A380 - the best is yet to come

[Torquelink]

Without EK's cancellation of 70 (good and now dearly missed) 350ies to the benefit of 40 RR-380ies, RR would have gone broke

. What utter tosh: troubles with the T1000 might send RR bust (although highly unlikely) but not the vagaries in the order book for a type with some 900 on backlog.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by Volume

Here's the 777X wing secret: It's just a longer 787 Dreamliner wing

May I suggest you read the entire article and not just the title. Here's the second sentence in that article:“In general, the reason we have have so much confidence in the performance of wing is we’re using the same material systems as the 787 wing. We understand the 787 wing very well,” said Bob Feldmann, general manager of the 777X program, in a meeting with journalists on Tuesday. “We’re evolving the architecture of the 787 wing to fit this bigger airplane,” he said.

Note that last statement: "We're evolving the architecture of the 787 wing...." The 777 wing has several structural departures relative to the 787 wing (not the least of which is a wing fold mechanism) and even more aerodynamic departures. It even uses a different airfoil section than 787 and has a different twist. What 787 provided was tons of data that was used to finesse the 777 wing design, both structurally and aerodynamically. “It (wind tunnel testing) is just a confirmation of the models that we used, which are mature models, because based on 787 wing."

Remember, the 787 was Boeing's first composite wing. This was all new territory for Boeing, and LOTS of lessons were learned in its design and fabrication. Those lessons and the later flight performance and operational data were all rolled into the design of the 777 wing. But the wing design itself is significantly different for many reasons.

[pilot9248]

Originally Posted by Volume

There especially was no revolution on the A380.

That may be (mostly) true for the structure, but if you look at the airframe systems, you will find many technologies/architectures that had never been used before on a commercial aircraft, let alone a very large long-haul aircraft. For example, the A380 is the first commercial aircraft to use 5000 psi hydraulics, with only two conventional hydraulic circuits complemented by electro-hydrostatic and electrical backup actuators. Sure, compared to the "More Electric Aircraft" 787 that may not seem very impressive, but nonetheless, those achievements should be recognised also in the context of the aviation supply chain beyond Airbus.
And if you consider "Pax Ex", I am certain that most passengers would agree that the A380 has indeed revolutionised long-haul air travel.

[BAengineer]

Originally Posted by theturbofantastic

For example, the A380 is the first commercial aircraft to use 5000 psi hydraulics, with only two conventional hydraulic circuits complemented by electro-hydrostatic and electrical backup actuators.

Thats not much of a leap is it? - Concorde had 4000psi hydraulics and that was designed back in the 60's

[Volume]

The 777 wing has several structural departures relative to the 787 wing (not the least of which is a wing fold mechanism) and even more aerodynamic departures. It even uses a different airfoil section than 787 and has a different twist.

You probably want to state "the 777X wing has several structral departues", but it also has a lot of departures from the "classic" 777 wing. It has a different sweep, different area, different span. The trailing edge / high lift system is 787 style, completely different from the "classic" 777, pylon attachment is different as well, further outboard and with two diagonal braces instead of one.
The 77X wing is much more 787 than 777.

you will find many technologies/architectures that had never been used before on a commercial aircraft ... with only two conventional hydraulic circuits

You mean like the 737 since the 60s? Aircraft like 747 and L1011 had 4, the next generation had 3, now we have 2. That is no revolution, that´s the way you can go with more reliable systems these days.
I agree that there has been a lot of evolution compared to A330/340, but nothing like the A320 (which by the way has a very conservative, conventional structure), nothing groundbreaking.
Which also is true for the 777X, and does not necessarily mean that it must fail for this reason. A lot of very successful aircraft have just been evolutions or just state of the art design. A lot of revolutionary aircraft failed.

And if you consider "Pax Ex", I am certain that most passengers would agree that the A380 has indeed revolutionised long-haul air travel.

Compared to what the 747 once meant? I don´t think so. Except for the noise level, there is nothing special on the A380.

[pilot9248]

BAengineer, I believe it is the combination of all the characteristics listed (within a commercial air transport system) that is significant. It is not just about the system pressure. Military aircraft have been using 5000 psi hydraulics for a long time. A380 and 787 are much larger than any of those, or even Concorde (which is not a good benchmark in the context of this thread).

Volume, apples and oranges I'd say. How do you intend to power more than two independent circuits with only two engines? Besides, you "conveniently" left out a crucial part of my sentence in your quote.
Perhaps you could say that the A380 is a very expensive technology demonstrator? Subsequent aircraft will certainly benefit from the operational experience gained.

Regarding your last point: Is there anything "special" on any aircraft these days?

[Turbine D]

Is there anything "special" on any aircraft these days?

One item that comes to mind are high bypass turbo jet engines that develop 115K pounds of thrust.

[glofish]

Originally Posted by Torquelink

. What utter tosh: troubles with the T1000 might send RR bust (although highly unlikely) but not the vagaries in the order book for a type with some 900 on backlog.

Well, it's like a flashback of the 2007/8, isn't it ......

https://m.gulfnews.com/business/avia...uble-1.2260677

[QUOTE]=​​​​​Used by the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A380 superjumbo, the engines (1000) have seen some parts wear quicker than expected, forcing Rolls to carry out repairs[QUOTE]

[donpizmeov]

Introducing the hardest-working performer in the travel business: Hi Fly’s Airbus A380! Fresh from a limited engagement in the bright lights of New York and London, the A380 will soon move on to Paris for another limited engagement transporting tourists to the beaches and volcano of La Reunion. The venue for the A380 may be different, but the mission is the same: to bail out an airline struggling with downtime on its Dreamliners.

A copy and past from Forbes .

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by BAengineer

Thats not much of a leap is it? - Concorde had 4000psi hydraulics and that was designed back in the 60's

Perhaps 1/5 increase in pressure isn't "much" but the redundancy built into the system certainly is. The fusion between hydraulic and electrical power to provide this redundency is staggering.

I have posted the diagram before, but I'm sure it is available online now.

[Vessbot]

Originally Posted by theturbofantastic

Volume, apples and oranges I'd say. How do you intend to power more than two independent circuits with only two engines?

With a RAT/ADG. Honest question, did the 3 holers have one? Do the 747/A380?

[donpizmeov]

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/boeing-787-dreamliner-airbus-a350-long-thin-routes-737-757-a321-a320-a8486896.html

Seems wide body now only refers to the crew.