A380 - combined threads

[slice]

AFAIK the landing gear is generally not retracted on the first few test flights. I imagine the logic being that if the U/C is retracted and then has some sort of a problem and will not extend you then have a damaged (at best) aircraft that will throw your development schedule out by months. If you do as much of the flight testing as possible with gear out you get as much done before introducing the additional risk of undercarriage problems - risk management.

[White Knight]

Looked jolly good - come on yanks, get your runways ready:ok:

[Mode7]

AVeight don't talk c**p. it's 3:30 in the US now, as if Boeing are going to be up in a panic - get a life

[A-FLOOR]

Mode7: I would be surprised if they wouldn't be watching with us ;)

[Parapunter]

Now I know. Well done Airbus, a little bit of history created today:ok:

[seacue]

Takeoff was 01:30 in Boeingland. 04:30 here on the US east coast.

Nice takeoff, but what else would one expect in these days of powerful simulation of every step along the way?

And a great deal of thanks to Rev Lovejoy who posted the link to the BBC live feed.

[AVeight]

Mode7

Firstly - Don't insult me. I don't take kindly to be talked to like that especially when I have been polite myself.

Secondly - If you think that Boeing Executives have not been watching it fly for the first time then you are the one talking cr@p!

[cnsnz]

aveight
well said

[pumuckl]

Some Pictures are here:

some pictures (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4488613.stm)

p. :D

[Irish Steve]

Should'nt they get the wheels up?!!

According to the comments of one of the test pilots on Sky, ( great coverage) the plan is to fly for the first half hour at least with the gear and flaps down, and at that stage, they make a decision if it's go or no go for the remainder of the plan of the day. If it's go, then he suggested that's the point where things like flaps and gear will be retracted, but only when they are comfortable with the handling characteristics so far. Reason he gave is that if they have any sort of problem, the aircraft is already in landing configuration, so it's not such an issue to get it back on the ground again. Makes sense to me.

On a different subject, Sky active showed the take off a second time shortly after the real thing, and it was "interesting" to watch the wings start to fly before the gear left the ground, the amount of flex is amazing:D

Not quite the same as watching the test flights of the white dart,;) but still impressive non the less.

I wish it and everyone invovlved well

[panda-k-bear]

Just seen it go (from the end of the runway in TLS). Impressive.

Well done Airbus, well done Rolls.

[WindSheer]

What time is it due down???

[Stan Sted]

Great coverage on a dedicated Sky News Active channel. They showed non-stop views of the aircraft, nice shots from a chopper and NO commentary, with only a few localised mikes picking up chit chat from watching workers.
Be great if they do the same for the flypast and landing later.

[afterdark]

Superb .... look forward to first flight on it or even seeing it

[Start1]

Awesome! It looked like an effortless take-off and I love the geometry of those wings.

Well done Airbus. Can't wait to see it land.

Start1

[panda-k-bear]

Rumour control predicting landing at 14.00 local.

[WindSheer]

Just looked at the comparison to the 747 on the CNN site.

It makes the 'jumbo's' wingspan look like a sparrow.

Well done airbus!! Those test pilots must have been wearing huge nappies!:D

[Stan Sted]

A French TV channel has apparently given out the following information. (Times are local)



Flight time is 4h to 5h depending on success (could be much shorter if
problems). Hence following timings subject to change but

- 14h00 low pass over runway with go-around (if weather and aircraft
condition permits)

- 14h15 landing then taxi up and down the runway and taxiways on the
Airbus side of the airfield

- 14h45 press ceremony

- 16h15 aircraft towed back to the Abreuvoir .

[Jordan D]

First photo already up on Airliners.net

Available at :

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/825948/M
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/825948/M

Jordan

[afterdark]

Tim Clark President of Emirates looks elated at the first flight of the A380 said they will be getting aircraft in November 2006 and passengers wont have to pay a premium to fly on it being so fuel efficient it will probably lower air fares on long haul routes.

[hanx]

Two more pics:

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,464234,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,464177,00.jpg


http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,grossbild-464234-353643,00.html

(Sorry, text in german only)

Congratulations to all involved!


:ok:



(Edited by Heliport)

[panda-k-bear]

Gear's now up according to local media.

[Sid Departure]

You can watch the first flight live on this web link
http://www.airbus.com/A380/Seeing/live/video/live.asx

[Algy]

Yup, gear's up. Telemetry/chase aircraft report no snags so far.
Landing 12:30-14:30 local (GMT+2)

[Kalium Chloride]

Ummm, Airbus "nationality" seems to change with target markets in my limited experience. Sometimes it British, sometimes French and sometimes its the second cousin to a Mercedes Benz.



In keeping with the philosophy of sports commentators, if it flies it's British, if it doesn't it's French.

[panda-k-bear]

A German friend of mine once told me that it was the French who made Concorde look beautiful, but it was the British that made it fly...

[JimmyTAP]

I knew we wouldn't have wait long.

A380 first flight photo (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/825948/L/ )

A380 first flight photo (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/825947/L/ )

Nice photos

JT

[slice]

Well if the gear is up I was talking a load of crap then!!!:\

[lasernigel]

Well done to all involved.:ok: Shame the BBC could only credit the UK for making the wings.Maybe someone should have told them it had Rolls Royce engines on it.:ok:

[panda-k-bear]

All being well, fly-by 14.00 followed by landing at 14.15.

[FlyboyUK]

panda is that local or GMT?

[Toulouse]

I have to admit it... one of the most moving moments in my life. After one hous waiting under the warm Toulouse morning sun, surrounded by part of the now estimated 60000 spectators (not including the 17000 Airbus employees in Toulouse), when I heard her engines come into action and right in front of my eyes saw her left off as the thousands of people broke out in a simultaneous and moving round of applause (and me snapping some 28 photos in a about a minute)... I admit a tear came to my eye.

As I'm sure you heard, take off (from time when brakes were released) took 25 seconds (which appears to have suprised both experts and Airbus itself, who had expected it to be a little longer). Flew north west, then headed along the northern ridge of the Pyrenees. Now probably over the Atlantic. Undercarriage retracted after about 25 minutes. Crew reported all as normal and admitted to be feeling quite happy. ETA of arrival back at Toulouse Blagnac currently 14:30 local time (GMT+2).

And, I also admit, while I kept it rather silent, I have had my doubts about weather I liked the 380 for her looks, but as she lifted off and entered her true environment (the blue sky), she looked quite impressive, I may even dare to say graceful, yet that may just be becuase how extatic I felt.

Good luck A380...

[panda-k-bear]

To Flyboy - that's local (I'm one of the lucky ones to be seeing it in front of me - thank-you Airbus!). Crew due to disembark at 14.30.

[AVeight]

Pilot speaking live on Sky News......says take-off was perfect!

[Jetavia]

How come almost the entire flighttest crew is French? There must surely be british and german flighttest pilots able to do the job.. or is it due to the french regarding Airbus as being a french concept/company and therefore must have only french pilots for the first flight?

[oncemorealoft]

"Pilot speaking live on Sky News......says take-off was perfect!"

Has there ever been an instance where I first flight test pilot has been quoted as saying anything else!?

Not trying to 'dis' the mighty beast but these sort of quotes are about as insightful as sex education in a convent school!

[Toulouse]

Jetavia,

I'm really sure Airbus didn't think... "Oh wee are ze Franch companiee zo wee must ony use zee Franch test pilots".

I suppose they just they just who picked who they considered best for the first test flight. I know there is definitely a Spaniard on board, and possible a German and British person. Test pilot and co pilot are French though.

[AVeight]

Jetavia I think that a British pilot is due to take the baby up for its second flight

[hanx]

According to the airbus-website there are 4 flight engineers on board, two from france, one from spain (vice president flight test division) and one from germany.

[hadagutful]

Saw take-off on the evening news, bit like a larger 747.

For me too slow and too big, not a bar on the Concorde.

Incidentally, 2 pilots to fly it but for goodness sake how many cabin crew will it need for safety and customer service? Especially with 800 pax !!?

[Mad Engineer]

I know there is definitely a Spaniard on board

Right. The flight test engineer in charge of today's flight, and actually on board the aircraft, is from Spain. His name is Fernando Alonso (like the, also spaniard, F1 driver winner of the last GPs) and in addition, he is the Vice President of the Flight Test Department in Airbus.

[AIRWAY]

Ummm, Airbus "nationality" seems to change with target markets in my limited experience. Sometimes it British, sometimes French and sometimes its the second cousin to a Mercedes Benz.

Well, when it comes to the subsidies Airbus has several nationalities :} :O :E Then it's French :hmm:

[catchup]

Undercarriage of te A380 will be produced in the US.

Guess where u/c of BOEING'S Dreamliner 787 is produced?












In France.......

Regards

[WindSheer]

Boeing have spent years dissing this a/c.

Its now up, its bigger and better. I wonder if the same will be said of the A350. They are dissing that already, lets see what happens.

Anything with Welsh wings on it IS A WINNER!!!:ok:

[Static Charge]

Great technology accomplishment --- but I still can't get excited about flying in an airplane with 800 people --- the screening line, the baggage stowage, the check-in. Not for me.

[WindSheer]

It will be like queing for an FA cup final!:D

[Miles Hi]

Not if you support Chelsea......

[JamesT73J]

I know it may not be as spectacular as Concorde, but in terms of an engineering endeavour I was very impressed. I always visualised a lumbering, clumsy takeoff, but in reality it was pretty spritely, completely different to how I imagined.

The British test pilot (not on the first flight crew) was given a vox interview on Sky and I actually felt sorry for him that he was watching rather than doing this morning.

[Panman]

Looks like air to air imagtes coming up on the airbus live stream link.

[ORAC]

I always visualised a lumbering, clumsy takeoff, but in reality it was pretty spritely, completely different to how I imagined.


4-5 hours worth of fuel, no pax and only 20 tons of test gear.

[panda-k-bear]

Plus a lot of water ballast...

[Localiser Green]

4-5 hours worth of fuel, no pax and only 20 tons of test gear.

But as I understand, the engines are also de-rated at present, they will only be rated to their design thrust later in the test program.

And I think they would have more than 1 hours fuel continegncy for the 4 hour test flight, more like 6-8 hours FOB?

[Raggyman]

I wonder if the Internet had existed how many people would have been discussing the latest visit to the hardware shop by the Wright brothers, "You want to do what!! with cloth, wood and sting?, That will never work".

Besides, always like the saying, you put enough power behind something, you can guarantee it will fly.

I honestly don't know what the big commotion is about whether or not this thing would fly, and especially comments from the Boeing camps, the whole US - Europe thing is honestly just stupid. If you take all that BS out of the equation, it is a step forward, great that it is flying, and it is an amazing engineering feat. Mind you probably not that amazing when you really think about it as there are much larger planes flying. Ok, it has two decks, but is it really that radically different? If you are thinking that it is radically different, I would like to ask what you think makes it radically different to the other aircraft that are flying today? If it had been designed to carry passengers in the wing, then yeah, I think that I would have reservations that it would fly as it is expected.

I am however a little afraid of composites in the manufacture of aircraft, but then again, the company who built the first metal airframe probably coped the same flack. I guess time will tell.

Anyhow, my congratulations to the engineering team, construction and the rest of the Airbus team, where ever you are. Think you should be proud of your achievement, whether you are French, Bristish, Spanish, German or Martian.

[Queenslander]

747FOCAL, you have been VERY quiet, anything wrong………oops silly me, I forgot, it’s not a boeing………:p

[wub]

Sky News journo interviewing British test pilot just before first take off:

"I understand one of the pilots has a background in acrobatics, I don't expect we'll see much of that today?"

British TP: "Er, no...."

Where do they get these people?

Well done Airbus, now produce a stretched version that will look right.

[JamesT73J]

Raggyman,

I think it's just the sheer scale of it. Those of us outside of the profession tend to be awed first and think of the four forces later, whereas I expect most aviation professionals would look at the A380 with a more practiced eye.

It's just nice to be excited about something this, well, cool!

[BRS_Dispatch]

Just watched the Sky News report again and the reporter said
Boeing were very impressed......
Then she corrected herself to say Airbus.

The only word I can find to discribe the take off is awsome. Simply awsome.

[Raggyman]

wub - Yeah, it is very painful. I often wonder where these News Channels get their presenters from. Was worse during the Tsunami... was half expecting a comment along the lines of, "So it was a wave bigger than what you would normally get on the coast?"

Anyhow, always best to mute the sound and make up your own commentary, you would probably come out the other side alot more informed than the dribble they carry on with.

Any Australians would know Roy and HG, wonder how they would have covered it. Definitely would have been interesting.

[panda-k-bear]

I'm sure Boeing were very impressed too.

Weren't they FOCAL?

[Raggyman]

JamesT73J - Yeah, the scale of it is pretty amazing. I noticed from the photo how much dust was stired up just as it is taking off. Definitely going to be interesting if you are a plane taking off after it, they might have to wait a while for the dust to settle, especially in a place that has just gone through a drought.

Just for interest, does a 747 stir up as much dust? Admittedly it isn't alot of dust, but then again is TLS a wet place?

[NigelOnDraft]

Airbus site says took off at 421T (v MTOW 560T) - and says that is highest civil airliner weight (Boeing quotes -400 at 397T)

[afterdark]

the in flight video updates from chase aircraft and air to air shots are great on sky news

great publicity set up by airbus udating as we go along

this must be the most media covered aircraft's first flight , ever in the history of aviation... ( or in europe anyway )and the threads of will it ...wont it ,get off the ground

cant wait to see the fly past and the landing to see if it as uneventfull and smooth as first take off

[Panman]

Air to Air stream just finished, something like 40 minutes of video, saw the undercarriage retract and a few maneuvers with flaps extended before stream finished.

[airship]

Did they roll it yet?

Boeing impressed a lot of folks when they did that with the 707... :O

[catchup]

@airship

Yes, that's why the video stream finished. Top secret.

:cool:

[cascade07]

...how about a cuban eight or a victory roll....!!!!!!

[panda-k-bear]

Must run - got to get back to my pitch cos she's coming in any time in the next 20 minutes or so!

[rotornut]

Check out the video at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4488361.stm

[Shamjet]

Can't wait to see the fly by>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here she comes>>>>>>>>>>>

Here she comes>>>>>>>>>>>

Here she comes>>>>>>>>>>>

[Maniac618]

Just seen the news on the 1 o'clock news.

It could have 840 seats!

Damn :ok:

[Shamjet]

Wow, That was awesome!

Now for the landing>>>>>>>>>>
So Graceful and dominant in the turn
hope its a greaser!

[swh]

Nice landing :ok:

[Capt.KAOS]

Flawless landing.

A dream debute!!

Well done Airbus!

:ok: :ok: :ok:

[EC-YKA]

Graceful...great achievement, congrats to all involved

[Globaliser]

And thanks to PPRuNe for all the news, times, etc. as it's been coming.

It's been great to watch!

[MonarchA330]

Any reason it landed half way down the runway? Did they mean to do that or was it just the noraml reasons for a floated landing?

[380FOCAL]

In that film, it looks a lot like a 747...except BIGGER (and better) :E

[Irish Steve]

Did they mean to do that or was it just the noraml reasons for a floated landing?

At a guess, given that people earlier had expressed "surprise" at how quickly it got airborne, maybe it's generating more lift than they expected, so a light aircraft (in comparison) and more lift, given they were not about to bring the speed right back = float:D

it was noticable that they were a lot more aggressive with the roll rates and bank angles than when it first launched.

All in all, impressive, and maybe at last europe's aviation industry can start to hold it's head even higher.

[panda-k-bear]

Congratulations to all involved!

Great day - beautiful landing!

As for floating - most of the aircraft coming down both of the runways have been floating today - it's been quite noticeable.

Off for champers now!

[Capt.KAOS]

Noticed the forward pitch of the landing gear.

http://photos.airliners.net/middle/8/4/9/825948.jpg

777 pitch backwards

[etrang]

She certainly looks much better flying than on the ground. Just imagine what the stretched version will be like.

[Wedge]

Fantastic stuff! Congrats to all involved!

The flight looks to have been a great success. Absolutely delighted!

[hold at SATAN]

A sight to behold. Let's hope it works better than the Airbus PA systems. You'd think they'd test the microphones beforehand.

Can't wait for it to make it's first flight from heathrow... I wonder it gets it's own vortex wake category.

[Greek God]

Impressive achievement but it's not going to win any beauty pageants!

[White Knight]

Actually, I thought it looked damn fine in the air and clean:cool:

[flybywire]

Yes, a bit like a flying elephant ;)

[DC10RealMan]

We should start a betting syndicate to try and guess what reason/reasons the Americans will use to stop it flying into the US airports. I shall start with either it is "too big" or "too ugly"

[ShenziRubani]

Fantastic! Awesome! Amazing! Great great great! Congrats to all and to the crew.

[gibney85]

Didnt LAX already accept the A380 and is preparing for it?

[Globaliser]

MonarchA330: Any reason it landed half way down the runway? Did they mean to do that or was it just the noraml reasons for a floated landing?A bit later I saw a replay from the camera mounted at the far end of the runway. It looked like she was descending at a constant rate, then flared at whatever feet height, and then descended at a much reduced but constant rate to touchdown.

I don't know anything about flying these aircraft, but to this untrained eye it looked like it was intentional. (In my business, where impressions are just about everything, that's good enough for me ... :D )

[MyData]

Have just passed mine and other's congratulations to colleagues working in Toulouse. The sense of history, achievement and relief is almost palpable in their responses.

Well done to all!

[M!KE]

If you look at the Airbus web site, they have updated it and along side the A380 first flight videos, they have added the first flight videos for all of their aircraft . (Except the Beluga)

The A300 FF from back in 1972 looks a bit wobbly when it comes into land, nowhere near as graceful as the 380.

M!KE

[B Fraser]

Well done Britain for the wings and engines, well done to the lesser European nations for the tube that keeps them apart ;)


....... only kidding :ok:

[jay_hl]

Sorry,

Im not trawling throught the entire thread, but can anyone tell me if there is a recording or the live feed shown again.

Ive seen the bbc video (short and sweet) but was wondering if anyone have the airbus live streaming of it recorded.

Thx

Jay

[A-FLOOR]

Vids of the flyby and landing, courtesy of our friends at A.net:

http://www.leebrompton.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/A380_Fly_By.wmv

http://www.leebrompton.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/A380_Landing.wmv

:ok:

[jay_hl]

Thanks,

but any of the take off.

Thx again

Jay

[MonarchA330]

Go to the Airbus website, they have loads of vids. www.airbus.com

M330

[Smoketoomuch]

What UK airports are preparing to handle it?

[mikeyuk]

I'm pretty sure manchester is :D

[747FOCAL]

Heathrow and Toulouse..........:E

Whats that.....about a 30 minute flight??? Plus 3 hours to board and 3 hours to disembark at the other end and claim your luggage...........:E

Where you at 380Focal?

[MonarchA330]

Ahh, was waiting for the 747FOCAL banter to begin! Come on, let's all have a laugh :D

[DocJacko]

So glad 747Focal is back! His entertainment value cannot be overemphasized.

[luc]

Good night 747focal
sweet dreams...

[Irish Steve]

Whats that.....about a 30 minute flight??? Plus 3 hours to board and 3 hours to disembark at the other end and claim your luggage...........

Didn't take that long when EI used 747's and 330's for a few rotations over the Christmas period DUB - LHR. Depends on how much the operator is prepared to pay for handling, if they are a cheap skate operator, and go for low cost handling, that's what they will get, if they pay for a full crew and the equipment, then it happens a lot more rapidly.

Matters not if it's a 747, 767, 777, A300, A330, A340 or A380. You can add DC10's MD11's and any other bin loaded wide body you like to the list.

[speedbirdzerozeroone]

When A380 took off today did anyone else think in their heads…? (in a mock Raymond Baxter voice):

‘….and, she flies……’

…..just me then?



001

……..praise be, a moment of silence for Concorde……

[Johnman]

Great day for aviation . Congratulation to all involved.Looking FWD to fly it.

[Flightluuvr]

well i'll be damned. it really does fly! :eek:

[Smudger]

Interesting posts so far, so much bull**** , interposed with some well informed contributions from those who know what they are talking about.. a marvellous day for civil aviation, sincere congratulations to all involved in the A 380; I am not at all biased, I fly Boeing for a living, but I know progress when I see it. Come on guys, we all enjoyed seeing that big bastard getting airborne, just admit it!!

[747FOCAL]

Yes, the fat lady can sing.........:ok:

[RadAlt]

Very impressive sight, it's absolutely huge!! But what a sore to the eye. Such an ugly duckling compared to the swan of the skies, her little sister A330!:)

[Photo]

001

Not just you:ok:

[Gunship]

Congratulations Airbus and all the sub's involved putting this great machine together.

Amazing how CNN keeps on showing useless info re the Dreamliner - Wonder how much Boeing paid for the " add " :E

PS: I love her .. only real problem I have is to see her 5 maybe 10 .. well who cares 12 m longer. :E

Is the " stretched version" a joke or reality ?

Cheers Airbus and Europe Aviation :ok:

[Jordan D]

Speedbird 001 - I had that thought as well. And boy did she fly.

Jordan

[ww1]

Wow, pigs really do fly! But it really was quite impressive in the air. I noticed that the main gear bogeys tilt forward, tippy-toe'd like the b767. A mate of mine says the 67's bogeys tilt forward due to clearance issues with the cargo bay/doors. Anyone know the reason for the 380's config?

[Vee One...Rotate]

I like the new "Seeing Is Believing." slogan on the Airbus website. Sounds as if they were just as surprised/amazed to see the A380 get of the ground as quite a few of us! :O

Been at work all day so only now able to kick back and have a look at all of these vids...

Very impressed so far...

V1R :ok:

[25F]

Looks a lot better in the air - there's a bird with big wings!

[Jerricho]

Whats that.....about a 30 minute flight

Come on PornKingFocal. That the best you got?

[747FOCAL]

I think I am beginning to sense a little bit of animosity there Jerricho..... Mrs. focal thinks it is "bits" envy. :E

Me, I think your just trying to bait me. But you and I know thats not going to work. :E

[AAIGUY]

Ok ..who really cares. Its a plane. In 10 years someone will build something equally new. Whatever. Just another tube someone is going to lock me in 10-15hrs keep me from home.

ITS ONLY A PLANE

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Its a plane. In 10 years someone will build something equally new

Sorry, but this is not just another plane.

Congrats to all involved, you made history today.
So good to see what the human race is capable of with focussed minds. :ok: :ok:

[Dude~]

Airbus.com has a great video clip showing the gear retraction. Has anybody eles noticed that the main body gear bogies, the 6 wheelers, appear to retract directly upwards rather than folding either sideways or forwards like most airliners.

How the hell do they do that?!

[missioncontrol]

Congratulations to the whole Airbus Team at Toulouse and Filton...........your flying machine flies.

A moment in time to be savoured.

[fastjet2k]

ITS ONLY A PLANE

Sorry, last time I checked this was an aviation website frequented by aviation professionals..... what do you expect people to be talking about besides the first flight of the world's newest and largest passenger jet?

Good on you Airbus, you've just proved a lot of people wrong...

[foxmoth]

fj2k, quite agree, don't know what AAIGUY is on this site for with that sort of comment - or is he one of those jouno "spies"?:uhoh:

[nosefirsteverytime]

Alright, I now will never buy a tabloid again.

I don't buy the Sun because it's racist.
I don't buy the (Irish) Star because it uses words like "Mad Mullah MacDowell"
And now if you look at page 14 of the Mirror, you'll see why I will never buy another copy.
*Hint: look at the thread I've posted my rant in*

Anyways, to bring things back on track, what did you all make of the pics in the newspapers? I liked the one the Irish Independent has. A great shot.

[panda-k-bear]

Bahrainlad,

Not to mention the viability of such ludicrous routes. I'm looking forward to the Boeing 787 service from Doncaster Robin Hood to Bakersfield California, or maybe I'll go to La Paz. Loony - absolutley loony! You'd be lucky to fill a Cessna Citation once a week with people wanting to go to these destinations!

Indi - Bremen is just as loopy, quite frankly.

[McAero]

Could you give us a clue? I don't buy the Mirror anyway.

:)

[Ontariotech]

I am a boeing fan, never bought into the joystick controller, wheel thingy, nintendo gamepad type whatever. Always liked the stick between my legs, if you know what I mean.

I just saw the video for the first time here on AIrbus.com and WOW....absolutly awesome.

It is BIG, it sounds big, looks big and it is going to be a great airliner for any airline.


Good Job AIrbus.:ok:

[xetroV]

I don't know about the pics in the (british) newspapers, but I like this pic on PlanePictures, showing the news helicopter hovering behind the A380's tail:

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=327562

[Duff beer]

just heard on the BBC that;

"The new Robin Hood airport is the only airport in the UK, outside of London, that is capable of handling the new A380".

surely this cant be correct!

Anyone care to prove me right/wrong?

[nosefirsteverytime]

They sandwiched the news on page 14, with 3/4 the width and the whole length taken up by an ad for Currys, and a full-page nissan ad on page 15.

But they then go and use a stock image of a Beluga silouetted against the sun with the caption "TAKE- OFF: Airbus A380 yesterday" I'm disappointed. :ugh: :ugh:

As for the Irish Independent, that has to be the best I've seen so far. spectators in foreground, hands and baseball hats in air, then the Airbus with the chaseplane alongside. Fantastic.

[McAero]

It's true. The new runway is 2 miles long and is "potentially" the only airport outside London which could take the A380 just now.

[Raggyman]

panda-k-bear - wonder how interesting it would be to have a mystery flight on a A380. Could you imagine having probably the whole population of a small village on a plane just turn up to the airport get on the plane and set course for an equally out of the way place. Maybe the A380 can become part of the new upwardly mobile trailer park crowd. Obviously Airbus haven't thought about that new possible market boom.

[the_flying_cop]

the runway may be long enough, but (and i dont wish to deride the new robin hood enterprise) does it have the infrastructure to deal with the aircraft once it has left the runway and approaches the terminal - yes i know its 18 months away yet but im just adding a bit of food for thought.


TFC

[McAero]

I don't think that was the point they were making. I doubt highly that the A380 will land anywhere else except Heathrow, Gatwick and possibly Manchester in the next 10 years.

[Bagso]

Don't believe everything you see or hear on the BBC.....

[GrahamK]

Prestwick as well, surely, as it can handle the Antonov 225 which is significantly bigger than the 380

[McAero]

Prestwick couldn't handle that volume of passengers.

[VIKING9]

Don't believe everything you see or hear on the BBC.....

Especially as BBC Radio reported last night that "The Boeing A380 flew for the first time today blah blah"......

[Capt.KAOS]

On the first A380's there will "only" 555 pax I believe?

Once I landed NRT together with 4 other 747's, immigration was hell (1,5 hour).

[Swedish Steve]

The undercarriage retraction is on last nights Toulouse TV news at http://www.m6.fr/html/info/player/frame_soir.htm

Its only 2 secs long!!

[Tinpot Radio]

Well done to all involved in the A380 development and test flight yesterday - a magnificent achievement. You are welcome to make a low approach at London City/Biggin Hill anytime!

It seems, PPRuNe Pop, ironic that you have started another A380 thread yourself - whoops!!!!:{ :ok:

EDIT:Ho Ho Ho, Tinpot. I've given you the benefit of the doubt on your reading skills and put your witty retort here.

To Tinpot and anyone else who cannot read - I'm in a 'Dalek' mood (UK TV theme) and ANY other new threads on the first flight will be RUTHLESSLY EXTERMINATED so all your wit and repartee will go to waste! :{

[Sultan Ismail]

Where will it land?

Elaborating on McAero's posting, when the A380 enters commercial service with Singapore Airlines the most travelled route will be the SIN-KUL Shuttle, about 240 nm's and 50 minutes, at 30 pounds sterling return this is going to be one very popular route. Singapore used the Shuttle to get their crews up to speed on the A345.

My first flight in the Boeing 747 was Geneva to Zurich, December 1970, and a bargain at SFR100 return.

The sooner this 'plane gets commercial the better, last weekend I was waitlisted in Biz for KUL-LHR, both directions, and I never got above 7 on the list, and I had booked 2 weeks earlier. Mind you Malaysian know how to look after you back in economy.

[JamesT73J]

Is it possible that it may have similar runway performance to the 747, despite the obvious size and weight factors?

I seem to remember reading that Airbus were claiming similar takeoff performance on a 'typically' loaded aircraft, but I'm damned if I can remember where this was written. It could of course have been marketing exuberance.

If that is the case that's one half of the hypothetical question answered. That being said I'm sure there's alot of infrastructure associated with an aircraft this size and that will probably be the biggest obstacle.

I'm curious to see how well it stops. There must be some fearsome energy being transferred to those brakes, even with the spoilers and 2 reversers working.

[jay_hl]

Here is a vid of the 380 retracting its gear yesterday while in-flight.

Its quite spectacular to watch.

http://www.airbus.com/A380/seeing/indexminisite.aspx

Go to enter
Then on the left for Videos
and look to the second from the left called A380 in flight under the title A380 Maiden Flight

Enjoy

Jay

[spud's on the job]

Bu99er the A380, Miss France in Playboy shocker at 9:35 on your video - cheers for that!!!

back to the thread

[Main_Tenant]

The comment about Robin Hood being able to take this plane is surely relevant to overall air safety. This plane with so many passengers is going to have to land on occasion for medical emergencies. In the immediate future there are not going to be many opportunities for that runway length. The fact the airport cannot efficiently cope with regular visits does not detract from the usefulness of “any port in a storm”. The Far East routes will presumably have to investigate where they can put down in a hurry.

[MarkD]

Main_Tenant

the main issue with 380 is not runway length but taxiway width and wing overhang. Obviously Robin Hood were able to design in A380 from the start where older airports have to adapt.

As for diversions: remember one engine out of four is a lot easier to choose diversion than one engine out of two, and makes losing an engine on takeoff easier to manage! A short ferry flight to origin/mx base or to destination will reduce TOW well below the usual requirements. 777s have been popping into tight fields too - people manage to sort them!

(edited for clarity)

[ShotOne]

Yes, very impressive -although I can't say the same for the BBC coverage of the flight which gave about the same airtime allocated for the flight to some sweater wearer from Friends of the Earth spouting dubious statistics about greenhouse gasses.

[JamesT73J]

Sky News had a dual feed right up until the A380 turned onto the runway, which had one pane showing Michael Howard sitting in an aircraft window seat, and the other pane showing the Airbus taxiing, which led to a few confused looks at work from passers by.

[admiral ackbar]

Thanks for the heads-up to the gear retraction video.

Is it me or is it quite fast. Plus as someone mentionned before, the main bogies seem to retract straight up into the bay.

Any reason why they would do it this way, other than it looks really neat?

[Plastique]

The body gear retracts backwards. The 6 wheel bogie remains level with respect to the aircraft so that teh gear can stow. This gives the impression of a vertical retraction.

[mikedurward]

Hiya All


Sorry if this as been asked and aswered already, but can anyone tell me the runway length needed for this beast to land and tak-off please.


Thanks


Mike

[Gargleblaster]

I wouldn't expect anybody to know at this stage !

Would guess that this needs to be determined by by test flights.

[BOAC]

Mike - impossible to answer your question, even given test flights.

A 'minimum' length for PLANNED operations will no doubt be published but actual distances depend on too many other factors.

[panda-k-bear]

At what weight, with what engines at what thrust with what derate, under what atmospheric conditions (temperature, runway altitude etc.)? Mere details but significantly altering any and all performance...

[Swedish Steve]

Discovery Channel in Sweden announced that there will be a documentary on the A380 on Sunday evening the 8th May. Looked in Discovery web site but could not see it. But keep your eyes open.

[mikedurward]

OK Maybe I should have made my question a little more specific.


Which airports will the A380 be able to land at. eg would Glasgow be long enough at 2658m.
If not how much space will it need?


Mike

[Gargleblaster]

The thingy has only flown once or a maybe few times and probably not at MTOW yet.

So I dare stating that at this stage, nobody in the known universe has any idea what the official safe distances are.

I think they'll have to do a lot of test takeoffs and landings in all kinds of weather and temperatures to determine the distances.

[spekesoftly]

Which airports will the A380 be able to land at. eg would Glasgow be long enough at 2658m.

AFAIK, Heathrow and Gatwick are the only two UK Airports that are presently making specific preparations to handle the A380.

I would imagine that an A380, at typical landing weight, could probably land quite safely at Glasgow, but wing tip clearance and Apron space would be one of a number of limiting factors, in subsequently taxiing and parking the aircraft.

[panda-k-bear]

I wouldn't be surprised to see STN added to the list for FedEx. My back of fag packet calcs show that it would get in to GLA, but it wouldn't get out at MTOW (nor would a 747-400 - which requires a good 1500 ft more at MTOW than the A380 does).

In short, if a 747 can do it, an A380 can do it - and about 10% better.

[mikeyuk]

spekesoftly

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which airports will the A380 be able to land at. eg would Glasgow be long enough at 2658m.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AFAIK, Heathrow and Gatwick are the only two UK Airports that are presently making specific preparations to handle the A380.


I think you will find Manchester is also.

[MikeeB]

Add Doncaster to the list

[MarkD]

There's an Airport Planning Doc at airbus.com (see under the 380 family on the main site rather than the reveal site) which gives graphs for temps/alts/weights and runway lengths required for Trent and GP engines, freight and pax versions.

As has been pointed out, many aircraft can beat the "standard" runway restriction if the performance penalty is worth it (say a ferry after an emergency landing at a short field, using min fuel and no pax/cargo)

[ORAC]

Airbus A380 takes off on second test flight
05.04.2005, 10:35 AM

TOULOUSE, France (AFX) - The superjumbo Airbus A380, the world's largest commercial airliner, took off over southwestern France today for its second test flight.

The European aircraft maker, based in the French city of Toulouse, said the second flight -- which came a week after the A380's maiden voyage -- would last about four hours.

A third flight is planned for later this week, probably on Saturday, followed by three flights next week, a company source told Agence France-Presse.

The plane may fly at an altitude slightly higher than the 10,000 feet achieved in the first flight, and could climb up to 13,000 feet, the source said.

[panda-k-bear]

Doncaster will make a nice alternate. Methinks pax ops there are a wee bit optimistic, don't you?

[Packsonflight]

A380 Take-off field lenght (m sea level ISA) 2050m (2900m for the freighter). On top of that, she climbs straight to FL350
Just for fun the B777300 Take-off field lenght (m sea level ISA) 3700m. and she only clims to FL330 on MTOW.

[NWSRG]

One thing about the A380 confuses me...

Do a simple sum based on pounds of thrust and maximum take-off weight, and compare the A380 to other aircraft.

The 757 comes out at a healthy 0.34, the 747 comes out at around 0.28, while the lethargic A340-300 comes out at 0.22.

The A380 is just better than the A340-300 at 0.25.

So will the A380 be a lardy beast? Or will the massive wing area overcome the relative lack of power?

...and here are some figures for the insomniacs out there...(information from manufacturer sites)...

Aircraft Thrust MTOW Thrust / Weight
Airbus A340-300 136000 608300 0.2236
Airbus A380-800 308000 1232000 0.2500
Airbus A340-500 224000 818400 0.2737
Boeing 777-200ER 180000 654632 0.2750
Boeing 747-400ER 253200 908105 0.2788
Airbus A330-200 144000 514580 0.2798
Airbus A330-300 144000 514580 0.2798
Boeing 767-400ER 127000 449064 0.2828
Boeing 777-200 154000 543862 0.2832
Boeing 777-200LR 220200 764394.4 0.2881
Airbus A340-600 240000 809600 0.2964
Boeing 777-300ER 230600 773374.8 0.2982
Boeing 777-300 196000 654632 0.2994
Boeing 767-300ER 126600 411136 0.3079
Boeing 737-700 48400 154314.6 0.3136
Boeing 737-800 54600 173822 0.3141
Boeing 737-900 54600 173822 0.3141
Boeing 737-600 45400 143198 0.3170
Airbus A318 47600 149600 0.3182
Airbus A320 54000 169400 0.3188
Boeing 757-300 87000 271920 0.3199
Airbus A321 66000 205700 0.3209
Airbus A319 54000 166100 0.3251
Boeing 757-200ER 87000 254496 0.3419

[Charley]

Interesting experiment NWSRG, but in reality it's only of limited, if any, relevance. Aircraft designers generally design aircraft to be as powerful as they need to be, as this has an impact on the economics of the aircraft.

Here are some notional examples why that might be the case. They are illustrative rather than scientific.


More power is good, right?

Well, not necessarily. Let's say we took an airframe and we put on a tiny turbojet engine, just enough to get the aircraft airborne and into the cruise. The engine weighs, for example, 1 Smidgen. The aircraft flies, cruises, descends and lands. Life is good.

Let's take the same fuselage, and attach four big turbofans to it. Let's say each turbofan, being a big beast, weighs 10 Shedloads each (40 in total). That means the aicraft is now significantly heavier and more powerful than before.

The problem is that because the aircraft is heavier, it needs to generate more lift to support its weight in flight. Lift has a bitter/sweet relationship, like many things in life. If you eat cream cakes, you will get fat. If you smoke, you will get cancer. If you need to create more lift, you will also create more drag.

Assuming the only difference is the engines, more lift would be obtained by flying faster. This means using those powerful engines to their potential. But more lift means more drag, which reduces efficiency. More power also means a higher fuel consumption, which means you need to carry more fuel. More fuel means more weight. Which needs more lift. And creates more drag. Etc etc.

In reality, design engineers have to carefully balance the various characteristics of an aircraft to ensure that everything is in equilibrium. There comes a point where a bigger, more powerful engine would end up actually being counter-productive -- it would weigh too much more, drink too much more fuel, and therefore cost more.

In our example, if an engine that weighs 1 Smidgen provides enough power to do the job, why put on anything bigger?


Extra power is a waste...

In commercial aviation, if you have more power than you need to get airborne, you don't generally use it.

In a light aircraft, once you get lined up, you open the taps and hurtle down the runway at the speed of paint. Life is good.

Jet aircraft don't generally do this. If you have a runway that is 5000 metres long and taking off at full power would get you airborne in 1000 metres, you would generally elect to apply less-than-full power during the take-off. This uses more runway, and also generally uses more fuel. So why do it? Well, engines can be expensive to fix so they tend to be operated with as much sympathy as possible. A reduced-power take-off, using only the power that is really necessary to do the job, saves wear-and-tear on the turbines and prolongs engine life.

Therefore on a 757 'pocket-rocket' you may find that the crew fly reduced-power T/O's a fair bit.


Jet operating efficiency

Finally, jet engines operate at their most efficient when they are generating about 90% power. If you have a very light airframe with very powerful engines, you might find that (at cruise altitude) you only need 50% power before you hit your limiting top speed (known as Mmo).

This means that the engines are running off-optimum. This costs money. Ergo, more spare power available is not necessarily more good.

This is also the reason why some military aircraft, e.g. the Nimrod in the UK, actually shut down an engine when they are on-station. Doing so means the other three can be revved up to a more economical cruising power.


The bottom line?

Well, the bottom line is that manufacturers generally equip aircraft with engines that are powerful enough to do the job, and not much more. Remember: they are designing commercial aircraft, not hod-rods. These things are designed to make money, not burn it.

There is, evidently, some variation between aircraft and manufacturers. If you do a search on other forums, you'll find that Boeing have in the past been slightly more likely to put 'a bit extra for Mum' into the engine selection they offer on each type, giving them slightly more spare power. Airbus, on the other hand, jokingly get slagged off for being slower in the cruise and by seemingly climbing only by virtue of the curvature of the earth. Yet they are often identified as being more more economical in the cruise than some older Boeings.

The A380 designers will have looked at their aircraft. They will have looked at how economical the airframe is, looked at the airfields it's likely to use (along with their altitudes and temperatures), looked at the speeds and altitudes they'd like it to cruise at, and worked out how much power they will need from the engines. While it may seem underpowered according to your stats, it will (in theory) deliver the economies they are looking for.

Power-to-weight ratio is an interesting stat but it needs to be considered in context, most airlines wouldn't be worried about it and would be more concerned with 'operating cost per km' and similar figures.

HTH
Charley :)

p.s. have you noticed, as an aside, how your list seems to be in order of 'long-haul' to 'short-haul'? Think about it... ;)

[NWSRG]

Charley...

A very eloquent post...

However, I'm still wondering how Airbus achieve similar field lengths etc. to the 747, with a poorer power / weight ratio? Both being 4 engined, the comparison should be fairly straightforward.

Are we saying that the 747 has proportionately more surplus thrust than the A380 for any given situation? Or does the larger wing of the A380 trade drag for lift better than the 747 (presumably the answer is yes, it being a much newer aerofoil).

I'm guessing that a more modern wing design, with less drag for a given amount of lift, requires less powerful engines to achieve similar results??

Saying that, the pure numbers still suggest that the A380 will have 'relaxed' performance.;)

[casual observer]

NWSRG:

A simplified answer is the A380 has a big wing which can create a lot of lift, so, it doesn't need a lot of thrust. Also, Airbus planes tend to have better low-speed performance than an equivalent Boeing airplane. Boeing planes tend to have better high-speed performance. That's why Boeing planes can cruise faster than an equivalent Airbus plane, yet they don't burn more fuel.

The A340-300 has a relatively small wing (highly loaded) and relatively low thrust. (You can compare the wing loadings, MTOW/wing area, of different aircraft, then you'll know what I mean.) That's why it has been the center of a lot of slow-climb jokes. Nevertheless, it was adequately designed for its intent.

[ATCO1987]

Hi All,

Dont know if this is the right place for this message, but I heard the A380 is coming to spend a couple of days in Filton in October, can anyone confirm or shed some further light on this?

Thanks!

Dan.

[Squealing Pig]

If the 380 lands at EGNR the wings might be floating down the River Dee for the second time, or become a permanent monument of European technology at the traffic island at the end of 23. EGTG sounds more plausable.

[ATCO1987]

Just going to say! Thats like having an AN225 land at EGGD! <G>.

Dan.

[sam dilly]

Visits to other countries are a bit slow.
However sincr the A380 visited Lourdes on
10 Aug LDE LFBT all seems to be a lot better.Another
miracle!

[aaaaa]

So what actually is the answer to ATCO1987's question, if of course it is possible to give an exact answer as things to seem to change a bit!?

Thanks
aa

[Ghostie31]

whos gunna go watch it?

[ATCO1987]

Damn right I'll be there! If I have work someone make sure it lands around midday <G>, so I'll be finished in time to see it! Dream on...:)

Dan.

[aaaaa]

Me too, so where is a good place to watch it, when it happens?

aa

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Best place to watch? Surely that would be in the traffic jam just off the end of it (sorry, M5!) in our seemingly random 40mph limit?

[VnV2178B]

I used to have the ideal place to watch movements at Filton, my old desk in the upper portakabin at the back of 07L, but I guess the top floor of 07S would be better these days...

For those not 'fortunate' enough to work on the site: the last time something new came in (A340-600, I think it was) I was waiting for the number 75 bus just outside Filton College on the A38, where the footbridge isn't now. That's as good a place as any assuming that it approaches from England and not the Welsh end!

VnV...

[Lost_luggage34]

Surely one of the News channels will cover this ?

The rollout was covered by most of them.

Can anyone confirm ?

[ATCO1987]

07L? Filton is 27/09, where did 07L come from?

Dan.

[VnV2178B]

Aha,

sorry, should have been clearer, for the benefit on non-AUK (Airbus UK) people '07L' refers to one of the office buildings not a runway ! It's the one on the bottom corner, near to the A38 and railway which enables inmates to see pretty well all of the airfield.


VnV...

[ATCO1987]

A388...A346....slight size difference there! How about apron space too aswell as strength?

Dan.

[Wycombe]

Boss,

At Airshow time, Farnborough can wind back the displaced thresholds to the physical threshold, as there are no precision approaches during this period. The physical runway length is 2400m.

I'm sure the larger visitors use this facility. Last years show saw the first ever 747 movements (believe it or not) at Farnborough.

[Boss_Hogg]

ok....fair enough!

I just saw a 747 land at Exeter the other day, and the runways are of similar dimensions.

I still believe that an empty 380 can operate from Hawarden.

Boss:*

[ETOPS773]

Just spent about an hour reading one of the best articles on the A380 I've seen so far. Hope you find it interesting :D


Good A380 article here (http://www.flightinternational.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=9139)

Cut away drawing (http://www.flightinternational.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=9140)

[hei yu]

From today's Australian....

A380 plans quick visit in November
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
September 16, 2005

QANTAS and Airbus are optimistic one of the new A380 superjumbos will visit Australia in November.

An Airbus source confirmed yesterday planning had begun for the double-decker aircraft to visit Singapore, Sydney and Brisbane. While the trip was still subject to final approval, the source said the French manufacturer was keen to show off its new plane.

Qantas has ordered 12 of the aircraft, which can carry up to 555 people in three classes and more than 800 in an all-economy configuration, and wants one to visit Brisbane as part of its 85th birthday celebrations on November 16.

The flying kangaroo's request gained significant leverage after manufacturing problems that delayed deliveries of its first planes by six months.

Sydney and Singapore are among the cities destined to see the first commercial A380 services. Singapore Airlines will start using the A380 on the kangaroo route to London at the end of next year. The plane visiting Australia would be a test aircraft, the source said, without the luxurious fit-outs airlines are promising in the commercial versions.

However, it would give Australians their first look at the giant plane and a still rare opportunity to see it in flight.

Brisbane Airport's Jim Carden said the airport's runway could handle the plane, but it would have to get dispensation from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority because the A380's 80m wingspan was wider than its taxiways.

Mr Carden said the airport expected interest in the A380 to be high enough to warrant building grandstands.

Sydney Airport also confirmed yesterday that it would be ready to handle the giant plane by November.

Airlines flying the A380 are promising a new era in comfort and facilities.

Qantas will fly the A380 with about 500 passengers in three classes, Emirates with 489 and Singapore Airlines with fewer than 480.

Qantas passengers in all classes will get special lounge areas as well as more personal space, video on demand, internet access and bigger screens.

[chrisstiles]

What was the idea with the 4-engined A340 ? Given that there are twin engines jets with ETOPS flying the same routes ?

[Taffer]

Well, the A330/A340 were developed as the one programme - they are essentially 2 and 4 engined derivatives of the same aircraft.

I do believe that ETOPS restrictions were a lot tighter when the A340 was being developed, but with these being relaxed, there are now many more routes open to 2 holers that only 3 and 4 holers could previously operate.

There is also the 'safety net' of having more engines to rely on should things go wrong, and less problems due to assymmetrical thrust. This has to be balanced by increased maintenance costs with having more engines. Indeed, 2 engine ETOPS aircraft have greater engine reliability records than 4 engine aircraft.

Still, many airlines, like Virgin, Cathay, and Lufthansa are happily flying the A340, and the -500 and -600 series are a definite improvement over the hairdryer powered -200s and -300s.

I don't think Airbus have suffered too much in sales, as the A340 has been a good seller, and the A330 a very good seller.

[chrisstiles]

There is also the 'safety net' of having more engines to rely on should things go wrong, and less problems due to assymmetrical thrust. This has to be balanced by increased maintenance costs with having more engines. Indeed, 2 engine ETOPS aircraft have greater engine reliability records than 4 engine aircraft.

Sure - but AFAICT on most routes the A340 is flying there is usually some other airline using 767s to fly the same route. I always thought that the 767 was slightly older in conception - so surely any earlier ETOPS restrictions would have come into play there also.

Still, many airlines, like Virgin, Cathay, and Lufthansa are happily flying the A340, and the -500 and -600 series are a definite improvement over the hairdryer powered -200s and -300s.

and they are very good looking planes besides :) But i just wondered - it seemed like Airbus was bucking the trend a little in putting them out.

[Groundloop]

One reason for using 4 engines for long haul is that the wing structure can actually be lighter as the downward bending weight of the outboard engines can help to counteract the weight of fuel in the centre tanks.

So when the A330 and A340 were designed together the A340 was a long range aircraft and the A330 was a medium range aircraft. The 340 carried much more fuel than the 330 so the wing bending relief of the outboard engines offset the weight of the extra fuel.

The early 330s and 340s had identical wings, just on the 330 there were no engines mounted on the outboard attachment points. Proved very useful for the A330 tanker cos this is where they mounted the refueling pods - the wing structure could take them without any redesign.

Since the early days differences between the 330 and ater 340 models has increased dramatically.

[chrisstiles]

Okay, but what is in it for the airline in terms of selling points ?
Why would they prefer the A340 to the 777 (genuine and not rhetorical question).

To put it another way. Of the various large carrier airlines in the US flying both trans-atlantic and trans-pacific, the majority of every fleet seems to comprise of twins with a scattering of 747s.

What was Airbuses thinking behind bringing out a 4 engined jet in this market? I'm not claiming there isn't any, i'm just wondering what it was.

[Groundloop]

"What was Airbuses thinking behind bringing out a 4 engined jet in this market?"

Basically, as I said, they could produce a new medium range airliner, the A330, and a long range airliner, the A340, simultaneously and with about 90% commonality between the two - hence greatly reducing the development costs of both types.

"Okay, but what is in it for the airline in terms of selling points ?"

What about Virgin's "4 engines for long haul" slogan. Don't know if it had much impact on their pax but they thought it was a selling point.

[ETOPS]

Groundloop

so the wing bending relief of the outboard engines offset the weight of the extra fuel.

Hope this doesn't sound picky but I thought that the "wing bending" that needed relief was generated by the lift forces on the wing. In flight this creates an upward stress at the wing/fuselage join which can be "relieved" by filling the wing with fuel. That either one or two engines are also fitted there is added relief not an "offset"

[Mr. Ree]

Fly long haul over the north pole and suddenly 4 engines makes A LOT of sense!

Why do A340's have 4 engines? They couldn't stick 6 on the wings! :p

[Groundloop]

ETOPS,

True the wing bending is caused by aerodynamic forces but the A340 wing bends up more than the 330 because it generates more lift because the 340 is a heavier aircraft because of its higher fuel load.

Therefore as the outer wings bend up more, hanging engines off them bends 'em back down again.

[mfaff]

Just to be picky, really picky.. the wing bending moment is not just caused by lift.. its caused by the fuselage being pulled down by gravity whilst the wing is maintained by a pretty uniformly distributed lift force.

If you think of the wing with no engines as a simple cantilever, like a pencil held between two fingers it moves up and down quite a lot as you apply load to one end....then try to stop it moving and you soon see how it snaps.

However add a weight at the mid point and the movement is reduced and the force needed to restrain it is reduced, hence the tendency to snap is also reduced...add another weight further out and its going to move even less.....and less force is needed to restrain it is reduced and so even likely to snap. So for an equal strucutral strength you can reduce the dead weight of structure by hanging engines off it..

That's the thought behind the use of engines spread across the wing and also the thought behind having fule in the wings spread across the majority of the span.

My guess for the A340/A330 divergence is that for an equal strucutral weight the A340 can carry a higher fuel load.. hence longer range. As the A330 is not destined for such long sectors the additional fuel is not needed and hence the 4 engines are not helpful.

Detailed examination of the 767/ 777 dry weights versus fully loaded weights may reveal an increased efficency in the A340 solution.

[G-ANDY]

Any dates for the Hawarden visit? My hour building is coming to an end, but I'm sure I can find a few more hours to grab an aircraft and get up there for the day.

A great place to watch the A380 land would be from downwind 1000ft!!

Cheers.

[ATCO1987]

I really am not confident about this so called possibility of an A380 at NR <G>.

[chrisstiles]

Fly long haul over the north pole and suddenly 4 engines makes A LOT of sense!

But how many Great Circle routes like that are there where ETOPS doesn't apply for whatever reason ? I guess there would be Southern Pacific routes where that might apply also.

It seemed a while ago like twins ruled the world in a way, they seemed to be partially responsible for the death of the trijets. Just wondered why Airbus was able to buck the trend.

Does the A340 have a lower operating cost than the 777 ?

[Old Aero Guy]

While the wing bending moment relief provided by the outboard engines is real and quantifiable feature, it is only one factor in integrating an airplane. Other Twin vs Quad issues come into play.

The latest versions of the 777-300ER and A340-600 have almost the same payload - range. Comparing airplane weights and fuel volume should give you an idea of the relative efficiency. You can draw your own conclusions.


773ER A346
Operating Empty Weight (tonne) 166.8 181.9
Max Takeoff Weight (tonne) 351.5 380.0
Fuel Volume (USG) 47,890 51,379

[Thridle Op Des]

Another reason to have four (or more than two-three can help as well) is in high MORA areas. The most extreme case I am aware of is near PURPA where the min alt is FL280, just adjacent to K2. I don't believe that a twin can take a commercial payload and sustain FL280 on one engine. We are lucky to fly the route quite frequently and pass over the mountains just after sunrise on the way to Japan, it is quite odd to watch all these majestic peaks rushing past at 450 kts, five thousand feet away, as an aside, we are all waiting for one of our picky training captains (note the small caps) to require us to come back to 250 knots over PURPA!)

[chrisstiles]

Sorry, PURPA ? I didn't get the 250knots reference either.

Very envious of your opportunity to see what must be one of the best views in the world - and view it whilst sitting in air conditioning and sipping a cup of tea!

--

[Thridle Op Des]

Sorry about that! PURPA is the waypoint on the Pakistan/Indian/Chinese border and the only way we can do the Japan/Korea northern route out of Dubai. The reference to the 250 knots is due to the general speed restriction below 10,000 feet AGL required by ATC and our company, it was slightly sarcastic as IAS at our typical cruising levels is below that anyway, we just have to put up with a lot of anally retentive nifnaf sometimes, but the price we pay!:)

[ExSimGuy]

Mr. Ree

Yes, I'm one of the "old f@rts" that feels "more comfortable with 4 donkeys"

Always happier if there's 4 on the wings, give me a chance of 6 and I'm with you!

Remember the "good old days" of the SVC-10 which could climb out at a pretty normal rate with "2 on the same side out"

Looking forward to the 380 and hoping that my favorite carrier (GF) will buy them (?- your FFP is asking a question here ;) )

[Dan Winterland]

Look at the aircraft flying between Hong Kong and Europe, they are all 4 jets. The route takes you over North West China with MORAS above one engine stab height in a twin.

A 747-400s fuel burn is about 10t anhour, the 340-300 about 6t. For long lean routes there is no competition.

[petitfromage]

Both the A330 and the A343 burn approx 6T/hr.

Obviously losing an engine an engine on the A330 loses you 50% of your thrust, whilst of the A343 you only lose 25%.

At 230T an A330 will drift down to approx FL200.
At 230T a A343 will drift down to approx FL290.
(*At LRC)

The A343 can carry 33T more fuel than the A330 too. (ie: an extra 5hrs)

Figs quoted abv are rules of thumb only; more accurate info is in the FCOM. The MTOW of a heavy weight A330 is 233T, whilst a A343 is 275T.

Lastly, many routes that are now ETOPS, werent ETOPS 15yrs ago. The enroute airports werent suitable, didnt have navaids or were communist. (The polar route is one.....plus USSR, Eastern Europe China, Iran were hardly our friends).

There is less of a requirement for 'light' 4-engined aircraft nowadays...but as Dan explains above, it is still there.

[FakePilot]

Infinity = Infinity + 1

Therefore, only when we have an infinite number of engines will everyone be happy.

[catchup]

by any US company yet.

No money?
:ouch:

[threegreenlights]

No money, no incentive, and a big NO from Mr Bush and Mr Boeing...... Good luck Mr EADS and the A380 (a real Dreamliner)

[Dani]

and no need. US airlines have another route structure than others. I remember a time when most of US airlines got rid of 747 and depended heavily on mid size wide bodies. If they would see a way in making money with the A380, they would have been the first on the list.

[threegreenlights]

In view of Unctuous's interesting thread maybe the A380 should currently be referred to as the 'Nightmareliner' until Mr Mangan's views are substantiated or otherwise.

It makes for scary reading, especially for potential whistleblowers.

[Wino]

No need.

Over Two thirds of all 747s sold were bought for the RANGE, not their size. Well now you don't need to go big to go far. The 747 was not killed by the 380. It was killed by the 767 and the 777.

BTW, if you throw out out all the 747s that were sold for range instead of size, then boeing only sells about 300-400 of them over the last 35 years and the program is a gigantic flop. (just like the 380 would be if Airbus actually had to pay all the developement costs)


Cheers
Wino

[Carnage Matey!]

So now that you've got an inventory of 40+ 744s that you bought for range you can either trade them for 777s and get the same range with fewer pax or can you trade them for 380s and get the same range with more pax. Wonder what the airlines will do.

[samusi01]

So FedEx (http://www.fedex.com/us/about/today/companies/express/a380facts.html) does not count as a US company, or has something changed recently with their order?

[catchup]

O.K., :cool:

let's talk about passenger airlines.

regards

[WHBM]

Good to see the usual Boeing/US industry supporters misrepresenting things again as usual.

Big bold banner headline "A380 not a single order", with just a little subtext that this is just referring to US companies, as if they are the only ones of consequence.

Then when the US FedEx order is pointed out the rules of the question are changed.

Face it, everyone involved with the US airline industry. Since the A380 programme was announced ALL the US trunk airlines have either been actually bankrupt or nearly so, while out in the real world things carry on without this. That's why they cannot afford such a new investment. And they probably never will.

The US industry still moans on and on about how 9/11 is the cause of all their ills in order to collect more governmental support while the nations which in comparative terms were far more affected by the tsunami destruction have just got on with it and picked themselves up and carried on.

The collective US airline top managements continue to ego-trip about how large their company is and how large their bonuses are while squandering the now-worthless investments of all the investors in their businesses on maintaining an unsustainable size of their company.

The employees of the US airlines continue to draw the highest paychecks for their jobs in the world while those at least who are customer facing (reservations, checkin, FAs) in return are collectively the most grumpy, customer-hostile group of employees in the worldwide business. Even Aeroflot in comparison are pleasanter and politer (and more competent) nowadays.

All this adds up to why international travellers increasingly keep clear of the US carriers, whose share of international business continues to fall. So no money in the bank, and a declining customer base, means no need for big A380s.

Discuss !

[MarkD]

the US majors have decided to move in another direction (lean on the FAA until ETOPS 330 is granted) which is their choice.

The US majors are not the world airline industry (any more) so 380 sales will probably go where they are going now - airlines in Asia where they can pile high and sell cheap. SAA is by their own admission another possibility but that airline is showing ever more signs of political sabotage so doubtful an order will ever come.

The question is: if you believe the 380 is a lemon because all the airlines want is a 773ER/LR then 747 Advanced is an equally stupid idea - right?

[swh]

ILFC a US lease company has 5 pax A380s and 5 A380F, Fedex 10 A380F, UPS orders are not on the airbus web site yet as being confirmed.

Means only 13% of all ordered so fare are going to north america.

Not only are airlines broke, so are the airports, cannot upgrade to handle the 380.

Only 31 going into europe at the moment.

Face it, everyone involved with the US airline industry. Since the A380 programme was announced ALL the US trunk airlines have either been actually bankrupt or nearly so, while out in the real world things carry on without this. That's why they cannot afford such a new investment. And they probably never will.

Very true, last time I looked United had 5 of its 777 online with Varig, and 3 with Air India, small numbers compared to their 519 total airframes.

[Complex_Type]

I watched a documentary about the A380, and how the thing comes together from all over europe. Incredible waste in the way that logistics are handled in order to satisfy politics.

For example, the A380 wing is assembled in north Wales. It's too big to go in a guppy so it has to go by sea. But the airbus plant in Wales is not near the sea, and neither is final assembly in Toulouse.

So, the thing goes on a specialist trailer to the River Dee. Then it is loaded onto a barge, the barge sails off down the Dee and has to wait for precisely the right time window in order that the tide is right to allow the whole assembly to fit under low bridges. Then it reaches the sea and is taken off the barge and loaded onto an ocean going ship. The ship sales to the Bay of Biscay and arrives at a French port. Then off the ship onto another barge for a French waterway and another specialist truck to Toulouse. Some parts barely fit between buildings on roads through French villages and the roads have to be closed at night to get the whole convoy through! All this every single week. What an overhead for each aircraft.

Now, I am fairly sure Boeing don't have such problems because 744s subassemblies are all put together in Seattle. Seems quite sensible. In fact in co-operation for Concorde there were two assembly lines, one in each partner nation to complete aircraft.

Just seems a bit daft to be doing all that just for politics.

[DtyCln]

Could be something to do with the fact that most of your 'majors' are in Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. US carriers lost $9 BILLION dollars last year alone!- US Herald Tribune.

Can't buy too many planes if you've got no cash!

[vapilot2004]

No money, no incentive, and a big NO from Mr Bush and Mr Boeing...... Good luck Mr EADS and the A380 (a real Dreamliner)

geez give us a break would ya ? ! ?

William is long-since past and, well W, he can't tell AA or any other airline who to buy thier airplanes from. If what you say had even a grain of truth to it, JetBlue and so many other US carriers pilot's would not be Bus drivers. You did get 2 things right Threegreenlights, no money and no incentive - yet.

Truth is, the American market is the one of the most open markets in the world and US companies often buy outside our borders. When the A380's start generating revenue (for it's airline owners, that is) I'm sure some carriers like maybe Northwest or Delta will surely be looking at buying a few of these super-jumbos. Meanwhile, profitable groups like Southwest, have no need for a 1/4-1/2 full goliath.

Anyone heard any news about flight testing ? - after the glorious TA-DA January debut and subsequent 1st flight ~ woke up at 4am to see that one :) ~ , Toulouse seems kind of quiet lately - only thing I've heard about is a PAX EVAC planned sometime next year - otherwise it's all hush-hush.

[WHBM]

I watched a documentary about the A380, and how the thing comes together from all over europe. Incredible waste in the way that logistics are handled in order to satisfy politics.
Hmmm, sounds just like the Boeing 737 assembly line, where the whole fuselage is manufactured in Wichita, Kansas, then shipped in sections on rail cars across the USA to Seattle to be put together. Distance is much further than Broughton to Toulouse.

And a lot of the 777 is manufactured in Japan and shipped right across the Pacific to Everett (plant not on the sea, it's on top of a hill !). Entirely for politics.

[supercarb]

Anyone heard any news about flight testing ?

A380 flight test update (http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/09/07/Navigation/185/201334/A380+flight+test+update.html)

[Squawk7777]

US carriers lost $9 BILLION dollars last year alone!- US Herald Tribune.

I remember reading that the US carriers were taxed about $15 billion last year. It'll be interesting to see how the A350 is gonna sell in the US.

[vapilot2004]

Looks like things are going very well.. thanks Supercarb.

:D

[Complex_Type]

Hmmm, sounds just like the Boeing 737 assembly line, where the whole fuselage is manufactured in Wichita, Kansas, then shipped in sections on rail cars across the USA to Seattle to be put together. Distance is much further than Broughton to Toulouse


Yes, Airbus do this stuff already with dispersed sub assembly manufacture around Europe, for example A320 sections are flown into final assembly aboard super-guppys. The difference is that the A380 is bigger than a super guppy so they can't use the aerial route.

http://www.portalbrasil.net/images/a300-airbus.jpg

[ElectroVlasic]

The US industry still moans on and on about how 9/11 is the cause of all their ills in order to collect more governmental support while the nations which in comparative terms were far more affected by the tsunami destruction have just got on with it and picked themselves up and carried on.I hope you feel better now that US industry has something else to moan about. Hmm, Katrina, isn't that a European name? :-)

[panda-k-bear]

Good Lord Wino, you just can't help yourself, can you?

Now consider this - you say Airbus gets unfair subsidies. Well, I say the U.S. airlines get unfair subsidies of a different sort. The rest of the world's airlines have to compete with a bunch of bankrupt airlines that don't have to pay their bills. Tell us all, pray do, just how Chapter 11 is fair and isn't anti-competitive?

At least 2 of those airlines should be, that is not to say deserve to be, non-existant.

Glass houses and stones, old son.

[WHBM]

Here's some photographs of Boeing's "wasteful logistics" (ie the same way that Airbus does things) in action, shipping 737 fuselages across the USA.

http://nwownrailfan.com/archives/features/0204camp.html

You wouldn't want to produce the whole of the A300/320/330/340/380 in Toulouse (or anywhere else) alone anyway. The local economy couldn't supply the huge number of specialist jobs and skills required.

[Taildragger67]

Catchup,

I've not entered the A vs B debate before and I am not doing so now.

But your post was a wind-up, son. Nought more.

OK... so how many 747s have been ordered by US major pax carriers in, say, the past 10 years? Haven't heard that B are calling on the majors these days re the 747Adv, either.

Let's consider the other end of the scale. JetBlue seems to be doing rather better than any major (CO poss except) - with an all-A fleet.

Retract the cranium, mate.

[catchup]

It wasn't and it isn't my intention to start another A versus B debate.

Just wondering no American carrier (beside FedEx) ordered that ship.

Guess it's like WHBM wrote.


regards

[20driver]

WHBM
Wow - interesting link - sounds like a very fine tuned and economical logistics network. Real key is minimizing mode changes and intramode transfers. I'm willing to bet that Boeing is shipping those fuselages for a small percentage of what Airbus pays to ship their A380 wings. (Which are probably bigger and a more outsize shape than a 737 fuselage anyways so not really a fair comparison) Mind you they have had time to work this out and more importantly volume to work out the bugs and spread the fixed costs.

[corklad]

why would they even want to buy such a pink elephant? it hasnt even been PROVEN yet and i believe singapore are looking for some of their money back due to delays. with 787's, 777 Er etc, and embraeer 170 at the lower end why go to plastic airbus. it does make sense for fedex to buy them as they can stck more freight on board and not have to worry about pax terminals and gates etc and they would possible get the same range with more cargo. airbus is financed by the EU just like boeing is in the states, get over it it happens. you dont honestly believe that france pays for the airbus alone do you? it comes out of all your tax money and you have no say in the matter!! many so called national airlines in europe have been bailed out by their respective governments countless times. airlines in the states go bust too its only the legacy carriers that get bailed out, though i do think some need to be culled for the best interests of the industry. but can you honestly say if BA was in danger of going under the government wouldnt step in to save the nations flag carrier??? plus where on earth is the a380 going to operate out of. which english airports have been upgraded for it with gates and termianls? which english airline apart from virgin (shakey order too) have taken it up?? not british airways. willy walsh has some sense at least. all you boys with micky mouse easyjet need to get a life! how bout putting down your gaurdian newspaper in the cockpit and leaving your anti-american hysteria at home. beside in 10 yrs ryanair will knock easyjets socks off and you may all end up flying 737-800s! i for one am gietting sick and tired of reading english rahs spouting their xenophobia about anything that doesnt come from england followed by the EU, which they dont even like, at least we use euro here, and their anti-american attitude is just pathetic. leave that to the gardian tripe!
:yuk:

[WHBM]

Looks like the author of Ryanair's SOP manual has surfaced at last :)

[panda-k-bear]

corklad
Ha ha ha ha! You are kidding, aren't you?! Ah, the future of aviation - I've got tears streaming from my eyes with laughter... If you're serious and you want the error of your ways pointing out, do get in touch, won't you.
You'd really rather fly on an Embraer than an Airbus, would you?!!
Hee hee hee!

[Mercenary Pilot]

Out of interest, whats wrong with Embraer's?:confused:

[Re-Heat]

Corklad - you're looking for a website called airliners.net...

[TheOddOne]

which english airports have been upgraded for it with gates and termianls? (sic)

Well, Heathrow and Gatwick, for starters. Here at LGW we're spending loads on fillets on runway turnoffs, extended runway shoulders etc ready in case we get a diversion in early next year. Heathrow have built a whole new facility on Terminal 3 and already done the runway/taxiway work, all ready to go. LGW will get the Terminal infrastructure next year ahead of possible 2007 schedules.
Not only that, but our RFFS is gearing up for it, too.

Can't speak for other English airports such as Manchester...

Cheers,

The Odd One

[RRAAMJET]

This is turning into yet another miserable post with underlying tones of political dissatisfaction.
"We hate Yanks" - should be a new forum for all the malcontents to post their xenophobic rants....

How childish - on both sides of the discussion. And, as usual, there are many takers of the wind-up lures.

Pathetic.:yuk:

[corklad]

Thanks for pointing that out to me "TheOddOne" useful information is always good on this site, and i humbly admit i was wrong to you about the state of on going upgrades, i stand corrected. Lets hope those airports get their upgrades ready before the locals protest about longer/extra runways. "panda-k-bear" you really are silly monkey arent you! you must go to sleep with a little airbus teedybear at night. embraer is a great company with great planes, even the royal air force uses embraer aircraft (tucano). are you now suggesting the RAF are idiots too?? do any of you guys actually read the scripts or just see stuff that isnt there?? i never said I wanted to fly the Embraer, though i wouldnt mind doing so. i've been in the BA ERj and enjoyed it, also US Airways Express Er170 and it was a really smooth ride. I'd never turn the oppertunity to fly a new plane whether it was made in brazil or russia, but hey thats just me. the point i was making was that all the hype over the A380 is just that hype...its not proven and its yet to fly for a single airline. and yes its all subsidised with EU tax money, therefore if the plane is flop it wont hurt airbus one little bit. however, it may turn out to be a really great plane, and id be the first to take my hat off to airbus if it does so. its not nearly as attractive as say the a340 in my opinion, but as i said earlier i certainly wouldnt turn down a shot flying it.

i was also trying to say that im totally sick and tired of reading anti american nonsense from the same people in every other thread these days. some how its become acceptable on pprune to bash americans at every oppertunity but you wouldnt dare go on in the same way about blacks or jews or muslims in the same manner. its really quite sad and pathetic and its amazing how the moderators let it slide.

Now on to the other part of the topic. ryaniar, however terrible they appear, is, i say, is, going to rule europe in the next 10yrs. they'll force squeesy-jet outta the market, mark my words. they are opening more routes and buying more planes and under-cutting all their competition year after year! just because you dont like someone doesn't mean they arent going to beat you. and as you obviously figured out i dont fly for ryanair or write their sop's (though i did find that comment funny i have to admit). they are ruthless and for the most part efficient and keep getting away with it, year after year. easyjet in terms of service are no better. ryanair are blunt and direct with it, take it or leave it is their attitude, where else will you get a one euro flight. easyjet's spotty faced teenagers just smile and shrugg their shoulders and pretend its not their fault. its like dealing with vicki pollards at their ticket counter "no but, yeah but"!! anyway, im sure there will be plenty of come back of how wrong i am. so go for it.

[Taildragger67]

Catchup

OK sorry for my vitriol.

However I think there's an easy answer:

None of them can afford it. If they could, the last 747 order from an US passenger carrier would've been more recent than January 2001.

The US carriers are going after the point-to-point model - hence they are looking to replace their old point-to-point aircraft (767s).

It's simple money and passenger volume.

TD67

[panda-k-bear]

1) what's wrong with Embraer's - pay a visit to their factory and look at the construction methods. Have a look at their factory in the Gers in France, putting together fuselage sections and tell me that's not what the French would call "bricolage".

2) Why, corklad, do they need to extend the runways? Are you suggesting it's because of the A380? The A380 has take-off and landing performance as good or better than (depending on cricumstances) a 747-400 according to the data provided by Airbus to the airline I work for. If that's true, why are extensions needed?

3) Name the routes on which Ryanair and easyJet DIRECTLY compete? Now tell us all why that is.

4) As for attitudes, at least easyJet crew give off an attitude of actually enjoying their work. I've yet to experience that with Ryanair.

As for the comments about how "pretty" an aeroplane is, God help us. Why does that make an aircraft any better than any other? Because it's nice to look at?!

And if you bother to read anything about Boeing and Airbus you'll se they are as bad as each other so don't pretend otherwise.

[ATCO1987]

Ok I went to EGTG yesterday expecting the A380 as I was told it was coming in at 1230. And all that came in was an A346! GRR!

Dan.

[leighton]

I always thought 'BA' meant 'Boeing Always'.

The original B747 was built for a competition for a large Military Freighter for the US Airforce. The competition was won by the C5 Galaxy. But the US airforce paid for the original B747.
I don't think RAF or any other European airforce pays for prototypes?

[MarkD]

corklad

wind your neck in there feen. You're making yourself look like an awful gowl.

Comparing a 100 seat ERJ with a 555+ seat Airbus and referring to the 787 as better than a plastic bus when the 787 is being sold on its weight savings due composites is truly the stuff of rampant fanboy airliners.net stuff - the only difference seems to be that Danny doesn't force people to pay before posting and airliners does. Maybe he should take note.

The 787 is an excellent aircraft for the North American market which is leaning more towards point to point but the A380 is not necessarily tailored for that market except serving high density slot restricted markets like JFK-LHR/CDG/FRA. Can't put 2 787s on if you've only got one slot.

Embraer does produce some nice aircraft, Air Canada just got some, but remember they get massive taxpayer support proportional to company size from Brazil which makes it easier to kick Bombardier around. Embraer are only now (with the 195) coming to the point of competing with Airbus and Boeing products.

As for longer runways, A380 is quite well accommodated by existing 744 capable runways (see this week's flight on their FAA prompted testing on 45m wide strips) and likely less stressful on said runways than a 773ER (ask Air France).

The RAF may have selected Tucano (which I seem to recall was not a completely happy choice but you are free to ask those in Mil Forum) but they have also selected A330K over 767K if they ever get the Treasury to open the purse.

As for your points on FR - kinda off topic no? Also I think you should post your own picture before sounding off on spotty easyjetters.

[corklad]

My word, again i have to ask the question do people actually read the threads here or just insert mythical inferrals and references?? its truely amazing! Mark D, sorry boy, but if you read my original script PROPERLY you would see that i did not compare an embraer to an 555+ seat airbus (how stupid a remark would that be). what i said was its a great lower end model to compete against A319 or B737 etc. You also missed the point that it was not i who orriginally suggested that runway lengths needed to be increased, that was information passed on by "TheOddOne" and in fairness i think what HE was getting at was taxi ways and general runway infrastructure ugrading. i was talking about gates and terminals!! Anyway i was NEVER said the Embraer is better than an airbus or a boeing or a sabb (again READ the damn post)! I was trying to to say to all the airbus fun club to stop hyping up a plane that hasnt even flown yet for an airline nor proven itself and which in fact is running behind schedule. what the hell is your point about Embraer getting finance from brazil all about? its nonsensical! every state that manufactures planes supports it for political reason to keep jobs and tries its best to save it even during bankrupcy. its true for boeing or airbus or saab, i dare say its true for embraer and bombardier Crj and all the others out there. again think about what you are trying to say before you jump the gun, you only make youself look silly. As for the Raf using the Airbus...well duh! politics matey! they hung onto the tornado F3, the biggest heap of junk for years due to political pressure from BAe (ie all the jobs that would be lost and greedy awful yanks would come in and replace our eurofighter if we go down that road etc etc) when the RAf wanted to lease f16s and look at other alternatives till the typhoon came in. The tacano from what here works just fine so i dont know what your point its there. FR was off topic i agree but more a response to a challange in an earlier thread.

Panda k bear, as far as factory assembly goes. I cannot say that i have been to an embraer factory, or any other factory where the essamble large aircraft but if you say that you have and their methods are shoddy well I cannot disprove you but I dont quite believe it. sorry what you are suggesting is kinda slanderours too. why do you dislike ERJ so much? Do you equally dislike the CRJ and MD? Again i should point out im not a poster boy fan of the ERJ, I was using it as an EXAMPLE of a different aircraft to airbus or even boeing, I could have just said a BAE146. Again guys read carefully and make sure you understand whats being said not racing through material and coming up with all the wrong conclusions.
AS for looks...now come on mate you cannot honestly put you hand on your heart and say looks do not count. if you asked any pilot whether or not they'd like a go at flying say the concord or a fokker 50...well you get the point.

Again all i was saying was the A380 isnt there yet so i wouldnt get all wet about it at night, plus read flight international, good article about it out just now.

Finally i was making the point about all the anti-american hype on the message boards these days. interesting how all the come-back havent brought that up. perhaps they agree and have to attack in other ways, if only they could ready properly.

cheers :ok:

[panda-k-bear]

corkchild,
Do you know what the word "infer" means? Go into your school library and look it up and then tell me what this sentence: "with 787's, 777 Er etc, and embraeer 170 at the lower end why go to plastic airbus" infers. Where does that, anywhere, draw a comparison?

I think you mean slanderous, don't you? If so, look it up and look at what I wrote. Borrow the French dictionary as well and look up "bricolage".

I don't equally dislike CRJs or any other. It is only the disposable Barbie jet that I dislike. When you grow up, maybe you'd like to run evaluations of competing aircraft models, as I do for my company, to help make recommendations as to what to buy. That way you'd begin to learn things like this, along with other bits and pieces such as it really doesn't matter WHAT an aircraft looks like so long as it performs well, is economical, reliable and above all is safe.

I note with interest that after your Ryanair bleating you appear to be unable to tell me on which routes easy and Ryan DIRECTLY compete. Interesting. Maybe you could do that for your next school project? :p