Slashdot Mirror
Airbus A380 Completes Maiden Test Flight
crazy blade writes "The much anticipated maiden test flight of the Airbus A380 jumbo jet is underway. The aircraft left Blagnac International Airport in Toulouse, France at 10.29 hours local time (08.29 UTC) from runway 32L. Here are some photos if you're interested."
This is really quite an engineering achievement and good for the local economy.
It's amazing that this giant of an airplane is actually bigger than the legendary Spruce Goose. It's amazing how technology has progressed from a rudimentary wooden substructure to this bleeding edge aluminum/steel airframe. Lighter, stronger, and more economical than Hughes could ever have imagined, this Airbus A380 is a marvel of modern manufacturing.
The only issue is whether the capacity will be taken advantage of effectively. While most flights now are booked solid, will the number of passengers be high enough to make the construction of these behemoths profitable?
Jet engines, the last time I checked, were fairly inefficient in terms of miles per gallon (I realize that you're shoving an enormous hunk of metal and plastic into the sky, so the MPG won't quite match a honda). Is anything being done to reduce the consumption for these vehicles? Or is the hope to increase PPG (passengers per gallon) so that even if you can't get more distance for the fuel, you can move more people?
Just kind of curious.
Actually the A380 is more fuel efficient than the 747 even though its bigger as it uses composites. In fact its fuel efficiency per passenger mile is at par with modern sedans and much higher than suvs.
The 777 is a much smaller plane than the A380. With such a large plane it makes sense to have 4 engines.
Passenger planes have to be designed such that they can fly on with single engine failure. With 2 engines each engine has to be strong enough to drive the plane on its own. With 4 engine failure scenario require the plane to fly on 3 engines hence each engine has to be only 1/3rd total load.
The wastage in excess power is much less 1/3-1/4 1-1/2
**Life is too short to be serious**
Fun fact: US government subsidize US airplane companies by purchasing their military equipment at high prices... ;-)
Perhaps, but the Soviets stole the blueprints for Concorde. They didn't design it themselves (and could never have done it).
Direct link to (crappy but watchable quality) videos:
Take off
In flight
Oh no... it's the future.
The more congested the major air routes become the more of a demand there will be for aircraft like the A380 for moving large numbers of passengers and cargo between the major population centers and their hopelessly overloaded airports. It is a serious misjudgement by American Aircraft manufacturers to abandon the market for large passenger and cargo carriers and leave it to Airbus. Boeing for one has missed the bus and claiming that nobody wants the A380 is slowly being proven wrong and it definetly won't help them compete. Now they are scrambling to a produce a mix of stretched 777 variants and a modernized and stretched version of the 747 and pawn them off on the airline industry to compete with the A380 and they are meeting with limited enthusiasm. The 777 doesn't have the same potential for increasing it's capacity as the A380 and the 747 is a vintage design.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Maybe you also have an older model, rusted-out horse up on blocks on your front lawn, too ...
BTW - How are you posting if you don't trust computers not to hang so often?
(in a related note, I've just noticed this morning that all the hds we've RMA'd were from Windows boxes - none from the linux boxes ... curiouser and curiouser ...)
At least I haven't heard anyone say that there are no flotation devices onboard because the 380 is too big to crash.
When was last time you heard of a Jumbo jet successfully landing on water? Yeah, that is right: never!
Every time we step on a plane, we get to see a demonstration about the flotation devices under our seat and how to evacuate the plane if it has to crash land on water. The truth is, however, that if a jumbo actually tried landing on water, the result would be a wingtip submerging, instantly causing the plane to overturn and smash itself to pieces against the surface.
The only reason airliners still have life vests (and the reason they still look like something from the 1940s) is that Airline industry safety is still regulated by agreements from the 1940s (ever wonder why $100 million jumbo has seatbelts crappier then your $500 1982 Datsun?). And the reason these agreements cannot be updated is simply that they also contain liability limitations of airlines against the victims of crashes - and the US tort lobby would never allow that into new agreements (if such limitations were taken away, the price of plane tickets would double so that plane crash victim families could become multi-millionaires...)
I digress, but the point if we are not any worse off without flotation devices aboard the A380. If you took comfort in having that life vest under your seat, it was a delusion.
India and China both manufacture their own versions of the MIG. Also they are both developing their own fighter jets prototypes of which are already flying. Brazil Canada and Ukraine have strong regional jets. So it is not so much of a stretch for them to shift over to widebody jets especially given their domestic airlines are buying so many of these jets anyway. For that matter even the Japanese and Korean are great shipbuilders and plane building and ship building a lot similar in that they are both piecework and they require highly advanced metal working tech. So they too could come into the picture. Its probably the strong brand leadership of Airbus and Boeing combined with the government subsidies which they get which keeps them on top. But I expect at least the Chinese government to subsidize its own manufacturer
**Life is too short to be serious**
Boeing's presales of the 787 have been quite strong. I think it is Airbus that has made the big bet. The vast majority of the world's airports are not compatable with the A380 either at the gates, or with the required strength of runways. Airbus has made the real gamble. As with the Concorde, Airbus's (Europe's) desire to trump Boeing (US) may be clouding their business judgement.
an ill wind that blows no good
Too bloody right, and it annoys me that we continue to put useless balloons under airplane seats but won't mandate for smoke hoods. An invention that costs no more than a life jacket but would actually save lives.
That horrible Concorde? During Concorde's cruise flight (which is the vast majority of its flight regime), Concorde's engines were the most thermodynamically [0] efficient turbine engines ever made. I believe they still hold this record even with the impressive efficiency of the super high bypass turbofans like the Trent 900.
Concorde in many respects was way ahead of its time, having fly-by-wire controls and various other features that only made it to the mainstream airliners a decade later.
Unfortunately, part of the excitement of this new plane getting launched is essentially it's just yet another conventional tube with wings. I'm disappointed Boeing didn't follow through with the Sonic Cruiser - it was a plane that was not only technically interesting, but looked interesting too. Instead, Boeing is also just making another tube with wings in the form of the 7E7.
[0] i.e turning fuel into thrust. Notwithstanding, on a fuel burned per passenger seat, Concorde is not efficient.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Have UPS, FEDEX, or DHL placed orders for 787's yet?
UPS and FEDEX have already ordered A380's. I'm assuming that DHL, a subsidiary of the German national postal service, has as well. Big hub is perfect for freight distribution. Once it's out the door, I dont think scarebus cares what you use their planes for.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Well, of course you need less big planes as small ones.
As the 787 carries 217, 257 or 289 passengers and the A380 typically 555, the numbers become : over 66470 (230*289) seats ordered for the Boeing 787 and 83250 for the A380. Seen this way, Airbus has the edge ;)
Personally, I think that it isnt yet decided which company did the right bet. Probably both the 787 and the A380 will both be popular. However, IMHO, the 747 is dead.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
This goes on the assumption that the A380 will be popular enough for airports like Allentown, PA and the like to do invest in the upgrade.
I would bet though that the new 787 Dreamliner from Boeing will be much more likely to completely dominate the P2P market as opposed to even a smaller A380 since this is what it was designed for.
The A380 is designed for the behemoth airlines who live in the hub and spoke system. How many of them are not either in bankrupcy or in danger of being there? That fact alone would scare me if I were Airbus.
Don't get me wrong, it's a nice plane but it's about 20 years too late.
Interesting considering that the Airbus A330 and A340 have had *ZERO* fatalities during their entire life. The only Boeing plane that can match that is the B777.
My links dont seem to work . So here are the links3 0-1.html
SU 30 MKI http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f16-f18-su
Article
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Oct2004/1004train.asp
**Life is too short to be serious**
The new SU-37 has similar flight characteristics to the F-22 and might even be more maneuverable. It is not contracted for yet by the Russian Air Force but it is reasonable to think they will either upgrade down that path or invest in an aircraft based on the SU-45 technology test bed.
Russia has -always- been at or near the forefront of aviation technology, dating back to World War I. I would not be so smug as to overestimate the F-22 or underestimate Russian aircraft. Yes, we have had much success against third world nations operating Russian made aircraft, but those aircraft are generally one, two, or even three generations behind current Russian design.
This is my sig.
The bigger picture is that the Euro's seem to have a complete disdain for open markets, and I worry that they won't change until their taxes are outrageous and unemployment tops 10%.
I could argue that, since only one mission used the Salyut 1, it was not a *true* space station - unlike Skylab and Mir.
However, I'll concede your point - which does little to negate my main point that Mir was NOT the first space station by any means.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Software Engineering Case Studies / Airbus flight control system
Actually, it's more like ignorance of what they are riding on, because americans are climbing onto non-American and non-European airplanes every day by the thousands, altho i'm sure very few of them realize it. Between Embraer and Bombardier, a lot more airframes are being delivered to US airlines than Boeing and Airbus are providing.
You're probably right. Even seasoned travellers mostly can't tell the difference between a 737 and an A320 by sight. And of course, despite having the manufacturer in big letters on the safety card, most people probably don't know where the plane they are on was built.
Even if they did, its not easy to make a choice with your wallet, because it's not like most routes are going to give you the choice between a Boeing and an Embraer. If it did, it would be on another airline. Most people, given the choice, probably WOULD fly a Boeing, simply because it is larger than a regional jet, and people seem to fear small planes.
this trend can be traced directly back to the product liability lawsuit which halted production at the cessna plants, it was a HUGE wakeup call for the industry, and started the wheels moving in earnest for aircraft manufacturing to get out of the usa.
True. But the lawsuits mostly affected general aviation, not commercial. Commercial aviation in the U.S. has suffered because everyone was trying to build large planes, and there wasn't enough room in the market. Lockheed, Rockwell, Northrop Grumman, and McDonnell-Douglas all realized that there was more money in military aircraft.
The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 did wonders for the GA community by limiting liability to the warranty period. This meant that manufacturers weren't being sued by people who crashed their 50 year old plane anymore (well, they could still be sued, but it was not as likely to be successful). Since then Cessna has rebounded, Piper has become New Piper, Commander unfortunately still went bankrupt, Mooney has changed hands a few times, but keeps building airplanes, Raytheon Beech is still doing well, and what is more interesting is that new companies such as Adam Aircraft, Cirrus Aircraft, Eclipse, Lancair and Liberty have entered the market. In fact, many flight training facilites are buying Cirrus over Cessna for their trainers. Moreover, after years of very little advancement in GA technology, the revitalization act allowed third parties such as avionics manufacturers and so forth to make investments such that most new GA planes now come with glass panels.
Cessna, Lear and Gulfstream still dominate corporate aviation in the United States. Lear is owned by Bombardier now, but still manufactured in Wichita, Kansas.
do you buy a cessna 180, or a cessna 185. Today, it's still simple, you go to canada and buy from Found Brothers, they are the only ones left making that category of airplane.
Cessna makes the Grand Caravan, which can be fitted with a belly pod capable of hauling 4X8 sheets of plywood. There is also the Maule which can be used in rugged terrain.
I've always wondered, is there another industry where the silliness of the us courts have cost the american economy so many trillions of dollars in the long term.
Just about any industry with the word insurance in it, healthcare, etc. Any industry that lets people sue for large settlements, really. The lawyers take their cut, and the extra costs are passed along to us, the consumers. If we won't pay it, the companies go out of business. No industry can prosper in an environment where people are allowed to sue and win even in cases where common sense or proper use would have prevented injury.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Decimation was a Roman punishment used for disloyal troops.
A loyal legion would be used to pull 1 in 10 soldiers out of a disloyal (or cowardly) legion, and beat them to death. The remaining 9 in 10, presumably, would think twice before disobeying orders to attack.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Sorry, but I don't see that in the articles at all. They talk about how manuerable the Su-30s are, thrust vectoring, off-boresight IR missles, blah blah.
Well, Russian fighters have been more manuverable than ours since Vietnam, that's why they use A-4s and F-5s as aggressor planes in excersizes. Those old light fighters can often spank our F-15/14/4s in close combat, too. I'm guessing that these excercises, like some of the ones we run in the states, involved disallowing long-range kills and focused on pure dogfighting.
But when the gloves come off - that is, when you load up with AMRAAMs, Sparrows, or Phoenix, and tell them to shoot to kill, our F-15s and -14s are more than a match for any Mig or Sukhoi. No one has ever downed a F-15 in air-to-air, there have been countless MiGs and SUs shot down at long range, before even getting a shot off.
Note how neither article boasts about their BVR missles or radar systems, it's all "Look at our shiny short-range missles and thrust vectoring!" Good luck getting close enough to use eiher against an F-15.
And the F-22 and F-35 programs have been around since the 80s, I doubt Cope India had anything to do with it - except maybe to scare some congressmen into paying for a few more of them, perhaps.
There's a lot of 'details' on this incident that most folks dont know about, a long string of details that added up to a major problem. In a nutshell, the airplane was to low, to slow. There was an altimeter error of 67 feet, so the pilots setting up for a low pass at 100 feet, actually levelled off at 30 feet. The engines were de-spooled because of the need to slow the aircraft. the altimeter error was critical at this point, the aircraft was established on a trajectory where physics would only allow level and descending flight, but it was below the treeline.
The aircraft was doomed when it levelled off, no matter what. Without the engines spooled up, there wasn't enough power available to effect a climb, and the aircraft was to slow to climb on kinetic energy alone. the computers didn't allow the nose up commands because it would have caused a stall.
If you read ALL of the information available on that incident, and sift thru all the politics of the conflicting reports, the big picture becomes pretty obvious. The airplane was to low (altimeter error), and once the crew realized they were below the treeline, go-around power was commanded, but, it was to late. It was physically impossible for the engines to develop the required thrust in the time available. The fcs didn't allow the pitch up command because it would have caused aerodynamic stall, and a much worse impact. In the final analysis, the flight control system did exactly what it was supposed to do, but the crew had placed the airframe in a situation where contact with the trees was inevitable. If the fcs had allowed the pitch up command, there would have been an uncontrolled stall accident, likely with no survivors. Instead, there was a controlled impact, very impressive looking fireball on the video, 3 deaths, and 133 survivors.
Every airplane that takes off, is eventually going to touch down. Surviveability of the touchdown is directly related to wether or not the aircraft is under control, and to a lesser extent, related to where it touches down. The computers had full control of an impossible situation, and 133 people survived. If the nose up command had been alllowed, likely nobody would have survived the impact after a stall event. It's a natural reaction for a pilot to try 'pull up' in a case like this one, and the override of the computerized systems likely saved a lot of lives. that's the part that never seems to get reported tho, the press loves to replay the clip over and over, with an implied emphasis on the assumption that a person could have flown that aircraft out of the situation. Physics was not going to allow that, once the plane levelled off on the low pass, it was doomed, the only question left, how bad would the crash be. 133 people survived because the flight control system didn't allow the airframe to leave 'controlled flight'.
As for the new Boeings, hate to burst your bubble on this subject, but all the new boeing equipment has the same type of fly by wire setup. the computers will tell the pilot to fuck off if s/he inputs commands that will cause the aircraft to leave the realms of controlled flight.