Hmmm.

Given that they already sold 200 of them, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch, does it?

And before you say "yeah, there were 200 Concordes sold, too", they've already delivered A380s to more customers (3, 4th one later in the year) than Concorde was delivered to (2). AND, to boot, none of the customers that have so far taken delivery are European, so none are a part of your "European government/taxpayer" conspiracy, either.

So how does that work, then?

Do the rest of the opinions expressed in these posts hold as much credibility as the above two little gems?

p-k-b

...and here we have it, the perfect example of pilot solidarity; the complete and utter dissection, abet negatively of a landing in an aircraft which one would suggest at the most two posters are qualified to judge by type, and then a divergence into a Boeing are better then Airbus argument...

Well done chaps, having this argument in spotters corner is bad enough but have any of you read the "press may be watching this web-site" warning when you log-in recently.

Anonymity hides the individual in forums such as PPRuNe but having such a "shoot the Pilot" argument in public is not good for anyone especially our industry which I know has rewarded many of us very well; whats that old phrase? Don't bit the...

What a lot of tripe...the so called experts who love to jump on the negative bandwagon obviously know it is far easier to be negative and predict failure than it is to be positive and plan for the future....

Look at the following landing....it looks worse than the A380, lucky Avweb wasn't there to cover the landing, wonder if that moronic statement of "looks like the aeroplane might be usable still" would have been made after it.

The Boeing pilot states "in a short runway you just want to put the aeroplane down hard and early and get on the brakes and reverse thrust"...

YouTube - 727 Landing Meigs Field, Chicago Museum Science and Industry

Weeeellllll!!!. I'm amazed at all the comments!!. I have just returned from Oshkosh, was dead level with the touchdown point, video'ed it, consulted my video, and all I can say is that it sure as hell raised NO EYEBROWS AT ALL amongst us [experienced pilots, some of us]. It was only the next morning that someone remarked that it appeared a bit firm.
I, being right next to it, and in a good position to judge it, would describe it it as a perfectly normal crosswind landing!!!!! I'm sorry if I am re-iterating what other people have said, I haven't had time to read all the posts, but I was there, and it didn't arise any comment whatsoever!!!!

There's a load of b0ll0x being posted on this and other threads about this landing. And it's not helped by that @rse of a 777 pilot that was interveiwed.

It was a firm landing. But was it outside the aircraft limits? I doubt it. the pilot (a test pilot!) was faced with a short field with a strong crosswind. how did he chose to handle it - well you saw it. He minimzed the flare and allowed the aircraft to crab itself into wind. Much like I would have done it if I was faced with the same situation. I've never flown the A380, but I have lots of hours on 747s and now fly Airbusses.

The 747, and I suspect the A 380 with body gear aft of the C off G will turn itself down the centreline of the runway on touchdown. The 747 manual says this is OK. In fact, it's a reccomended technique on wet or contaminated runways. It's not pretty, but it's safe and within the aircraft limits. As for the firmness, ponder this. All aircraft which are certified to CATIIIb autoland limits have to be able to withstand a landing with no flaring should the flare system fail. This pilot did flare, therefore it was within limits.

No story here - move along!

Thanks guys. DW, I tried to explain that on page 3 Post 58. Look at the abuse I got for trying to inject a bit of sanity with these 'experts'! 'Nothing wrong with it' gets hysterical accusations of 'you're always saying that to protect other professionals' and other nonsense like a direct attack on the A380 (so sad). There is an unfortunate desire in some Spotter circles to make a sensation in everything. Couple that with a daft 'expert', and before you know it, you have a major 'incident' that the poor, unsuspecting pilot involved knows nothing about! He was probably admiring all the planes at Oshkosh when he was being accused of being hung up to dry in Toulouse.

How do nervous flyers feel reading these sensationalist idiots running amok like this? Are they doing anything positive for aviation?

Camera angles, zoom levels etc.etc.!!!!!!
 

YouTube - AIRBUS A380 LANDING AT OSHKOSH 2009 AIRVENTURE

Well said RB.

Here's a video without use of major zoom at touchdown point, of the same touchdown. Nothing wrong with the landing!

Rob

I was 100 yds to the right of the last U tube vid. Agree totally with the people who say there was nothing wrong with it. I was there for goodness sake,150yds from it. It was fine. What would you do with a nasty crosswind like that to make it better?.
The wind throughtout the week was across that runway, frequently at 90 degrees, in fact two taildraggers ground looped on landing, and one lost control on take-off on the Sunday, spinning down the runway like a racing car. No injuries.

Now here's an excellent A380 crosswind landing.

YouTube - [720p] Crosswind Landing - by Singapore Airlines Airbus A380-800 ?9V-SKD?

That video does not demonstarte crosswind landings well- you need to be in line with the runway, but it does show well what a fantastic set of spoiler/speedbrakes the 380 has. For crosswind landings- the bigger the plane, the better! The 747 is easier in a big crosswind than smaller types.

I'm not a pilot,so disregarding all the for/against bickering on here re hard landings etc,what impresses me most about this particular landing is the fact that the crew apparently didn't need to use the reversers on 1 and 4 to achieve the runway turn off point. Ok so it,s a test airfame so relatively light,but it seems that the A380s performance may be better than first percieved. Having watched many Singapore/Emirates A380 arrivals at LHR,i also get the impression that it has a "softer" landing performance,(ie less tyre smoke on impact),than the 747-400,..however it does look mighty slow on departure!....... Mind you,for sheer "wow factor",it still won't beat a fully laden 747 off 09R on a westerly SID....could sit and watch these all day!

The A380 does not have thrust reversers installed on the No 1 & 4 engines.

Thanks for enlightening me Leewan,...just goes to proove the old saying that you learn something new every day http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif

I just saw the videos for the first time. A total non-event, hyped up by clueless spotters who think they know more about handling a big jet than professional pilots. The landing was firm, as it should be in those circumstances.

I can imagine how a spotter would mistake this for a hard landing, but what I can't understand is the arrogance by which the opinions of experts like Rainboe and Dan Winterland are dismissed by some people in this thread (and similar threads in other forums). To those spotters, I can only say: please don't step on board of my B777 if your destination has a short or narrow runway and there's a strong wind in the forecast. I promise you, I will plant it on the concrete like that A380. You may prefer an elegant landing over a safe one, but I surely don't.

I've got myself banned from Spectators several times for taking these people to task for the rubbish they come out with sometimes! But someone has to do it in the hope they will not be so adamant next time and stop flinging vile accusations like they have at that poor 380 pilot! I think they forget this is not just an enthusiasts forum where you can get away with incredible stories- real professionals look in here ......and are horrified at the garbage they talk!

Hi, Chinooker. Yes, this is a very impressive aircraft. It flew past me at Oshkosh at a mere 105 knots!!!!!!!. This speed was broadcast by Frank Chapman, test pilot, not by the awful American commentator [who apparently has been awarded the 'Sword of Excellence' for Airshow Commentating' ]You don't have to do or know much to get an award over there!!!!

Following on from my earlier "faux pas" re the number of engines on the A380 with reversers fitted,could someone give a brief explanation as to why?.....Is it down to the fact that the a/c has so much aerofoil capacity/braking capacity etc it doesn't need 4x reversers,or is it down to the design/build,of the wing whereby it cannot accomodate outer engines in reverse thrust?

The A380 brakes and spoilers are deemed sufficient enough for the braking needs of the A380. The two inboard thrust reversers were added at the request of the FAA which felt that thrust reversers had to be fitted onboad the a/c.
The exclusion of the thrust reversers on the outboard engines reduces the chances of FOD damage on these engines as they hang out of the runway onto the grass patches.

Not to mention weight and maintenance savings.

Cheers for that Leewan...very interesting read!....A380 seems even more impressive now!!