Slashdot Mirror
Building the A380
Gavinsblog writes "The Independent has a report on the construction
of the Airbus A380. Amazingly, a ship is being custom-built to ferry parts
for assembly, a custom fleet of trucks are also to be used - with roads widened
to suit. Oh and the assembly building is the size of two soccer pitches, and the
height of an olympic swimming pool."
http://www.airbus.com/airbus4u/photo_album.asp
and the height of an olympic swimming pool.
Last time I checked, olympic swimming pools weren't very high. In fact, they actually went down into the floor.
READ the article,
"as high as an Olympic swimming pool is long"
Alex
The stops aren't designed to give the convoys R&R. They are designed to allow the convoys a place to get out of the way during the day time so that normal traffic isn't blocked. How would you like to be stuck behind a wide-load convoy of plane parts crawling down the middle of the highway at 15kph?
That's why they only travel at night, and why they get off the highway at dawn. A bit like vampires.
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
>Um. Airbus is a French company. The only American carrier to order them thus far is FedEx.
No, it's not a french company.
Do you really believe that bullshit with FedEx being the only US (I asume you mean that by american?) carrier with Airbus planes in service?
Most likely you mean the only US carrier besides United Airlines, US Airways, Jetblue, Northwest, American Airlines, United Parcel Service, Frontier, GECAS, ILFC, America West and most other US based carriers...
go figure...
ahm, sorry that's wrong:
? link=2)
Airbus A300: 37, with 7 on order
Airbus A310: 46, with 7 on order
(http://www.fedex.com/jp_english/about/facts.html
And there is at least on more US carrier who ordered A380s. Forgot wich one, when I remember it I'm gonna post it.
This is where the 2000 opening of San Francisco International Airport's (SFO) new International Terminal has proved to be much more visionary than people think.
Because the terminal was built in the late 1990's when what was then the Airbus A3XX project was well-advanced, the architects of the new terminal were able to design gates at the end of Concourses A and G (the two concourses that are the International gates) to conform to the 80 x 80 meter (262 x 262 feet) standard for parking gate space used by the A380. Even the Federal Inspection Service (Customs and Immigration) areas were expanded so they could easily accommodate the influx of 500+ passengers per plane. A recent US General Accounting Office (GAO) report on accommodating larger airliners at US airports notes that SFO only needs to spend about US$70 million to make the airport fully A380-compatible, with the primary cost being runway exit ramp widening to accommodate the wider stance of the A380.
In short, once the A380 starts its flight testing phase don't be surprised that the plane is a fairly frequent visitor to SFO because SFO could be used as a reference standard for A380 airport compatibility.
There is something about the aircraft/airline business that just makes governments and investors throw money at them. The investor, Warren Buffet famously said that if he'd been around in Wilbur Wright's time he would have shot him before his first flight as a service to capitalism.
I agree with the general comments on world trade and subsidies but:
Enough economics. Can we go back to talking about computers & toys now?
Open Source Email Response Management http://www.logicalwa
Studies (and intuition) show that it is more fuel efficient to fly short trip and refuel, than it is to pack a plane full of fuel for a long trip.
While moving lots of people in a single trip is more efficient, moving lots of fuel is not. It makes me wonder if they'll be able to afford to fly this pig on anything but an ocean route.
Metric IS English.
You can't argue with me on this one; I am English. Top trumps.
England, part of the United Kingdom, has been metric since the 1970's and before, with the exception of road signs and beer.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
The Independant is a British newspaper. I'm sure that the majority of its readers can relate to the szie of a football pitch.
The economy is in the shitter.
Several airlines are in bankrupcy, and many are talking Chapter 9 liquidation.
Many fleets of 747s are being grounded and being replaced by the lower-capacity 777... including in Pacific Rim routes. They just can't afford to fly that many empty seats, and that large of an aircraft is just less efficient than a two-engine.
So why is Airbus gambling that the world needs an enormous airplane? It seems like extreme fiscial irresponsibility, especically considering they're government-funded! America certainly won't be buying, and I doubt much rest of the 100 plane order will go through if the economy continues to degrade in the rest of the world.
It almost reminds me of the Spruce Goose. Have fun paying off your new boat anchor, Europe. Welcome to recession.
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
There's also the problem of airport infrastructure. an 80m wide double decker airplane will have a very hard time fitting into any gate spot in an airport anywhere in the world, currently. The only exception I can think of is Hong Kong's Kai Tak airport. It is so new that they might have engineered it with larger gate spots to accomodate future aircraft
Actually, the poster meant to say Hong Kong's International Airport at Chek Lap Kok which replaced Kai Tak in 1998. Although, Kai Tak may have been able to handle the new planes, since most aircraft never pulled up to the terminal. Even in 1998 the planes would park on the tarmac, mobile stairs would pull up to the doors, and a bus would take people to/from the terminal.
Obligatory Links:
Governmental web page on the history of Kai Tak.
Chek Lap Kok's airport guide in English.
The production has not scattered around entirely for political reasons, unless China is now part of the European Union?
This is political as well. The Chinese government has negotiated deals for new airplanes that require part of the production to take place in China. Boeing has cut similar deals. I fully expect China to be in the business of building large airliners in 10 or 15 years.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
Fronter is moving their entire fleet to airbus. American, United both have airbuses. I believe all majors but sothwest (which only flys 737s), have some set of airbuses. Airbus is consortium. Finally, This is not the biggest, best YET. 747 is the biggest with arguably the 777 being the best. I am expecting Boeing to get rid of their current CEO and the next one will do the BWB which will blow away the 380 and 747 on size, performance, etc.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The P-80 was considered the best Allied fighter at the end of World War II. It arrived too late to see combat, even though 45 aircraft were delivered prior to the end of the war.
As for American casualties in europe I have anotherweb site for you . Soviet Suffered 13.6 million military casualties. Thats about 2.5 times the number of jews killed, and more than 30 times the number of americans troops lost(300,000). The germans lost 3 million. Where do you think Germany lost the bulk of its troops? Thank you Soviet Union, for getting rid of the nazi menace. Had the germans not attacked Stalin, all of europe would probably be speaking german today. Anyone tell you different, and they are victims of (UK and US) allied propaganda.
As for the US, its true that your presense probably have saved us from a communist takeover. So thank you US of A for that. Wether that is a good thing or not is debatable
Ummm, no. The AWACS is built on a Boeing 707 airframe, which is much older and smaller than the 747.
What you might be referring to is that a predecessor to the 747 was the losing entry (Lockheed won, I think) for the C-5, the US military's Really Big Cargo Plane.
Boeing was paid by the Department of Defense to create a prototype design to meet DOD requirements. They lost. Boeing then used the design as a basis for the 747, but note that Boeing absorbed the huge cost of making the 747 acceptable to the US Federal Aviation Administration, which has a far different set of requirements.
The original development was a "work for hire" at the request of the DOD. Every other Boeing aircraft has been internally funded by Boeing. That is a far cry from "here's 4 billion Euros, go build an airplane that competes with the Yanks" tactic of the European governments. Airbus has been a subsidy child since day one.
The US, I think, holds the upper hand here. If nothing else, the US could slap a tariff on the A380 (say, 100% of selling price), or just not certify it to operate in the States. Either action could be a fatal blow to the program. Of course, the EU would have the same options when the next Boeing aircraft is developed, igniting a major trade war.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
How many know that the Boeing 747 development was entirely funded by the DOD for building the AWACS.
The E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft is based on the Boeing 707, not the 747. The 707 (known to the USAF as the C-135) is the basis for just about every large, special role aircraft in the american inventory--tankers, ELINT, non-presidential VIP transport (the VC-25 (aka the 747) replaced the VC-135 as Airforce One in 1991) and a whole host of other roles.
Both the 707 and 747 are also products of the late 1960s/early 1970s--i.e. the height of the cold war, and before "World Trade" as we know it existed.
In other words, you're comparing apples and oranges.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?