A380 - little things.
 

A380s have never figured on routes I've travelled until Tuesday when I came home from San Francisco on a BA example.

In many ways, I felt it was simply a big plane. We got a little turbulence en-route and it dealt with it well but didn't eliminate it (why should it?).

Two things I wasn't prepared for. One was the initial acceleration surge; there was a very noticeable initial push as we began our take off run, more than most aircraft. The second was the front cabin upstairs toilets (either side of the stairs) - by most airlines standards absolutely huge. However, those toilets have a problem for taller (I'm 6'2") men; the curvature of the fuselage and the placement of the toilet bowl against the fuselage meant I had to adopt a knees bent posture to stand and urinate - I seem to remember a complaint about something similar in 146s in California.

Elementary dear Hartington, pee sitting down ;)

We've just flown to/from joberg on BA's A380. Our take off, at both airports, seemed slow and ponderous. I knew we were going to get off the ground sometime, but when! Upstairs toilets very spacious as you say. What I thought was not good was the business class seat positioning in flat bed mode with the strange mini foot stool down to make the flatbed. In this mode passengers in the middle aisle and window seats have to clamber over other passengers footstools to get out to aisle. A truly bizarre arrangement. Give me a 747 any day. Even and comfortable cabin temperature at all times which was nice.

It is just the same on BA's 747s. All the rear-facing seats, except the ones in the back row, have restricted aisle access.

HT - I did on, a subsequent visit. It just seems odd, given the space available, that the bowl is placed where it is. I guess it is something to do with the plumbing under the floor.

Yellow - Joburg is "hot and high" so always a long run (so I'm told, never been there). We went to SFO on the 777 so not sure about A380 take off at LHR but from SFO, after the initial surge it felt very similar to a 747-400 to me. I often time take-off runs but for some reason didn't at SFO but the runway also has distance to go markers and we were off at about 9000ft and the initial climb rate was pretty good. Initial cruise was 35000 with a couple of intermediate climbs as we burned fuel we were at 41000 east of Greenland.

I've been on most of SQ's 380s and the thing that always seems weird compared to other planes I have been (e.g., 747s 777s 320s 310s etc) is how quickly they seem to get into the air. There is what seems to be a gentle trundle to the take off spot, then an equally gentle run up and suddenly it points itself up, up and away.

When we flew Business class on Air NZ 747's we were sat in the pointy end and not only were the flatbeds 'one piece' with no stools to flap down (don't try and sit on them as they will collapse underneath you) but there were only 4 seats abreast if I recall correctly. Each pair were across the aisle and were pointed slightly towards one another. I could join Mrs yt for meals at her table. No clambering over other passengers stools, and there were no rear facing seats that I could see, but, I didn't go to the upper deck (?).

Of course I realise Air NZ don't fly 747's any more.

ANZ 747s were unusual upstairs - the rear was economy (2-3 I think) and the front was Business with the seats you described 1 - 1 in a herringbone pattern. I believe Virgin Atlantic use the same seats. BA patented theirs (I think) so they are the only people with that specific layout. There are a lot of variants out there and some airlines have multiple layouts; I think Air Canada have at least 3 kinds of Business class seats.

Thai seem to have an odd layout for the outside seats, all face forwards but are staggered so one is a true window seat with aisle access and the next one a true aisle seat with its window a full seat width away.
Also they have a three point lap and diagonal safety belt system like a motor car but not an inertia reel type.

After looking at "Seat Guru" I notice the complete layout is off set. Outer rows numbered seats are 12A, 14B, 15A, to 24B and the other side 12K and 14J whilst the centre rows are 11D & G, 12E & F with rows 12 to 23 being half a row behind the outside rows.

While you were busy with the toilet, you may have missed some of the most important differences in the A380. The cabin pressure altitude is much lower, something like 5000 or 6000 ft versus 8000 ft on other planes. And the ventilation system is a lot less drying than other planes. Between the two, I always feel much better after long-haul flights.

A travel agent friend of mine says that her regular clients prefer the A380. If they are booking, or changing a booking they will insist on being on this machine, particulatly those in premium cabins.

Have now managed a dozen long hauls in the 380's of both EK and BA, with another two coming up in next two weeks (to JNB funnily enough)

It is a remarkable beast and its quietness on take off and in the cruise is remarkable

I am not sure it rides turbulence any better than the other big jets

Happiness is EK029...and an empty bar to enjoy all to ones self for 7hrs!!

Hartington you are correct about JNB, which is at 5,000ft and can limit the payload performance of some big twins

At JNB, a 744 will be rolling for some 35/45 seconds longer than at LHR before rotating. Of course many, many factors affect the actual timing on any given day.

...and a foot pedal to open the waste bin in the toilets. So obvious now it's been fitted. (THAI A380, I presume on all A380s)

Not quite so obvious I didn't notice it until after I had disposed of the hand towel in the usual manner and then stepped back from the wash basin.
To make it even less obvious I am not sure I even noticed it on the TG A380, if asked I would have said it was on a Cathay A350! But that's memory in old age!

Mark, I think you are thinking of the B787 (and possibly the A350) not the A380.

Having only flown once - tho' three legs - on the 380 I found it more comfortable in terms of noise, humidity and oxygenation. I had then understood the usual pressurization level to be significantly below the average 8,000' of long haulers. Wikipedia quotes an unnamed survey of eight A380 flights as 6,128' cabin altitude which accords with my earlier understanding. I

TCU
EK017 for me but same place as you. You can only view so many films especially if you are doing a lot of LH as the movies, even on ICE soon run out of the ones you may want to view. As for working on planes, unless an emergency I have to say I pass. Totally agree with all comments on A380 the best way to fly LH in any class in my humble opinion.

Yes, it's become a bit of an urban myth that the A380 has a higher max diff than the other tin Airbuses and Boeings. It doesn't.

The only airliners with a max delta of 9+ psi are the 787 and A350 (and of course Concorde).

I guess if the A380 fanboys board the aircraft truly believing that it’s pressurised to a lower altitude, then it’s going to make them feel better no matter what.

Andy s / Dave Reid
Not a fan of any manufacture in particular though do have preferred airlines. As for pressure and atmosphere I will only say that I have been doing LH flying since I was 8 ( back and forth for school) and being doing it as part of my work since graduation, and clock up about 300-350k miles per year. My observation is that I prefer the 380 to other metal I have flown, and also the types you have mentioned. In fact I try to avoid the 787 and have only done a very few sectors on 350. However I am not a fan of 330 so not anti Boeing, as such, and obviously spent many years in 747/ 707. As for Concorde one sector only so can not really comment though it was cramped for 6ft + frame !

I would whole heartedly endorse that.

I honestly don’t have a problem with the A380. I’ve not flown it many times, but those times I have (economy class only) were perfectly satisfactory journeys. Whether that was down to the A380 itself or Singapore Airlines in flight service I really couldn’t say.

I’m just alternately amused and riled by the wide eyed breathless prose written by some in praise of the aircraft, as if the A380 was some sort of palace in the sky offering a fundamental step change in the air travel experience. Claims by some here that they’ll go to almost any lengths, pay any premium or travel any routing, no matter how inconvenient, in order to fly on a 380 I find somewhat bizarre. Well, fair enough if you really like the aircraft that much. But I do think a lot of it is in the mind. If you’ve convinced yourself that the A380 is the last word in passenger comfort then you’ll probably feel like it was a good flight. Equally, if you’ve convinced yourself that the same journey in a 777 is going to be a vile experience then it will be; you’ll actively find things to disapprove of.

I think some people get very fixated on aircraft type. At the end of the day they are all still aircraft, and somewhat less comfortable than your own front room. If everything else was equal I would probably pick a 380 over a 777, but things are rarely equal. Cost, timing and airline are all more important to me than equipment type.

I really liked CP Air's DC8-63s! Lots of legroom, China and silver service, even in Y.

ExXB
Would that be the bright Orange with a Red swirl ones ? I never flew with CP Air as they had ceased operations, or were not going my way, but I do remember seeing them. Quite a startling early 70,s colour scheme similar to the Texan airline Baniff I think. But you have to remember back then you got China and Silver Service on most large carriers in Y - definitely on BCAL anyway.
I think it all started to change in the mid to late 80,s in Y class and the 90,s recession accelerated it and hence where we are today. But also look what you had to pay back then in real terms compared with todays prices !

Based on its maximum differential pressure of 8.6 psi, the A380 is capable of maintaining a 5000' cabin up to approximately 34,000' altitude.

The 747 (all series) has a max diff of 8.9 psi, which would allow a 5000' cabin up to around 35,800'.

A380
 

just had my first A380 exoerience BA Miami- LHR in premier economy- very imprseed- the take off roll seemed much slower and laboured than others but lift off effortless- not sure how full we were but not much spare space on upper deck- faultlessly smooth landing:ok:

I may be incorrect but I thought I was told some years ago that the A380 cabin panels have transducers on their rear, so as to act as a noise cancelling headset ? At least that was in the design but whether it made it through to the finished aircraft ......

I seriously doubt that they can use active noise cancelling to deal with noise on an airliner. Active noise cancelling sends out sound wave to exactly cancel out the noise at a specific point in space. The drawback is that you are actually putting more sound into the environment, so half a wavelength away from that spot, you actually have twice the noise. In ear active noise cancelling works because you are only interested in removing noise at one fixed point - the ear. For out-of-multiple ears active noise cancelling, you are going to need
1. head restraints to keep the ears in specific spots (or some form of ear detectors + many times the computing power for 2).
2. a super computer on board to calculate how to modulate all the panels to reduce or cancel out all the noises at all the ears of all the passengers.

A quick google showed that while the A380 has patented ways of reducing the engine fan noise, it does not use active in-cabin noise cancelling.

The deHavilland Dash 8s have had active noise cancelling since around 1997. I.e. Those designated with a Q ... so not impossible but likely difficult to scale up.

Thanks for that interesting info, ExXB, I wonder how effective it is and how much the noise varies throughout the cabin.

A quick google puts the engine noise at between 50 to 150Hz, which puts the half-wavelength at 1 to 3m, which will probably cover the width of the cabin. Vertically should be easy, just make the top of the headrest the sweet spot. The only thing I cannot get my head around is how they managed it along the cabin. I guess they are just reducing the noise, not eliminating it, so it may make it a bit easier.

I am not an acoustic engineer, just an EE. The technology itself is not hard to understand, but is hard to implement in a multiple-target and multiple-transmitter scenario. I was checking out a (failed) startup around ten years ago that tried to use the same idea to increase data rate from multiple fixed antennas to multiple separate recipients.

Addendum:
After giving it further thought and looking at the placement of the mics and speakers, I think the left half of the noise cancelling deals with primarily with the noise from the left engine and the right half deals with the right engine. It being a narrow body, single aisle aircraft, the aisle is probably noisier with the noise cancelling than without. ie, the noise is pushed into the aisle. Since passengers are generally seated, especially during the noisier take-offs and landings, it seems to be a good trade-off.

As a former local resident of Heathrow, the aircraft and engine manufacturers deserve enormous respect for what they've achieved with the A380 and 787 - slow and ponderous it may be to passengers, quiet and low stress is what it means for residents near airports. :D

From the ground the 747 now just looks and sounds like yesterday's technology.

Was it very windy/gusty?
If windshear is reported, some airlines require max thrust to be used instead of a calculated reduced thrust.

I've flown out of San Francisco several times on 747 non-stops back to London. The A380 departure didn't feel significantly different in terms of wind or routing from those 747s. The departure routing has been from one of the 28 runways (usually 28R I think) straight on over the peninsular ridge, turn right up the coast and right again through the Golden Gate. The only exception was a United 777 when we did a "Shoreline 9" departure (UA channel 9 was on) which was a very spirited departure and an immediate right turn after take off to follow (as far as I could tell) the shore of the Bay without crossing the Peninsular.

The weather when we arrived (on a 777 from London) was very different and we nearly diverted to Oakland apparently. We landed on 19R which I believe is pretty rare. The usual pattern I've seen at SFO has been 28 for landings and 1 for most departures with heavy departures using a 28.

as a reasonably frequent flier, I love the A380, because to my ears it's a lot quieter than anything else I've flown on, but I've yet to fly on an 787.

I've heard that BA pipe artificial noise in the cabin because it is too quiet that passengers were complaining about the noise from others. Not sure if its true.

I like the space and quietness afforded by the 380, but wish that it had the clean air that the 787 excels at. Aerotoxic Association - Aerotoxic Association

Flown QF A380 in Business, upper deck, didn't like the double seat row either side, made life quite difficult for the inside window seat when trying to get in and out with other pax fully bedded down, centre row not a problem. Have now done several sectors on SIA, A380, Business Class, upper deck, different altogether, single row only down the windows side, double in the middle, everyone free to move unrestricted. Seat configuration and quality of cabin service, for me, will win every time.

EGLD - The B747, like the VC10 still a beautiful aircraft to look at, something the A380,(The Dugong), can never be!

A plane, Beautiful???????????

A picture, say, a Monet, perhaps a car - Lotus Elan, and often a woman - your Kate and your Nicole, for instance, but never a plane. Maybe a tiny amount of beauty in a Concorde, I suppose.

Fairly sure you are in a minority there Ancient Observer! Very few beautiful cars around, a Bentley Continental perhaps. Neither Kate or Nicole would rate with me as beautiful and I would prefer a Constable over a Monet any day. As you can see Ancient Observer, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.