A 380 Ops

[pax britanica]

I had to meet clients at LHR a couple of times this apst week while the airport was on easterlies.
idling away a few minutes outside the T4 Hilton Isa a BA 380 headed for Washington from FR24) depart on Monday and Wednesday. It made the usual Compton departure hard right off 09R but seemed to barely climb scooting over Feltham etc at about 1500 ft . . I did check on FR 24 after it had passed out of sire and it was at about 5500 overhead Bagshot/Camberley area which is pretty normal for US bound aircraft.

Was it my imagination it seemed so low on both days, after all LHR_IAD is a walk in the park for a 380 . I did carefully watch a few other westbounds , T7s and 764s which climbed away much higher , is it just an illusion caused by the 380s size or is there a special keep it low/build up speed departure technique for them. It is remarkably quiet on take off and was just made for the BA livery -that massive tail shows off the stylised Union flag to a tee, really does fly the flag.

[joy ride]

I cannot comment about the height, but being below the LHR approach in S.E. London, and having witnessed 380s taking off over West london, I have to agree that their noise is remarkably less than other planes with 4 engines, and less than some twins. They are not pretty aircraft (though I do like the upwards curve of the wings) and I agree that BA livery does suit them very well. When a BA 747 passes over I REALLY notice the difference in volume compared to a 380!

[Airbanda]

Size does make a difference.

When BHX is landing on 33 inbounds via Hemel/Wellin come over here descending through around FL80. The Emirates 777 looks much lower than usual airbus 320 sized stuff.

[T6NL]

Take off performance is regulated by the requirement for an aircraft to achieve a minimum climb gradient with one engine inoperative. This means that a twin engine aircraft (B777, A330 etc) will, under normal circumstances, be climbing with approximately double the minimum power required (and airlines will often use the minimum power required in order to preserve engine life - which reduces costs). However, the 4-engine aircraft will only have 33.33% more power than needed for the emergency case.

Hence normally the 2-engine aircraft will often appear to have better climb performance than their 4-engine counterparts. This is the case at high take-off weights; a 4-engine aircraft with no passengers/freight and a small fuel load (eg on a positioning sector) will most likely climb like a homesick angel!

As with most things in aviation, the details are much more complicated, but this is a broad generalisation.

[KelvinD]

It is a sight to be seen when the Virgin B747 leaves Manchester empty, re-positioning to Gatwick.
Talk about "up, up and away"! They are usually airborne in half the distance the B737s take.

[10 DME ARC]

A380's are not at there best the first few thousand feet! Once they clean up and get above 3000ft they climb quite well!

[pax britanica]

Thanks for the replies, yes the A 380 isn't especially pretty and when downwind for 09L as has been the case this week they look positively odd with the stubby fuselage and giant tail masking their size.

I have flown on one a couple for times and it was very impressive in terms of quietness , smoothness and excellent cabin environment conditioning.

Going back to my question , yes the comparison with the twins is a good point and a valid and I am sure accounted for some of the difference but I think the last post about he A380 not being at its best low down is a large part of the answer especially as they seem to have caught up with the 'normal ' SID climb by the time they had got out to the Bagshot /Camberley area. With your location Mr 10DME I guess you get to see a lot of them too

if you happen to be around LHR when one departs it is quite interesting sight because it is incredibly quiet and once airborne seems to accelerate very quickly but not climb -so if you live in Feltham when LHR is easterlies you must get a seriously impressive view because the A380 wing really does blot out the sky.

thanks to all

PB

[Ian Brooks]

Just watched the EK A380 depart off 05L at Manchester and yes it does
seem low but i guess that is the size but watched TCX A330 outbound to
Goa yesterday and that was low, just passing through 1800ft
by Stockport (4 miles from 23R threshold). would be interesting
as it passed over Pennines.

[DaveReidUK]

I think the last post about the A380 not being at its best low down is a large part of the answer

No commercial airliner is optimised for low-level flight.

[wiggy]

Don't forget all airliners are supposed to comply with various regulations, national and international, regarding the likes of obstacle clearance, climb gradients, etc. I doubt the 380 is any "worse" lower down than a 744, but being bigger it sure looks different. Dare I mention that even the earlier A340's had too comply with the same regs...

As T6NL :eek: ;) has pointed out the big twins are mostly very overpowered compared with a 4 holer... as long as all engines are running.

[pax britanica]

The 380 to me looked very distinctly different- turned south quickly enough and then continued on that heading a la Concorde 09R departure and from where I was it was side on and some way from it so size /height perception was not really relevant unlike when it is overhead.

Certainly was not climbing as quickly as BA 744s on same route or the twins so to me the answer from 10DME that it just isn't that great at initial climb seems about right since as I mentioned earlier it pretty soon caught up with the profile once it was 15-20 miles SW of LHR.

I would also add that I have not seem 380s departing LHR before except (on several occasions) the 1400 EK Dubai flight. I have been in Egham on those occasions so it has gone pretty much right overhead and the slow climb effect didn't seem so pronounced because from underneath the 380 looks huge because the wing is so big and it is therefore extremely hard to make a judgement on how high it is.

( And as for the comment on the A340, well as is well know that is a successor to the Trident for the 'Gripper ' title but a very elegant looking aircraft and also a lovely plane to fly on.

PB

[10 DME ARC]

The 380 flying long distances do rival the 340 on initial climb rates! RR fitted 380's certainly in high temps travelling long distances cannot meet a initial 5deg climb gradient and we have to give radar vectors. Mind you I am only talking recent aircraft types, I am lucky enough to remember Tridents and Flying Tiger 747's and that is a totally different ball game!! :-))

I have been lucky to be paid to watch aircraft either visually or on radar for the last 33 years and for the last six have worked at the biggest 380/heavy airport in the world.

P.S. Nothing and I mean nothing compares to an over loaded IL76 in high 40C's!!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I recall when the '340s first came out. Usual call after departure was "no speed control" whereupon they would reduce!