartment and the cockpit. Before landing, the door opened and some stacks of luggage fell. If the flight continued any longer, some luggage would be sliding down the aisle.

Martin Your story just reminded me of polar (route) flights. :o

Nicolas
2004-Nov-28, 11:52 PM
F1 cars indeed are an extreme example of lighter but safer constructions.

I don't think that one can generally state that Airbus planes are less safe compared to Boeing, only from looking at their design or their in flight noises. You really need measurements and statistics to prove such a claim.

If Candy FEELS less safe because she hears things happening underneath her in an Airbus, this of course can't be discussed as it is how she feels. Safety consists of both BEING safe and FEELING safe. So if it's true that one hears these noises from the cargo bay in Airbus planes (I haven't experienced that, though this doesn't mean I don't believe you) and more people feel insecure for that reason, Airbus should inform people about the origin of this noises to give them the feeling of safety on top of them being safe.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml
This article addresses some differences in the philosophies used by Airbus and Boeing. Interesting remarks in this article are that there isn't a obviously "best" design, that statistically there aren't obvious differences in safety between Airbus and Boeing, and the last paragraph which touches the possible alien technology fear (or (economic) threat) by the US.

When reading other forums, I find people claiming both Airbus and Boeing having quieter or nicer looking interiors, with no clear relation to patrionism. So apart from the safety issue, the airline experience is a personal thing, and of course depends on the carrier involved.

About "Russian" (or other former Soviet countries) planes: Russian designs aren't inherently less safe. Russian aerospace design can be very advanced. The problem lies to a very large extent in the low budgets of airliners, resulting in the use of old and badly maintained material, badly trained personnel and bad working conditions. Furthermore this budgetting problem has consequences in the lack of strict control of the airliners and the design bureaus, and in the design bureas itself which also suffer under the money problem. If a Russian designed plane would be translated into a Western design, budget, use and control environment, I believe the difference with Western designs would be a lot smaller.

Candy
2004-Nov-29, 04:54 AM
If Candy FEELS less safe because she hears things happening underneath her in an Airbus, this of course can't be discussed as it is how she feels. Safety consists of both BEING safe and FEELING safe. So if it's true that one hears these noises from the cargo bay in Airbus planes (I haven't experienced that, though this doesn't mean I don't believe you) and more people feel insecure for that reason, Airbus should inform people about the origin of this noises to give them the feeling of safety on top of them being safe. I've only had it happen twice on an Airbus. Then again, I've only flown twice on an Airbus. For all I know, it may have been the same plane. I failed to check on that aspect.

When I got back to Chicago (from Seattle), I called OPB to ask what the noise was. And trust me, during the flight I had the earphones tuned into the pilots. The OPB Manager did assure me the plane was safe, and told me about the lighter material, cargo, etc...

In retrospect, I probably should've asked the flight attendant about the noise. Instead, I was preoccupied fending off the drunk guy sitting next to me (return segment). What's the purpose of taking the red eye to remain awake? :evil:

I like the idea of the flight attendant announcing the source of the noise. Perhaps, only after they hear it. These are United flights, and it would be most reassuring. Most folks won't associate the noise to Airbus, they will associate the noise with United. :(

Nicolas
2004-Nov-29, 10:37 AM
Information can raise the feeling of safety considerably. Some pilots give a very short and clear briefing like "The flight attendants ask you to put on your seatbelts as we are preparing for our landing approach. During the next minutes you will hear me extending the landing gear, wing flaps and speed brakes. You will feel some light vibrations as the plane repositions itself in the changed airflow prior to landing. I will inform you when we are about to touch down" (followed by the temperature in the airport of destination etc.). People who are afraid can talk themselves through the events with this information, which can cause a much more relaxed cabin.

I think the drunk guy was more annoying and dangerous than any minor cargo shifting underneath you. I wouldn't wanna have him next to me on a transatlatic flight...

Candy
2004-Nov-29, 01:18 PM
Information can raise the feeling of safety considerably. Some pilots give a very short and clear briefing like "The flight attendants ask you to put on your seatbelts as we are preparing for our landing approach. During the next minutes you will hear me extending the landing gear, wing flaps and speed brakes. You will feel some light vibrations as the plane repositions itself in the changed airflow prior to landing. I will inform you when we are about to touch down" (followed by the temperature in the airport of destination etc.). People who are afraid can talk themselves through the events with this information, which can cause a much more relaxed cabin.
I hope you work for United sometime in the near future (you can handle stress). 8)

Now, does anyone know about Virgin? I think the company has great potential for the future of airlines as we know it today. Should I even try to get a job there? I love United, but the stress is killing me... :-?

Careless
2004-Nov-29, 02:19 PM
Information can raise the feeling of safety considerably. Some pilots give a very short and clear briefing like "The flight attendants ask you to put on your seatbelts as we are preparing for our landing approach. During the next minutes you will hear me extending the landing gear, wing flaps and speed brakes. You will feel some light vibrations as the plane repositions itself in the changed airflow prior to landing. I will inform you when we are about to touch down" (followed by the temperature in the airport of destination etc.). People who are afraid can talk themselves through the events with this information, which can cause a much more relaxed cabin.

I think the drunk guy was more annoying and dangerous than any minor cargo shifting underneath you. I wouldn't wanna have him next to me on a transatlatic flight...
hmm never heard that. What airlines have you heard this on? Looking at your location, maybe it's a European thing?

Nicolas
2004-Nov-29, 04:32 PM
This isn't common practice. It is said in even more detail (both before and during the flight) in these courses airliners organise to let you lose your fear of flying. Also, some of my lecturers are pilots. Their opinion is that information can make people feel more safe, especially when it comes from an authority like your pilot. It depends on your pilot, but some of them inform the cabin even for minor turbulence or gusts, about flying waiting circles above the airport and about other things. On planes where you can't have the pilots' channel on your earset, they put a hot mike to the cabin speaker system so you can hear what happens in the cockpit.

I have heard the hot mike procedure (during taxiïng, take off and landing) in a holiday flight organised by the army (in an Airbus A310 btw). they also addressed the possibility of minor turbulence when crossing the shore line of the sea, and pointed out where we could see our destination and Italy on the horizon.

Informing about landing procedures I haven't heard myself, but a lecturer did say he believed this could very well help to make people more relaxed when there are some people who have fear of flying in the cabin. I don't know whether he actually did it or just thought of the idea. Cabin personnel does often give this information to people who are afraid and they think will be helped with information, eg when they are accompanying children traveling alone. I do know that after a brakes failure on a Cessna Citation 2 last week (it was just a circuit braker who had shifted out of place) the pilots informed the cabin on what the problem was (they kind of had to, they were going through the emergency checklist on a hot mike...). In the cabin were aerospace students that time however.

When thinking about it, I don't know why it isn't common practice. I do believe it would help some people (maybe some people who are afraid of flying want to hear nothing at all), and those who aren't afraid might find it interesting or won't listen to it. But the main reason perhaps is that the cabin personnel answers questions from people who are afraid in person.

Waarthog
2004-Nov-29, 07:58 PM
Which are the odd design philosophies of Airbus you are referring to? No tear stop strips, fewer stringers, thinner bulkheads, fuel lines, hydraulic lines, electrical wiring all in one bundle going around a sharp 90 degree corner in the right main gear bay right underneath the hydraulic accumulator bottle.

Your part about the safety tests, was this still part of the Boeing/Airbus comparison or a general remark?
General remark and applies to both manufacturers.

I think however that air safety officials are aware of this fact, and have calculated it into the 90 second rule.
Not really, no. Several years ago, Harry Robertson, a noted aviation safety expert, conducted a series of tests under more realistic conditions and found that the 90 second rule "is a joke". This might be known to the regulating officals but they are quiet about it.

In all cases, it comes down to money. Extensive safety improvements are generally expensive both in terms of initial investment and in operational cost. This has to be measured against perceived risk (exposure * cost) and the expense. If the ratio works out, the improvements are made. If not, c'est la vie.

To be fair on the Boeing Airbus safety debate, my feelings are more personal and not backed up by quantitative data that I am aware of. Nicolas caught me red handed on that one. 8-[

Demigrog
2004-Nov-29, 08:14 PM
I'm not so concerned about survivability in a crash-- I'd rather not crash in the first place. [-X

Besides, there really are not that many place crashes, particularly on US commercial flights. I consider that a testament to the incredible reliability in the designs of all the major aerospace companies. At this point, the major distinguishing feature is operations and maintenance costs-- which swing back in forth in successive generations between the major manufacturers.

Nicolas
2004-Nov-29, 08:25 PM
It is not like a personal queste to catch you on using unbacked claims or something, it was a general remark. But we know now the source of your remarks, which is personal impression and has it s rights too.

About general safety: aircraft design indeed works (like any design) with what I addressed as an "acceptable" safety level. You can't exclude any risk, so how far should you go? The FAR/JAR determined rules, and the aim is to continu decreasing the casualties even as the air business grows. I believe the use of the 90s rule is to check whether the plane layout has a basic ability to allow evacuation, not to really check whether a plane in an emergency will be evacuated in X seconds.
One problem that airliners have wrt road traffic: research has showed that there is about a quadratic relationship between the number of deaths in one accident and how severe people think the accident is. So 100*3 deaths or 300 deaths at once isn't the same to people (check your headlines in the newspapers...). Not that I want to open up the traffic safety comparison (in this thread at least)

About Airbus designs you addressed (which is more on topic): At first sight they might seem less safe, but you can't say that for sure unless you know the complete tradeoff list made that came to this design. It can be that elements are better designed to their use, or that some elements simply aren't needed due to other design parameters. Each design tradeoff has so many parameters. I'm not saying that they are more safe per sé, but they aren't necessarily less safe.

As an example, part of the Airbus design philosophy for the A380 was that they would make a 2 floor design that wouldn't need extra crack stoppers due to the fact that there were 2 floors (which can give stress concentrations and therefore cracks). So the fact that there aren't crack stoppers between the floors on an A380 doesn't mean they didn't think of it, they designed the plane (buth concerning structure and inspection/maintenance) so that it woulnd't need these extra precausions (like crack stoppers). the use of GLARE is a good option, the crack propagation speed in glare is very small.

Demigrog
2004-Nov-29, 08:32 PM
One problem that airliners have wrt road traffic: research has showed that there is about a quadratic relationship between the number of deaths in one accident and how severe people think the accident is. So 100*3 deaths or 300 deaths at once isn't the same to people (check your headlines in the newspapers...). Not that I want to open up the traffic safety comparison (in this thread at least)


This is one reason I'm not sure the A380 is a good move for Airbus. If a single crash can kill 500-800 people, they are setting themselves up for a PR nightmare.

Candy
2004-Nov-29, 09:19 PM
I'm not so concerned about survivability in a crash-- I'd rather not crash in the first place.
Great, I just spit up my drink while reading this. :lol:


This is one reason I'm not sure the A380 is a good move for Airbus. If a single crash can kill 500-800 people, they are setting themselves up for a PR nightmare.
It would be profitable for cargo. :D

Nicolas
2004-Nov-29, 10:18 PM
The A380 isn't the plane you want to crash. But on the other hand, a Cessna 3-seater should be as safe as an A380 with 800 pax! (Did I just illustrate an earlier point here?). Just for info, the A380 will indeed have partial and full cargo variants. PR would indeed have a problem with an A380 going down, certainly because the plane is quite distinguishable, so even the average passenger will know which type crashed and probably doesn't want to fly that type in a while. What one needs to consider, is that instead of 1 A380 you would have 2 smaller planes flying around, so in a way double the chance of having an accident (relativity...)

The main priority indeed is in avoiding a crash (general remark here). But if it happens, safety measures are installed to avoid (to a certain extent) secondary deaths. But survivability of a crash is only the second step. Avoidance is the first. For those who might have difficulties with what aircraft design tries to achieve some examples: safe evacuation from a crashlanding with the plane burning, or from a plane ending up in the water but more or less in one piece is a priority (this might be in a way possible, hence there is much effort put into this), but NOT surviving a head-on with a mountainside, as every realisitc thinking human realizes that death after this accident is "acceptable" GIVEN THAT THE ACCIDENT ALREADY OCCURED. Of course designers put all their effort in AVOIDING crashing into mountainsides (as they do for waterlandings or crashlandings, but in these two cases the chances of primary survival are realistically enough to put effort in avoiding secondary deaths).

As with any designed object interacting with humans, effort is put to put the risk between acceptable and realisitc boundaries. A 100% plane is unrealistic, planes that are stil substantially safer than they are already (I consider nowadays planes very safe) is not unrealistic and is a daily occupation (even priority) in design bureaus.

Maksutov
2004-Nov-30, 01:06 AM
I'm not so concerned about survivability in a crash-- I'd rather not crash in the first place.
Great, I just spit up my drink while reading this. :lol:
Candy,

You need to hurry up and purchase one of these (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=288744#288744) from Charlie in Dayton.

Don't delay, do it today!

Candy
2004-Nov-30, 08:23 AM
You need to hurry up and purchase one of these (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=288744#288744) from Charlie in Dayton.

Don't delay, do it today! Oh dear, my mind is working overtime. I like the ...and much much more! :wink:

Nicolas
2004-Dec-01, 12:42 PM
I just got an update on the A380 today:

* 5 of them are being built at the moment, with ground tests being performed at airframe#1 and separate parts.

* The official rollout will be mid january (16th I thought). Airframe#1 already has had a rollout, but this was a factory happening, not an official presentation.

* The FIRST FLIGHT will be somewhere early next year (no precise datum)

* Commercial flights will take much longer of course, with the freight version being sheduled originally as 2 years later than the pax version.

* Currently the A380-800 pax and freight planes are being built, plans for the reduced capacity+extended range (A380-700) and the extended range(800R) and capacity version (A380-900, which can carry 840 pax in one class like the 800, but 656 instead of 555 in three classes, or >1000 in the Japanese Island Hopper configuration with "standing" places which is further from realisation than the general 900) is in the development phase. Further development of these variants is awaited untill the results of the A380-800 and the market demand are more clear. But there certainly is possibility for development.

* 177 or 187 A380 are ordered already (depending on the kind of orders one counts). Break-even will be somewhere around 500 planes.

*The A380-800F freighter being developed for construction now will carry 150 tons cargo.

*The A380 will be able to operate everywhere a 747 can considering turn circle, runway length and plane slots. The A380 is more maneuverable than a 777 due to its shorter wheel base. Furthermore it has shorter take-off and landing length (about 2970 meters take-off length, shorter landing length). Even the propsed A380-900, which is 6.4 meters longer than the currently built 800, will have a length of 79.4 meters which fits in a standard 80*80 meters slot.

Possibly next week I will have an update on Boeing's future planes, which will mostly address the 7e7 and possibly the A350 (though it is a Boeing spokesman giving the update, so that isn't exactly sure).

Fram
2004-Dec-01, 02:23 PM
Thanks for the info.
When you land your plane, be certain you always know the runway length (http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/i564.asp) :lol:

Candy
2004-Dec-01, 02:27 PM
Thanks for the info.
When you land your plane, be certain you always know the runway length (http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/i564.asp) :lol:

Highway traffic was not disrupted, no one was injured, and the plane was not damaged. :o
Lucy, you got some 'xplaning to do! :lol:

Nicolas
2004-Dec-01, 03:13 PM
What isn't clear to me from the article, did the C5 stand at the very end of the runway, hereby having it's nose sticking out that far it hung over the highway? (seems improbable considering the nose wheel position of the C5, and the airfield fence which it then would have pierced)). Or did the plane brake and came to a stop on a highway overpass, so it was standing on the "bridge" the runway forms over the highway? In this case, it is strange that there is a bridge with no taxiway exit behind it, unless it is the beginning of the landing strip in reverse wind conditions. Secondly, in this case the "hanging with its nose over the highway" is a bit dramatically said, as there is a bridge surface (runway) between teh nose and the traffic, so it's more just a C5 partially standing on the runway bridge.

Any clear info?

Either case, what this story tells is that the plane just stopped at a place on the runway it wasn't supposed to stop and from which apparently there was no taxiway exit left in front of the plane, so it had to be towed backwards. That's why there was no damage or injuries, and as the plane didn't levae the runway, the highway traffic had no problems. Did this answer your question Candy?

Candy
2004-Dec-01, 03:17 PM
Did this answer your question Candy? I didn't have a question. I was just quoting from Ricky Ricardo, when Lucy did something wrong. It's a funny expression here in the States. :D

Glom
2004-Dec-01, 03:18 PM
And make sure you know the proper VAT and how to achieve it! :oops:

Nicolas
2004-Dec-01, 03:22 PM
Candy: OK. I didn't quite get the "Lucy" from the start, now it's clear.
Glom: an incorrect Vat (landing speed at runway treshold) can make a deep impression <= PUN

Candy
2004-Dec-01, 03:27 PM
ASA VFR Kneeboard (http://www.mypilotstore.com/MyPilotStore/sep/524)


VFR Kneeboard
Attractive, brushed aluminum with instrument or visual information clearly silk-screened on boards. Features include: Comfortable, 1-1/2" wide elastic legband that hugs the leg without binding; Velcro™ fasteners adjust without removing kneeboard; and pencil/pen holder within legband for fast note-taking. The 4-3/4" wide metal clip is easy to lift and strong enough to hold NOS charts and other necessary papers. Kneeboard is 6-1/2" wide x 9-1/2" high.
Is there something I should know? 8-[

Nicolas
2004-Dec-01, 04:04 PM
Sorry, I don't get it
(this counts both for the last post and the C5 story)

EDIT: ok my eye fell on the "hugs the leg without binding"

Now I'm still looking for an explanation of the C5 story

Glom
2004-Dec-01, 04:06 PM
I have Pooleys CB 3 which is kind of book like. It's got a little pouch on the inside for a Knightson and a VOR track and a number of plastic sleeves for documents such as home aerodrome circuit patterns.

Candy
2004-Dec-01, 09:11 PM
Sorry, I don't get it
(this counts both for the last post and the C5 story)

EDIT: ok my eye fell on the "hugs the leg without binding"

Now I'm still looking for an explanation of the C5 story Mine was from the google ads below. :P

Nicolas
2004-Dec-01, 09:19 PM
Euhm, which Google adds? (I have the feeling I'm completely missing on something) And then there still is the C5 story... :)

Candy
2004-Dec-01, 09:23 PM
Euhm, which Google adds? (I have the feeling I'm completely missing on something) And then there still is the C5 story... :)
When I scroll down, I see 4 google ads.
1) Pilot Kneeboards
2) Pilot’s knee board
3) Airbus news
4) Free Aviation Web Site

Glom
2004-Dec-01, 09:25 PM
All I get is astronomy ads.

Candy
2004-Dec-01, 09:35 PM
All I get is astronomy ads.
Mine changes.

Now I see:
1) Pilot Kneeboards
2) Pilot’s knee board
3) Airbus news
4) Save cash on Herpa Models
:-k

[edit - now I see astronomy ads.] :o

martin
2004-Dec-01, 09:36 PM
I just got an update on the A380 today:

* 5 of them are being built at the moment, with ground tests being performed at airframe#1 and separate parts.

Someone is telling me his girlfriend has already flown on one by Lufthansa on test flight, but carrying full passenger load. Is this possible? Maybe he is thinking of some other airbus model?

Martin

Nicolas
2004-Dec-01, 09:41 PM
That is plain impossible, unless his girlfriend is blind she wouldn't wanna go in the A380 that is currently in its most complete condition (you can see straight through holes in the tail wheere no panels are attached yet to name a thing, it aint painted either, it has no interior, possibly not even a cockpit installed). The A380 hasn't made its first flight yet, that will be early next year (Official Rollout hasn't even been done yet, let alone Lufthansa would already have a plane).

What can be is that she flew the A340-600, currently in business and it is the LONGEST passenger airliner in the world.

Candy, my router blocks all those adds, I just get the kneeboard description with somelinks on the left. No wonder I failed to see any connection with the thread :). Anyway, how about that C5 story I had questions about, anyone? :)

Nicolas
2004-Dec-01, 09:43 PM
http://www.ocean-wings.com/dragon/Lufthansa747_400.jpg

Look Candy, someone got inspired by your signature and put a personal touch on his (model) 747!

Nicolas
2004-Dec-01, 09:53 PM
http://www.hurel-hispano.com/index_news_update_02.htm

I've seen a much bigger version of this photo in an A380 magazine today, but I like the looks of a (quite large) A340-300 with 1 A380 engine (it is a test bed) which still is so much bigger. Also look at the other photo for comparison with people. The large engine comes very close to the grond on this A340-300. IIRC the undercarriage of the plane wasn't changed however.

Candy
2004-Dec-01, 09:55 PM
http://www.ocean-wings.com/dragon/Lufthansa747_400.jpg

Look Candy, someone got inspired by your signature and put a personal touch on his (model) 747!
Here you go! http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=373854#373854 :lol:

Fram
2004-Dec-02, 09:51 AM
Nicolas, how I read the C5 story: the runway goes straight across (above) the freeway. Of course, on that part of the airport, you only have the runway, but nothing much to the left or right. If your plane stops just there, it cannot turn. Why it couldn't just roll on isn't very clear though. Perhaps this is some kind of emergency extension of the runway, or perhaps the plane had troubles starting up again to continue the taxiing?

Nicolas
2004-Dec-02, 10:10 AM
I read it too as the runway bridge over the highway being quite near the end of the runway, and my guess is that there was no taxiway (with a not too sharp corner, important!!) before the nose of the plane left. But then the claim that the nose of the C5 hung over the highway is a bit sensational, as it was just standing on a runway bridge. The view must have been spectacular for sure, but there was no danger at all to the complete event. They just needed something to tow the plane backwards till it reached a suitable taxiway.

There are a lot of airports with a highway going underneath the runway, one can often see large planes taking off while going under the bridge. A C5 standing still on it is something else of course.

Avatar28
2004-Dec-03, 09:25 PM
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I believe that it said that that the taxiway goes up to almost the edge of the road but at a higher level (you can see in the picture that the road goes down and curves slightly to the left). The pilot was taxiing to the end of the taxiway to turn around and take off. Because of the layout, when he got to the end to turn around, he couldn't tell exactly where the turn was because the nose of the plane was ahead of the front wheels and did stick out somewhat over the edge of the roadway. Since he couldn't be sure of making the turn, he just had to wait until they could get a tractor to tow him back and get him turned around.

Laguna
2004-Dec-04, 11:12 AM
I found a picture of the A380 as far as it is finished.
Taken on October 6, 2004

Picture (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=687497&WxsIERv=QWlyYnVzIEEzODAtODQx&W dsYXMg=QWlyYnVzIEluZHVzdHJpZQ%3D%3D&QtODMg=VG91bG9 1c2UgLSBCbGFnbmFjIChUTFMgLyBMRkJPKQ%3D%3D&ERDLTkt= RnJhbmNl&ktODMp=T2N0b2JlciA2LCAyMDA0&BP=0&WNEb25u= RnJlbmNoIEZyb2dzIEFpclNsaWRlcw%3D%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=R i1XV0RE&MgTUQtODMgKE=Q2Fub24gMzAwRCBJc284MDAgZjYuM yA5MG1tIDEvNjBlIENhbm9uIDkwLzMwMCk%3D&YXMgTUQtODMg KERD=OTE4Mjg%3D&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwNC0xMC0xMA%3D%3D&OD J9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=MDA0&static=yes&sok=V0hFUkUgIChha XJjcmFmdF9nZW5lcmljID0gJ0FpcmJ1cyBBMzgwJykgIE9SREV SIEJZIHBob3RvX2lkIERFU0M%3D&photo_nr=2&size=L)

Nicolas
2004-Dec-05, 09:43 PM
That plane is now surrounded by test torture machinery (in fact multiple airframes are). I've seen pictures of one airframe undergoing the cyclic tests (load goes on, load goes off, load goes on,... sounds like Homer :)) and another one is enduring the static tests: on one picture the wing got bended until the wingtip was higher than the fuselage top...

Anyway this picture is what I meant with "you would have to be blind to want to fly in the A380 in its current condition".

If all goes well, I have the 7e7 update tomorrow, I 'll post it tomorrow evening. Maybe I'll get informed on some A350 facts too.

Candy
2004-Dec-05, 09:49 PM
That plane is now surrounded by test torture machinery (in fact multiple airframes are). I've seen pictures of one airframe undergoing the cyclic tests (load goes on, load goes off, load goes on,... sounds like Homer :)) and another one is enduring the static tests: on one picture the wing got bended until the wingtip was higher than the fuselage top...

Anyway this picture is what I meant with "you would have to be blind to want to fly in the A380 in its current condition".

If all goes well, I have the 7e7 update tomorrow, I 'll post it tomorrow evening. Maybe I'll get informed on some A350 facts too. Keep 'em coming Nicolas. I really like the updates. 8)

Nicolas
2004-Dec-05, 11:56 PM
My sources are guest lecturers involved with Boeing/Airbus/general aviation. I don't see them on regular basis, so I have to take what I can get. It may be long before I hear something from it again after tomorrow.

PS I read in a footnote on CNN today that the Energia Corp is planning to send a shuttle to the spacestation by 2010/2012, depending on fundings...
I don't know WHAT I should be thinking of this claim. The Energia website gives no info on this. Just for the sake of updates :)

Laguna
2004-Dec-06, 10:26 AM
Concerning the deboarding

Picture (http://www.pacmin.com/news/images/A380.jpg)

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 11:24 AM
http://www.pacmin.com/news/images/A380.jpg
Awesome! That was one of my biggest concerns. Thank you. =D>

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 12:03 PM
Did you know these inflatable slides used on every airliner are at the same times rafts to be used when the plane has made an emergency landing on the water?

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 12:06 PM
On of the concerns with the A380 was whether people still dared to jump onto the slides from the height of the second floor. You need to jump to make the evacutation smooth (so you don't get stuck halfway down the slide). Some reasoned that you can't see all the way down next to the plane anyway, so it wouldn't make much of a difference with the first floor. My guess is that in an emergency people are glad to get out no matter what way, so they won't think too much about the jump. But people are so hard to predict in an emergency.

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 12:11 PM
On of the concerns with the A380 was whether people still dared to jump onto the slides from the height of the second floor. You need to jump to make the evacutation smooth (so you don't get stuck halfway down the slide). Some reasoned that you can't see all the way down next to the plane anyway, so it wouldn't make much of a difference with the first floor. My guess is that in an emergency people are glad to get out no matter what way, so they won't think too much about the jump. But people are so hard to predict in an emergency. I'm going head first for the fun of the slide. I'll worry about what I hit after the fact. 8-[

Glom
2004-Dec-06, 12:31 PM
Funny scene: cabin crew throwing screaming passengers out the exits.

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 04:46 PM
I think the passengers behind you that want to jump will take care of that....

I've seen no trace of any Boeing spokesman today, I hope it's tomorrow, otherwise I've missed teh event...

Careless
2004-Dec-06, 07:21 PM
Did you know these inflatable slides used on every airliner are at the same times rafts to be used when the plane has made an emergency landing on the water?
shouldn't everyone who's flown know that?

kucharek
2004-Dec-06, 07:28 PM
Did you know these inflatable slides used on every airliner are at the same times rafts to be used when the plane has made an emergency landing on the water?
shouldn't everyone who's flown know that?

Yup.

http://img81.exs.cx/img81/3259/n8khk20040904171628.th.jpg (http://img81.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img81&image=n8khk20040904171628.jpg)

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 07:37 PM
In business jets/sport planes, I didn't get to hear it (they don't have slides anyway). And I haven't heard nor read it in the A310 safety briefings (that is, that one time there WAS a safety briefing...). Clearly the regular airways are a bit more clear on their safety briefings. I think I'll have to fly more commercially oriented flights.

Is the info on the slides/rafts only on the cards or in the briefing itself too? The only subjects I ever got in briefings were seatbelts, emergency position, life jackets, and fire extinguisher+emergency doors in business jets. There was an extra briefeing for the persons sitting next to the emergency doors.

kucharek
2004-Dec-06, 07:43 PM
Can't remember that the raft thing was ever explicitely mentioned during the briefing. They usually just tell you where to get out in case.

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 07:44 PM
Did you know these inflatable slides used on every airliner are at the same times rafts to be used when the plane has made an emergency landing on the water?
shouldn't everyone who's flown know that?

Yup.

http://img81.exs.cx/img81/3259/n8khk20040904171628.th.jpg (http://img81.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img81&image=n8khk20040904171628.jpg) HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHH AHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHA :lol:

Careless
2004-Dec-06, 07:45 PM
the rafts are mentioned in briefings when you'll be flying over water. Not much use to do it for a flight over land. And yes, it's in the safety cards.

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 07:48 PM
Better late than never:

Candy I've FINALLY found what you meant 16000 posts ago in this thread with the Google Adds. I was looking for them on the linked site. Now I've seen them here on teh BABB itself... :oops:
I guess using internet gives me the ability to completely ignore any adds :roll:

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 07:51 PM
Candy, what was that laughing about? Stress related aircraft memories? :wink:

I flew over water (a sea, not a fishpond) and no one ever mentioned the rafts. I've looked at the safety card in the A310 flights very well, and I can't remember any clear link to the slides being used as rafts.

They did tell indeed on all flights I've flown where the emergency exits are located (and which one to use).

(edited to make more clear)

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 07:52 PM
Better late than never:

Candy I've FINALLY found what you meant 16000 posts ago in this thread with the Google Adds. I was looking for them on the linked site. Now I've seen them here on teh BABB itself... :oops:
I guess using internet gives me the ability to completely ignore any adds :roll: You're so cute. :P

Laguna
2004-Dec-06, 07:54 PM
Awesome! That was one of my biggest concerns. Thank you. =D>
You're welcome :D

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 08:01 PM
Candy, what was that laughing about? Stress related aircraft memories? :wink:

I flew over water (a sea, not a fishpond) and no one ever mentioned the rafts. I've looked at the safety card in the A310 flights very well, and I can't remember any clear link to the slides being used as rafts.

They did tell indeed on all flights I've flown where the emergency exits are located (and which one to use).

(edited to make more clear)
This is funny! Now, read it slowly for contexted. If you still don't get it, I will explain.



Did you know these inflatable slides used on every airliner are at the same times rafts to be used when the plane has made an emergency landing on the water?
shouldn't everyone who's flown know that?

Yup.

http://img81.exs.cx/img81/3259/n8khk20040904171628.th.jpg (http://img81.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img81&image=n8khk20040904171628.jpg)

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 08:14 PM
Some possibilities:

*"..slides USED on every airliner". "available" might be better, most airliners hope never to use them. With "airliners" I meant slightly modern slightly moderate sized passenger jets.

*"...emergency landing on the water" normal planes don't regularly perform any non-emergency landing on the water. If a plane crashes into the ocean, there is no point for any safety measures (you're dead for sure). If the plane is controllable but has a problem like no engine power, the pilot will try to put it down as good as possible on the water surface. This is what I understand as an emergency landing on the water. The rafts are designed for these situations, and accidents like sliding off the runway into the sea. So situations when you end up in the water in more or less one piece (or at least few very large ones).
*the answers might be interpreted as suggesting everyone who's flown has had to use the rafts.
*You almost died on my typo "times" instead of "time" (improbable)
*You interpreted this as some kind of simultaneous (in time, not in function) slide and raft function

Now what was your near-heart attack laugh about? :D

Laguna
2004-Dec-06, 08:16 PM
OK.
That plane is floating in the water and one slide is already a raft.

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 08:19 PM
Of course, it is full with A-deck women and children :D ("oh come on, there's plenty room for more! those are your men on that plane!!")

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 08:24 PM
Candy, if you were laughing at the fact that I said I saw no reference to the rafts on the A310 safety card, the card pictured in this thread is from a A-319 and a totally different card from the one I've seen.

The cards I've seen didn't have a high heel warning amongst others (what's the use of it anyway as you've already boarded the plane when you see the card?)

I don't remember any water procedure on the card. It was all about the life vests (OK this is water related), the exits, the use of cigarettes, radios and the like, and the seatbelts, seat position and emergency sitting position. Not even the slides were mentioned.

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 08:27 PM
And looking at the date (februari 2004) the card I saw was at least 10 years older. It was a standard Airbus card, not airline related. (I saw the card multiple times, I always flew the same plane)

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 08:41 PM
Candy, if you were laughing at the fact that I said I saw no reference to the rafts on the A310 safety card, the card pictured in this thread is from a A-319 and a totally different card from the one I've seen.

The cards I've seen didn't have a high heel warning amongst others (what's the use of it anyway as you've already boarded the plane when you see the card?)

I don't remember any water procedure on the card. It was all about the life vests (OK this is water related), the exits, the use of cigarettes, radios and the like, and the seatbelts, seat position and emergency sitting position. Not even the slides were mentioned.
Nicolas, do you ever laugh? :lol:

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 08:44 PM
Sorry about the monologue, but here I've found an A310 safty card. This one is from Air Kazachstan, but it doesn't include slides nor rafts.
http://www.auctionhangar.com/images/upload/1099231382.JPG

Air France A319 cards include slides, not the raft function.

I haven't seen rafts on any of these cards (I haven't looked at them all, but a lot):
http://www.auctionhangar.com/cgi-bin/auction.pl?category=:SAC&sc=1&YES=1

THIS is the EXACT card I saw in the A310:
http://www.auctionhangar.com/cgi-bin/auction.pl?category=Airbus_safety_cards&item=11026 29614

I was wrong on the high heels warning (on an army plane :)), but there are slides nor rafts on that card.

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 08:45 PM
Candy, I laugh an awful lot. I was just wondering what you were laughing with (I still don't know). I couldn't really find double meanings or anything in my posts. I'm not angry or anything for you laughing, I just have no idea WHAT was funny?

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 08:49 PM
Candy, I laugh an awful lot. I was just wondering what you were laughing with (I still don't know). I couldn't really find double meanings or anything in my posts. I'm not angry or anything for you laughing, I just have no idea WHAT was funny? Oh dear, it was kucharek's response to Careless that I found funny.

Don't make me come over there [this is a humorous saying we yanks make]. I'm just trying to be funny. :D

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 08:55 PM
All cleared up now Candy. I wasn't thinking you weren't funny, I just didn't get the point (or put too much effort in trying to find the funny detail and forgot to look at the whole). And we all know there ain't much left in a joke if you've had to explain it. You must have a biased impression of me after this and that endless explanation on the Google adds today, I think it's got more to do with my attention (sleep? what sleep?) than your humor :D Laugh as much as you want, laughing helps me through the day too.


On topic (a bit):
What I was wondering, if you land in the water, does the procedure includes that the passengers first slide into the water, then climb onto the slide that has become a raft? I mean certainly on the upper deck of an A380 you can't use the slide as a raft at once, you're several meters above water level.

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 09:01 PM
All cleared up now Candy.

What I was wondering, if you land in the water, does the procedure includes that the passengers first slide into the water, then climb onto the slide that has become a raft? I mean certainly on the upper deck of an A380 you can't use the slide as a raft at once, you're several meters above water level. I hope you're not asking me, because I just work for an airline (overseeing the Reservation Department, which now includes India).

I do pester the Operational Department (OPB) about everything to do with aircrafts. They love me. :D

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 09:04 PM
I asked the whole BABB, anyone who knows about it.

OPB must love to see you coming: "c'mon John, we can do this together, just make up an impressive technical story on whatever theoretical horrible emergency she thought of this time!" "Roger that, vague aircraft slang mode ON" :wink: :D

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 09:11 PM
I asked the whole BABB, anyone who knows about it.

OPB must love to see you coming: "c'mon John, we can do this together, just make up an impressive technical story on whatever theoretical horrible emergency she thought of this time!" "Roger that, vague aircraft slang mode ON" :wink: :D Hey, these are the folks that received a call from my department first... "Did you hear something about a commuter plane hitting the WTC on 9/11?" We first heard it from our Fort Wayne office.

These guys reacted with diligence and composer. Simply amazing for the amount of stress that soon followed. :o

And yes, they love to see me. I don't why. :oops:

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 09:15 PM
9/11 was quite a lot more serious than wondering what happens if a double decker hits the water, whether the upper deck has to wait till the plane is halfway down or something... :)

Was the OPB prepared for anything like 9/11 or general hijacking or is this beyond their regular tasks (what are their regular tasks)?

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 09:22 PM
OK I definately have a concentration problem today, I couldn't find the word "concentration"... :D :D (true story)

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 09:31 PM
9/11 was quite a lot more serious than wondering what happens if a double decker hits the water, whether the upper deck has to wait till the plane is halfway down or something... :)

Was the OPB prepared for anything like 9/11 or general hijacking or is this beyond their regular tasks (what are their regular tasks)? Yes, they were. It was just a shock. We go through mock crash landings every year. This incident was a little different. I assure you, we were prepared none-the-less. My department (which consists of 5 people) activates and mans the emergency 'desk'. We have different names for it, and we activate the media desk.

I was at home sleeping at the time, and I got a call from my co-worker about the incident. I immediately got up and raced to work. No shower. No nothing. I was only thinking about my customers. This still makes me want to cry.

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 09:40 PM
Thanks for the info. I learned some airliner working principles, but not into detail, this gives more insight. If I understand it correctly, if OPB was prepared for crashes (part of their job), they indeed will to a large extend be prepared for something like 9/11, mainly the cause is different.

Situations like 9/11 ask some people to jump to their work. My sister works in a hospital specialised in burns, there have been several fires after which she had to work looooooooooooooooong hours. On the other hand you are helping people (through care or through info), so the job has a nice side. But as in any job the everyday job is not as spectacular/intensive/rewarding (in some sense) as during these events.

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 09:52 PM
Thanks for the info. I learned some airliner working principles, but not into detail, this gives more insight. If I understand it correctly, if OPB was prepared for crashes (part of their job), they indeed will to a large extend be prepared for something like 9/11, mainly the cause is different.

Situations like 9/11 ask some people to jump to their work. My sister works in a hospital specialised in burns, there have been several fires after which she had to work looooooooooooooooong hours. On the other hand you are helping people (through care or through info), so the job has a nice side. But as in any job the everyday job is not as spectacular/intensive/rewarding (in some sense) as during these events. We finally realized it was one of our airplanes (later 2 - not counting American Airlines), when one of the passengers on UA93 called in. He got transfered to my department, which we transfered him to OPB. God, this is so difficult to talk about. I'm sorry.

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 10:02 PM
Hearing all the details about crashes can weigh through after 8 hours. It is quite obligatory in my study though, it is from accidents we usually learn the most. Having been involved yourself is still another story of course.

My nieces had their father "trapped" in the USA on 9/11 (he couldn't come back with a plane from Florida) and their mother possibly had to go from here in Europe to NY to help (army), and my nieces weren't allowed to talk about it on school because that would be too political... :roll: Our army eventually didn't go, we weren't allowed to fly to the US.

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 10:10 PM
Hearing all the details about crashes can weigh through after 8 hours. It is quite obligatory in my study though, it is from accidents we usually learn the most. Having been involved yourself is still another story of course.

My nieces had their father "trapped" in the USA on 9/11 (he couldn't come back with a plane from Florida) and their mother possibly had to go from here in Europe to NY to help (army), and my nieces weren't allowed to talk about it on school because that would be too political... :roll: Our army eventually didn't go, we weren't allowed to fly to the US. It was NO FLY ZONE, all aircraft grounded. :(

I had a great photo from a Canada airport with all the huge airplanes that landed there. I think it was Halifax, but I could be wrong. The nice folks of (whatever city) took the passengers in like family. THIS IS TRULY WHAT LIFE IS SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE - the kindness is overwhelming.

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 10:16 PM
Don't know which airport it was, but it was Canada indeed. It was disturbing for us (European countries) too. We really wanted to help people (independently from any politics) and we were forced to stay in Canada because they didn't trust any plane. It's not that I don't understand the "no fly zone" point, but we really came with the best intentions and great effort (I believe the US knew that, but their worry was another hijacked or false plane). Canada indeed was friendly to help all those stranded people (passengers and international help teams).

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 10:27 PM
Don't know which airport it was, but it was Canada indeed. It was disturbing for us (European countries) too. We really wanted to help people (independently from any politics) and we were forced to stay in Canada because they didn't trust any plane. It's not that I don't understand the "no fly zone" point, but we really came with the best intentions and great effort (I believe the US knew that, but their worry was another hijacked or false plane). Canada indeed was friendly to help all those stranded people (passengers and international help teams). This was oversea's, too. A co-employee was stuck in the UK and said the folks were incredible.

Are you mad about something? Let's work it out now. 8-[

Nicolas
2004-Dec-06, 10:42 PM
No I'm not mad at all Candy :) don't worry. We just felt extra helpless, not being allowed to do the little we could. IIRC the Belgian army was stuck in Iceland.

Now, anyone having info on the raft procedure?

Candy
2004-Dec-06, 11:40 PM
No I'm not mad at all Candy :) don't worry. We just felt extra helpless, not being allowed to do the little we could. IIRC the Belgian army was stuck in Iceland.

Now, anyone having info on the raft procedure? Everybody (everyworld) felt helpless that day. :(

No raft help here. :lol:

Fram
2004-Dec-07, 10:57 AM
On a lighter note: one of the ads at the bottom said: 'compare prices on the A340' :o
Turns out it's about a digital camera, not the aircraft 8)

Nicolas
2004-Dec-07, 12:36 PM
:)

The Boeing lecture had little technical details on the 7e7.

They only mentioned the full composite construction, the digital over-the-net design, the modular maintenace construction, the more flexible layout etc, things we already know or can read on the internet.

Much of the lecture went into why Boeing belives in teh 7e7 concept instead of A380 (but then tehre's the A350 MUHAHAHA :) ), but nothing new from that front either. Most of the lecture was general economic views from Boeing, mostly projected onto the 7e7 concept.

Nicolas
2004-Dec-07, 06:44 PM
For those interested, the lecture was based on these slides. Not much info to be found on A380/A350/7e7 here, but it gives an insight into Boeing's reasoning for the 7e7 (well, mainly it's reasoning against the A380 actually, certainly during the lecture. Like we'll buy a plane with our student budget...)

http://www.boeing.com/nosearch/exec_pres/MktOverview.pdf

!!! 15MB PDF !!!

While this presentation certainly is not complete nonsense, the way in which the info is presented is at moments heavily biased. Example: Boeiing claims that Airbus is too complex with all their different plane types, while Boeing will have only one (on that class): the 7e7 (-8, or -9, or.. anyway one type...) while Airbus has progressed much further with the family concept than Boeing. This presentation is very interesting to get to know Boeing's vision, but don't take it as an independent market study, and not as an unbiased source of info. the Presentation was given by Randy BAseler, President of Marketing for Boeing.


At www.newairliner.com you can find info (by Boeing) on the 7e7.

Glom
2004-Dec-11, 03:01 PM
It seems Airbus doesn't entirely disagree since they've now started the A350 project, which is a rival to the B7E7. I guess, they feel that there is a market for both.

Nicolas
2004-Dec-13, 12:21 PM
Boeing seems to be more confident on their market projection (or at least their projection is more narrow). In fact commercial management has no doubts (to the outside world) they are correct. The question is of course whether it is the smartest thing to put all your money one one horse.

Careless
2005-Jan-06, 05:20 PM
After flying in an a-320 chicago to phoenix a couple weeks ago, I have to confess: there was no notice that the emergency slides could be used as liffe rafts
However, the card said that the liferafts should not be ______. It was confusing, since they didn't admit that there were liferafts then told you how to treat the non-existant liferafts

Candy
2005-Jan-06, 05:24 PM
After flying in an a-320 chicago to phoenix a couple weeks ago, I have to confess: there was no notice that the emergency slides could be used as liffe rafts
However, the card said that the liferafts should not be ______. It was confusing, since they didn't admit that there were liferafts then told you how to treat the non-existant liferafts
I thought the seat cushions were to be used as life rafts. :-?

Careless
2005-Jan-06, 05:27 PM
After flying in an a-320 chicago to phoenix a couple weeks ago, I have to confess: there was no notice that the emergency slides could be used as liffe rafts
However, the card said that the liferafts should not be ______. It was confusing, since they didn't admit that there were liferafts then told you how to treat the non-existant liferafts
I thought the seat cushions were to be used as life rafts. :-?
No, the seat cushions can be used on some planes as flotation devices, which is a very different concept

Spacewriter
2005-Jan-06, 05:34 PM
After flying in an a-320 chicago to phoenix a couple weeks ago, I have to confess: there was no notice that the emergency slides could be used as liffe rafts
However, the card said that the liferafts should not be ______. It was confusing, since they didn't admit that there were liferafts then told you how to treat the non-existant liferafts
I thought the seat cushions were to be used as life rafts. :-?

Those seat cushions are about the size of a cat's life raft. ;)

No, you're supposed to lock your arms around them and float like a buoy until somebody saves you, is my guess.

You know, there was a time when I could do the whole steward-tron spiel by heart I'd heard it so many times during the years I was traveling more than I do now. One year I got up to about 45k miles and kept running into the same flight attendants.

Now I just know where all the Starbucks' coffee shops and Red Carpet Clubs are ...

Candy
2005-Jan-06, 05:42 PM
One year I got up to about 45k miles and kept running into the same flight attendants.
OT: If you were a guy, you'd probably be married to one of those 'gals' by now. Seriously, so many frequent flyers are now unofficial 'members' of United. :D

tmosher
2005-Jan-06, 05:51 PM
One year I got up to about 45k miles and kept running into the same flight attendants.
OT: If you were a guy, you'd probably be married to one of those 'gals' by now. Seriously, so many frequent flyers are now unofficial 'members' of United. :D

No man in his right mind would marry an FA. I've known one for over fifteen years and through her know another half-dozen. They're all batty as belchie bugs. Pains in the butt all. Of course, all of them work for AAL.

Careless
2005-Jan-06, 06:00 PM
One year I got up to about 45k miles and kept running into the same flight attendants.
OT: If you were a guy, you'd probably be married to one of those 'gals' by now. Seriously, so many frequent flyers are now unofficial 'members' of United. :D

No man in his right mind would marry an FA. I've known one for over fifteen years and through her know another half-dozen. They're all batty as belchie bugs. Pains in the butt all. Of course, all of them work for AAL.
heh I'd like to point out that I'm getting 33,000 miles on this trip alone. 45k is nothing when you're going trans pacific often. I'm getting almost 100k miles a year now.

Glom
2005-Jan-06, 07:51 PM
No man in his right mind would marry an FA. I've known one for over fifteen years and through her know another half-dozen. They're all batty as belchie bugs. Pains in the butt all. Of course, all of them work for AAL.

Sounds good to me! :D

Moose
2005-Jan-06, 08:07 PM
I don't know which photo you two have seen, but there is a really good one on that big aviation photo site (aviation.net, IIRC?) of two rows of planes, tucked in wingtip to wingtip, nose to tail, all the way down the cross-runway at the Halifax International Airport.

I wasn't living in the area at the time, but I'm very proud of the public responses both in the Halifax area and at Gander, NF, as well as the other Canadian airport towns who went over and above.

Moose
2005-Jan-06, 09:18 PM
Is this (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=188171&size=L&sok=IG9yZGVyIGJ5IHZpZXd zIERFU0M%3D&photo_nr=41#) the photo you two saw?

Candy
2005-Jan-07, 12:05 AM
Is this (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=188171&size=L&sok=IG9yZGVyIGJ5IHZpZXd zIERFU0M%3D&photo_nr=41#) the photo you two saw?
OMG. I remember seeing that up on the screen at our temporary FBI room just after 9/11.

The VP was giving me a tour, and all I could say was, "My God, it's beautiful."

He followed with a long pause and said, "I never thought about it's beauty before."

Donnie B.
2005-Jan-07, 12:28 AM
Is this (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=188171&size=L&sok=IG9yZGVyIGJ5IHZpZXd zIERFU0M%3D&photo_nr=41#) the photo you two saw?
Oh my... just think what a fully-armed A-10 could have done in about 15 seconds... #-o

Candy
2005-Jan-07, 12:36 AM
Is this (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=188171&size=L&sok=IG9yZGVyIGJ5IHZpZXd zIERFU0M%3D&photo_nr=41#) the photo you two saw?
Oh my... just think what a fully-armed A-10 could have done in about 15 seconds... #-o
There was worldwide grounding. An A-10 would never have made it close enough, unless it were Americans. :-k






:o

Wally
2005-Jan-07, 01:57 PM
A bit OT, but I sure get a kick outa these pics of jets landing at Philipsburg/St. Maarten.

fixed url (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?placesearch=Philipsburg%20%2F%20St.%2 0Maarten%20-%20Princess%20Juliana%20%28SXM%20%2F%20TNCM%29&dis tinct_entry=true)

If I ever travelled there, you'd never get me off of that beach!!! :lol:

Donnie B.
2005-Jan-07, 03:00 PM
Is this (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=188171&size=L&sok=IG9yZGVyIGJ5IHZpZXd zIERFU0M%3D&photo_nr=41#) the photo you two saw?
Oh my... just think what a fully-armed A-10 could have done in about 15 seconds... #-o
There was worldwide grounding. An A-10 would never have made it close enough, unless it were Americans. :-k
:o
I wasn't really thinking about a terrorist attack. The picture just reminded me of December 7, 1941, and the way that the airplanes were clustered together that day for protection against sabotage -- which made them sitting ducks for an air raid. Which got me thinking about A10s...

Candy
2005-Jan-07, 03:15 PM
A bit OT, but I sure get a kick outa these pics of jets landing at Philipsburg/St. Maarten.

Major Geek Fest on page 7 (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?placesearch=Philipsburg%20%2F%20St.%2 0Maarten%20-%20Princess%20Juliana%20%28SXM%20%2F%20TNCM%29&dis tinct_entry=true)

If I ever travelled there, you'd never get me off of that beach!!! :lol:
Did Continental repaint (different design) their airplanes? 8)

Glom
2005-Jan-07, 06:32 PM
That one with the Corsair is cool. There's a golf course at the undershoot of Denham RWY24 and Haberdashers Aske Girls School in undershoot of Elstree RWY26.

tmosher
2005-Jan-07, 10:23 PM
A bit OT, but I sure get a kick outa these pics of jets landing at Philipsburg/St. Maarten.

photo (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?placesearch=Philipsburg%20%2F%20St.%2 0Maarten%20-%20Princess%20Juliana%20%28SXM%20%2F%20TNCM%29&dis tinct_entry=true)

If I ever travelled there, you'd never get me off of that beach!!! :lol:
Did Continental repaint (different design) their airplanes? 8)

Nope - not recently. That's their current scheme and it's been around for more than a few years. White over gray with the world logo on the tail.

Moose
2005-Jan-07, 11:34 PM
#-o Could we please put that URL in an url tag? I really hate having to sidescroll to read posts. Bad enough to have one page knocked around, but two in a row?

Laguna
2005-Jan-13, 02:22 PM
The first A380 is now almost ready for its first flight.

Here are two new pictures.
Pic1 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=751309&size=L&sok=V0hFUkUgIChyZWcgPSA nRi1XV09XJykgIE9SREVSIEJZIHBob3RvX2lkIERFU0M%3D&ph oto_nr=3)
Pic2 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=753464&size=L&sok=V0hFUkUgIChyZWcgPSA nRi1XV09XJykgIE9SREVSIEJZIHBob3RvX2lkIERFU0M%3D&ph oto_nr=1)

Wally
2005-Jan-13, 03:10 PM
#-o Could we please put that URL in an url tag? I really hate having to sidescroll to read posts. Bad enough to have one page knocked around, but two in a row?

Hi Moose. Were you referring to my post??? I did have it in a URL tag from the get-go, and it's always been line-wrapped for me. Sorry if for some reason it wasn't for you! I also hate it when forced to side-scroll!

Moose
2005-Jan-13, 03:20 PM
Yup. The one in the reply at the top of this page too. IE seems to wrap big urls. Firefox widens the page as best it can.

Maksutov
2005-Jan-13, 03:25 PM
A bit OT, but I sure get a kick outa these pics of jets landing at Philipsburg/St. Maarten.

http://www.airliners.net[cut]=true

If I ever travelled there, you'd never get me off of that beach!!! :lol:
The above is how it appears to a number of folks, myself included.

This

The URL (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?placesearch=Philipsbu
rg%20%2F%20St.%20Maarten%20-%20Princess%20Juliana%20%28SXM
%20%2F%20TNCM%29&distinct_entry=true)

is how it would appear if properly coded. You need to get rid of those "" and bits.

Click on "quote" to see the proper formatting. Note: the "bold" ([b]) formatting is not required.

Wally
2005-Jan-13, 03:25 PM
Sorry 'bout that! Not sure I can do anything though, can I. As I said, it's already in a URL tag.

Is there an option in Firefox to force a line-wrap at 80 characters or something???

[editted to add: Ah! I see Mak. I should have labeled the tag, is what your saying. I do do that often, if it makes sense to do so. Never knew proper etiquette was to do it always to prevent side-scrolling. I'll go fix my post, but Candy will have to fix her qoute of my post. . .]

Fram
2005-Jan-13, 03:29 PM
Umm, can't you just edit your post? (square bracket) url=http... (close square bracket) blablabla (square bracket) /url (close square bracket). Then you only get to see 'blablabla' instead of the complete url. No reason not to change it, edit should let it happen perfectly. Of course, you can only change your own post, but you can change things you quoted just as well (it's normally frowned upon, but this is an exception).

Wally
2005-Jan-13, 03:32 PM
fixed my original post. I don't see where I can fix the tag where I've been qouted though.

Fram
2005-Jan-13, 03:37 PM
True, only tmosher or the BA can do that!

tmosher
2005-Jan-13, 04:32 PM
OK?

Tom

kucharek
2005-Jan-13, 04:34 PM
OK?

Tom

*LOL* Now the ball is in Maksutov's field...

Wally
2005-Jan-13, 04:46 PM
For this page anyways! Candy will still have to fix it on page 6. :-?

Moose
2005-Jan-13, 04:50 PM
Honestly, I didn't care about page 6. Not once we'd hit page 7, anyway. If we can make it to page 8, we'll be fine. :)

Candy
2005-Jan-13, 11:34 PM
For this page anyways! Candy will still have to fix it on page 6. :-? I fixed mine, and I added my own special verbiage. :lol:

Wally
2005-Jan-14, 01:42 PM
:lol:

nice Candy. . . :P

Maksutov
2005-Jan-14, 02:01 PM
OK?

Tom

*LOL* Now the ball is in Maksutov's field...
It's fixed!

Nicolas
2005-Jan-16, 01:10 PM
The official presentation of the finished prototype (not the one you've seen earlier, this one is going to do fly tests if I'm correct!) will probably be on the 18th.

As always there have been some "leak" photos of the prototype in it's ground paint already:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/753464/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/753463/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/751309/L/

Now compare the engine size on the third photo with the people standing around it... The 777 has larger engines, but he has 2 engines less.

I'm curious how it will look like on the presentation. Probably as we've seen it on the CGI's, in the typical airbus factory colours.

sarongsong
2005-Jan-17, 05:05 PM
Interior pics (http://drudgereport.com/flasha.htm)

Nicolas
2005-Jan-17, 05:36 PM
AIRBUS 'SUPERJUMBO' PICS REVEALED
Mon Jan 17 2005 00:13:33 ET

Uhm, those are the OLDEST pictures on the A380 I know...

That interior, while representative, is from a mockup during an early phase of the project (to attract buyers).

I think this site is a bit over the top with "revealed"...

Still nice interior pics for those who haven't seem them before.

kucharek
2005-Jan-17, 05:48 PM
AIRBUS 'SUPERJUMBO' PICS REVEALED
Mon Jan 17 2005 00:13:33 ET

Uhm, those are the OLDEST pictures on the A380 I know...

That interior, while representative, is from a mockup during an early phase of the project (to attract buyers).

I think this site is a bit over the top with "revealed"...

Still nice interior pics for those who haven't seem them before.

Which airline is going to waste so much space? Don't know how many people are around that would pay for such stuff. Most passengers want to get as cheap from A to B as possible and when it is cheaper when they cram 850 people into that tube and not only 555, people will buy tickets from the 850-airline...

Nicolas
2005-Jan-17, 05:58 PM
Which airline is going to waste so much space? Don't know how many people are around that would pay for such stuff. Most passengers want to get as cheap from A to B as possible and when it is cheaper when they cram 850 people into that tube and not only 555, people will buy tickets from the 850-airline...
Those are of course pics of the highest class, and the area around the stairs and (optional) bar. I thought the bed-bank idea had been dropped already.

Charter and lowcost airlines will probably take the 800 seat layout (if they ever buy an A380), as they fly normally in only 1 class, with the highest seat density possible. Main airlines fly in two or three class layouts. So they will have a first class part. Not many planes will fly in a config like shown on these pics, but it is possible. Of course Airbus chose pics of the most spaceous parts of the plane.

Candy
2005-Jan-18, 05:47 AM
Interior pics (http://drudgereport.com/flasha.htm)
Nice photos! 8)

sarongsong
2005-Jan-18, 07:22 AM
Maybe the interior would be 'expansive' enough to dispel SKY's flight phobia?

Candy
2005-Jan-18, 07:33 AM
Maybe the interior would be 'expansive' enough to dispel SKY's flight phobia? You should link this thread to SKY. :wink:

sarongsong
2005-Jan-18, 07:39 AM
SKY (http://members.cox.net/skykingtv/skyking.html) :P

captain swoop
2005-Jan-18, 09:33 AM
I see they are rolling one out for the cameras today.

kucharek
2005-Jan-18, 10:10 AM
Ceremony should begin soon. It's on several tv channels here. The VIPs are just arriving.

kucharek
2005-Jan-18, 10:19 AM
These guys who currently dance qround on the stage somewhat remind me of the "robots" in "The Black Hole (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0078869/maindetails)"...

Nicolas
2005-Jan-18, 10:45 AM
Some A380 goodies:

LARGE jpg:
http://www.airbus.com/A380/Images/Reveal/a380exclusive.jpg

Presentation of the painting of the manual painting of this craft:
http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/painting.html

Enjoy!!

Nicolas
2005-Jan-18, 10:47 AM
Sure we are all awaiting the A380, but this Airbus beats them all!

http://www.imagevenue.com/loc60/92a_Belugoie.jpg

(Photoshopped of course)

Laguna
2005-Jan-18, 10:50 AM
Here some other pictures.
Some with partly revealed design.
Thanks to the wind.
Link (http://www.flugzeugbilder.de/search4.cgi?stype=actype&srng=2&srch=Airbus%20A380-841)

Nicolas
2005-Jan-18, 10:54 AM
THe A380 livestream at airbus.com isn't showing up here :(

Just a white screen with blue lines, no matter which speed I choose.
HAS it just not started yet?

Laguna
2005-Jan-18, 10:59 AM
THe A380 livestream at airbus.com isn't showing up here :(

Just a white screen with blue lines, no matter which speed I choose.
HAS it just not started yet?
URL?

kucharek
2005-Jan-18, 11:00 AM
The curtain is already down.
Very French ceremony, very French.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-18, 11:04 AM
OK, now where can I find a replay of the video? Or is it "gone"?

The URL is http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/event/index.asp

Nicolas
2005-Jan-18, 11:08 AM
Very French ceremony, very French.

You mean they played Jarre at the unveiling? :D

kucharek
2005-Jan-18, 11:14 AM
OK, now where can I find a replay of the video? Or is it "gone"?

The URL is http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/event/index.asp

Went there with Firefox and IE, but got no picture. Seems to be some Flash-stuff they use. Don't know why it doesn't works, sorry.

Richard of Chelmsford
2005-Jan-18, 09:24 PM
They wheels the behemoth out today with the British Prime Minister and the French President on hand.

Did you see it?

I must say I was gobsmacked. It just looks absolutely fantastic to me. It's all in white, blue and silver and looks a bit like that 'Super Guppy' of yore.

There's some arguement as to whether or not the future of aviation needs these big planes, or whether smaller ones from city to city will be better.

But I'd just like to take a trip in that A380 just for the ride. :)

Nicolas
2005-Jan-18, 09:33 PM
No I did not see it, not even a photo. Except for the "covered" photos. MY pinnacle was the wind exposure photo... :( Still nobody can give a link to pics or videos of the unveildd craft?

pghnative
2005-Jan-18, 11:15 PM
The URL is http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/event/index.asp
I like the part at middle-bottom: "Win an A380"

If I won one, what would I do with it? I think it is too big to put in my backyard. And I'm sure I'd be double-parked if I left it in the street.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-18, 11:22 PM
Made me think, if a bus in London parks, do you call it double parked? :D

sarongsong
2005-Jan-19, 02:29 AM
The evening TV news reported that there is only one commercial airport in the U.S. currently capable of handling the 380---San Francisco.

the_shaggy_one
2005-Jan-19, 02:32 AM
The URL is http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/event/index.asp
I like the part at middle-bottom: "Win an A380"

If I won one, what would I do with it? I think it is too big to put in my backyard. And I'm sure I'd be double-parked if I left it in the street.

Erm... I think I'd sell it. what's the market price for a lightly used A380?

kucharek
2005-Jan-19, 06:58 AM
The evening TV news reported that there is only one commercial airport in the U.S. currently capable of handling the 380---San Francisco.
As it won't fly commercially before the end of 2006 (IIRC), there is plenty of time left for airports to make the necessary adaptions.

[add]
Just read a report on the subject: JFK is in the works, a total of 14 US-airports prepare for the A380.
In Asia, 12 airports are already prepared. Here in Germany, Frankfurt and Munich are ready. When the A380 is doing some tests in the second half of 2005, it seems that airports will fight to have the privilege of having the A380 landing on "their" airport. Yesterday in the news, I saw some interviews with some alredy drooling planespotters in Frankfurt. :-)

Harald

kucharek
2005-Jan-19, 01:08 PM
The first A380 has a registration code F-WWOW, the next one will be F-WXXL. So, does WOW stands for Wow! or is it some some pun I don't get?

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Jan-19, 01:10 PM
Some A380 goodies:

LARGE jpg:
http://www.airbus.com/A380/Images/Reveal/a380exclusive.jpg

Presentation of the painting of the manual painting of this craft:
http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/painting.html

Enjoy!!

cripes ! thats a super aircraft

kucharek
2005-Jan-19, 01:11 PM
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763&size=L&sok=&photo_nr=

Argos
2005-Jan-19, 01:16 PM
Do you remember Hughes´s "Spruce Goose" (http://www.lockett-photography.com/Print%20Catalog%20Spruce%20Goose.htm)? Well I think the A-380 will follow the same path. I rank with Boeing on there being no place for it in these times.

Moose
2005-Jan-19, 01:16 PM
Incidentally, I had a closer look at that "win an airbus contest".

It ended yesterday, unfortunately. For those who actually entered, if you win, you have to give an address where "they can send it directly to you", within 30 days. First prize: an Airbus A380 model at 1:100 scale. 2nd, same model at 1:200 scale and third was a t-shirt.

Argos
2005-Jan-19, 01:17 PM
Do you remember Hughes´s "Spruce Goose" (http://www.lockett-photography.com/Print%20Catalog%20Spruce%20Goose.htm)? Well I think the A-380 will follow the same path. I rank with Boeing on there being no place for it in these times. It´s a wonderful machine, though, and I admire Europe´s aerospace engineering.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-19, 01:18 PM
THank you! Finally I get to see a bit of the final paintjob. Side view would be nice, however...

I wonder what the Wrights would have said had you presented that to them in 1908... :) 8)

Nicolas
2005-Jan-19, 01:21 PM
Argos, the spruce goose remained prototype. The A380 already has like 150 confirmed orders. Apart from that, spruce goose was a military ordered/supperted (?) prototype. The A380 had an extensive commercial market research and lobbying behind it. Also, spruce goose was a wooden plane in an age where "metal" was the fancy magic word in aircraft business. They both are very large, but to me that's where the commonalities end.

Argos
2005-Jan-19, 01:23 PM
Argos, the spruce goose remained prototype. The A380 already has like 150 confirmed orders.

We´ll see if they can make money with it. :D

kucharek
2005-Jan-19, 01:24 PM
Do you remember Hughes´s "Spruce Goose" (http://www.lockett-photography.com/Print%20Catalog%20Spruce%20Goose.htm)? Well I think the A-380 will follow the same path.
I don't think you can compare these things. I'm sure the A380 will become some success - if it performs as specified. There is demand for such a plane and in some way, Airbus had the luck to get to the market with this plane when the market is again growing. If they would have done it five years ealier, they would have been in deep trouble. I cannot think that the French would bail out of this project as long at is in some way feasible.

Harald

Nicolas
2005-Jan-19, 01:26 PM
Sorry for adding to my post after you answered. If you want to make comparisons regarding making money, you don't have to look at extraordinary things like the spruce goose. MAny "normal" types in fact never reached brake-even. Just "Not making money" stands a LONG way from the Goose, which "flew" (liftoff during test taciing) only once and was then mothballed.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-19, 01:29 PM
I cannot think that the French would bail out of this project as long at is in some way feasible.

What do you mean with that? I lost the reasoning somewhere :)

Maksutov
2005-Jan-19, 01:30 PM
The URL is http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/event/index.asp
I like the part at middle-bottom: "Win an A380"

If I won one, what would I do with it? I think it is too big to put in my backyard. And I'm sure I'd be double-parked if I left it in the street.
You could contact Glom and demand an exorbitant fee to allow him to fly it. Make sure it's insured!

Ah rats, just noticed it's for the model!

kucharek
2005-Jan-19, 01:40 PM
I cannot think that the French would bail out of this project as long at is in some way feasible.

What do you mean with that? I lost the reasoning somewhere :)

This was a more general remark on the fact, that it were mainly the French who always supported the idea of a big, independed French/European aerospace industry. I don't know where the European aerospace industry would be today (would it even exist?) if the French would have canceled Airbus or Ariane during hard times when everyone said it would be cheaper to buy & fly the american stuff.

Harald

Nicolas
2005-Jan-19, 01:45 PM
Oh like that. I think the same goes for the other partners in AIrbus/Ariane/ESA (well maybe not for the smallest ones).

Maksutov
2005-Jan-19, 01:53 PM
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=759763&size=L&sok=&photo_nr=
Two comments on that photo.

First, the obvious non-transition between the fuselage and the wing makes one wonder if the wing is fixed geometry. In a commercial airliner, I would imagine it is. Nevertheless I'm used to seeing a smooth fillet in that transition area.

Second, the curve of the wing along y (vertical axis) as one moves along x (horizontal axis) seems to be something of a first in a commercial wing. The extreme "arch" just after leaving the fuselage seems very unusual. Are there any flying precedents to this wing design?

Nicolas
2005-Jan-19, 02:14 PM
That transition between wing and fuselage is called the center wingbox, which is normal to look like that, coming out of the fuselage on large widebody planes. The one on the A380 is very pronounced however (everything at such a scale is :)), and added to that there's a colour difference there. The wing is fixed however. You can see a CWB on other airbus planes and on large commercial liners from other companies as well.


The wing root camber indeed is severe. There are many different wing design flying, but this appears to be the largest camber on a commercial airliner that I've seen. Apart from aerodynamics, I've read that it reduced the noise level by making the air not streaming against the main landing gear bay.

Just to make it clear: Maksutov meant the negative X axis vs the negative Z-axis in the aerodynamic reference frames (aircraft reference frame, stability reference frame), or the positive X-axis and Z-axis in the body reference frame. But those who know that difference, probably know what the root camber is :) .

EDIT, upon rereading, there is of course the other horizontal direction (along the wing) which is the negative Y. This is the wing Dihedral. The plane has a large dihedral slope at the root indeed. This is more pronounced due to the reduced camber in the direction of the wingtip, which makes the trailing edge look like having more dihedral. This is not true according to the defined dihedral however (which is defined at the quarter chord point). Dihedral can be used for altering the stability properties of your plane (and for making headroom for those huge engines, without having to attach your wing halfway the fuselage height or putting massively high wheels under your plane).

Candy
2005-Jan-20, 01:16 PM
I can't tell you what hearing you guys talk about airplanes does to me. :P

Nicolas
2005-Jan-20, 01:18 PM
I can't tell you what hearing you guys talk about airplanes does to me. :P

Yet still I'm facing 7 female vs 300 male in aerospace engineering! :D :( :x

kucharek
2005-Jan-20, 02:30 PM
Some new images available:

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraftsearch=Airbus%20A380-841&distinct_entry=true

Nicolas
2005-Jan-20, 02:50 PM
Thank you, finally had a complete view of the livery now.

kucharek
2005-Jan-20, 03:08 PM
A few things:

http://www.airbus.com/A380/Default2.aspx?ArtId=367

I don't understand why Airbus isn't filling the place with hires shots of the plane. It's such a beauty.

BTW, I saw some animations on tv, looked like official Airbus stuff. They used the soundtrack of "Terminator" for the background music. Is this really done so by Airbus?

Candy
2005-Jan-20, 03:10 PM
Dumb question time: Why aren't there screens over the engines? Can you imagine the amount of birds...? :o

Moose
2005-Jan-20, 03:18 PM
Dumb question time: Why aren't there screens over the engines? Can you imagine the amount of birds...? :o

... cattle, Dash-10s, Rhode Island? :P My goodness those engines are big.

tofu
2005-Jan-20, 03:23 PM
Dumb question time: Why aren't there screens over the engines? Can you imagine the amount of birds...? :o

On the ground of at low speeds, one hopes the birds are scared away by the noise. They usually paint a bright dot on the hub of an engine. I'm told that's to make it look like an eye and maybe scare a few birds. Some airports actually hire people who train hawks and other predatory birds to use them around the runways and ramps. Eventually, the other birds get the idea that the airport is a hawk's hunting grounds and they'll tend to stay away.

Nonetheless, bird strikes do happen. Fortunately, a modern engine can eat a bird or the occasional rock, stick, peice of luggage, whatever happens to be sucked in, and keep on flying.

To directly answer your question, if you put a screen over the engines, any bird that hit would just be sliced up by the screen before being chopped by the blades. So it wouldn't help anyway.

kucharek
2005-Jan-20, 03:28 PM
AFAIK it's a standard engine certification test to shoot dead chicken or turkeys into an engine and it must be able to survive this. Chicken nuggest in 0.01 seconds... talk about fast food...

tofu
2005-Jan-20, 03:41 PM
... cattle, Dash-10s, Rhode Island? :P My goodness those engines are big.
yep. I'd love to see one up close. It's been a while since I drove to Atlanta for a day of plane spotting, when one of the carriers that flies there gets 380's, I'll definitely have to go!

I couldn't find a closeup picture of an A380 engine pod with a human in-frame for reference, but here's one of a 777:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0046a.shtml

That engine is 2.85 meters. According to this:

http://www.snecma.com/en/news/snecma_magazine/1/snecma_mag_1_08a09_eng.pdf

The a380's engine diameter is 3.5 meters! The largest engine that will be fitted to a 777 (according to the site with the pic linked above) will be 3.4 meters. These things are like big flying vacume cleaners!

Nicolas
2005-Jan-20, 04:09 PM
The white "tornado" on the engine is to allow you to see whether it is turning or not (you don't want to feel the difference :d) Due to stroboscopic effects, you aren't always able to tell by the blades whether the engine is turning or not.

Engines are tested for bird strikes by shooting dead birds into it. However, when sucking up a flock of seagulls or something like that :), the engine still might fail. there are limits to everything.

Lots of airports have some means to get birds away. Hawks, alarm guns, whistles, driving around making noise... There is an island however, where the albatross (!) population has a bigger priority than the aircraft. It means that you sometimes are not allowed to land due to albatross sitting on teh runway (and they aren't disturbed, they have priority). Only in emergencies you get allowance to land, and they'll try to remove the birds. It is a rather small airport.

Putting a frame in front of the engine would result in
*birds being splitted by the frame and entreing in smaller parts in the engine (nice)
*birds heaping up on the frame, effectively taking away the engine's air supply (not nice)
*lots of drag and turbulent air entering teh engine (not nice either).

I thought the largest 777 engine was larger than the A380 engine (but the 777 only has 2). I don't know about future A380 engines of course, maybe those are even bigger.

On a side note, an aircraft engine sucking up water on a wet runway is a very nice, unnatural sight. The engines are made not to flame out even when sucking up enormous amounts of water.

Glom
2005-Jan-21, 10:11 AM
Big and honkin'!

Argos
2005-Jan-21, 12:10 PM
Well, I´m not alone in my pessimism. Seattle´s The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0121/p02s01-usec.html)


Nevertheless, while everyone here seems respectfully awed by the A380's technological achievement, the US aerospace giant believes the European consortium is making, literally and strategically, a massive mistake.

kucharek
2005-Jan-21, 12:39 PM
Well, I´m not alone in my pessimism. Seattle´s The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0121/p02s01-usec.html)


Nevertheless, while everyone here seems respectfully awed by the A380's technological achievement, the US aerospace giant believes the European consortium is making, literally and strategically, a massive mistake.

Well, Seattle's CSM surely is an unbiased source... :-)

Nicolas
2005-Jan-21, 12:47 PM
Virgin Atlantic Airways, which ordered six of the brutes, promises a gym area, casinos, double beds in first class, a beauty parlor and larger wet bars. Fully loaded at 1.2 million pounds, it will have a range of 8,000 nautical miles.

What was that remark about airliners not wanting to waste interior space? 8)


"Boeing's strategy is sound," he says. "If you look at the history of aviation, those that take the risk in technology generally come out ahead.... The A380 is just a very big airplane."

Now that Airbus is working on the development of the A350, they have spread the risk. The A380 is almost out of its development phase. What needs to be done now is checking the finished protoype against problems and solving those, plus verifying its expected lifespan and determining the flight enveloppe. What I want to say is that, even though they come in later than Boeing, they now have only the A350 in their development phase, and the A380 already at the gate. the A350 will be a direct competitor of the 7e7. Furthermore, my opinion is that Boeing is stretching truth a little bit by saying that "the A380 is just a very big airplane" and that they "take the risk in technology" with their 7e7. Sure the A380 isn't fully made of composites, but it is the first large commercial plane to use them to a large extent and on primary parts. On other fronts it is a hightech plane as well. And the A380 is already almost a finished product, which development started years ago when technology in airplanes was something else than what is possible (or envisioned) now.

The future will say who made the best decision but I think "spreading the risk" can be called a sound strategy as well. No matter how it turns out, that is one big and beautiful plane! (and Richard Branson has a new toy).

Wally
2005-Jan-21, 01:02 PM
Tofu. I notice in the pic you posted that the blades on the turbo-fan of the 777 appear "wavey" (for lack of a better term). I don't recall noticing this on other engines.

I'm guessing it improves/increases airflow thru the engine???

Nicolas
2005-Jan-21, 01:22 PM
Wally:

http://www.airbus.com/A380/Images/MME/897.JPG
A380 engine GP7200

Other bypass engines have this "wave" as well. With the 777 engine it is more pronounced due to the silver edge.

The front blades have a "twist" between the (what will become further in the engine) hot and cold (bypass) flow. In fact it are 2 different compressor ratios in 1 blade. The blades are formed so they compress the air as good as possible considering the different needs further downstream. the different blade speed at the tip vs the axle contributes as well.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-21, 01:31 PM
http://forum.tt-hardware.com/uploads/A380Singapore001.1083952671.jpg

I love that livery!!

http://ww2.planepictures.net/29/86/1106167728.jpg

"The A380 is just a very big aircraft" :roll: :D

Argos
2005-Jan-21, 01:37 PM
Well, I´m not alone in my pessimism. Seattle´s The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0121/p02s01-usec.html)


Nevertheless, while everyone here seems respectfully awed by the A380's technological achievement, the US aerospace giant believes the European consortium is making, literally and strategically, a massive mistake.

Well, Seattle's CSM surely is an unbiased source... :-)

That´s true. :D

kucharek
2005-Jan-21, 01:46 PM
Well, I´m not alone in my pessimism. Seattle´s The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0121/p02s01-usec.html)


Nevertheless, while everyone here seems respectfully awed by the A380's technological achievement, the US aerospace giant believes the European consortium is making, literally and strategically, a massive mistake.

Well, Seattle's CSM surely is an unbiased source... :-)

That´s true. :D

Basically, I wouldn't mind if Airbus takes the lead for some years, then again Boeing, then again Airbus, ... Without a serious competitor, both companies may sink down in self-satisfaction.

Parrothead
2005-Jan-21, 01:48 PM
http://www.airbus.com/A380/Images/MME/897.JPG
A380 engine GP7200

Other bypass engines have this as well. With the 777 engine it is more pronounced due to the silver edge.

The front blades have a "twist" between the (what will become further in the engine) hot and cold (bypass) flow. In fact it are 2 different compressor ratios in 1 blade. The blades are formed so they compress the air as good as possible considering the different needs further downstream. the different blade speed at the tip vs the axle contributes as well.

Yup, the Rolls-Royce RB211 Trent 900 is the another engine being used for the A380. Discovery Channel's Daily Planet had a neat segment on the plane the day of it's unvieling.

Trent 900 (http://www.easa.eu.int/home/wsnews_trent900.html)

scottmsg
2005-Jan-21, 02:04 PM
Well, I´m not alone in my pessimism. Seattle´s The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0121/p02s01-usec.html)


Nevertheless, while everyone here seems respectfully awed by the A380's technological achievement, the US aerospace giant believes the European consortium is making, literally and strategically, a massive mistake.

Well, Seattle's CSM surely is an unbiased source... :-)

The Christian Science Monitor is not a Seattle newspaper. It is published (http://www.csmonitor.com/aboutus/about_the_monitor.html) in Boston. Of course, the Seattle paper's are probably saying the same thing. :D

Wally
2005-Jan-21, 03:27 PM
Thanks for the explanation Nicolas! Makes good sense!

I'd think having the blades wavy like that would produce some weird torque differences along the length of the blades. Glad the world has engineers out there to figure that stuff out! =D>

kucharek
2005-Jan-21, 03:50 PM
Thanks for the explanation Nicolas! Makes good sense!

I'd think having the blades wavy like that would produce some weird torque differences along the length of the blades. Glad the world has engineers out there to figure that stuff out! =D>

I guess to figure out the right shape of these blades is one of the things you need supercomputers for.

Maksutov
2005-Jan-21, 03:50 PM
Thanks for the explanation Nicolas! Makes good sense!

I'd think having the blades wavy like that would produce some weird torque differences along the length of the blades. Glad the world has engineers out there to figure that stuff out! =D>
You should try machining and inspecting those darn things! The first examples forced me to learn C so I could understand the CNC and CMM programs.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-21, 03:53 PM
The blades have a torque difference along the length indeed.
Care has to be taken that the blade can bear all loads (duh).
The local air velocity at the blade leading edge is a combination of the flight velocity and the blade angular speed times the distance to the axle. The blades are (roughly) twisted in such a way that every point has the same angle of attack wrt the local airflow. I say roughly because the shape is as said also dependent on the amount of compression you want behind that part of the blade. The differences in local angle of attack, local airfoil and local airspeed cause a twisting torque and a bending moment on the blades. As said, care is being taken to minimize these moments, while keeping the correct compression factor everywhere of course. To bear the loads, the blades need to have a certain thickness. Because every blade bears teh same load, bending is identical and no blades will bend into each other.

The centripetal force on the blades is a worse load as far as I know. Blades (especially the smaller ones inside the engine) sometimes are "grown" out of a single crystal to give them better strength (and heat for the turbine) properties. You don't want the blades to lengthen a lot over time due to this force like clay would stretch when you would toss it around). To make excellent sealing between the blades and the airshaft wall, this wall is made from an ablative material. The blades "scratch" themselves into this material when the engine is new, causing a very small gap between blade tip and wall when the scratching in stopped.
The blades are "loosly" placed inside the axle, to allow for temperature deformations. THey are connected in such a way that they set themselves really hard into place due to the cetripetal force. If a jet engine starts up, you hear metal rinkling. What you hear is the "loose" blade connections at low rotation speed.

I have very little experience with the subject, but I think it takes a lifetime experience to master all the factors that come into play when designing blades. And then there's the ongoing struggle between the aerodynamic perfect blade and a constructable blade ("0.013 mm max airfoil thickness really can't hold the forces , sir"). It is a pain in the heart for an aerodynamics engineer to hear "your blade needs to have a thickness to chord ratio of this value at minimum" or things like that. Thankfully, modern material and construction techniques make a lot possible.

What really is a piece of art, are the turbine blades. Blades of about 5 cm height, internally filled with very thin cooling channels going to everywhere on the surface of the blade. That blade is placed directly after the burning chambers, in extremely high temperatures! Design something that works in that conditions, than make it... they look increedible when cut open.

http://neutra.web.psi.ch/images/gallery/blade.jpg
This approximately real size example is "rather simple": some really have "worm" channels inside! When making those blades, you can have absolutely no remaining part connections on the outside; the heath would burn the pieces apart. You really need to make them so they become one piece after fabrication. On the picture you see the holes in the leading edge, spreading cooling air over the turbine blade surface. These are cut-out drawings :).

Maksutov
2005-Jan-21, 04:12 PM
[edit]What really is a piece of art, are the turbine blades. Blades of about 5 cm height, internally filled with very thin cooling channels going to everywhere on the surface of the blade. That blade is placed directly after the burning chambers, in extremely high temperatures! Design something that works in that conditions, than make it... they look increedible when cut open....
Thank you for mentioning those. I sometimes wonder where the aerospace propulsion industry would be without EDM (especially wire EDM), and ECM.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-21, 04:23 PM
There are some alternatives, but EDM and ECM are really good for current (pun unintended) needs. There are so many processing techniques that there always are alternatives :).

You could make the blades by growing the material in a one crystal form between an inner and outer mold, and boil out the inner mold (through the cooling channels it formed)by heating. Getting correct results with this method seems very, very difficult to me.

And then there's that processing method called superplastic bonding in which one plies up the material, with detaching materials at the places where you don't want the different plates to be connected. Through heating, and allpying pressure/vacuum, the material is formed and connected s if it wre one piece. The pieces are heated up to their superplastic region, in which extreme strains are possible (hence forming through pressures is possible). Also, at this temperature the bonding takes place by diffusion between the parts. Very exotic process, but it allows to make some nasty forms :)

Maksutov
2005-Jan-21, 05:39 PM
There are some alternatives, but EDM and ECM are really good for current (pun unintended) needs. There are so many processing techniques that there always are alternatives :)...
Thank you for being direct.

Candy
2005-Jan-21, 05:46 PM
There are some alternatives, but EDM and ECM are really good for current (pun unintended) needs. There are so many processing techniques that there always are alternatives :)...
Thank you for being direct.
He's just teasing me! :P

Nicolas
2005-Jan-21, 05:48 PM
Nicolas wrote:
There are some alternatives, but EDM and ECM are really good for current (pun unintended) needs. There are so many processing techniques that there always are alternatives :) ...
Thank you for being direct.

It's not like I have personal advantages in using other methods, it was just a general manufacturing observation :). From your posts, it seems that you work on EDM/ECM blade manufacturing? (which would mean you DO have an advantage if the industry would stay with that method :) ) What exactly are you doing? Please give all the dirty details, my knowledge on building those blades is just general and theoretical. Sounds cool though, making those jewels (they cost more than the average jewel!) 8) ANd how do you inspect the internal structure of the blades? Not with the Angel light I suppose? :D:D

Nicolas
2005-Jan-21, 05:52 PM
He's just teasing me! :P

You know, I could talk about aircraft for HOURS :lol: :D :lol: :wink:

Trebuchet
2005-Jan-21, 08:20 PM
....That engine is 2.85 meters. According to this:

http://www.snecma.com/en/news/snecma_magazine/1/snecma_mag_1_08a09_eng.pdf

The a380's engine diameter is 3.5 meters! The largest engine that will be fitted to a 777 (according to the site with the pic linked above) will be 3.4 meters. ....

I'm not sure about the diameters but in terms of thrust the 777 engines range from slightly more powerful to much more. Specifically, 84,000 lbs for the base 777-200 to 115,000 for the new long-range versions. The latter is the largest jet engine ever built. For comparison, I believe the A380 engines are about 72,000 pounds thrust. Of course there are four of them!

Twin engine airplanes have to have significantly greater reserve thrust than four-engine ones because of the requirement to be able to climb with one engine out. That's a loss of 50% on a twin but only 25% with four. So twins will always have more thrust relative to their takeoff weight.

tofu
2005-Jan-21, 09:02 PM
A380 engines are about 72,000 pounds thrust. Of course there are four of them!
Yep. I wonder which modern widebody has the lowest fuel to passenger/mile ratio. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the 380.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-21, 09:06 PM
fuel-passenger/mile ratio

How exactly do you define the fuel-passenger/mile ratio?

is it fuel*passengers/mile? fuel/(passengers*miles) seems more logical to me, as it explains how many passengerkilomtres can be flown on a certain amount of fuel.

Did you meant with your statement that you think the A380 is fuel efficient or the contrary?

tofu
2005-Jan-21, 09:27 PM
How exactly do you define the fuel-passenger/mile ratio?
I'm not an aviation expert. I hope I didn't say something stupid.
How much fuel does it take to move 1 passenger 1 mile? I guess I should say, 1km.

I was trying to ask for the equivalent of kilowatt hours


Did you meant with your statement that you think the A380 is fuel efficient or the contrary?

I would assume that the A380 is more efficient. Otherwise, what's the point of buying it? If another plane can move half the passengers over the same route for less than half the fuel, then I would think the airlines would go for that smaller plane, and just fly more often or operate more of them.

But, I know there are other costs involved too. All I'm saying is, I'm sure Airbus made a plane that makes better sense (for the market they are aiming at) than any other plane, and I'm wondering how big of an improvement it is.

Nicolas
2005-Jan-21, 09:39 PM
What you meant was correct, though your / should have stood at another location then (just a nitpick). fuel/passengerkm (or its inverse of course) is a common measure for the efficiency.

From the Airbus site:


And the A380's environmental friendliness does not stop at noise reductions. The economic fuel consumption of the A380 - around 13 per cent lower fuel burn than its closest competitor - will also help reduce the impact of exhaust gases on the atmosphere. Indeed, the A380 will be the first long-haul aircraft to consume less than three litres of fuel per passenger over 100 kilometres (95 miles per imperial gallon) - a fuel burn comparable with the best of small modern turbo-diesel cars.

As you might know, there are many ways to "compare" aviation fuel use and safety, which can have quite different outcomes. This claim at least points in the direction of a fuel efficient plane, which wouldn't surprise me: it is a modern thing, it as the advantage of scale, and the paxkm count ticks away very fast in that plane!

Glom
2005-Jan-21, 11:06 PM
The fact that Airbus has started work on the A350 is a sign that they agree with Boeing that direct flights will be big in the future. I think there is a market for both the A380 and the B7E7/A350. After all, there are some major tourist spots out there and airports that are hubs because there are a huge number of people for whom it is the local airport. Do you think that the 10 million people in London use a regional airport to get to Heathrow or Gatwick? The problem with Boeing's vision is that they assume that with their B7E7, the idea of a major international airport and smaller regional airport will be made extinct. Not so. Sure it might close the gap opening up more routes to previously small airports with the help of the 7E7, but Heathrow will remain massive nonetheless.

BTW, I heard that because Boeing hasn't gotten big responses to the launch of the 7E7, they've renamed the 787 to attract the Asian market because 8 is a lucky number in those cultures.

I say bring back the large turboprops.