The Queen of the skies has officially been dethroned

[EGT]

The Queen being the Boeing 747.

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=293951

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/742274/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/751309/L/

:eek:

[OutThere]

Wow! That is a huge plane! It's good that they are starting to get more efficient planes (from what I hear the Airbus is more efficient, holding more people and using the same amount, or less fuel than a 747), that hold more people, to be able to take people around in less repeat trips. That is truly a huge plane! :eek:

[wdlove]

It certainly looks hugh from the pictures. This airbus will be giving some competition to Boeing. At this time of high fuel prices and low air faire this type of plane should be a boost to the airline industry.

[Daveway]

I remember seeing a commercial for a documentary given by John Travolta on how how they made this plane. Can't remember what network though.

[OutThere]

I saw something on TV about how they made this plane, and it was really quite cool —

Once the fueselage is done in one place in France, they have to move it to the plant where they build and attach the wings. They do this convoy in the middle of the night, it's a 4 hour drive, and they pass through this tiny French village, in which there is less than 6 inches clearance between the plane and the houses on both the left and right. It was a pretty incredible show, because they videotaped the entire process...I have no clue what channel it was on or when though. :( I'll research finding it. :)

[jsw]

Wow....

I'd read reports, but not seen pictures. Truly impressive.

[Brize]

Check out this (http://users.adelphia.net/~luv2hang/380.jpg) pic.

The plane has a restaurant, shop, and elevator!

[Chip NoVaMac]

Check out this (http://users.adelphia.net/~luv2hang/380.jpg) pic.

The plane has a restaurant, shop, and elevator!

Didn't realize that it has three decks.

Wonder what the real world configuration for seating will. The diagram you posted was Airbus' idea for maximum comfort.

[jsw]

Cabins and staterooms. Man.

Of course, there's still undoubtedly no room for luggage. ;)

[takao]

they had shows about the plane multiple times on german tv already

the toilette + freshwater system alone is impressive...not even talking about the air condition system

they built a modell of the water system out of clear plastic for testing and tweaking the system (and of course they developed a substance for simulating you-know-what)

truly amazing

[skunk]

I saw something on TV about how they made this plane, and it was really quite cool —

Once the fueselage is done in one place in France, they have to move it to the plant where they build and attach the wings. They do this convoy in the middle of the night, it's a 4 hour drive, and they pass through this tiny French village, in which there is less than 6 inches clearance between the plane and the houses on both the left and right. It was a pretty incredible show, because they videotaped the entire process...I have no clue what channel it was on or when though. :( I'll research finding it. :)
Not only that, but if it's the same process as with other Airbus planes, the wings are made in the UK and shipped over to Toulouse...

[whocares]

Not only that, but if it's the same process as with other Airbus planes, the wings are made in the UK and shipped over to Toulouse...


I think the engines are made in the UK (Rolls Royce), and the wings and fuselage made in Germany + another country. Everything is then shipped to Toulouse for final assembly. The rebuilt the entire road from near Bordeaux to Toulouse just for this plane. :eek:


Oh, and Airbus has been giving quite a bit of a competition to Boeing for some time now. ;)

Edit: and IMHO is a real fugly airplane.

[skunk]

I beg to disagree:http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/eud/eud103.html

[whocares]

I beg to disagree:http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/eud/eud103.html

I stand corrected on the wings then. :cool:

However, I know for a fact that wings, fuselage and engine arn't made in France.

[skunk]

I stand corrected on the wings then. :cool:

However, I know for a fact that wings, fuselage and engine arn't made in France.
As a matter of fact, the fuselage is made in Hamburg, Germany, the wings in Broughton, Wales, and the tailplane in Spain. The cockpit and final assembly is done in France, and so far all the engines ordered are Rolls Royce/Volvo Trent 900s, made in England.

[Dr. Dastardly]

WOW! It even has its own duty free shop! :eek:

[skunk]

I'm waiting for the one with a glass-bottomed swimming pool: can you imagine that? Swimming in a clear pool with 60,000 feet of sky below? :D

[jsw]

I'm waiting for the one with a glass-bottomed swimming pool: can you imagine that? Swimming in a clear pool with 60,000 feet of sky below? :D
Well, to avoid issues with sloshing and weight-shifting, it'd be best if it was a sealed scuba tank.

So imagine floating submerged in water, 10 miles above the ground. Now that would be cool!

[EGT]

Well, to avoid issues with sloshing and weight-shifting, it'd be best if it was a sealed scuba tank.

So imagine floating submerged in water, 10 miles above the ground. Now that would be cool!

And then do it whilst drunk ...

Here (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Airbus%20A380&distinct_entry=true) has all the A380 pics from that site. There are some interesting construction pictures.

[Ugg]

This plane will either make or break Airbus. I think it'll make it just as the 747 did for Boeing. I simply can't imagine the logistics for getting such a plane off the ground much less with as many passengers as it will hold.

Isn't it due for it's maiden test flight soon?

[EGT]

Isn't it due for it's maiden test flight soon?

Sometime in March i think.

[Apple Hobo]

Wonder what the real world configuration for seating will.

Ultra-cramped cattle car style. ;)

[OutThere]

WOW! It even has its own duty free shop! :eek:

I, and I think many others would agree with me, think that it would be much nicer if they eliminated the duty free shop, and evenly divvied up the extra free space by adding leg room for each person. I am 5 feet 11 inches tall, and at-weight for my height, and I feel that airplanes now are exceedingly uncomfortable. More legroom would be beautiful. *ahhhh* :)

[hcuar]

Ultra-cramped cattle car style. ;)

Yeah... I'm envisioning something in the Southwest Airlines style. :rolleyes:

[absolut_mac]

The Queen being the Boeing 747.

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=293951

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/742274/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/751309/L/

:eek:

Hmm, I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't feel comfortable flying in any Airbus until I hear a really good reason why the tail just fell off that Airbus plane over New York shortly after 9-11. 265 people died in that accident.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/flight587trans.shtml

[OutThere]

Hmm, I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't feel comfortable flying in any Airbus until I hear a really good reason why the tail just fell off that Airbus plane over New York shortly after 9-11. 265 people died in that accident.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/flight587trans.shtml

Everything has its imperfections, and I think that to judge airbus on this accident is being rather unfair, regarding the number of accidents that other planes have had in the past.

[absolut_mac]

Everything has its imperfections, and I think that to judge airbus on this accident is being rather unfair, regarding the number of accidents that other planes have had in the past.

Yes, but most of them are weather related, pilot or mechanical error etc. This one is so dangerous because the plane is still relatively new - especially in comparison to the Boeing 747 - and so far still a lot of speculation as to the exact cause.

[Mechcozmo]

If that thing goes down... :eek: Would ruin credibility, because everyone would say "Too big!" and not go on it. And it would be scary. Any word on how long of a runway it needs?

(and of course they developed a substance for simulating you-know-what)

You mean, ****! :D

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'm waiting for the one with a glass-bottomed swimming pool: can you imagine that? Swimming in a clear pool with 60,000 feet of sky below? :D

Actually a mock-up of the first class cabin has LCD screens on the sides on top of the cabin, connected to cameras on the outside of the aircraft.

[Chip NoVaMac]

This plane will either make or break Airbus. I think it'll make it just as the 747 did for Boeing. I simply can't imagine the logistics for getting such a plane off the ground much less with as many passengers as it will hold.

Isn't it due for it's maiden test flight soon?

There is some question as to whether this will really make it big with the airlines, like the 747 has. That is why Boeing is betting the farm on the 7E7 Dreamliner. They feel the market for airlines are for smaller capacities.

I believe that the only US customer for the A380 is FedEx for the cargo version. Though many airports are in the process of upgrading facilities to accommodate the A380.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I, and I think many others would agree with me, think that it would be much nicer if they eliminated the duty free shop, and evenly divvied up the extra free space by adding leg room for each person. I am 5 feet 11 inches tall, and at-weight for my height, and I feel that airplanes now are exceedingly uncomfortable. More legroom would be beautiful. *ahhhh* :)

Keep in mind that layout that Airbus has been showing off is a concept they hope that some airlines will take on - to bring back the luxury of air travel. Each airline will make their own choices of course. For certain routes in the Middle East and in Asia, it is speculated that it will be in the range of 800 to 1000 passengers. I believe that a Japanese airline already has a 747 that seat in the range of 450 or so.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Everything has its imperfections, and I think that to judge airbus on this accident is being rather unfair, regarding the number of accidents that other planes have had in the past.

I would be much more concerned about the hard rudder issues I believe are linked the 737. So far only that one Airbus crash has happened due to the issue you mentioned. There have been many more reports on the 737.

[skunk]

Hmm, I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't feel comfortable flying in any Airbus until I hear a really good reason why the tail just fell off that Airbus plane over New York shortly after 9-11. 265 people died in that accident.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/flight587trans.shtml
Did you read to the end of the article you linked to?
This is an Airbus safety directive. It was issued in March 2002, four months after the crash. It warns pilots that by reversing the rudder, they could overload the plane's tail. This warning might seem like an admission of guilt by Airbus, but it isn't. What is so disturbing is that this directive was issued by all aircraft manufacturers because it is dangerous to reverse the rudder on any airline. But apparently no one had realised this until now. The frightening truth is that millions of lives have been put at risk, because for years pilots, the world over, have not been told how rudders worked on most passenger jets flying today. And we only know this because a plane crashed and 265 people died.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Did you read to the end of the article you linked to?

To be fair all manufacturers have communications like this. It saves some potential lawsuits in the future. Given that the Jamaica Bay(?) accident seems to be the only one reported on the Airbus, does seem to indicate that the Airbus does not have serious structural issues at this time.

[Diatribe]

:eek: It has an elevator ? :eek:

[Chip NoVaMac]

:eek: It has an elevator ? :eek:

Given the greater sensitivity to those with disabilities, it is about time IMO.

[absolut_mac]

Did you read to the end of the article you linked to?

Yes. Due to my interest in flying in general, and planes in particular I have made it a point to read all points of view on major airline crashes.

The troubling thing about that particular Airbus crash is that there isn't a definitive reason of why the tail fell off with zero warning.

Turbulence from a nearby passing airplane, incorrect rudder usage etc have all been put forward as the most likely cause. Or even a combination of the above. But still no 100% definitive reason, at least not that I have seen.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Yes. Due to my interest in flying in general, and planes in particular I have made it a point to read all points of view on major airline crashes.

The troubling thing about that particular Airbus crash is that there isn't a definitive reason of why the tail fell off with zero warning.

Turbulence from a nearby passing airplane, incorrect rudder usage etc have all been put forward as the most likely cause. Or even a combination of the above. But still no 100% definitive reason, at least not that I have seen.

Amen, and that there has not been a history of such "rudder" issues as there has been with the B737, this may have been one of those "freak" accidents. There are far more incidents with some commuter craft that bear looking at.

[Mechcozmo]

Given the greater sensitivity to those with disabilities, it is about time IMO.

Before, they didn't need elevators because the plane was only one level...

[Blue Velvet]

:eek: It has an elevator ? :eek:

They've got to have somewhere to take those fake new Mac pictures, don't they?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Before, they didn't need elevators because the plane was only one level...

The Boeing 747 i two levels BTW.

[saabmp3]

The Boeing 747 i two levels BTW.

The B747 being two levels is like saying your ranch is a multi level home cause it's got an attic. This is really taking it to a whole new level by having two levels the entire way over.

BEN

[Chip NoVaMac]

The B747 being two levels is like saying your ranch is a multi level home cause it's got an attic. This is really taking it to a whole new level by having two levels the entire way over.

BEN

With some of the later versions with the stretched "top", it really does count as two levels. And at the same pointy you ignore the differences in time between the design of the 747 and the 380 in regards to accessibility. That is a sad statement in my view.

[tooflets]

No one has a projected passenger capacity? I'm just curious how many dead to expect the first time one of these crashes.

[iGav]

The troubling thing about that particular Airbus crash is that there isn't a definitive reason of why the tail fell off with zero warning.

I recall watching a documentary last year could've been Horizon but I can't remember, and they interviewed pilots who had originally being Airbus based, but after this accident they changed to Boeings only and refuse to fly Airbus planes again.

That's worrying.

[Chip NoVaMac]

No one has a projected passenger capacity? I'm just curious how many dead to expect the first time one of these crashes.

Depending on how an airline configures this A380, you are looking at 400 to 1000 passengers. The 400 figure is heavy with full sleeper first class, lounges and the such.

[Mantat]

I dont know why, but this thing make me think about the Titanic...

Anyways, here are some interesting info about the plane market in France:
- its financed in ridiculous amount by the governement. But I mean really big part.
- no transporter can land at the Charles De Gaule airport if they dont have a certain number of airbus in their fleet. Or they have to pay a premium I think.

If this isnt market protection, I dont know how it is. I am just surprised to see that the workers didnt go on strikea few times during the assembly!

This plane has a limited market but would probably rule it hand down. I am all out for efficiency! If you can build something bigger, better and less polluting, go for it!

Vive la France! ;-)

[Chip NoVaMac]

I dont know why, but this thing make me think about the Titanic...

Anyways, here are some interesting info about the plane market in France:
- its financed in ridiculous amount by the governement. But I mean really big part.
- no transporter can land at the Charles De Gaule airport if they dont have a certain number of airbus in their fleet. Or they have to pay a premium I think.

If this isnt market protection, I dont know how it is. I am just surprised to see that the workers didnt go on strikea few times during the assembly!

This plane has a limited market but would probably rule it hand down. I am all out for efficiency! If you can build something bigger, better and less polluting, go for it!

Vive la France! ;-)

I know what you mean. The first time the 380 goes down, it will very tragic.

Did not know that about France. Would like to see some articles on that.

The 380 has a limited market, but Airbus seems to have gotten the minimum orders needed in order to go ahead with the project. Enough so that there are a number of US airports doing the work needed in order to accommodate the 380. The 380 is supposed to give airlines a decent operating cost even in the 400 to 500 passenger range. There are a number of markets that are growing that could make a 600 to 800 passenger version very profitable.

[Lord Blackadder]

De Havilland Comet, Concorde, and .....the A380. Not as flashy but it again gives Europe bragging rights. It will be tough to beat the 747 (flown by everybody, excellent safety record), but it looks good on paper anyway.

Although Antonov stil rules the size game...can't compete for efficiency I would imagine.

[Chip NoVaMac]

De Havilland Comet, Concorde, and .....the A380. Not as flashy but it again gives Europe bragging rights. It will be tough to beat the 747 (flown by everybody, excellent safety record), but it looks good on paper anyway.

Although Antonov stil rules the size game...can't compete for efficiency I would imagine.

Good points. But there is a flaw in your argument. The Comet had serious safety flaws that Boeing was able to exploit in the design of the 707. The Concord was great plane, but seated too few passengers to make it viable. The Boeing would have been a better craft IMO, for the number of passengers would have been greater.

In the end we will have to see how history judges the 380. I thought Boeing had a similar jet on the drawing boards. I think they dropped it because the need for larger craft is limited.

[Lord Blackadder]

Good points. But there is a flaw in your argument. The Comet had serious safety flaws that Boeing was able to exploit in the design of the 707. The Concord was great plane, but seated too few passengers to make it viable. The Boeing would have been a better craft IMO, for the number of passengers would have been greater.

In the end we will have to see how history judges the 380. I thought Boeing had a similar jet on the drawing boards. I think they dropped it because the need for larger craft is limited.

Well, the bragger isn't always the winner.

The Comet was a flawed aircraft, its true, but it was one of the more beautiful planes of its time, IMO. Plus once they got the window stress problem taken care of it turned out to be a great aircraft, though by then its reputation was ruined. But hey, it's still flying today (Nimrod), so that is something.

Didn't Boeing propose a flying wing initially in response to the A380 project?

I know it will be years, maybe not even in our lifetime, but I want to see the next generation (and first truly viable/practical) SST. It's only a matter of time.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Well, the bragger isn't always the winner.

The Comet was a flawed aircraft, its true, but it was one of the more beautiful planes of its time, IMO. Plus once they got the window stress problem taken care of it turned out to be a great aircraft, though by then its reputation was ruined. But hey, it's still flying today (Nimrod), so that is something.

Didn't Boeing propose a flying wing initially in response to the A380 project?

I know it will be years, maybe not even in our lifetime, but I want to see the next generation (and first truly viable/practical) SST. It's only a matter of time.

Don't get me wrong. The Comet/Nimrod are great works of technology. And in the America first ideal, there are many that forget the it is the Europeans that had some of the true firsts.

The flying wing is a great avenue for airlines that want the most bang for the buck. Whether the flying public accepts it or not is the big question.

SST transport is a dream that is fast fading IMO. The dream belongs to the the HST or the idea of a near SST craft.

[absolut_mac]

I recall watching a documentary last year could've been Horizon but I can't remember, and they interviewed pilots who had originally being Airbus based, but after this accident they changed to Boeings only and refuse to fly Airbus planes again.

That's worrying.

That to me means that the ones who actually fly these planes, and probably have considerable experience on quite a few different large jets, don't buy the FAA BS about misuse of rudder and/or air turbulence etc.

And even then I think that that is just the FAA's conclusion, although it's not based on any real solid evidence - at least not any that I have seen. Nothing like a good vague answer that's not easy to dispute when you're fumbling around in the dark like blind mice.

[bubbamac]

The Airbus accident at JFK was, definitively, caused by the pilot making multiple, full range, left to right to left throws of the rudder, exceeding the design limits of the aircraft.

As pilots, we are taught to use the rudder when the ailerons run out of authority - but there should be no reason to go full throw left to right several times. It should be - and the A300 was designed for - one smooth motion to the appropriate side, in the appropriate amount. No commercial airplane is designed to handle what that plane was put through.

To be fair to the pilot - I wasn't there. I have been caught in wake turbulence many times, and it is both violent and startling. It can also roll you one way, and a few seconds later, roll you the other way. The A300 apparently has the lightest rudder 'feel' of any airliner - which could contribute to the range of motion issue. He simply may not have felt he was moving the pedal that far.

Addressing the 737 comment: Yes, the 737 has had it's share of problems, but they have been addressed. While there have been more 737 problems/accidents reported, don't forget that there are far more - and I do mean far more - 737's on the planet than any other aircraft. You'd expect more accidents/incidents.

All aircraft have their own "issues." They are very complex machines, moving in a very dynamic environment. While the engineers try to address all possible problems in the development stage, it's simply not possible.

As far as safety goes, it remains safer to get on any airliner in the U.S. than to walk across the street.

[bubbamac]

And, addressing the A380. It's a monster, all right. Don't expect 'suites,' or exercise rooms, or bars, or any of that cr@p to show up on a real production airplane. This thing's gonna cost a lot of money. The only way to make that money back is to put butts in seats - and there aren't many seats in an exercise room.

There will be a market for this plane, but I think it'll be mostly on the west side of the Pacific Ocean, where the 747 is used for fairly short haul markets already - there's just so many people! I don't see much of a market for it in the US. Part of the problem is that there aren't enough airports that it can even land at, much less taxi to a gate. What happens when the weather goes down at LAX? Where are you going to go? I don't know the current figure, but as production on the A380 began, there were, I think, 5 airports in the world that it could land at. Not taxi to a gate - just land at.

[Chip NoVaMac]

And, addressing the A380. It's a monster, all right. Don't expect 'suites,' or exercise rooms, or bars, or any of that cr@p to show up on a real production airplane. This thing's gonna cost a lot of money. The only way to make that money back is to put butts in seats - and there aren't many seats in an exercise room.

There will be a market for this plane, but I think it'll be mostly on the west side of the Pacific Ocean, where the 747 is used for fairly short haul markets already - there's just so many people! I don't see much of a market for it in the US. Part of the problem is that there aren't enough airports that it can even land at, much less taxi to a gate. What happens when the weather goes down at LAX? Where are you going to go? I don't know the current figure, but as production on the A380 began, there were, I think, 5 airports in the world that it could land at. Not taxi to a gate - just land at.

Reports I have seen is that NY. DC, Chicago, Dallas, LA, SF, Denver, Seattle and couple other airports in the states are getting ready for this monster. Maybe more as more airlines announce their buys.

[skunk]

SST transport is a dream that is fast fading IMO. The dream belongs to the the HST or the idea of a near SST craft.
The plane I would have liked to see built was the Silver Goose, the project Barnes Wallis of Dambusters fame was working on when he died. If I recall, it was a near-space airliner, launched on a rocket-powered undercarriage to ramjet speed, able to reach Sydney from London in 1hr 45mins by climbing to the stratosphere and gliding down. Presumably the actual landing was powered...

I flew in a Comet in my youth many times, and once was invited into the cockpit to take the controls (aged 8!). Boy, did the passengers look queasy when I walked back to my seat!

The most impressive plane I've seen was the TSR2, at its one and only demonstration flight at Farnborough Airshow. Mach 2 hedgehopping in 1965!! Unbelievable! And it would still outperform any aircraft built today.
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/british-aircraft-corporation-tsr-2.htm

[OutThere]

They've got to have somewhere to take those fake new Mac pictures, don't they?

Last time it was in the elevator in the airport, now it'll be in the airplane, when they crack open the cargo hold and inspect for mysterious packages. :D

[Lord Blackadder]

The plane I would have liked to see built was the Silver Goose, the project Barnes Wallis of Dambusters fame was working on when he died. If I recall, it was a near-space airliner, launched on a rocket-powered undercarriage to ramjet speed, able to reach Sydney from London in 1hr 45mins by climbing to the stratosphere and gliding down. Presumably the actual landing was powered...

I flew in a Comet in my youth many times, and once was invited into the cockpit to take the controls (aged 8!). Boy, did the passengers look queasy when I walked back to my seat!

The most impressive plane I've seen was the TSR2, at its one and only demonstration flight at Farnborough Airshow. Mach 2 hedgehopping in 1965!! Unbelievable! And it would still outperform any aircraft built today.
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/british-aircraft-corporation-tsr-2.htm

IMHO, one of the GREATEST might-have-been aircraft ever is the B-70 Valkyrie. I have seen the single surviving XB-70 prototype (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf37.htm) at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton OH and it impressed me more than any other aircraft I've seen in the flesh (except for the Saturn 5, maybe).

There are still a number of large airports in the US that are unable to accomodate widebody jets (Hopkins International in my home town of Cleveland for example), so the A380 probably won't becom a common sight in the US for a while if ever.

[skunk]

Looks kinda cute. ;)

[Lord Blackadder]

How dare you call a Mach 3 nuclear bomber CUTE? ;)

I still can't believe that it's a 1950's design. Even today there isn't anything that could shoot one down. Maybe the airborn laser, if that ever enters service.