A380
 

Just a thought looked at many photos of the A380 after landing, are the flight test aircraft operating with reverse on the inboards only. can any one tell me why this is please

That's because on the A380, only the inboard engines have reversers.

There are no reversers on the outboard engines.

Another glitch - what a great a/c. The 748 will skin it alive! The question is where are the planes going to go to when more cancel the orders! Vive la boeing :ok:

If it was planned only to have thrust reversers on the inboard engines how does this constitute a glitch Fish out of Water?

Don't let your love affair with Boeing cloud your thought patterns. Why will the 747-800 be so great? It is warmed over old technology isn't it?

The CAA forced reversers on the inboards. Airbus wanted to go completely on brakes.

What a glitch!! More like an advancement in technology & less noise. Goof.

If the things so great then why is opinion on it changing so much? Not knocking the bus by any means, think the 340-500 is pretty much the most underrated a/c out there, overshadowed by the enlarged beluga! How is it so ugly when the 330's so good looking - probably couldn't stand the peer pressure and gouged itself on chocolate instead!

Isn't it a design feature? Because of the wingspan, reversers on the outer engines will just blow muck and crap forwards to be re-ingested.....

On the Boeing 757/767, the thrust reversers don't slow you down any quicker than the autobrakes - they just allow the brakes to work less hard. If Airbus have designed the brakes so that you don't need to take the load off with thrust reversal, then the lack of it isn't a worry. The chance of a complete brake failure is pretty remote in my opinion, and that's knowing nothing about the A380.

We rarely use any more than reverse-idle on the B777. Exceptions being:
i) landings on contaminated or slippery runways
ii) RTOs above 80kts

It will be very interesting to see how events unfold and whether or not the A380 achieves success and if so, to what degree; possibly becomming as common as the 747 series is now; I'd say this is unlikely though.

Airlines insisted on having reversers available. Fernando_Covas has the info correct on why the outboard mills don't have them.

Come on now - give big bird a chance. Let's see what happens when she enters revenue service.

It will be interesting to see the real numbers and the relationship to the Boeing VS Airbus PR spin on economics. Boeing states that the re-engined and stretched 748 will be cheaper to operate per seat mile than the A380. :hmm:

F*****g great?
 

I have +3000h on 340 by now and I´m still amazed over how simple and reliable this AC is, best i´ve flown so far.
Whatever airbus constructed it´s probably quite well thought through. And they´ve probably forced boeing to shape up.. The 767 was sooo boring:}

how quickly we forget...reversers out and working properly and on time for that southwest at midway would have been helpful.

inboards are better than nothing

Not a heavy pilot but I would have thought that inboard engines in reverse thrust would be more likely to throw stuff into the outboard than vice versa. If there is a structural or aerodynamic reason for inboard only I would think it would have to do with the lateral moments of one outer engine failing to deploy.

Again, as a mere customer I wonder what happens when the tarmac is icy and you are relying on brakes only to stop ' how many tons?'

Unlike #2 and #3, the outboard engines will not be over tarmac (or very nearthe edge) at many airports during rollout - hence the increased chance of FOD from the unpaved area. With regard to FOD due to reversers, the engine ingests it's own wash.

I can't help myself...

Check out this video I uploaded

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...42226114078023

I love boeings..but lacking spiral staircases, oh and neat ideas like vertical profile displays, I think they've slipped behind. Just my completely subjective point of view you understand.

Does anyone know what those doors are under the inboard leading edges of the wings, close to the fuselage? I thought I had heard that the packs are in the wings, so maybe they are pack inlet doors? :confused:

Sq.

The engines are pretty much at the same level with the amount of droop in the wing! Might have something to do with the 50t they took off the MTOW. Good plane though, hmm....

...Obviously you have never landed on a snow covered runway that was reported to have "good braking action". Or been the first to land on a chemically de-iced runway, completely cleared of contaminants...except the one the airport put on it. :ugh:

Brakes are great until there is "no braking", then they are just more weight to help you go off the end of the runway a little faster.

Excellent brakes are a nice thing to have. I used to love the Embraer's great big carbon discs. You could stop that plane on a dime, to the delight of LGA nad DCA ATC. :E

Mind you, reversers wont stop an airplane. But they might make the difference between going all the way out of the airport property or just ending up on the grass at the end of the runway. Especially on a big airplane with long runway requirements.

It will take more than a gas station or a poor motorist to stop this thing if it goes off-roading after an overrun. :uhoh:

You did realise the 380 will touch down at 138kt, much the same speed as a 320, where the 748 will be 160+ like a 777.

They have seen the light, the 748 will now be FBW as well.