A380 will not make London QC2 for takeoff
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 will not make London QC2 for takeoff
Just heard a little rumor, actually it would be a big rumor if it turns out true.
Airbus is having problems making projected QC2 departure and will/may fail contract obligations. Here is what I was told the projected noise levels are at currently:
A380
TO = 98.9
SL= 96.7
AP = 99.9
Could this be why, besides the weight problem, that Virgin and Air France have pushed off delivery so Airbus has time to run a noise reduction program as well as put the A380 on a diet?
Airbus is having problems making projected QC2 departure and will/may fail contract obligations. Here is what I was told the projected noise levels are at currently:
A380
TO = 98.9
SL= 96.7
AP = 99.9
Could this be why, besides the weight problem, that Virgin and Air France have pushed off delivery so Airbus has time to run a noise reduction program as well as put the A380 on a diet?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look for yourself:
http://www.dglr.de/veranstaltungen/a...-12_Thomas.pdf
Figure 11
Airbus's own presentation shows them clearly over the QC2 mark and on an NIP program to meet their goal.
I say you eat crow.
http://www.dglr.de/veranstaltungen/a...-12_Thomas.pdf
Figure 11
Airbus's own presentation shows them clearly over the QC2 mark and on an NIP program to meet their goal.
I say you eat crow.
I do not interpret the data as supporting your argument, are you using Boeing blinkers? *
From the reference, Fig 11 details the two components of noise reduction; the additive result for all A3XX aircraft is below the QC2 limit. This is reinforced in figs 13 - 14 where the technical target is below the limit and the objective even lower; all values still well below those of a 747.
* Boeing blinkers – rose tinted glasses, when used in Seattle provide slight magnification, but become increasingly darker and distorted when used in Europe.
From the reference, Fig 11 details the two components of noise reduction; the additive result for all A3XX aircraft is below the QC2 limit. This is reinforced in figs 13 - 14 where the technical target is below the limit and the objective even lower; all values still well below those of a 747.
* Boeing blinkers – rose tinted glasses, when used in Seattle provide slight magnification, but become increasingly darker and distorted when used in Europe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come now. It clearly says that this is a technical target on the other pages not where they are. You better look at what the London area airports are showing for A380 "projected" noise levels are at. 
No Boeing blinkers. I don't work for them.
In case your wondering. NIP = Noise Improvement Program.
This means they are not where they want to be and just like the weight are trying to diet to where they want to be.
Don't worry. Noel is going to have to answer some tough questions at the Farn. I here several of the customers have heard and are coming for him.
No Boeing blinkers. I don't work for them.
In case your wondering. NIP = Noise Improvement Program.
This means they are not where they want to be and just like the weight are trying to diet to where they want to be.
Don't worry. Noel is going to have to answer some tough questions at the Farn. I here several of the customers have heard and are coming for him.
Last edited by 747FOCAL; 13th Jul 2004 at 22:53.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin late delivery
The reason why Virgin wants a delay in delivery is because the airport terminals at LAX will not be ready for the projected in service date. This is I guess the main route that they want to use this aircraft on, so it does make sense to delay for the moment. I can't comment on Air France though.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oddly enough, the Los Angeles Department of Airports has steadfastly maintained that the airport will be fully ready for A380 arrivals in time to meet the Virgin original schedule.
Perhaps Sir Richard is having cold feet.
Perhaps Sir Richard is having cold feet.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, we even allowed Concorde....only thing louder was the Saturn 5 rocket 
Sudden thought...maybe the A380 will need 'hushkits'.
You know, those really nasty things that the Europeans don't like...
Sudden thought...maybe the A380 will need 'hushkits'.
You know, those really nasty things that the Europeans don't like...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's funny how the most controversial aircraft of their time are the ones that are European showing the Yanks that we can beat them at their own game.
Don't act so bruised guys, I'm sure that when the 7E7 turns up it'll be really......erm.......efficient......
Don't act so bruised guys, I'm sure that when the 7E7 turns up it'll be really......erm.......efficient......
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Anyone have a date for that document? I notice that figure 9 says:-
EK is a big A380 customer. EK operates from where? Hello?
• Initial Airports assumed for A380 Airline Operations and
Alternates:
�� 6 in Europe: LHR , STN, LGW, MAN, CDG,FRA,
�� 6 in Asia: DOH, SIN, HKG, BKK, NRT, KIX,
�� 11 in North America: JFK, EWR, LAX, SFO, MIA, ANC, IND, MCO, MEM, ORD, YUL
�� 1 in Australia: SYD
Alternates:
�� 6 in Europe: LHR , STN, LGW, MAN, CDG,FRA,
�� 6 in Asia: DOH, SIN, HKG, BKK, NRT, KIX,
�� 11 in North America: JFK, EWR, LAX, SFO, MIA, ANC, IND, MCO, MEM, ORD, YUL
�� 1 in Australia: SYD
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A: Yes they will be able to 'handle' the aircraft but for the moment parking will be at remote (very) remote stands.
VS say this ain't good enough and they want terminal (with double jetway) access or they ain't coming with the big one - or at least that's what VS told me...
VS say this ain't good enough and they want terminal (with double jetway) access or they ain't coming with the big one - or at least that's what VS told me...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remote stands...well yes.
Ace Rimmer,
Suspect you are right, the western romotes may well be required use.
But they do have jetways (at least some do anyway).
Suspect fitting the A380 at terminal 2 will be a tight...really tight.
Suspect you are right, the western romotes may well be required use.
But they do have jetways (at least some do anyway).
Suspect fitting the A380 at terminal 2 will be a tight...really tight.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just so that people will stop thinking I am taking pot shots at the A380 there are a few things I would like to say.
First off, this is a rumor section. I heard a rumor and brought it here to see if anybody else was hearing same and to open discussion. To my knowledge, I am not known for spouting lies around here.
Second, Airbus has done amazingly well at getting the noise numbers to where they are for an aircraft that is 30% larger than a 747-400. In the past ten years there have been no significant noise reduction hardware developed and none in the foreseeable future. If those noise numbers posted earlier are correct, Airbus has accomplished an amazing feat vs. the 747 noise levels and I commend them.
For example, the 747-400 at 652,000 approach weight rings around 103.8 EPNdB vs 99.9 EPNdB for the A380. To a layman, that may seem very small, but in the real world that means the A380 is half+ as noisy as the 747-400. -3 dB difference halves the energy of the noise.
As far as noise reduction goes, the entire industry is up against a technological barrier and has been for some time. We can get small reductions here and there or do what Airbus admitted and enlarged the fan diameter (as bypass ratio goes up noise goes down), but then performance suffers. If they truly are in a noise reduction program, it’s the last few dB or tenths of dB that are extremely hard to get. With the technological barriers we have today, that last little bit can be downright impossible.
First off, this is a rumor section. I heard a rumor and brought it here to see if anybody else was hearing same and to open discussion. To my knowledge, I am not known for spouting lies around here.
Second, Airbus has done amazingly well at getting the noise numbers to where they are for an aircraft that is 30% larger than a 747-400. In the past ten years there have been no significant noise reduction hardware developed and none in the foreseeable future. If those noise numbers posted earlier are correct, Airbus has accomplished an amazing feat vs. the 747 noise levels and I commend them.
For example, the 747-400 at 652,000 approach weight rings around 103.8 EPNdB vs 99.9 EPNdB for the A380. To a layman, that may seem very small, but in the real world that means the A380 is half+ as noisy as the 747-400. -3 dB difference halves the energy of the noise.
As far as noise reduction goes, the entire industry is up against a technological barrier and has been for some time. We can get small reductions here and there or do what Airbus admitted and enlarged the fan diameter (as bypass ratio goes up noise goes down), but then performance suffers. If they truly are in a noise reduction program, it’s the last few dB or tenths of dB that are extremely hard to get. With the technological barriers we have today, that last little bit can be downright impossible.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Bedfordshire
Age: 43
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So is it a QC4 then? If so, wont be able to schedule it in the night at LGW. Can't imagine that much need for that though unless its Ex divert/tech in which case it will be stuck until the morning...