A380

[747FOCAL]

Thunderball 2 is correct. I forgot to mention that to satisfy engine out criteria the Classic 747s had to have 4 engines as is the same with the 747-400. I have seen the concept models of the 747-400 with 2 engines and you end up with gear almost twice as long as the 777 because of the engine DIA requirements. And thats a lot of what it comes down to now that we have the reliability that we have. Gear is very heavy, sometimes it is cheaper to have 4 engines and shorter gear, but that is only when the engine tear down cost is less than gear maintenance metrics.

The reason the 747-400 and the 747 Advanced(if it ever gets off paper) will have 4 engines is because the cost of designing a new wing to be efficient with 2 engines, plus the gear requirement is way more than the B will be willing to spend.

Plus I think a lot of 747 guys cruise well knowing there is 4 out there instead of two. They already proved what they thought was impossible by having multiple instances of dual flameout.

[Pontious]

747FOCAL

I'm not feuding with you but how much fuel does a 772 or 773 burn an hour with max payload? It's an honest question and if you are unable to answer it then it is open to anyone who can.

I believe SQ got rid of their A343's because they didn't have any routes suitable for it. The A345 is a differant animal and will carry a full payload for 14 hours+ at a MTOW of around 372 tonnes which is more than a Classic 747.

[bizflyer]

Whatever side of the argument you come down on, I'm sure all will accept that it's hard not to be impressed by the scale of this thing, what on earth would a stretched version look like?

Click Here

[panda-k-bear]

Wouldn't it be great if it was all so black and white.

A couple of points - ETOPS - Extended Range TWIN-engined Operations. The A380 is a quad. therefore is exempt from TWIN rules. Let's drop the ETOPS rubbish now - it doesn't apply to a quad. That means the A380 can divert wherever the hell it likes - not directly to the nearest ETOPS airport.

Second - consider this. A twin has to be able to take off using one engine. That means each engine is overpowered for normal operations by at least a factor of 2. What impact does that have on (a) fuel burn and (b) maintenance costs? A quad has to get up on 3 engines, so has a much smaller level of required exceedance for each engine. There is, of course, a penalty in fuel burn and maintenance cost. What's better - 2 massive engines or 4 smaller ones?

So Focal, you reckon that anyone operating a quad is an idiot as well, then, do you? Twins have their place, as do quads - let's just face it. Want to be free of ETOPS constraints? A quad is your only option.

Personally I'm happy to trudge the Northe Atlantic in a twin. Am I as happy to go over the Pole? No I am not!

[747FOCAL]

panda-k-bear,

I guess you don't read the USA NPRMs then? ETOPS is going to be extended to 3 and 4 engine aircraft most likely unless I missed something. I was not saying that current ETOPS affect the A380, I was saying what an A380 does may or may not affect a large majority of whomever else is flying the route that must use a certain remote airport.

Depending on the situation, the A380 pilot will choose a very close airport if there is a serious problem and not have much choice depending on where he is. If the problem is not that bad, he may be able to choose an airport that won't affect very many operators.

Pontious - Singapore has been in the news even around here for being furious that they have to leave 80+ PAX behind to make the 15 hour journey. I bet the A345 will make the 15 hour journey at 372k, but when a large chunk of that is gas and not passengers the profit metric gets jacked. The 777 will carry full passenger load all the way to its max range.

I can get the fuel burn stuff if it really matters but I don't see the significants. It all comes down to operating cost and that is what I meant when I said anybody who designs a completely new aircraft with more than two engines is not helping airlines operte efficiently. Hence the idiot comment. Something the size of the A380 would probably need engines so big if it were a twin that maybe it is better in the end to have 4. I guess we will find out.

Its certainly going to save on maintenance of the thrust reversers since it only has two.................

Well I guess until one has an inboard engine out and now you can't use either reverser and end up in the gas station at the end of the airfield.

[panda-k-bear]

Oh come now - I'm sure you're aware that the landing performance must be demonstrated without the use of reversers. If they end up in the gas station then it is the responsibility of the person who allowed the aiorcraft to be operated to a strip it can't get in to.

As regards to NTRMs, LROPS isn't quite the same as ETOPS - and as it won't effect the non-N registered aircraft (of which I assume there won't be many), then who on earth cares? I have to admit I'm not up to date on the NTRMs because they don't affect me, so I bow to your superior knowledge. And before we go there, no, the rest of the world does not apply FAA regs as a matter of course - who else allows 217 mins ETOPS?

[Pontious]

747 FOCAL

As I do not know the variant of the A340 that was involved in the SQ embarassment then I cannot possibly comment, however I am waiting for an answer to my original, non-confrontational, enquiry about the fuel burns of the B772 & B773.

I believe the A340 family were conceived to serve 'Long Thin' almost 'Pioneer' routes. Apparently VS put an A340 on a new route and as trade improves and demand for capacity increases they put a B744 on the route. Switching back to the A340 as needed. Many operators plummed for the A340 because the only available aircraft at the time for some of their routes was their B747's and they were haemorraging money when loads were light.

My employer operates the B772, B773, A332, A343, A345 and from 2006/7, the A380 and places the optimum aircraft for a particular route as best it can and does a pretty bloody good job at it too. For example a B773(Non-'ER') cannot go from DXB to JFK or SYD non-stop with a full load. The A345 does it easily. However the A340 cannot carry as much freight as a B777 on prime routes such as LHR, SIN or BOM. A full A332 can make money on a route that a 50% full B772/B773 would lose money on. Differant aeroplanes for differant needs.

Now when the B773ER's come on line then they probably could do JFK and SYD, freeing up the A345's for developing new routes. But on a dark and dirty night over the Polar Ice Cap, Siberia or the Himilayas in a Northern Hemisphere winter and you lost an engine would you rather be down to 1 engine 'Turning an Burning' or 3 engines 'Purring'. That's the difference between a 'LAND ASAP' and a 'CONTINUE'.

In essence all Airbus have done is take Boeings' Engineering marvels and given them flexibility to meet the needs of todays' 'BeanCounters' in the case of the A340 family and 1 step further in the case of the A380. I'm sure back in the late 60's while one side is saying 'It's too big! It'll never work' the other team were saying 'It will revolutionise air travel for the masses!' while both contemplated the arrival of the 1st B747. History repeats itself occasionally.

A colleague has answered my question for me. The fuel burns for the B772 & B773 are 7 & 8 tonnes/hour respectively, exactly the same as the A343 and A345 respectively so an operator has the flexibility to make direct, flexible tracks and does not need to comply with ETOPS constraints.

The A380 will, quite literally be ground breaking. It does make me wonder why the US chose to implement these NPRM's just as the A380 was emerging on to the world... Funny old thing... did somebody mention Concorde and 'new US noise level enforcements'.... I hope that history only does repeat itself....occasionally.

[Phileas Fogg]

(So Focal, you reckon that anyone operating a quad is an idiot as well, then, do you? Twins have their place, as do quads - let's just face it. Want to be free of ETOPS constraints? A quad is your only option.)

There was nothing wrong with the DC10/MD11 Tri-Jet, perhaps one of the finest commercial aeroplanes ever built, but then a decision was taken to cease it's production so as not to compete with Boeing's twins.

It would seem the customers were not given a choice, you take a twin or nothing, after all, only idiots manufacture aeroplanes with more than 2 engines!

[747FOCAL]

You guys are getting me all wrong here. I am not bashing.

I am well aware of what the cert requirements are for landing performance. wet runway, no reversers, brakes only. What I a was getting at is that a lot of pilots would rather have use of their reverses than not, especially when the aircraft is broken for some reason.

Aircraft that want to fly to the USA must abide by FAA regulations, i.e. FAA ETOPS contraints. If they make it rule, all 3 and 4 engine aircraft that operate here will have to meet the rule. Lots of expensive, basically useless equipement but have to have it regardless.


And for the last time I am sorry I used the word idiot. I thought I explained that already. Or do you guys read?

[panda-k-bear]

The equipment, perhaps. The procedure, no. If a D registered, or F registered, or G registered or VH registered airline flies a quad from Europe to the U.S. or from Australia to the U.S. then they abide by the country of registration's rule - that means that they divert as and when - and where - they wish, not into the nearest alternate as may be mandated by the FAA for N registered aircraft. The captain may elect to do so, but he is not forced to. As I said before, not everyone's regs are governed by the FAA. There's a small grouping on the other side of the Atlantic as well (what are they called this week? Still EASA?) who have their own rules.

Phileas - a good point well made. Tri-jets fit here as well. I wouldn't go so far as to call the MD-11 "finest" though. DC-10 perhaps of its generation. But the MD-11 not.

[747FOCAL]

Hmmm, I was under the impression that if you were going to fly into US soil you had to meet FAA requirements. After all, isn't that what killed the concorde with noise?

[Phileas Fogg]

You try bringing one on your N registered B727's or B737-200's into many a European airport and they'll refuse you landing permission, but ..... they don't care where you divert do, you just ain't putting that noisy beast down on our piece of tarmac thank you very much!

[747FOCAL]

Hmmm. There is one set of 727s that have no troubles like that. Can you guess which ones?

Hmmm, now that I think about it...... I thought when you guys squashed the hushkit ban the legislation said that N registered Stage 3 aircraft can operate indefinitly within the EU???

[Phileas Fogg]

So all stage 2 aircraft in USA are hushkitted to stage 3?

I clearly and subsequently stated 'noisy', given a choice between hushkitted and non-hushkitted even a 5 year old child would be able to identify to which of these I was referring.

However, you have clearly chosen to nit-pick rather than admit your ignorance, noise legislation and ETOPS diversion policies have about as much in common with each other as you and I.

[747FOCAL]

Since December 31, 1999 all US aircraft are Stage 3 compliant or on the ground. There are waivers for maintenance and non revenue, but highly restricted.

But then you have to go and be a ****** and get antagonistic. All I said was that I THOUGHT all aircraft entering the USA had to follow FAA guidlines just like N registered have to follow the laws of other countries.

At least admit your ignorance, because you obvioulsy know little of either catagory.

[Phileas Fogg]

747,
I was not being antagonistic, you came up with a cocky reply and you know it.

I know of many N registered geriatric jets flying around without hushkits, perhaps they don't fly in USA but they are N registered.

Another example, your FAR flight & crew duty regulations. Wherever a G, VH, D, PH or F registered aircraft may fly in the world the crew operate to their own country's duty regulations.

FAR's have one set of regulations for flying within US airspace and hey, let's ignore those regulations if we're flying in someone elses airspace. Despite this, other countries do not dictate N registered crews work to that country's regulations.

Only the USA has such regulations that are only applicable within their own airspace, if you don't believe my ignorance then take a look in Jeppesens.

[747FOCAL]

Then I just learned something. For some reason I ignorantly assumed that all regulatory bodies had resciprocity with each other.

N registry alone does not require compliance with the latest amendmet of FAR 36. In fact even an N registered aircraft that only flys between Hawaii and South America would only need Stage 2.

[panda-k-bear]

FOCAL,

Sorry, not trying to be antagonistic. The truth is that a "foreign" registered aircraft outside of U.S. airspace doesn't have to obey FARs even if it is operating to or from the U.S. Thus an aircraft operating from, say, Germany to the U.S. will have to have the FAA mandated equipment on board (else it couldn't be dispatched from the U.S.), but will not have to follow FARs regarding diversion until or unless it is in U.S. airspace - it follows the LBAs regulations (to complicate matters they may not be the same as the EASAs regulations... there may be requirements on top).

Thus regardless of whether or not the aircraft is a twin or a quad (or a tri), it has a D registration and will divert according to German rules, not FAA ones. That means that for a quad, it will divert where it likes according to the situation. For a twin, it will be the nearest alternate. By the time it gets to U.S. airspace, it won't be in the ETOIPS portion of flight anyway, so the whole thing becomes academic.

[Pontious]

He's gone, Boys. What else can we wind them up about?

[747FOCAL]

Gone where? If your talking about me you are mistaken.