Airbus A380 3

[btrueblood]

Yes, I remember DC-8 flying, and debodine, you must've sat next to the same lady I did, just different flights! I'll bet she never flew again!

What was interesting to me as well is you could hear the change in engine note (well, okay, actually the change in beat frequency from almost-but-not-quite synch'd engines) at the same frequency as the quasi-dutch roll, and note that the frequency shifted (became faster) near the end of the flights, when fuel tanks were mostly depleted. At the time, my structures prof. was taking us through the Rayleigh-Ritz method for finding freq's. of tapered beams with lumped masses...

 

[vti]

Per the May 2, 2005 issue of Aviation Week, Airbus has received orders and commitments for 154 A380's. These include Singapore Airlines, Quantas, Virgin Atlantic, Lufthansa and Malaysia Airlines.

 

[WKTaylor]

Guys...

Technically, I think this acft has a shot... but consider infra-structure for a moment...

The worlds aviation infrastructure has been sized to meet the needs of the "big-daddy 747s+". This infra-structure came-about at a VERY high price.

Since the A-380 [& it's larger derivatives] will be almost a factor larger [~1.5X+ weight & ~125%+ size]... the worlds older airports are likely incapable of handling this aircraft without significant expense/restructuring.

I can't imagine how LAX will adapt, without ~$Billions + in major construction on an OUTER runway.

A recent article about a new British airport [refurbed RAF-bomber base], claimed it was the first airport in Britian capable of handling the A-380. HMMMMM... where will A-380s land if weather diverts or emergencies occur??? where else... but to another A-380 capable airfield!!!???

And what about wake turbulence... if required spacing [air AND ground] is significantly greater... then expect increased traffic intervals resulting in a reduced total operations... unless the aiport is configured to handle this acft on a "special" runway/taxiway system.

Ahhhh... the infra-structure questions that emerge... I suppose that most can be readily solved... just send big bags of $$$, Yen, Pound-S, rubles, Euros, etc...

Regards, Wil Taylor

 

[GregLocock]

Costs I saw was that it would take about a 100 million dollars over 2 years to bring a big airport up to A380 standard. Sounded a lot. It turns out that was roughly 15% of their usual spend on runway construction over that period.

The international long haul airports are already upgrading, it is not as if they haven't had any warning.



Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[GregLocock]

Just found the cost of a new runway

"10. How much will the third runway cost and when will it be finished?

The new runway will cost between $1.1 and $1.2 billion and is expected to be complete in late 2008 at the earliest. "

So it will cost an airport roughly 8% of the cost of a new runway.



Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[Stache]

This new Airbus is going to have certification problems trying to get 800 plus passengers out of the aircraft in 90 seconds to meet part 25. Of course the French want to do one deck at a time and say it meets the rule. The upper deck is a thirty foot drop on a slide and how many people will want to jump out?

So what happens if the Airbus does not meet the evac rule?

Stache

 

[RobWard]

I'm no expert but I'd imagine that Airbus have considered many of these points. As for evac: they have developed slide that aren't as slippery, so that passengers from the top deck don't get too close to terminal velocity on the way down. Weeeeeeeeeee!!!

The thing that makes me smile is when the tv crews at the launch showed mock-ups with saunas, gymnasiums, bars, beds, golf courses, boating lakes, funfairs etc and said that airlines could install them.
Could.
Or are they more likely to shoe horn a ew more rows of seats in their? I wonder...

(My enjoyment of airtravel reached a nadir two years ago when I travelled on an Airbus whose operator had set the seat pitch so small that I, and the chap sat next to me, couldnt physically sit straight. Our thigh bones were longer than the distance between our seat backs and the seat in front. We had to stand. For nine and a half hours.
Never again....)

"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go past." Douglas Adams

 

[debodine]

RobWard:

You touch on a good point with your discussion of seat pitch. To be fair to Airbus though, they (the same as Boeing) simply install standard seat tracks that have a 1" pitch between each seat mounting hole and the operator is the one who asks for a specific pitch between seats.

I do seat layouts in modification programs for numerous airline customers, both US and non-US (I am in the US) and the only involvement we have with Boeing/Airbus for seat pitch is if the operator requests a pitch that might put too much seat weight in too tight an area. Then we have to get interface and running load limits from Airbus/Boeing to be able to substantiate the tight seat pitch, or in some cases explain to the customer that they cannot have it that tight due to these limits. If the limits cost them a seat row, the tears flow freely, I can tell you!

So may I suggest that although it was an Airbus in which you were cramped, the actual responsible party for your discomfort was the operator of that Airbus who had specified that pitch.

I am sure, however, that knowing this in no way diminishes the misery you suffered. I have long thigh bones too...and I can relate from personal experience to your situation.

All of this being said, I think your other point about operators cramming in more rows rather than adding the "amenities" you list is also quite accurate, and will be the eventual utilization of the massive size of the A380. The only exception I can think of (if he buys any A380 aircraft) would be Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic!

debodine

 

[harrisj]

I hope this thread doesn't turn into the 'A vs B' bigotry that you can find in forums like Airliners.net. Fact is, both Boeing and Airbus make good aircraft, and there's a lot of different markets for different sizes, ranges and passenger configurations around the world.

A380 is not a revolution, it's an evolution. No major dimension on the A380 is more than about 20% bigger than on the 747. It's not the biggest aircraft to fly - just the biggest airliner. The internal packaging is very clever, and that allows more volume, and more seats - but only if that's what the airline askes for. Aircraft designers don't specify seating arrangements - the customer does. Within certain guidelines, the airline can squeeze more seats in, or put in a shopping mall, bars, gyms, whatever they want (but maybe a bowling alley would be asking for trouble).

A380 is a good piece of modern engineering, and it will find a market. It will not banish Boeings from the skies; just because the A380 is not made in the US, it's not necessarily a white elephant. We shouldn't be seduced by the opinion that the internal US market is the only one worth considering. Sure, it's a big market, and one that the majority of contributors are most familiar with, but the rest of the world is even bigger than the USA! Airports will come to terms with the A380 requirements, just like everyone did with the 747.

As for 800 deaths being less acceptable than 300, that's an unacceptable and odious argument in my opinion. One death is unacceptable. Should we ban high-rise buildings because they contain a lot of people (and are demonstrably vulnerable)? Of course not - we must asses and minimise the risk, and then choose, as individuals, whether to accept it or not. Same with high-speed trains and drinking beer. In the final analysis, if I am a passenger on a doomed A380 or a Cessna, the prospect of dying alone isn't a great deal more comforting than dying with 799 other people.

So let's applaud an impressive example of the technology that we, as engineers are responsible for, without propesising death and financial catastrophe. Well done Airbus, and let's look forward to Boeing's new one!

 

[G1DESIGN]

looks cool though doesnt it

 

[RobWard]

I wasn't trying to be critical of Airbus. I did say that the operator had wedged far too many seats in, but maybe I didn't make that too clear. Sorry.
Does anyone care to speculate when we'll see a different shape of aircraft? The 380 looks big, but essentially is just a bigger 340 (crudely speaking). When will we see flying wings?

"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go past." Douglas Adams

 

[debodine]

RobWard:

As a matter of fact, I re-read your post...and you DID make it clear it was the operator you blamed for the tight seat pitch.

So instead of you apologizing, I apologize to you for missing that point.

As to your flying wing comment, I wonder what the state of flying wing research is today, as the only result of that research that the public typically sees is the USAF B-2 bomber.

 

[Sparweb]

Too many of you are expressing concern about tightly pitched seats...

Ooo am I going to get flamed for this!

Steven Fahey, CET

 

[Roadbridge]

What no K.F.C. I'll have to talk to the Colonel.

 

[debodine]

Sparweb:

I love that A380 floor layout! No seat pitch issues in THAT scheme...assuming that the economy class section is for the folks who work at the amusements, not the paying passengers. )

debodine

 

[debodine]

Here is a link to a very good A380 cartoon in the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/news/maccartoon.html?in_date=290405&in_page_id=1831

debodine

 

[peanutgallery]

I think we are all missing the point to Airbus, and indeed Boeing marketing strategy. The burgeoning market will be China...'nuff said. Further, it's widely understood that the airlines write their own tickets when it comes to rules and regs. Ergo, the prime frame and engine manufacturers follow suit and create a product to serve this new market. Otherwise, Airbus and Boeing might find themselves competing with a new builder based in China...

 

[Aeromark]

Well the next A380 phase is here...

I saw in the May issue of Business & Commercial Aviation that the first private A380 is going to be announced. According to B&C A, Jet Aviation over in Basel, Switzerland is negotiating to do the interior for a middle eastern customer.

 

[jetmaker]

Something I have heard, but have no proof of, is that the A380 has more volume than GTW capacity. Therefore, it is said that there is excess space which must be left empty, or filled with a bar, lounge, etc... because it can not be filled with passengers as the plane is GTW limited.

jetmaker

 

[debodine]

jetmaker:

I have no proof one way or the other as well, but if my memory serves me correctly, did not Airbus reach their advertised target for payload (in addition to their other targets such as range, fuel efficiency, noise, etc)?

A comparison of payload volume versus payload weight must always include the density of the payload itself. For example, if the payload is intended to be feather pillows, I am certain the payload limiting factor would be volume. However, if the payload were to be depleted uranium warheads, I am certain that the payload limiting factor would be weight.

If the aircraft truly met the intended goal for the number of passengers, then the designers did their job.

I am not an aeronautics type, so I may have missed something in my analysis. Let me know if I overlooked something, as I am always seeking to learn outside my field as well as within it.