Airbus A380 3

[Roadbridge]

What do you think of the new Airbus A380 that can carry 800 passengers at the one time.

I must admit I'm not to enamoured by the prospect of one of these birds falling out of the sky.

We all gotten used to plane going down with losses in arround 300, but 800 .
Can airline's afford to take a hits of this scale?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0427/airbus

 

[ewh]

I think that it is going to be of limited use here in the US. Until it proves it's place in the market, few airports will be willing to make the necessary updates.

 

[debodine]

If they use the same narrow, cramped cattle car seats (to get 800+ passengers, it's all economy class) that most all airlines use today for economy class, then I predict that on their super long haul runs they will experience even more illnesses such as deep vein thrombosis and more passenger rage incidents. However, I have not seen the design of their seat configurations. Sitting in a seat for 12+ hours at a time is already taking a toll with disease and rage, and multiplying the number of passengers only multiplies the opportunities for both problems.

 

[jbennett]

I agree with ewh. Until it's proved itself to be at least reliable enough to compete with what's already in service, I doubt the airports (or surrounding communities) are going to fork over the necessary resources to accept these monsters. Still, it's a pretty impressive beast of a machine. I don't see them filling it with that kind of capacity with any great regularity though. Last time I went through an airport, 9/11 was still fairly evident in the passengers' moods.

James Bennetts
Aerospace Engineer

 

[patdaly]

I just dont see the need, at least at this point. Like it or not, we will be seeing increased fule costs, indeed, at what point will fuel costs make it unfeasable to fly? At current useage, when will the fuel run out?

I dont mean to be a downer, but its not like you can just brew up a batch of biodiesel and head for another continent........

 

[btrueblood]

Pat,

Actually, fuel costs and/or fuel efficiency are one of the driving factors for making bigger airplanes. The bigger airframe, with two decks, can carry more people more miles for less fuel burned.

In general, drag (and lift) forces rise with the surface area of the plane, roughly proportional to L[sup]2[/sup] (where L is some characteristic dimension), while internal volume (e.g. payload) rises by L[sup]3[/sup]. Thus, airplanes (and by the same analogy, all vehicles) become more "efficient" in passenger-miles/gallon as the aircraft becomes bigger, all else being equal. The same argument is what explains the "why" of longer trains and supertankers: tons/gallon or (barrels of oil)*(nautical miles)/(gallon).

 

[GregLocock]

So how do 2 747s carrying 400 passngers in coach cause fewer DVTs than one A380 carrying 800 in coach?

I agree that in the USA there won't be many domestic airports upgrading, there again that is not the major market for them.

At the moment in a 747 it takes about 400 tonnes of fuel to fly from OZ to the UK and back. So out of a 2000 dollar return ticket very roughly 600 dollars is fuel. I imagine the profit margin on a seat is of the order of a hundred bucks.





Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[Roadbridge]

I've read that Air Canada has already placed an order with Airbus for I think 10 number, so some airports north of you will be up grading.In England the new Terminal 5 will be able to accommodate them.

I understand that Boeing are developing a similar type plane to Airbus,so airports in the US will have to change anyway to keep their competitive advantage.

 

[airmail]

I disagree A380 is going to be limited use in US.

Take a look to this data:

UPS: 10 units requested (all freighters).
FEDEX: 10 units requested (all freighters).
ILFC: 10 units requested (5 passengers + 5 freighters)

I think A380 means a great step forward in aviation.

 

[SWComposites]

airmail - UPS and FedEx fly worldwide, so those A380 freighters will probably be used on international routes (Asia to US, Asia to Europe) and will probably only use a couple of US airports. ILFC leases aircraft worldwide so will not necessarily go to US airlines. Its not just terminals that have to be upgraded but also runways and taxiways. The A380 is a step forward if it lowers ticket prices, otherwise its just a bigger cattlecar. How long is it going to take to load/unload 800 passengers, clear them thru customs, and process their baggage?

 

[GregLocock]

About the same as 800 passengers who flew in on 747s.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[airmail]

Well, SWcomposites, I was referring "use in US" including international routes that depart or arrive at US. I agree it is not going to be fesasible to travel in an A380 between two american cities. I would imagine is not thought for that purpouse.

On the other hand, US have very important airports, where a lot of international airliners make their business (and pay airports for that). Do you think JFK airport is going to allow FEDEX can not operate their A380s?

From my point of view, not only lower ticket prices means "step forward". Do you think "low cost airliners" are a "step forward"? I doubt it, even from passengers point of view. But, for any aeronautical engineer, A380 is an advance, as it was B747 and A320, and as it is B777.

 

[patdaly]

btrueblood:

I agree the A380 should be more efficient, the question remains, will there be the large flying public remaining to fill these things?

At least in the US, the airlines are flying below their true cost, trying to knock the other guy off the fence. At some point, like it or not, our fuel cost will head even higher, and the remaining airlines will be forced to use the true cost of flying to price their tickets, and I cannot see nearly as many people flying to Vegas ( or Amsterdam ) for the week.

Perhaps I am just being grumpy here.......

 

[rb1957]

g'day,

i'd be willing to bet that if there'd been an internet back in the 70s much the same would have been said about the 747.

the comments about ultra-long range apply to any plane doing 12 hr flights (A380 or B777). i think there is a difference terminal-side between one plane arriving with 800 pax and two arriving with 400 each.

i guess in about 20 years we'll know which of the marketeers was right (i'll bet than neither is completely wrong).

 

[btrueblood]

Pat said:

"I agree the A380 should be more efficient, the question remains, will there be the large flying public remaining to fill these things?"

Dunno, Pat. Time will tell. But if the ticket price were $100 lower for a Vancouver-to-Heathrow flight, yeah, I'd probably ride the A380.

As Greg and a couple of other people pointed out, the downside to the cheap ticket is sitting in a 800-person cattlecar, and waiting perhaps another 30 minutes to get on/off the plane. My take on this: if I'm flying for over 10 or 12 hours, I probably don't care about another 30 minutes to 1 hour on either end. In-flight I can see problems if there isn't enough legrooom or restrooms.

From an aircraft design standpoint, I hope Airbus has figured out how to fix dutch roll instabilities, and build stiffer planes. Sitting in the back of one of their early planes was one of the few times I felt "airsick" - the tail felt like it was flapping us to our destination. The newer (A340?) planes feel much stiffer, but still not as tight as the Boeing planes.

 

[SWComposites]

btrueblood - funny you mention it. I thought I was the only one who got airsick in the back of an A320. I never get sick in planes, cars, boats. Sat in the back of an A320 once and the damn thing bounced around up and down, side-to-side like the auto flight controller couldn't figure out what to do with the elevator/rudder; the amplitude wasn't much but the vibration made the ride much worse than severe turbulence. Swore I'll never ride in the back of one of those things again. The A380 shouldn't have the same problem since the fuselage diamater is so large.

 

[debodine]

SWComposites:

I am not an aerospace type, but I believe the dutch roll tendencies of any aircraft are related to the wing dihedral, not to the diameter of the fuselage.

Early KC-135 aircraft (USAF first jet refueling tanker) used to dutch roll visciously enough in certain parts of the flight envelope that if a pilot attempted to stop the dutch roll but timed the rudder stomp incorrectly, the aircraft could (and did, on a couple of occasions, I am told by old USAF types) shed the outboard engine on the off-rudder side.

If the A320 dutch rolls as bad as you describe, I don't think Airbus has conquered the problem, as the A320 design is much newer than the KC-135.

 

[btrueblood]

SWcomposites - thanks, I wasn't sure if I was in an A320 or not, but it sounds right.

I too don't think the problem will get better necessarily with larger fuselage diameter. Case in point is the DC-10; it's tail wags a lot too... of course, having all the engine weight on the tail section doesn't help much, either. My point though, is that unless stiffness and frequency response of the airframe (and passenger comfort)are design considerations, they could end up with a real flying pig on their hands.

 

[SWComposites]

debodine - I don't think its a roll problem. The A320 I described was flying straight and level, the wings weren't moving much, but the damn tail was vibrating all over the place.

By the way, anyone ever sit in the back of a stretched DC-8? You can actually watch the fuselage deflect torsionally by a significant amount. It has a very long, narrow fuselage that is obviously not very stiff.

 

[debodine]

SWComposites:

I understand what you are saying. What you describe does not sound like dutch roll (which is actually a roll/yaw movement combined).

And yes I have been in the back of a DC-8 and saw exactly the flexing you described. Fascinating to watch. This was way back in the days when DC-8 aircraft carried pax.

From personal experience, I learned it was not a good idea to point out the flexing to a not so happy with flying lady next to me. I felt bad she was so nervous the rest of the flight, but I was young and tactless and fascinated by having observed something about aircraft, my newly chosen profession!