Airbus: A380 has a weight problem

[SLuca]

Overweight superjumbo won't guzzle, Airbus vows
July 5, 2004
Associated Press WorldStream


PARIS_
Airbus SAS conceded Monday what aviation watchers have long suspected: The European aircraft maker's new A380 superjumbo has a weight problem.

According to the company's own projections, an Airbus spokeswoman said, the largest commercial airliner ever built will weigh 290 metric tons (319 short tons) _ about 5 percent heavier than the previous target.

The figures were first reported in Monday's edition of German weekly Der Spiegel, citing internal Airbus documents.

"These are our working assumptions," Kracht said when questioned about the report.

The weight of an aircraft has a direct impact on its fuel efficiency, a key benchmark for airlines deciding what planes to buy.

But Kracht insisted that the A380 Airbus will still meet its fuel efficiency target _ 131 kilometers (81 miles) for one gallon of kerosene per passenger _ when the plane goes into service in spring 2006.

"That remains the objective and remains what we will match," she said.

Airbus and U.S. rival Boeing Co. are going head-to-head with very different visions for the future of commercial aviation.

Airbus _ which delivered more planes than Boeing for the first time in 2003 _ sees a market for superjumbos carrying passengers via major regional and connecting flights. Boeing is meanwhile staking its future on direct point-to-point routes serviced by its 217-seater 7E7 "Dreamliner," to be launched in 2008.

Both companies, however, are betting on improved efficiency to win over the airlines.

According to Kracht, Airbus could compensate for the A380's bulge by improving aerodynamic performance to maintain fuel efficiency.

"Even assuming it was slightly heavier but on the other side you have better aerodynamics, the end result is that you are meeting performance," she said.

Another option could be to squeeze more weight out of plane parts and furnishings such as passenger seats, galleys and toilets. But analysts say components have already been pared to a minimum, with lighter composite materials accounting for a full 20 percent of the A380.

[Notso Fantastic]

Has any new aeroplane ever not come in a bit overweight? My mother set out with a planned weight for me in mind. I have come in above planned weight. I wasn't scrapped. Will the A380 get scrapped? So what is the point- this discovering on every aircraft ever made that it is a bit heavier than planned?

[BahrainLad]

I believe a number of recent releases from the northwest of the big country, including the latest one flying for Air France, have come in under planned weight.

[CargoOne]

5% OEW difference for A380 means something like 14 tons. It is the weight of 130 pax or 14 tons cargo or fuel for 500 nm.

[Notso Fantastic]

They will trim most of it back- they always do. Prepare to go on polystyrene johns, overhead bins a bit lighter, pilots without carpets, F/C bar gone- they set the weasels in the factory trimming things down a bit. Not unusual- I bet the 747 was overweight right at the beginning.

[Fox3snapshot]

Surely with the removal of all the steel cutlary from most airlines the AUW must have been reduced significantly, not to mention the reduction of detergents at the catering facilities and reduction of the polluting in the waterways and the subsequent water savings from not having to wash up and the....

woops sorry just being silly....
:8

[M.Mouse]

...which are indeed major savings offset by the use of non-biodegradable cutlery made from an oil based product.

Useless at what it was designed for anyway, plastic cutlery that is not the A380!

I am really looking forward to arriving in Mumbai immigration at the same time as two A380s. By the time the passengers are processed it will be time to leave again.:D

[Buster Hyman]

If they prohibit the Tech crew from taking their wallets on board, that should get it over the line!:p

[dicksynormous]

"airbus has a weight problem"

So do i mate.

[bombshell]

Perhaps issuing the pax a fast acting laxative a couple of hours before flight will help to loose the extra Kgs!!!! ;)

[fire wall]

quote:
They will trim most of it back- they always do.

and a recent example of the above from Airbus would be ???????
There is none.....in the latest fopar they trimmed a bucket load out of the undercairrage of the 340-600 only to have it fail the RTO test and so had to beef up the brakes/undercairrage.

Kratch is playing the media for fools.....5% overweight but we will still meet effeciency targets. Right! Question....Have Airbus ever brought an aircraft to market that matches the performance figures in the glossy brochure? Non.

Why do you think a certain Asian 1 world carrier is doing HK NYC HK with a bucket load of empty seats in the 340 on the return sector.....because Airbus said it would carry "X" payload both ways regardless of the season/winds.......and so every time it does not the finance department get a nice little cheque in the mail with a postmark from Toulouse. If not then they would use the 400 which will do the job both ways, winter or summer schedule.

[Airbubba]

Well, if it can't make the performance numbers and has a questionable safety record, they can always convert it to a freighter like the MD-11...

[Ignition Override]

The mainstream media in Europe only just now found out about it?

It was reported over two or three weeks ago in a long article in the (US) Wall Street Journal. It featured a design engineer and his problems with the production of certain plastic parts, and his responsibility for a specific amount of weight reduction. It seems that the new production process is a challenge to the factory workers.

Weight problem? How about an evacuation problem combined with a collapsed main/nose gear (with real passengers instead of well-rehearsed Airbus staff with family members...), and/or in very high winds? High winds and wet weather contribute to many accidents. Many more people would ride in the upper deck than on a 744. :ouch: :ugh: There can be no connection between this topic and the other one on Rumours and News, by Dagger Dirk: "It doesn't pay to be a whistleblower...". :hmm:

[Romeo Delta]

Growing up in Seattle, I distinctly remember it was BIG NEWS that the 757 was well overweight (as I, too, have been, but it hasn't been big news). They even had a slogan: "WIP the Weight!", and were asking all the local schools, from colleges to high schools to middle schools to come up with any sort of crazy idea to make the plane lighter.

I guess it worked.

Could Airbus ask all the visitors to Disney Paris to come up with ideas? Maybe some crazy vacationer will have he answer.

RD

[Fly3]

"If not then they would use the 400 which will do the job both ways, winter or summer schedule."
As a 744 captain I can assure you that ours could not.

[747FOCAL]

Silberfuchs, And the safety margins as well..................:E

[Toulouse]

Weight problem? How about an evacuation problem combined with a collapsed main/nose gear (with real passengers instead of well-rehearsed Airbus staff with family members...),

Ignition Override:

Just wanted to know where do you get your facts? Is it not better to only give well informed opinions? What's the point in your post? Trying to make people think Airbus doesn't care about safety? Rather sensationalist, wouldn't you say?

In this particular point I would like to give my opinion, which I consider to be rather well informed. Obviously not saying it's gospel, as nothing ever is in life, but I believe it's fairly solid.

A few months ago my wife was asked to participate in a an evacuation drill. She was given a list of strict rules to follow. She was told no prior training was permitted. The aircraft type and any other details of the emergency trial were not disclosed as this would only render the trial less realistic. Obviously, certain health questions were asked, as Airbus does obviously have to ensure this type of activity is not going to endanger the participants. She would not have been allowed participate if she had taken part in another similar exercise in the past X number of years (I think it was 2, but not sure). Anyway, in the end, due to her professional obligations regarding the the safety and customer satisfaction of all AIrbus planes up in the air, at the last moment she had to cancel her participation, and thus a substitute was sought in the last moment. So, as you can see, Airbus certainly don't, in this case anyway, use WELL-REHEARSED employeed for these type of highly important drills.

Get your facts straight.

:ok:

[Cap 56]

I know it is silly but I have a go anyway.

What about in-flight refueling for commercial airliners?

Airborne petrol stations that take credit cards ?

[Tajfa]

Don't know if you're a math major Cap 56 - don't really think so. Me thinks that's not really necessary to grasp the consept of "soaring fuel prices", do you?

Just imagine what a "flying petrol station" would cost to operate. Me thinks the fuel prices are "high" enough for our employers already.

Or what?......

[Cap 56]

This is just PPRuNe my friend, where is your sense of humour.

[747FOCAL]

Toulouse,

FAR/JAR regulations state that you can't have participated in any EVAC test in the last 6 months. And let me tell you there is nothing safe about an EVAC test regardless of who is doing it. Every EVAC test has it's injuries. From broken bones to stubbed toes. Skin burn from riding the slide down and touching your elbows. When it comes to the A380, I would bet everything I own there will be major injuries mostly from the upper deck passengers. There is a real chance that someone may die.

[Toulouse]

Exactly 747FOCAL. So you see my point. Let's just hope nobody is too injured as you seem to expect with the A380.

[Cap 56]

I am not 100 % sure, but I believe that the average weight of the Asian passenger is way below that of a European.

The A 380 is a people mover and will, in my humble opinion have a lot of success in the East even if it is a bit to heavy.

[steamchicken]

My offer to volunteer for it stands, by the way.

[meatball]

So its a little overweight. The launch WILL take place. What worries is the number of passengers on board trying to stay calm enough to wait their turn in line to slide down the ramp if the time comes, and it will. My God, a little investigating proves that the human equation is the weakest point in aviation evacuations. ie: Fight For Survival, Only the Strongest Survive ( yes, pushing and stepping on anything in the way, arms flaying,clenched fists punching at obstacles, even attendants trying to assist) fighting to get away from the aircraft, ME FIRST
before burning to death.
Statistics from the great manufacturers are nice in glossy form, but rewind previous accidents in smaller aircraft requiring rapid, orderly, no-time-wasting evacuations......too many pax.
This is not an attack on the 380 or Airbus, just the logistics behind its pax capacity. :ok:

[Notso Fantastic]

This A380 Evac test thing is a complete red herring. I have been looking at the 747-400 Upper Deck slide. It is a double slide securely attached to the door, and non detachable, with large inflatable side fairings near the top. The angle is fairly shallow. In the event a 747 tipped on its tail (in the event of loss of body gear), Doors 1 slides at the front will be unuseable, but the Upper Deck slide will still be perfectly useable. In general using this slide may be slightly riskier due to the danger from its increased length of twisting (in which case don't go down it!), but I would as happily go down that as a main door slide. Now, I don't know how much higher the A380 Upper Deck slide is than a 747-400 one, but I would guess it is not much more than a few feet. So, if 747 Upper Deck door slides have been happily used and they don't have a reputation, where is the problem? I think it is a case of 'put up or shut up'. The designers know what to design for- we should let time prove they got it right.
If the designers of that waterpark in Orlando got their 'Stuka' waterslide (a seemingly near verticle drop on a concrete gutter) right, then who are we to question?

[747FOCAL]

Notso Fantastic,

Your comparing apples and oranges using the 747 upper deck. The 747 upper deck slide has to deal with maybe 30 at the most people while the A380 will have to deal with over 200 through 3 doors. If you do the math every person on the upper deck has to get from their seat to the door and down the slide in 1.3 seconds. Since you can't see the bottom of the slide you can't see the person that has tripped and fallen so you careen into the back of them. Right after that, the 350 heffer that was in line behind uses you as a spring board. :E It is going to be a real challenge to certify this thing without hurting somebody. :\

And your comments about the designers knowing what they are doing.... I would say they are on uncharted territory because this is the first double decker commercial aircraft of its size. :p

[fire wall]

not so Mr not so.....at least not according to my books which state tail on gnd renders upperdeck slide unuseable.
I am current on type.

[SawThe Light]

I am generally hard to convince, but this time the weight of evidence is clearly against the A380 and it simply won't pass the evac test because it isn't a Boeing design. It's probably too heavy to fly anyway. Or too big, or too expensive, or too cheap, or too slow. Hey, here's a new twist! Why don't we start the rumor that it is too slow?

Strange how AB got it so wrong. Wouldn't hurt for some of the more well informed to let the 'Bus folks in on the secret before they waste more investor's money on it.

STL

[747FOCAL]

SawThe Light,

Never said it was because of not being a Boeing design.

Originally, the 747 was supposed to be a double decker like the A380, but their sumulations made them think they would be unable to satisfy PAX EVAC tests so the shortened deck came about. Interestingly enough, they did not know that much about area ruling and had no idea that the hump would make the airplane perform in cruise better than without the hump. :cool:

[Notso Fantastic]

Fire Wall- I can categorically state ALL 57 British Airways 747-400s have Upper Deck Slides which are useable in the event of tail on ground. Only Door 1 slides will then be unuseable. I am current on the 400 and did my annual safety training today and specifically confirmed this point.

Where does this absurd figure of 1.3 seconds to leave seat and evacuate come from? When in the door, you can see the whole slide and who is on it. In a horizontal attitude, the angle of the slide is shallower than the other slides to cope with the tail on ground situation. If it is OK for the 747-400, how is it not acceptable for the A380? The A380 is the same, just a little bit taller- if it is OK for the 747, it is OK for the A380.

[skyhawk1]

The 747 started life as a cargo plane, and never had anything to do with pax evac tests. The 747 was always designed from the outset as only having a short upper deck - never full length. The reason was to move the cockpit up high so cargo could be loaded through the nose. It was the competition to the C-5 Galaxy. When Boeing lost the competition - they turned it into a passenger plane.

[Rollingthunder]

Yup, given the existing airframe the upper deck could never have gone all the way to the tail.

[fire wall]

Not so....I am at a loss to explain this discrepency between yours and my documentation. I shall investigate further.

[Notso Fantastic]

The BA 747-400 Tech Manual states: "If both Body Gear are not extended, the aircraft may tip tail down on the ground. Door 1 escape slides are then unusable". At my annual Safety Equipment Procedures Test this week, I specifically queried this point and was assured the Upper Deck slides would still be usable. The practice computer exam also confirms this.
I wonder if there are options when you order the equipment for a 747 as to the standard of the sliderafts? Like on the order form:
Car Stereo....Yes/No
IFE Crew bunks.....Yes/No
Extended U/D Door Slide......Yes/No
etc!

[ElectroVlasic]

Skyhawk1:

The 747 started life as a cargo plane, and never had anything to do with pax evac tests. The 747 was always designed from the outset as only having a short upper deck - never full length. The reason was to move the cockpit up high so cargo could be loaded through the nose. It was the competition to the C-5 Galaxy. When Boeing lost the competition - they turned it into a passenger plane.

Not exactly right. There clearly is some influence from the C-5 proposal and some sharing of engineering talent but the aircraft are quite different. The main difference was the C-5 proposal had a high wing instead of a mid wing, and had landing gear and performance suited to landing on shorter, less developed airfields.

Clearly after the loss of the C-5 competition Boeing knew a large transport was feasible and also that they had the talent to produce it. But the design is really quite different.

As you probably know, the reason the 747 retained the attributes of a cargo aircraft (including the ability to load cargo through the nose) was Boeing believed that supersonic passenger planes would be available in a few more years and they needed a role for the 747 to perform once it was retired from passenger service.

--ev--

[747FOCAL]

Notso Fantastic,

If you read around Airbus has already stated that the upper part of the slides on the upper deck of the A380 have a horizon shield so that the person jumping cannot tell how high off the ground they really are. You also cannot see the bottom of the slide. Their words not mine.

The 1.3 seconds is derived by using the cert requirements (half the upper doors) which is 3 doors. 200 divided by 3 equals 66.67 persons per door. You then divide 90 seconds by 66.67 people to get 1.3 seconds per person. This is very conservative as none of the people in the test including the crew no which three doors will be unusable until they open them. It also does not take into account the amount of time necessary to extend the slides. I suppose they could get lucky and only open the doors that are not blocked off. It is also pitch black with only emergency lighting so you are asking 200 people to blindly jump into a black hole and hope to god they don't get hurt. The problem is, these people know there is no emergency and the only danger they are in is from the test itself. :{

Rollingthunder,

The airframe design changed when the upper deck was shortened. I have many pictures of the concept airplane models. I also have pictures of the 747 with two engines on wing and one in the tail. The wood model still exists and is not far from my desk.
:p

skyhawk1,

Why would anyone design a plane with only one use intended and cut themselves off from the rest of the market? Nobody is that stupid. The 747 was always intended to enter both the military market and the passenger market. Just like the C-17 will eventually enter the commercial cargo market as the BC-17.

I wish I could post the pictures and the documentation from when the 747 was first thought up, but alas they hang people for that in the USA.

:\ :E

[Buster Hyman]

Just do it here 747FOCAL, we won't tell!;)

[Notso Fantastic]

747Focal- your sums are not quite right. The slides will be double lane, so they will go off 2 by 2 like animals entering the Arc, not one at a time. 67 people per door, 33 pairs in 90 seconds- with their asses on fire? They'll get off! Better in the dark, can't see the drop.
I'm sure Airbus have done their sums, and I cannot see what is wrong.

[747FOCAL]

Notso Fantastic,

So why is Airbus so worried about it themselves? They made application to both the JAA and the FAA to do it totally by analysis and not perform an actual test. They were told no by both so now they have to really do it.

Their ass won't be on fire and all it will take is one that freezes and won't jump and then they have to get another 200 people and crew to do the test or wait 6 months to do it again.

When they go to do the Asian seating style there will be way more than 200 up there.

ps. going 2 by 2 is only going to make the chance that a screw up occurs only greater. I did not know it was a double slide though. All the simulation I have seen it was a single slide.

[BahrainLad]

I fail to get this point about 1.3 seconds per evac.

By using the same logic

777-300: 434 seats (and that isn't even the max).
10 doors, half shut off.
87 pax per door.
90 seconds.
1.03 seconds per pax.

With regards to the three engined 747, are you thinking of this?

http://airlines.afriqonline.com/images/p167.jpg

In which case, this is a 747-300 proposal concieved well after EoS of the 747-100.

I share the scepticism of others as to whether the original 747 was ever planned with a full length upper deck.

[Hay Ewe]

That Picture configuration of the 3 eng 747 was considered for the SP type but because of the massive difference in structure of the wing and and tail section, it was not a goer.

[Notso Fantastic]

I cannot confirm that Airbus plan a double slide for the upper deck. The 747-400 slides are. I would be surprised if they were not planned to be so because of torsional twisting problems- it would be harder to keep a long slide like that untwisted in wind. The nightmare video of the Pan Am SFO take-off incident where extensive hydraulics failure caused a tip back after landing and the slides flailing in the downdraft of the helicopters buzzing around filming with people falling off them must never be repeated, not from that height!
I actually think the upper deck will be a slightly safer place to fly. You have more 'padding' below you. I'm familiar with the operation of the upper deck slides and have no doubt they are virtually as good as the lower deck ones. I would assume the same manufacturers will produce them and they have the benefit of 20 years progress in slide technology on the -400.

[ORAC]

16 doors in total - Diehl (http://www.diehl-avionik.de/C1256B590037FA4D/vwContentFrame/N257JLSR913KBLKEN)

"The Airbus A380 will be the first commercial aircraft equipped with a doors and slides management system. In its basic version A380-800, the Airbus will have sixteen passenger and two cargo doors. In order to maximize handling comfort and safety - especially in case of the emergency - doors and hatches will be centrally monitored and electrically actuated through the DSMS for the first time.

The DSMS consists of electronic computers, sensors, and actuators. The core of the DSMS is the doors and slides management control unit (DSMCU), a central computer where all status and control data for doors, hatches, and escape slides are gathered. In addition, there is a local door controller (LDC) installed in every door to individually control every single door. Each LDC has an emergency power supply allowing the doors to be opened even in the event of a failure of the main power buses in the aircraft. Special sensors are meant to determine the position of the body after emergency landing to make sure that the escape slides will be extended to the correct length."
-----------------------------------------------------------

There are eight slides a side: six on the upper deck, eight on the main-deck doors, and two on the wing/belly fairing. Each is 15m (49ft) long.

With complex underside bracing for rigidity, all the slides except the single-track wing/belly units will accommodate two people side-by-side. The wing/belly slides run parallel with the fuselage until they reach the wing trailing edge, then slope down.


FAA overview (file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/atm-jocarroll/Configuraci%F3n%20local/Archivos%20temporales%20de%20Internet/Content.IE5/YLT9T3O4/497,1,Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) A380 Design Concept)

[Sonic Zepplin]

I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEEN THAT OVER VIEW BUT LINK IS NOT WORKING.

LOOK;

BOEING AND AIRBUS KNOW HOW TO DESIGN PLANES. WITH THE ADVENT OF CAD/CAM AND ALL THE COMPUTER PROCESSING POWER AVAILABLE TODAY I AM CONFIDENT THE 380 WILL SUCCEED ONCE BUILT.

THE WEIGHT ISSUES WILL CONTINUE AND THEY WILL LIKELY FIND REMEDIES FOR EACH. ALL OF THIS WILL HAVE A COST ON PERFORMANCE NUMBERS.

WE ARE ALL JUST SPECULATORS NO ONE KNOWS UNTIL THE FINAL NUMBERS ARE IN FROM TESTS.:yuk:

I FOR ONE WOULD JUST LIKE TO GET MY HANDS ON ONE ONCE COMPLETE:ok: :sad:

[747FOCAL]

BahrainLad,

Search the internet. If you know where to look you will find the info on the 747 being originally designed as a double decker.

To the rest,

It's not the function of the slide I am talking about. I am sure on they will function fine. It is the human component here that I think will be the failure point. Next time you are in a 4 story building look out the window and think to yourself....in the pitch black would I jump on a slide without hesitation from up here? Maybe you would, but the chances of at least one person freezing and blowing the test out of 200 is very high. I am not beating on Airbus's ability to design a safe airplane. It's the logic that went behind it. :)

[supercarb]

Well I found this website:
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9904/FR9904e.htm

In August 1965 Joseph Sutter joined the team as Chief Designer. After the program launch in March 1966 Sutter and his team looked at 50 different designs with two decks. The double-decker design was not ideal, because passengers could not be evacuated in the time prescribed by the American Aviation Authority FAA. After viewing an improvised mock up of a cabin, which was uncovered, Trippe discarded the double deck idea. The view from the improvised top deck had given almost verybody present vertigo. It is obvious why everyone involved, apart from one Pan Am pilot, refused to use the attached emergency escape slide. After this sobering experience Trippe wanted to look at the 1:1 model of a conventional single deck, which was still being constructed. This design already had the famous hump, which was to be the trade mark of the 747. It goes without saying that the hunchback attracted many sarcastic comments. It was alleged that Boeing designed the hunchback to enable wealthy captains to sit on their thick wallets and not bump their heads.

There was a practical reason for the distinctive curve. Trippe had asked for the cockpit to be situated above the cabin. This was going to make loading easier. The space behind the cockpit was allocated to the air conditioning system and other instruments. However, businessman Trippe had other ideas. "This space is reserved for passengers. Couldn't we install a bar there?" Sutter agreed with this idea, but other ideas like glass nose for first class passengers only caused everyone to shake their heads. Impressed with the size of the cabin, there were many suggestions as to how to use it, i.e. a restaurant, cinema, hairdressing salon or even a casino.

[Cap 56]

747FOCAL

If you are scared enough, you will jump with pleasure.

[747FOCAL]

Cap 56,

I am going to say it one more time. We are talking about the certification test here, not actual operations.

During the test the only thing the people will be scared of is the test itself. There will be no fire, the aircraft will not be sinking or anything else that would make one want to get off in a hurry. :hmm:

supercarb,

Thank you very much. :)

BahrainLad,

I did not mean that the 3 engine design of the 747 was original concept, just that it had been discussed. I got a lot of better pictures of it and others than that one that has been floating around the net for years. :)

[Notso Fantastic]

We've got to move up to the 21st Century here. So, 40 years ago when Boeing was designing the 747, they rejected the long U/D concept because of the height. No doubt slide development was still in its infancy and they couldn't be trusted. Well here we are 40 years later with (thanks to the 747) many, many years of slide experience and development, and just as the world moved from 707 type areoplanes to 747 cabin levels, and we are flying people around with Upper Deck slides happily, the world will move to really big aeroplanes with Upper Decks and slides to handle them. It's just a question of progress, and it will happen! It's just a question of getting used to it. Airbus has made a pretty good stab at civil airliners- I trust them to have got the design and capabilities right. Why don't we just let them prove they have got it right?

[747FOCAL]

Notso Fantastic,

Did you not read what I just said? I said I am not worried about the design of the slide or anything else in the design. All I am saying is that when they go to do the test I think they will have more than a bit of a challenge in getting 200 people from nearly 40 ft in the air to the ground in 90 seconds is all. It's not the airplane, it's the people. And we all know how much the French like to whine.......:E Or was that how much they like wine. Hey thats it, just get everybody roaring drunk and they will jump without the slide. :E

[meatball]

747FOCAL.....right on. I insist the human component is the determining factor that has most blaznely been left out of the computation. Todays world ( and yesterdays too for that matter)
is designed around profit. The more you can stick in a plane on a particular route means more money generated equal covering costs in a shorter period but thats it. When most of todays airlines show profit, it is always in a comparative manner: in actual fact there are very very few that actally make money, in other words, have something left after paying everything off to the creditors.
SAFETY has taken a third place to Efficiency, first being Economy, and some people wont admit it.

[Notso Fantastic]

Yes I have read your message 747Focal, but it is becoming clouded in anti French/European issues that shouldn't be part of this.
I still don't see the problem. We have accepted by operating the 747-400 the concept of having people on the Upper Deck and providing them with slides from the Upper Deck. We are going to test the A380 to see if we can get 33 pairs of people out in 90 seconds from each of 3 doors- nearly 3 seconds a pair, from a similar height. 3 seconds in an emergency situation is a long time. All they have to do is jump and sit. Slides don't choke up- once you are on it it is a non-stop one way journey at the same speed for everybody. Let's leave it to Airbus to see if they can prove their hypothesis.

[747FOCAL]

Notso Fantastic,

Sorry, I am not trying to be anti French/European. I was only having a bit of fun with this. In fact if I were just a tad bit younger and not with woman and child I would most certainly take a stab out of making a career in the European aviation industry. I truly love it over there. The month I spent at the RR facility at Hucknall for an RB211 engine test 2 years ago almost had me quitting and staying.

I agree, we have accepted people travelling on the upper deckof the 747 for years. It is safe. I am just trying to get everyone to think about the human factor that goes into any certification test. :)

[Notso Fantastic]

The world needs the economics of large scale aeroplane operation. It is time to move over to double deckers as it cannot be achieved with single deckers. If an extra pair of doors have to be added, it is no great disaster. The French cure may well be to insist on changing the rules!

[747FOCAL]

When it comes to FAR/JAR 25 you won't find many that will listen to softening the rules. I thought the JAA might give Airbus a chance at proving it by analysis, but not the FAA. Turns out they both want them to prove it can be done.:ugh:

I don't know where they came up with the 90 seconds. Everybody in the business knows if the airplane is on fire you got maybe 20 seconds or the fumes from toxic burning plastic will kill you where you stand. :bored:

[Ignition Override]

Roger that Toulouse. There was/were aircraft manufacturers which in the past (in the US?) allowed passengers to rehearse some part of the evac drill, or at least plan/be briefed on some part of it in advance, and I saw it on either the 'Discovery' or 'Discovery Wings' Channel. This was certainly allowed by the regulatory "authorities", to use the word authorities very loosely (other than creating and enforcing what is on legal documents)... Has this never happened with foreign companies? From what I remember, the people in the certification drill had practiced it until it was performed in the required time. Some worked for the company, and many were family members (probably more familiar with airline cabins and safety features than our typical 'local yokels') in some cabin seats. If an aircraft is sold all over the world, then it meets the requirements of all certification standards, unless built to more than one configuration etc.

My comments were not to suggest that a real-world evacuation which involves a collapsed landing gear or high winds, could only happen to an A-380. But the A-380 is the topic here, however awkward it is for Airbus staff to read certain questions or remarks. Boeing people might feel the same way about their products. It must be a very unique experience to take part in the drills and very rewarding should it happen while flying 'the line'. May God help the poor flight attendants on any plane when those people turn into a herd of panicked sheep, often rushing forwards to the main cabin door.:uhoh:

My concerns are not with the manufacturers, but how regulatory "authorities" can promote certain short cuts in certification of any aircraft type, not to mention many things-most having nothing to do with evacuation. One of the FAA's former mandates was to "promote aviation", while it attempted to regulate it. Bit of a conflict?

Are 'foreign' regulatory authorities never labeled 'the Tombstone Agency"? :ouch::hmm:

[BahrainLad]

toxic burning plastic

?

[ORAC]

Sorry about that link Sonic Zeppelin. See here (http://www.faa.gov/ats/asc/nlaweb/Downloads/PPT/DCN%20ARFF%20for%20NLAFG%2005-13-03.ppt). :ouch:

[Sir George Cayley]

http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/photos/01FWWOW3.jpg

http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/photos/01FWWOW2.jpg

To be registered F-WWOW

Sir George Cayley

© http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/

[BEagle]

Isn't that actually the non-flying ground-test specimen?

Whichever, it's one ugly looking pig. And to think that once people designed things of grace and beauty such as Concorde....

[bagpuss lives]

It doesn't look nearly as big as I thought it would.

[747FOCAL]

That's what she said.........:E

[747FOCAL]

The entire airplane interior is made of materials that if breathed will kill you in a VERY short time.

[lomapaseo]

The entire airplane interior is made of materials that if breathed will kill you in a VERY short time.



That's kind of the way life is. O2 in, CO2 out and try to keep the chunks and other gasses out of the equation.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Gotta agree with BEagle; that is one ugly whale!

First flight is 2005, right?

[763 jock]

Hope it flies better than it looks. A true accountants aeroplane!

[skyhawk1]

I hope the tail stays on this one.

Does it bother anyone else that it seems the only attachment to the fuse is a strip right in the middle of the vertical? Doesn't seem to bolt at the front or back.

[Scottie Dog]

I never did think that it was attractive - even in the artist's impressions. I suppose it might look better when it has some paint on it?

[Sir George Cayley]

From the web site I lifted the links

"It's MSN 001, first flying a/c. 5000 & 5001 are the static test a/c."

So this apparently is the airframe that will lift off into the luft

Sir George Cayley

[pigboat]

F-UGLY :yuk:

[BahrainLad]

Skyhawk surely if the tail was attached "at the back" the effectiveness of the rudder would be slightly compromised??

It does look a bit of a pig at the moment, but I'll reserve final judgement until I see one painted with donks.

[maxy101]

Looks like a 4 engined 767 to me...

[Buster Hyman]

Was it Red Nose Day in Toulouse?

It's screaming for a stretch if you ask me...

[Bre901]

Hadn't noticed that the upper deck windows started that aft.

Anyone got a clue about what all the upper-deck space between the copckpit and the first windows will be used for ? (clearly lower & sloping ceiling, but still some space available, I guess)

[arcniz]

Anyone got a clue about what all the upper-deck space between the copckpit and the first windows will be used for ? (clearly lower & sloping ceiling, but still some space available, I guess)

Elevator, spare crew sleeping accomodations and exercise room,
a small wine cellar for those long layovers.....and a moat to deter terror-persons.

This model looks like the "short" version. Expect an A3160 at mid-life. Vive la France!

[patrickal]

IMHO, it looks like a bratwurst with wings.:yuk:

[panda-k-bear]

Not the best looking bird on earth, but still a lot of work to be done on it.

It sounds like some of you think the tail's held on with Scotch tape. Are you mad?!

As for 747FOCAL's little diatribe (once again), I have to say that if what you say is correct, then the rules for the evac test are wrong - they don't accurately simulate the situation and therefore can not be relied upon. Maybe they won't change and maybe they will, but I'm sure in your line of work, FOCAL, such inaccuarcy could not be tolerated, could it?

Ho-hum. We'll all see, I suppose, but like it or not, the aircraft is sitting right there!

[FakePilot]

I think it looks cute. And no, I am not it's mother.

Have to agree the slides would make many people nervous. I use to drop people off of cliffs on a regular basis and obivously the view from the top gave many people serious pause, even after they were trained on a much shorter drop.

Very curious to see how this works out.

[2WingsOnMyWagon]

Once she’s got her fairings and a lick of paint I think she will look just fine.

As for the tests, I have it on very good authority that they loaded the rig up with volunteers (students at the local uni) and told them the first 10 down the slide get a £10.

:ok:

[747FOCAL]

2WingsOnMyWagon,

They can't do that in the real cert test. :)

[unmanned transport]

The fuselage has a lot of stretch potential, probably enough for 1000 passengers. Big wings and short fuselage just to start out with.

[Ignition Override]

Hello 747FOCAL. Are manufacturers in other countries (outside US) required to do the final evacuation certification on any aircraft type with people who have not received any special briefings or training before the final timed test? This is really hard to believe.

Do they only hear a standard briefing from the flight attendants, as I was told on a previous page? :hmm:

[747FOCAL]

Ignition Override,

If they want it to fly in the EU and the USA and everybody else gives reciprocity to those bodies, yes they have to do the full evac test. The test participants get the standard briefing from the stews that any flight gets. Other than that, it follows the FAR 25 PAX Evac requirements. You can find them here or on the FAA website.

Who knows they may pull it off, but it's gonna have it's injuries during the test. They all do accept the very small ones. DC-10 test turned one gal into a quad. 757 test had two broken legs and a few broken arms. Always a few rug burns from people touching their elbows down. What I see happening with the A380 is a bottle neck not at the door but on the ground once some person falls and the next person lands on their back and so on and so on. They are going to be going close to 20 mph or greater at the bottom. 90% of the population can't run that fast so they are going to fall down. Then the pile of humanity starts.

:hmm:

[Flip Flop Flyer]

I have it on good authority that EADS have indeed given pax evac a lot of thinking about, despite your obvious dislike of anything coming out of Toulouse.

1: The top part of the slides from the upperdeck will have sort of a roof on it, the purpose of which is to block the view to the bottom, thereby reducing the risk of vertigo.

2: The slides will be covered in a material designed to retard the "slide" gradually, so the pax won't arrive at the bottom at 30+ km/h, but at a rather more tolerable speed.

Unlike you, I have little in the way of doubt that Airbus have some very technical capable guys and gals on the payroll, and that they will indeed pull the evac test off. Will someone be injured during the test? Well, yes, but as you yourself say that happens on almost all tests. Finally, the slides are designed and built in the USA, by Goodrich if memory serves me right.

It's ugly as f., but this is the "base" version. It will in all likelihood be stretched and then it might, just might, become less revolting to behold. Anyway, it's built to make money not win beauty contests. Speaking of which, it would seem that Boeing has had to rethink the design of the 7E7 tail. Graceful as it might be, it offered less than optimum efficiency and as with all other things ruled by bean counters, style must give way to efficiency. Too bad, really, that tail does look rather cool.

[Notso Fantastic]

Funny comments from some supposedly savvy people out there! She looks just gorgeous! Even the A300 and A320, unpainted, panels and fairings missing, look ugly. When this baby is painted up and ready to go, she will be the pride of the lucky airlines to operate her! True, there will be a few early faults and hickups, all of which will be reported here as if they are fatal flaws, then she will settle down and give the world the only very high capacity longhaul jet for the next 50 years. Roll on Airbus- I wish I could fly her (and that from a 747-400 Captain!). Congratulations!

[pilot-lite]

Click here (http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2001Conference/files/EvacuationModelingDatabases/EGaleaAASKPAPER.pdf) for an interesting and very detailed report on testing of the computer modelling software for pax evacuation.

It's a long report, but a few highlights include the comparison of a modelled evac to a real one, in a CAA test. In various scenarios the software was asked to predict the time required to evacuate the a/c, "real world" tests were then carried out, with a difference between predicted and actual times of 2.8%

Mention is also made of the injuries sustained in previous tests, including the unfortunate girl permanently paralysed in the MD11 test as stated previously.

Well worth a quick read.

As an aside, my old systems instructor swore blind that in the original 747 evac test the "pax" were all members of sports clubs in and around the Boeing facility, and all wearing sports shoes...

pilot-lite

PS Is it just me or does that fuselage not just cry out for a stretch...;)

[747FOCAL]

Flip Flop Flyer,

Somewhere back earlier in the thread I said I have no problems with Airbus products nor am I taking pot shots at them.

You also point out what I think will be a hindrance not a savior by shrouding the slide. During the test it will be dark. How many people do you think will jump without hesitation into a blackhole without seeing the bottom? Out of the 200 on the upper deck, what are the chances that one will hesitate and blow the test? You answer those questions to yourself. I care not what your answers are.

Thats great that they will slow you down at the bottom so the fat heffer behind you kicks you in the back.

And just so you know, they told the world the tail was less efficient, but in reality it was highly more efficient. It just cost a ton to build. Your right the bean counters got their hands on that and put the stopper on it. Boeing, not wanting to give the highly subsidized competitor any free ideas, poo poo’d the idea so that they might not check it out for themselves.
:E ::E

[pilot-lite]

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/images/747in-flt.jpg

...if you thought the A380 was ugly...

pilot-lite

[2WingsOnMyWagon]

Test Rig (http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/soe/aircraftevacuations/largecabin.htm)

Theres no mention of Airbus, EADS or A380 unfortunatly.

:ok:

[747FOCAL]

Well I agree, but there will be only 3 and very few people will ever have to see them. :}

If you read that page on the Cranfield test facility, the upper deck does not acurately represent the A380 with a sill level of 24 feet. The A380 will have an upper deck sill level of around 40 ft.

And further here is a quote from the page seeking volunteers:

"Please note that for health and safety and insurance reasons, all volunteers for group evacuations must be aged between 20 and 50. In addition, you should be normally fit and healthy, weigh no more than around 15 stones/95.25 kg, and should not be excessively overweight.

Some of our group evacuation trials may be physically demanding, so we would ask you not to volunteer if you have any history of the following:

heart disease, high blood pressure, fainting or blackouts, diabetes, epilepsy or fits, deafness, chronic back pain, ankle swelling, depression, anxiety, other nervous/psychiatric illnesses, fear of enclosed spaces, fear of heights, fear of flying, brittle bones, asthma, bronchitis, breathlessness, chest trouble, allergy, lumbago sciatica, or any other serious illness.

Women who are pregnant, or who think they may be pregnant, should not take part in our trials."

Aren't a few of those people on every flight?

FAR 25 cert requirements require people over 50 to be used as well. Primarily women over 50.



:ugh:

[rotornut]

other nervous/psychiatric illnesses

Yeh, like scared of heights.;)

[ORAC]

Flight International - Farnborough issue:

"The planned exit limit of the A380-800 is more than 800 seats and, in a break with recent tradition, Carcaillet [A380 marketing director] says Airbus intends to run an actual evacuation trial during the certification programme for this level of occupancy".

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Fair enough, but your endless tirade of mocking the A380 is getting a little old hat.

As for the evacuation test, I'm sure that Airbus will follow the rules to the letter, officially that is, whilst ensuring that the test dummies being used have been properly vetted before being allowed to jump off the upper deck. As such, I have little in the way of worries that they will indeed go down the slide in something resembling order. In real life, I have little doubt that when faced between a raging fire snipping at your ar*e and a jump down a black hole to safety, the black hole will win.

Actually, I've read in FI that Airbus plans a full evacuation test of the A380 "breaking with tradition" whatever that means. I'm not by a long shot an expert in evac certification requirements. Also read that the computer simulations of evacuations are within 3%ish of actual timings.

As for the 7E7 tail, your story about it being efficient is opposite to what I've read, but who cares. It is interesting to read in FI this week, that John Lehay, CCO of Airbus, stated something along the lines of "nobody ever told me they bought our aircraft because it was pretty" or words to the same effect.

Finally, speaking of the 7E7, Airbus claims that it will not be much cheaper, or actually more expensive depending on how you calculate it, to operate than an A332. However, they're quietly talking to GE and RR about the possibility of fitting the bleed version of the 7E engines to a so far unofficial A332 Lite, which indicates to me that they're being a bit economical with the truth re. operating costs A332 v 7E7. Boeing have been told, it also says in FI, that the GE and RR engines can be modified for a bleed system for possible installation on a possible 747 Advanced. Could be interesting, a bleed version of the GENX and Trent 1000, both for Boeing on the 747 Advanced and Airbus on the A330.

I for one am very pleased that Boeing is finally putting a new a "revolutionary" product on the market, and am looking forward to seeing what response Airbus will have. Competition is good!

[747FOCAL]

When it comes to repairs and dispatch, the 7E7 will go down in history as the cost leader and I do not mean that it will be better.

Composites will cost more than a exact copy metallic. Will the fuel burn reduction from weight reduction overcome this. We will have to wait and see. :)

[yakker]

747 Focal, I have done the Cranfield exercise. We were told to evacuate as fast as possible and try to be out first. People were climbing over seats and other people to be out first, hence the 'reasonably fit' clause. Simulates mass panic and hysteria.
As for the slide heights, if youyr arse is on fire you would jump into the dark!

You can keep knocking the 380, but it will still be a success. The arguments about size were used on the first 747, and that was successful. The airlines and airports will adapt for the 380,(as they did for the 747), and the 380 will be a success also.

[747FOCAL]

yakker,

you may have done the "exercise" but you have not done it under certification requirements and they are way more strict. You can't have people climbing over the seats, etc. Can only climb over the seats if their is luggage in the isle.

We are also not talking about being on fire here. We are talking about the test. There will be no fire.

Also, the Cranfield test bed is just over half the height of the actual A380 height so next time you are up there think about what it would be like from double that height.

I never said the A380 would not be a success. I only pointed out there is significant tests that the A380 may have trouble passing. In this test, somebody may actually be maimed for life or killed.

:\

[stagger]

Quick question - if the risk of a serious injury or even a fatality is perceived to be greater for an A380 evacuation than for other types do you think that a PIC might be less likely to order an evacuation under a particular set of circumstances on an A380 than on other types?

Whether or not this is a rational strategy depends partly on whether the perception is accurate - i.e. that an A380 evacuation is more dangerous.

[747FOCAL]

stagger,

Not to be attacking you or anything, but how smart would that be? There are two reasons for the PAX evac test. One, the obvious, to see if it can be done in the 90 seconds alloted. Two, so that airport support staff that respond to emergencies can be trained on what to expect from an actual evacuation. You don't want the airports to be learning exactly what may happen and what they will need under actual emergency conditions. This is why the FAA and the JAA(or EASA) told them no simulation.

:)

[stagger]

747FOCAL - not sure what any of that has to do with my question. I wasn't asking about tests. I was asking about the likely behaviour of a pilot-in-command of an operational A380 full of passengers.

Nothing to do with tests vs simulations or how tests should be conducted. I was wondering about how a PIC might adjust his/her threshold for ordering an evacuation in a given set of real circumstances knowing (or at least believing) that evacuations on this type were much more likely to result in serious injury than on others.

[747FOCAL]

Sorry Stagger, I did not understand what you meant by PIC. ;)

[GearDown&Locked]

Whats the problem with the A380 evac height? Escaping from a building is much more difficult in a panic situation and skyscrapers are still being built.

[Notso Fantastic]

747Focal- if you read Stagger's post more carefully, there is a clue what PIC means. As for Stagger's question about PIC reaction in emergencies, pilots are well aware that in any emergency evacuation, injuries will always occur. The decision to order a full emergency evacuation is not taken lightly as a result. The deciding factor is when the risks associated with a decision to stay onboard start exceeding the risks of an evacuation- this from a pair of pilots who cannot see the outside of the aeroplane or what is happening inside the aeroplane. Not an easy decision. You can have a fatality from a 747 or a 380 with the heights in question.

[stagger]

GearDown&Locked - people usually escape from buildings by using the stairs. Slower than a slide but then again everyone doesn't need to be out in 90 seconds because buildings burn a bit slower than aircraft what with them usually being made of concrete and not loaded with fuel.


Notso Fantastic - glad someone understood the question! Since as you say the decision to evacuate must be made when "the risks associated with a decision to stay onboard start exceeding the risks of an evacuation" surely this balance will be different for the A380 than for other types (and is probably already different for a 747 than for other smaller types).

I have some concerns though that perceptions of the dangers associated with evacuation on the A380 may lead to decisions being made that are not entirely rational.

Here’s an analysis of the problem based on entirely hypothetical numbers…

Two hypothetical premises…

- With a stretched version of the A380 carrying 800 passengers perhaps you might expect one serious injury or fatality with every evacuation.

- With an evacuation delayed until fire or smoke has actually become detectable in the cabin perhaps you might expect 30% of the passengers to be seriously injured or killed (surely a passenger or cabin crew initiated evacuation will occur once flames are seen).

Now imagine yourself as PIC with some indication of a problem that could perhaps lead to a fire. Perhaps there is only a 1 in 100 chance that the problem will lead to a fire.

Option 1 – order an immediate evacuation as a precaution with the expectation that one person will be seriously injured or killed.

Option 2 – wait and monitor the situation knowing that there is only 1 in 100 chance of a fire developing.

The results of these courses of action…

Option 1 – one person seriously injured or killed.

Option 2 – 99 times out of 100 nobody is seriously injured or killed. But a 1 in 100 chance of 30% (i.e. 240) of passengers being seriously injured or killed. Consequently, the average of result of Option 2 is 240/100 = 2.4 serious injuries or fatalities.

So using these figures it’s always rational to accept the dangers associated with a precautionary evacuation.

Now before everyone starts rubbishing the specific numbers I’ve chosen – their just to illustrate a point. The point being that the specific numbers are important when it comes to determining what’s a rational strategy.

[GearDown&Locked]

If the height is a problem... Would it be possible to retract the gear of the aircraft prior to the evac takes place? (assuming that this catastrophic scenario would consider the plane already lost from recovery). I know its a dumb idea so go easy on the beating

:ouch: :}

[Notso Fantastic]

Stagger, I think you will find we already face those problems. On almost every widebody evacuation, someone is seriously injured (personal opinion). I think we will increasingly be facing fatalities from ultra large jets (2 candidates at the moment). It will be a difficult decision and I think will increasingly have to be made relying on external advice. Of course catastrophic events will make for an easier decision.
GD&L- retracting the gear prior to evacuating won't work:
*despite the best of intentions of engineers, gears are not designed to be retracted on the ground. I don't think hydraulics will be able to power the main gear out of 'down'.
*settling the aircraft when everybody is standing queueing to get out will have everybody over
*potential for damage/explosion (hot engines/fuel leaks from damaged tanks) too great- would likely cause further severe problems
*it would write off the aeroplane for possibly needless reasons.
*so it makes a 35' drop for the upper deck say 25-30' (personal guesses). Worth it? Aeroplane may tip tail down exacerbating the problem as the front inboard engines will take the load (before giving up).

[GearDown&Locked]

You're right Notso, the idea just popped like that.
But thinking about it a bit more, would it be feasable to retract the gear to an "Emergency" mechanical stop position, i.e. not fully retracted but just enough to keep the engines from hitting the ground (and power wouldn't be an issue here because it could use a hyd dump valve)? or the height from the base of the engine casings to the ground won't be that much of a help on this case?

Another different question is: even with the distance reduced, how much time would be saved? 10 secs out of 90?

[747FOCAL]

GearDown&Locked,

It is a nice idea in theory, but gear weight is something the designers have been working to get down for many years. Something like that would undoubtably add much more weight and then you have to justify carrying it around to the been counters. The Japanese actually tried to get Boeing to build them a fixed gear 747 version so the weight would go way down and those half hour flights with 550 people on board would be more profitable. :)

[steamchicken]

Don't make it any easier for us to land with the wheels up!

[747FOCAL]

What’s amusing about this is that Gerard Blanc, VP of operations for Airbus, calls Noel Forgeard a liar about half way down the article.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/182471_airbusproblem17.html

If you go here you can fly your own A380, but you have to add to paperclips so that it simulates the over weight. :E

http://www.airbus.com/events/farnborough2004/goodies/A380_owncolours.pdf

[Notso Fantastic]

GD&L, jets with undermounted engines are designed so the lowest engines (inboards) are only a few feet off the ground. The reason undercarriage legs are as long as they are is to allow for rotation on takeoff/landing and to stop the lowest bits getting scraped- the engines. So to leave the engines undamaged by lowering the aeroplane, you have only got a metre or so at the most- not worth the technical expense of going to the trouble of a system like that.

[FOZ]

From Airbus press conference today (20/7/03) at Farnborough.

The A380 programme
“We are on schedule for a first flight early next year. The business case is fully on track. We are on target to meet our guarantees to customers and to put an end to dubious figures floating around, I confirm that the maximum weight empty of the A380 is less than two per cent above our internal target, less than one per cent of the maximum take off weight”. Later he clarified that this was only 0.1 to 0.2 different from our computerised predictions.

Seemingly things are not so bad after all!

[stagger]

According to Airbus website - planned MTOW = 560 tonnes, planned typical empty weight = 276.8 tonnes

1% of MTOW = 5.6 tonnes
2% of empty weight = 5.5 tonnes

Are these figures very different from the "dubious figures floating around"? What were these?

[FOZ]

First post says 5% of empty!

[yakker]

Is overweight not a common problem on the first build?
The JSF is claimed to be way over weight also, problem more acute as it is only a 'little' fighter.

[ferrydude]

uhhhhh, why yes, more common than previously supposed!

Boeing Talks Of 7E7 Benefits, Admits Weight Issues
Aviation Daily07/23/2004


In admitting that the Boeing 7E7 is currently slightly heavier than planned, program chief Mike Bair couldn't help but take a lighthearted jab at rival Airbus and weight problems that it may be encountering with the A380.


While he did not specify by how much the current weight exceeds targets, Bair pointed out, "We're where we have been typically on past programs," and said he was confident weight could be reduced to meet targets in the development process. "I have a lot of sympathy for our friends in Toulouse," he added, hinting at Airbus's problems to fight the Airbus A380s overweight issues. "It can run away from you very quickly. Big airplanes are really hard. We've been there."


Bair also stressed that interest in the 7E7 was "astounding" and that the bulk of the interest was in the 7E7-8 version. He disclosed, however, that a big part of the All Nippon Airways orders was for the 7E7-3. While he saw a broad customer base internationally, interest is "light in the U.S.," and executives are now "scratching their heads" over securing delivery positions for U.S. carriers. The stretched 7E7-9 is "penciled in" for initial deliveries in 2009. -JF

[John Farley]

While I am sure that estimates of weights of components designed but not yet made are getting better all the time we should not forget the effects of human nature.

Design team individuals responsible for one small part of the whole have been known to over estimate the weight of their bit so that when it is actually incorporated it will not be their widget that has spoiled the party. Aero guys have been known to pad their drag estimates and reduce their lift estimates for similar reasons. I for one will only believe the weight of an aircraft once it has been built and weighed.

The Hawk was one design that performed better than estimated and I believe this was (at least in part) because of this. It was also the first Kingston fixed price contract with penalty clauses for failing to meet spec which probably increased the motivation mentioned above.

Of course there are some who use the opposite technique. They say it will weigh less than they know it will, will cost less than they know it will and rely on the customer not feeling the difference is big enough to cause cancellation.....but perhaps that sort of thing is more related to company culture than engineering?

[machonepointone]

Well, after eight pages and a lot of reading this post has finally come back to where it started - namely whether or not the A380 will be overweight.

I have just read a quote from Mike Blair in the Flight International edition for 3-9 August. There are two interesting quotes in fact. The first stated that "We are a little overweight, although less so than we were on the 777 at this point." I do not recall anybody leaping into print to knock that product , or the 7E7 for that matter, on the basis of its weight.

The second quote was a little revealing when he said of the 7E7, "All delivery positions through 2009 are committed, as is 80% of 2010. We're looking a little light on customers in the USA. At some point the US carriers are going to wake up to the 7E7 and we're going to have to tell them that we don't have any aircraft available." This is NOT meant as a dig against Boeing or the 7E7, merely a comment on the apparent lack of support for an American product from American airlines.

[747FOCAL]

Name one American Airline besides Southwest that has any money to spend on new aircraft? :\