A380 First Flight [Archive]

Eastwest Loco

27th Apr 2005, 12:28

Now that girl was meant to fly. It looks unwieldy on the ground, but great in the air - and what a grease on landing!!

Now Airbus has the most purposeful looking heavy lift aeroplane with the A380, Boeing has the most aesthetically pleasing with the 757 and Airbus still has the ugliest with the A319.

Thanks for the heads up Sid - I really enjoyed that immensely.

EWL

1279shp

28th Apr 2005, 01:10

Notice from the vids ex airbus.com that the
A380 didn't use REV on the landing roll - suppose with all those wheels and brakes!

Interestingly A380 only has REV on No 2+3 not on outboard apparently due ingestion concerns due wingspan.

Kaptin M

28th Apr 2005, 01:24

.....to the untrained eye, the six-man crew that stepped aboard the world's largest commercial passenger plane for the test flight did not exactly inspire confidence - they all wore parachutes.

A handrail had also been installed in the cockpit to help lead them to an escape door that could be blown open in case of an emergency.

More here news.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15108764-28793,00.html)

ACMS

28th Apr 2005, 01:50

I have to admit to being very biased towards Boeing, always have been and always will be.

That A380 looked fat and ugly to say the least.

Eastwest: any mug in any aircraft can achieve a smooth landing if you land as long down the runway as they seem to have done. They passed the touchdown zone ( 1000' to 2000' ) and were still airborne!! They were obviously making sure of a smooth arrival.

I for one hope the ugly duckling flops.

HGW

28th Apr 2005, 04:11

ACMS
I am intrigued to know why you hope it flops.

ACMS

28th Apr 2005, 05:03

because it's an AIRBUS.

I have flown on them hundreds of times, from the A320 to the A346 and they are all a cheap piece of crap. Full stop.
If you want, comfort, reliability, good looks, and a solid performer in all respects buy BOEING.
The Airbus a/c in my large airline are terrible, the engineers hate them, the Pilots put up with all of their little problems and the pax hate them.
I have never been in a half decent landing in one either.

AIRBUS: built by a dummy, flown by a genius

BOEING: built by a genius, flown by a dummy

If that makes me a dummy, then so be it. :p

If it aint Boeing................

Laikim Liklik Susu

28th Apr 2005, 05:47

Well, I am not an Airbus lover either, but it sure did seem to want to fly. It could very well fly along the same priciples as a helicopter - it is so UGLY that the Earth repells it. :ok:

As I said in my post on this subject, it looks like a jet-powered Breguet 763 Deux-Ponts! Tres FUGLY!

Never looked it up - what is the base unit cost on these whales? Would it be cheaper for an airline to buy 2 B777's in lieu of one A380?

If it ain't Beoing, I ain't going, at least happily anyway!

When TAA and Airbus coined the phrase years ago for the A300, "Vive la differance", I wonder how profoundly prophetic they thought it may be?

amos2

28th Apr 2005, 09:27

Trogladite cretins, all of you!!! :ugh:

S'pose you still like manual throttle on take off too!!

Laikim Liklik Susu

28th Apr 2005, 09:33

Cretin from the cretaceous period sounds about right for yours truly.

v1rotate

28th Apr 2005, 09:40

If you want, comfort, reliability, good looks

I have to say that the A330 is the best looking airliner in the skies at the moment. It also looks great on the ground. I am still amazed at it's curvy lines when it taxis past me.

Airbus push the limits on technology and are continuously inovating. Boeing just push out the same thing even with the 777. I know alot of collegues who have flown both and say that they would never go back on the Boeing after they've had a spell in the Airbus.

Saying that, I am going on the 737 in the next few months but at least it's better than the noisy Fokker :ok:

Ultralights

28th Apr 2005, 10:22

what about from a PAX perspective? sure it flies well, (according to the paid test pilot) but imagine arriving at LAX on one of those, about 20 mins after 4 others have disembarked? imagine the chaos as 600 + pax jostle to find room in the overhead lockers?

OneBall...

28th Apr 2005, 11:23

Mon Kapitano...... the parachutes are definitely for pansies, which as we all know, all French are.

Wearing a parachute, as in WWI, may well reduce morale amongst the team and lead to premature "surrender" followed by costly abandonment of the aircraft. Better to make them ride it down like real men.

On the other hand, it may have something to do with the 1994 crash of an A330 aircraft during testing (engine-out go-arounds) which killed 7, including the Airbus chief test pilot. Parachutes would not have helped them but if they weren't in use beforehand, crashing a testbed would certainly be a good incentive to up the standards of safety a little further.

ACMS

28th Apr 2005, 15:49

There is a saying in the industry........."if it looks great it'll fly great". Or something like that anyway:ok:

You must be kidding about the A330 looking nicer than a 777?????? Have you actually seen them side by side????????:p

All Airbuses look boxy, the cockpit windows are not curvy like the 777 and don't flow. The wing has too many horribly large flap tracks sticking down and a winglet to improve the performance (which the 777 doesn't need) The leading edge devices "moan" on retraction and look "stuck on" as an after thought.
The landing gear are rough and on the 340 it actually has 4 touchdowns per landing!! While taxing in an Airbus the whole thing shakes and squeeks along, the overhead bins look as if they are about to fall off.

Just today one A330 had an APU fail just as he was about to push back!! and another had a double FM failure at 12 miles just before the ILS! capture! yuk

The ground engineers like to start the APU on the bus 30 mins before push back just in case it wont work, so as to give them time to get ground air ready. Apparently it is very unreliable. This is strange as we have the same APU on the 777 and it is VERY RELIABLE. Must be that the APU doesn't like Airbus either :8

The Airbus is built on the cheap, they use thinner aluminium than Boeing and this causes more maintenance, they cannot simply sand back any corrosion and must replace the skin.

The A346 had to have some of the main spar removed to save weight so as to make "spec" incredible

The more my Airbus mates tell me what goes on the more I don't want to fly one.

The only thing they got right was the sidestick and table. A small win I guess.

Roll on the 787, now that will be a great machine.

I know 3 or 4 Captains that have flown both and whilst they think the Bus is fine they would love to be back on the Boeing for it's reliability and simplicity of operation. Life for them was much quieter before!!

HotDog

28th Apr 2005, 16:21

ACMS, tough luck W:mad: R, it flew and looked beautiful and your bigoted attitude is not going to stop it!

v1rotate

28th Apr 2005, 16:52

I guess there's always going to be those that love BOEINGS and those that love AIRBUSES. I'm not fussed either way as long as I'm employed and flying in any of these.;)

ACMS,
You really think the 777 looks better? Guess we just have to dissagree on that one. Equipment fail on EVERY aircraft type not just Airbus but, Embraer, Boeing, Bae, Fokker etc. I know of plenty of flights on a 737 where the APU was U/S and had to wait for a GPU at the gate before shutting down .

I still think it was a great achievement for Airbus with the A380.

ACMS

29th Apr 2005, 02:11

I have been in this industry for 30+ years, I've seen quite a bit happen during that time. I've flown thousands of hour in the front and probably just as many down the back with quite a few different Airlines. So I think I should have a right to an informed opinion without some jerk calling me a W:mad: R !!

It's just that never in my life have I come across a fleet of A/C that seems to have one hell of a lot of snags pop up. Not just minor stuff either, ask the crew of Virgin Atlantic if they think 2 engines just failing in crz is minor!! Yep there is a problem with the fuel system on the 346, will Airbus actually fix it this time or will they just go on getting the crews to "work around" the problem. You see they are good at taking 10+ years to actually fix something, Boeing pull their fingers out and hey presto the problem is fixed. A good example is the RMI on the 330/340, not to mention nose wheel steering, wing anti ice, electronic checklists that are wrong etc etc etc........

Anyway enough of this, the 380 has flown. Time will tell if the Europeans can make an A/C on spec or not.

And don't as me to accept the 380 actually looks nice:confused:

oh and the reason the 380 only has 2 reversers? WEIGHT. They need to save in any way they can. WHY? to make the spec they promised the Airlines.

A famous Airbus response to a tech problem: "oh yes we know about this.........." really!! then why don't we?

The French have over engineered their A/C, quite simple really.

Lead Balloon

29th Apr 2005, 04:04

As I work in a Company that spends a lot of time as SLF in aircraft. The opinion of the most seasoned of travellers is that the airbuses are a much nicer plane to be in than the Boeing. I would have to agree that, most of the experiences on the top deck of the 747 leave a lot to be desired about luggage space, head room and noise.

Here in the states, they fly a lot of 340s and for the the 1 - 3 hour hops they are fantastically comfortable compared with the 73 or 767.

In the end - competition is good. And the consumer wins. I hope Airbus succeed with the long range consolidation of route hauler in the 380. I also love the smaller long range Boeing Jets - like the flight that SIA do between New York and Singapore.

On the airport congestion thing - a lot of that is beat up by US press supporting the Boeing line. I used to consult to the Immigration Departments of the US and Australia, and for at least 15 years now they have been improving and implementing systems to facilitate passenger movements at ever increasing numbers - whilst the airport infrastructure remains lagging or static. The biggest thing is going to be the provision of two unloading jet-bridges instead of one - chicken-feed compared with the $/seat/mile savings made by sending 1 380 to a destination instead of 2 747s.

Look at Qantas flights to LAX. Full to the brim every day with 6 flights daily! Whats the cost difference between sending 3-4 380s compared with 6 747s (I may be incorrect on capacity and qty, but you get te idea).

Laikim Liklik Susu

29th Apr 2005, 04:19

Pardon my ignorance, but what US airline uses A340's for domestic routes???????????????????????????

Pharcarnell

29th Apr 2005, 04:55

Just sounds like the old Holden/Ford argument for a better class of rev head.

Al E. Vator

29th Apr 2005, 05:25

Pharcarnell....thank you! Exactly right.

ACMS...I suspect your 30 years in the industry may have fried your poor old brains! If not, then you will recall the following.

737: Rudders that simply decide to slam against the stops. This alone has killed more passengers than any Airbus defect.
747: Centre Tank fuel pumps that explode when switched on. Not a pleasant experience for the punters.
757: Generates more wake turbulence than an aircraft twice it's size. Cessna 172's can't get airborne for 24 hours after one of these things flies past!
767: Something was aRse-up with that thing, can't remember what. Not fun to fly in as a pax either on a flight over 3 hours.
Sonic Cruiser: Looked good - on paper.
787: Looked good on paper. Then it was redesigned now it looks pretty much like any other aircraft. Not sure about an
entirely plastic fuselage either. No good out at Alice! Good to see Boeing being innovative though.
Also...... Airbus aren't French.

Got to agree though that Airbus are just as arrogant as Boeing when is comes to listening to customers. The manuals are crap and there are as you said too many defects allowed to go on forever.

Bring back Douglas!

Laikim Liklik Susu

29th Apr 2005, 06:20

HERE HERE! BRING BACK DOUGLAS (preferrably without the McDonnell add-on). Boeing went down in my esteem the day they swallowed McDD. :{

When all the whizz-bang Wonderliners and Scarebuses have gone to the Big Smelter in Arizona, no doubt, SOMEWHERE, a DC-3, or even a DC-9 will still be soldiering away.

gaunty

29th Apr 2005, 09:30

Laikim and then there is the best of them all, the DC10, flying in one felt like you were in an aircraft, carved out of solid granite if you know what I mean.:ok: :)

From a distance didn't look all that much different than a Whizbang 123 until you put some scale on it.:uhoh:

Laikim Liklik Susu

29th Apr 2005, 09:50

I always liked comparing the fuselages of the DC9 to the 737 (not that we had much time for comparison before even TATA's sold off the Deisel). The DC9 had a smooth, rigid looking skin. No wrinkles. The brand spanking new 737-300's had the wrinkled "Boeing Nose" from the get go, that just continued to wrinkle more with a gusty breeze going around it at M0.82 :p

A DC9 going U/S was indeed a hang of a lot less compared to the Boeing products. Douglas got the bugs out before they sold it to you. Additionally, because of lower unserviceability, undoubtedly it was NOT good for the Douglas spare parts after-sales department, unlike Boeing continually sending out revisions, alterations, addenda and poodenda :p

I think I made an error though in the Smelter in Arizona quip - Scarebus will likely be stripped of all the plastic first, leaving enough aluminium to make a milk bottle top, if you are lucky :p

The DC10 was a brick. Only ever flew ON on once, and it was a pleasure to fly in. One did feel safe, enclosed in that THICK Douglas aliuminium clading! Cargo doors aside, what an aeroplane, that will undoubtedly outlast the 707 in the tanker role.

18-Wheeler

29th Apr 2005, 11:20

Tsk, tsk ....

737: Rudders that simply decide to slam against the stops. This alone has killed more passengers than any Airbus defect.
---

This is the only one that's worth mentioning.

747: Centre Tank fuel pumps that explode when switched on. Not a pleasant experience for the punters.
----

Because of poor maintenance, not a design fault.

757: Generates more wake turbulence than an aircraft twice it's size. Cessna 172's can't get airborne for 24 hours after one of these things flies past!
----

So? How on earth does that make 757's more dangerous to the people that travel on them?

767: Something was aRse-up with that thing, can't remember what. Not fun to fly in as a pax either on a flight over 3 hours.
----

So the seat pitch that the airline chooses is the fault of Boeing now?

Sonic Cruiser: Looked good - on paper.
---

And for productivity. No doubt many airlines would buy it if it were made, but I don't think there was quite enough for Boeing to start production.
It's one of the reasons why Cargolux bought -400's to replace the -200's as they worked out with the extra speed/range they could make a lot more money per month with them.

787: Looked good on paper. Then it was redesigned now it looks pretty much like any other aircraft. Not sure about an entirely plastic fuselage either. No good out at Alice! Good to see Boeing being innovative though.
---

So looks are important to the safety of an airliner? tell me how that works?
I too am concerned about the longevity of the composite fuselage, but if anyone is to make them work it will be Boeing.

Lurk R

29th Apr 2005, 11:35

Compared to the Beluga its beautiful!

gaunty

29th Apr 2005, 12:03

18-Wheeler

I too am concerned about the longevity of the composite fuselage, but if anyone is to make them work it will be Boeing me three.

Maybe they should talk to Raytheon or the Beech people who did the ALL composite Starship, it basically brought the original Beech company undone which is why it is now owned by Raytheon.

The only way they could get em out of the factory was to lease them and they subsequently and only recently have taken them all back and scrapped em.

IMHO Boeing are betting the farm if they go all composite. They don't need to right now and they can go incremental on it.

Lurk R

29th Apr 2005, 12:15

ACMS...I suspect your 30 years in the industry may have fried your poor old brains! If not, then you will recall the following.

737: Rudders that simply decide to slam against the stops. This alone has killed more passengers than any Airbus defect.
747: Centre Tank fuel pumps that explode when switched on. Not a pleasant experience for the punters.
757: Generates more wake turbulence than an aircraft twice it's size. Cessna 172's can't get airborne for 24 hours after one of these things flies past!
767: Something was aRse-up with that thing, can't remember what. Not fun to fly in as a pax either on a flight over 3 hours.
Sonic Cruiser: Looked good - on paper.
787: Looked good on paper. Then it was redesigned now it looks pretty much like any other aircraft.

You must admit though - Airbus makes a better tree trimmer than Black & Decker!

Al E. Vator

29th Apr 2005, 12:22

.....silly, silly, silly....

about as relevant as saying it was a Boeing defect that caused aircraft to fly into the World Trade Centre.

Apples with Apples.........

Laikim Liklik Susu

29th Apr 2005, 12:24

Now, that's a low blow. Effective, yet low!

Maybe a better quip would be that Michel Asseline makes a very good lumber-jack... :p

MarkD

29th Apr 2005, 14:52

Lurk R

767s: side by side LD3s not designed in gifted much cargo money to 330 operators.

ACMS

30th Apr 2005, 02:47

I agree that Boeing have made some silly decisions with their fleet commonality, the whole fleet should have a common 777 style flight deck. And the 767 wont take LD3 containers etc etc.
These are facts, however what I am amazed with is the Airbus day to day stuff ups, reliability, maintenance issues etc.

The 777-300 ER ( of which Air France where the launch customer, quite a kick in the butt for Airbus hey ) has come out way ahead of spec. Has an Airbus ever? or an MD11 ever? mmm NO

The Air France guys I speak to in NRT ( both Pilots and Engineers )
Love their 300 ER's. "Best A/C they have ever introduced"

Anyway I wont be able to get rid of those woeful Airbus plastic jets ( The world's first disposable Jet ) So I may as well just give up.

I'd just like to have a crystal ball and see how todays 330/340 are doing in 15 years time? will they be recycled by then?

Mr.Buzzy

30th Apr 2005, 04:26

747: Centre Tank fuel pumps that explode when switched on. Not a pleasant experience for the punters.

One of these accidents still has all the JFK coverup smells about it. Watch this space.

bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

F/O Bloggs

30th Apr 2005, 04:55

Airbus! Boeing!, you folks have it way wrong. If you want the ultimate airliner, you can't go past the British Aerospace line of aircraft.

Now really, the 146 series, how good. Rugged, quiet, good handling, and thats just the pilots.

No the a380 is just a poor, overgrown copy of a 146.

;)

Blip

30th Apr 2005, 06:44

B737 Pilot: "What's for lunch?"
A320 Pilot: "What's it doing now?"
BAE146 Pilot: "What's that smell?"

Laikim Liklik Susu

30th Apr 2005, 07:21

B737 pilot: "Can they make this thing any easier to fly? YAWN. If you can't fly a 737 you are a RETARD!"

A320 pilot: " Retard? This damned Airbus keeps telling me I am a retard at 10 feet AGL! Why won't it let ME be pilot? I'll give YOU retard Scarebus!"

BAe146 pilot: "You want retard???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M FLYING ONE!"

Airbus gives you the side stick so you can PRETEND you are flying it. Takes away the stigma of accidentally being labelled a computer programmer, and not a pilot...

F/O Bloggs

30th Apr 2005, 07:31

Someone once told me:

Boeing aircraft: Built by geniuses to be flown by idiots

Airbus aircraft: Built by idiots to be flown by geniuses

British Aerospace aircraft: Built by the confused to be flown by the perplexed.

:p

ACMS

30th Apr 2005, 09:17

F/O Bloggs: exactly

New Airbus Pilot "what's it doing now?"

Old Airbus Pilot "it's doing it again"

There are approx 40 different modes available on the 777 MCP
There are approx 90 different modes available on the Bus.

They crashed one A320 at Air Inter because the poor driver set 3.2 He was trying to get 3.2 deg FPA but the small print on the LCD display showed FPM. Now if Mr Airbus had just displayed it in '000 FPM ( 3,200 FPM ) like Boeing a lot of people would still be around today.

A small example of the way they design things in France, the Pilot is an afterthought and must adapt.

Training Capts on the Bus hate not knowing what the F/O is actually doing with the stick, until it's too late. And the throttle detents ....................ahhhhhhhhhhhhh They have caused a few accidental missed approaches too.

Al E. Vator

30th Apr 2005, 10:23

....er...yoohoo...the Airbus isn't French.

Also, anything descending at 3200fpm as at Habsheim is destined for problems!
It's just another aeroplane.
If you don't like the fancy stuff (which provides various degrees of protection to prevent buffoons from bingling) then turn it off. Then it's just like a Cessna if that's what you want.

Actually (unusually for Airbus) they then listened to crews after Habsheim and modified the display to differentiate between fpm and FPA.

Having used the stuff it's pretty damn good actually.

Boeing slagged off at FBW then incorporated it into the 777! Not only that they didn't get sidesticks and trays, the best bit of FBW.

Best thing with the 777 though, the throttles move!

Bring back Lockheed!

Capn Bloggs

1st May 2005, 00:03

Al E Vator,
Incorrect reference old son. Habshiem was a poser who stuffed it up. The 3200fpm/3.2deg was an Air Inter aircraft doing an NPA.

The point remains though that Airbus should never have designed the FPM display as they did, and it killed many.

Bloggs,
From what I have seen so far of a certain "competing type" , the poms haven'tt done such a bad job with the Hushpuppy, considering it was designed 30 years ago, gassings and airframe-ant ice use (totally unwarranted, IMO) not withstanding...

Capt Claret

1st May 2005, 03:54

For all the denigration of the Airbus product the only engineer I know who's worked on them (A320 ex AN) raves about them .... in a very positive light

MarkD

1st May 2005, 05:19

ACMS re AF773ER

Have you read this?
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=8146682&src=rss/businessNews

Quite a stuff-up by either AF or ADP but it seems quite late in the day for this to "come up".

frangatang

3rd May 2005, 06:37

The 777 shakes and rattles on the ground as if it were an old aztec with thinner skin. The BAC111 was built out of a solid
lump of aluminium,hence it gripped the ground for quite a while.

ACMS

3rd May 2005, 14:02

Capt Claret: I know a lot more engineers that have worked on both types and they nearly all ( 1 in Osaka prefers the bus because he has a lot more time with them ) prefer the Boeing product. When a 777 comes up with a Status Msg there is a 90% chance the defect is real. However on the Bus the chance of it being real is around 20%. The number of erroneous intermittant Msg's on the Bus is amazing. The A320 does seems to be the best out of a bad bunch however.

Frangatang: Well it's obvous you haven't been in an Airbus.

MarkD: I hadn't seen anything on that before, interesting that AF could miss that piece of vital data. That is not the 777's fault though. I think that the A340-500 and 600 would be in a similar postion with their ACN.

if it ain't Boeing.............