Slashdot Mirror
Flying the Airbus A380
FloatsomNJetsom writes "So the largest passenger airplane in the world actually is pretty large inside — Popular Mechanics has a great article and video from their test flight on the brand new double-decker Airbus A380. This includes footage of takeoff, interviews with the pilot and test engineer, a rundown on the bar, the two staircases, and an attempt to walk down a crowded aisle from one end of the plane to the other without having to say 'excuse me.'"
Just wait until the first air disaster, with numbers like "six hundred dead...".
I seem to recall there is also another jet in the works that will take either 900 or 1,200 passenegers. Just wait until one of those crashes on take off and you've got over a thousand dead in one swoop. Not to mention, a terrorists wet dream! Why bother shooting it into a building when you can take just the airplane itself out and wipe out enough numbers to make the average pansy cry and the average cable news programmer wet himself in excitement.
I think the wings on every plane do that. If they wouldn't, they would break.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Apparently, many airports are planning to use 3 jetway bridges for simultaneous boarding on both decks of the A380
v an_harkirat.pdf
This paper discusses A380 boarding efficiency:
http://www.math.washington.edu/~morrow/mcm/alex_e
the wings flex noticeably on many big planes. for example on MC-11 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD- 11 ) they flex quite a bit when the plane turns during the flight. might get your heart pumping if you discover this at 40,000 feet.
"It took a mere 16 seconds for the largest airplane in the world to lift off runway 4L at JFK International Airport."
Well, no duh. 62% of available seating empty, less-than-average hand luggage, next-to-no checked luggage, no freight, and only enough fuel for a two hour flight plus margins.
Of course, it makes it sound great in the press, but it's hardly an indicator of the performance of the aircraft out here in the real world.
Sit in a window seat in an Airbus A300 and you will see the wings flex up and down, not much but enough to be clear. I would imagine all plane wings do this.
I for one would prefer a flexible wing rather than a brittle one, considering the forces involved.
In fact tall buildings need to do this as well, I seem to remember reading (I cant find a reference) that the Empire State Building can move up to 8m at the top, not sure that would help my vertigo.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
I was expecting it to fly itself!
What you say is completely wrong.
1. The required time for evacuating an aircraft is 90 seconds. They made it in 78. This is definitely not barely.
2. The volunteers represented the typical passenger mix (except from people using wheel chairs). This is required by the FAA/EASA.
3. Minor or moderate injuries are acceptable when evacuating a burning aircraft, better a broken arm then beeing burned.
the whole plane is more flexible than you think. think about it that way, that the whole wheight of the aircraft is hanging on the tips of the wings. remember those planes can take quite a bit more than just 'hanging' there at 1G, they turn and pitch. the wings bending at the tips about 2-3m isn't unusual, they can take much more. if they wouldn't they would just break.
now those big airliners can't take much G force compared to fighterjets or sailplanes, and they have relatively short wingspan.
open class sailplanes like nimbus 4 are a different story. they look quite funny at takeoff. the wings are hanging through and wobbling until the airflow is enough to produce lift, then they bend and the planes takes off. quite a nice view.
As it was on the first 747... The spacing on these showroom models is setup to show them off. Once the airlines start buying the real models, the spacing will be set back to the "stack em in like cordwood" norm to make as much money as possible off each airframe.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
With the aviation industry the way it is are planes like this even necessary? Wouldn't speed be the most important factor when designing airplanes?
What percent of the time could plane companies actually fill an entire plane this big?
Wouldn't the fact that its a bigger plane mean that there are more things that can go wrong with it?
What kinda damage would this make if you crash it into a building?
It seems to me that building planes like this would be like buying new hardware to make your applications run better when it's the code that needs optimization. The only place I see in the market for big planes is the moving of highly profitable, degradeable goods. But I'm no part of the industry so I'm just talking out of my ass.
I once had a chance to fly in one of two aircraft on a dual tow in Benalla, Australia. We did it just after dawn, using the flight which does a temperature trace. The glider on short tow pulled first and I had a fantastic view of it climbing and turning right.
If you get a chance, I can recommend doing that type of flight. They look okay on the ground, but much better in clear air. And you don't normally get close enough to see it really well.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
For a country that prides itself on making everything bigger, there sure is a lot of not-invented-here antipathy and patriotic vitriol against the first major upsizing of passenger airplanes in a long time.
Ofcourse they're designed to do that. Here's the way they test 'em:
777 Wing Flex Test
I thought the article was about 'flying 380', and not about being a passenger. In fact, this article (video) does not even deal with being a passenger.
The total weight will naturally not go above the total capacity of the plane. So there will be as much row and aisle as they can pack them in, and still set off.
But what about imbalance ? You could end with one side moreheavier than the other (latterally or longitudinally).
This is where most good check in programs are linked to a little application called "Weight and balance". The seat repartition does not follow random rule. If the system see that this would put the plane out of balance it force the seating on other part of the plane, and in certain case refuse additional seat assignement on imbalanced position.
In other word total engine power (constructor specs) give the maximum weight acceptable, then W&B will make the repartition. Airline would not be authorized to fly if they did go outside those parameter, and even if they somehow did it secretly, at the first accident (minor or not) would probably lose their licence to land in many country (EU,North America for example).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Ummm...get a window seat in *any* 'plane and you'll see the wings flexing when it trundles along the runway, when it takes off, when you hit turbulance, etc.
PS: Yes - even the ones made by Boeing!
No sig today...
Heathrow have already modified gates for the plane, as have most other major airports where it will be flying into.
This is complete and utter bullshit. I saw the demonstration. The people taking part were average people, not especially fit people like you make it out to be. The FAA has -strict- control over the tests and the people participating in the A380 tests were the same kind of people who'd participate in any other test of any other aircraft. You'd have to be seriously ignorant to think that the FAA would allow anything else.
78 seconds is a good time. It's better than the 90 seconds that the FAA in all their strictness mandates.
If a complete seal of approval from the FAA isn't good enough for you, then why are you using FAA testing parameters to justify your argument that the aircraft is a "death trap"?
It's a death trap.
Good thing we have people like you to denounce every improvement in transportation technology, going all the way back to the horse!
If you weren't here to provide the pessimistic outlook, we might actually enjoy reading about another great engineering achievement.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I've never seen anything like that.
I have
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
>So the largest passenger airplane in the world actually is pretty large inside
Who'd of thunk it?
It looks worrying but it's completely normal for a big airplane like this double decker monstrosity. If you ever get a chance to see the B52 landing/take-off you'll get to see the same thing happening, such much more that they have retractable "bogie wheels" on the tips of the wings.
Correction, what you meant to say is:
Are you always so presumptuous?
I say what I mean.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Where is the "patriotic vitriol" here? So far, the comments I've seen rightly point out the logistical difficulties with this aircraft, not any vitriol because it is an European airplane.
Unless you magically figured out the commenters' nationalities, I think you are way too uptight and sensitive about this. You are seeing something that isn't there.
873 people in 79 seconds through 50% of available emergency exits.
And in near total darkness, just the emergency lighting.
Thats not a bad feat at all.
They did the test for the projected maximum seating arrangement
that may be ordered by some asian airlines.
With the european voluteers this was a tight fit
and you would never have been able to stuff
obese americans into that seating arrangement.
G!
MACC
- e
Come on, this is just a Flash Video. Mplayer plays this just fine using ffmpeg.
mplayer http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/fed erated/687267809 /usr/lib/codecs/avisynth.dll, /usr/lib/win32/avisynth.dll, /usr/local/lib/win32/avisynth.dll
(mplayer-1.0-0.71.rc1.lvn7.i386 from Fedora Livna)
gives me
Win32 LoadLibrary failed to load: avisynth.dll,
libavformat file format detected.
[swf @ 0x302254]Compressed SWF format not supported
LAVF_header: av_open_input_stream() failed
although I have all the MS-Windows codecs installed and various proprietary WMVs etc. it plays.
It's a death trap.
It seems you have never looked at the statistics of other wide body aircraft.
12 seconds off a 90 second limit is quite good!
This plane is certainly no worse than anything in use today.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
when filled with Americans!
Try the super-sized veal burgers. I'm here all week.
Or mainly because you didn't need or wanted to go somewhere.
Man. Those stats are super-duper scary. I'm no scientist, but based on my computer models, if we don't ground these planes now New York will be under water by Christmas. Good thing man-made global warming is a hoax, otherwise you'd have me really worried.
The A380 is probably going to be a financial disaster. The number of planes that Airbus needs to sell to break even just keeps going up and up--I believe it is now around 420. When UPS cancelled their order of the freighter model, the total number of orders for the A380 freight dropped to zero, meaning that more passenger models must be sold to recoup the loss... but that isn't going to happen for at least another year, meanwhile the passenger airlines need to increase their capacity now and so they making up the gap with other aircraft...
The Adam Smith institute said it best:
Anyone else think Slashdot needs an aeronautics or aerospace news category for all these A380, UAV, F-22 articles?
I actually followed your link and skimmed through the begining. Gave up when I saw the graph on page 4.
If the author really believes global warming is just part of a natural cycle, WHY DOES HE CUT THE TEMPERATURE GRAPH OFF AT 1900?
The only reason I can think of is that he's trying to fool the ignorant about the significance of the temperature variation over the last 1000 years, and he knows damn well that even they won't fall for it if he shows them the last 100 years.
Just another dishonest crackpot, possibly with his own agenda. There are plenty to go around on both sides of this issue.
This sig all sigs devours
Bug report #213571.
Description : Airbus 380 went inverted and then went into a tailspin when flying at 32,768 feet. Airbus crashed.
Comments ---
Code looks correct. Please attempt to recreate and describe precisely the process by which the issue was recreated.
If the problem does not happen repeatedly this is an incident and not a bug.
Bug log closed.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
I don't even know who makes the Airbus and I don't care. I wasn't bashing the Airbus. I was illustrating an absurd point, which is that all it's going to take is one or two crashes of 600 to 1200 passengers each before the media and airline consumer groups go insane as well as the news media and those who consume it.
I think the Airbus is genius and I hope that we come to see larger and larger capacity planes. I also can't wait to see the absurd conclusions and fears drawn from the first few crashes that contain enormous numbers of victims.
people are willing to sit more cramped in order to save a few bucks.
Stop the brainwash
My uncle just retired as a commercial pilot. I asked him about the bending wings once, and he told me that one of the standard certification tests done by the FAA on new aircraft is to basically twist the wings until they break. He told me that sometimes the wings bend to a full 90 degrees before that happens.
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
It's the itinerary. The worst thing about travel are complex itineraries with delays and missed connections. A six or eight hour transoceanic flight is nothing if you don't have a immense fat guy next to you and you have a couple of books to read. It's the transcontinental itineraries that can get brutally long, if you are going to or from a second or third tier city and are flying cheap.
The longest itinerary I ever had was from Boston to a small town in northen Chile. The last leg of that itinerary was on a fish spotting plane that landed in a remote desert airstrip. Overall it was just over 24 hours, not counting the 70km drive over rutted dirt roads bouncing around in the bed of a pickup truck with my luggage. It wasn't a bad trip at all. On the other hand I once had my boss book me on an itinerary where I had to drive 100 miles to board at Manchester NH, then change in Newark and St Pault to arrive at Sacramento. The air travel part was over nineteen hourse but it was really, really cheap (I tendered my resignation after that). That was immeasurably worse than taking 24 hours to go half way arond the world.
The greatest problem of the business traveller is not cramped planes. It's connections. What we should worry about is the impact of a plane like this on the availability of absurdly crappy but absurdly cheap itineraries. In an era of intense price competition and financially shaky airlines, it might open up new possibilities for cutting costs.
You don't build a complete mesh of point to point flights between cities with a plane like this. You carry people on major backbone routes between hub cities, and shuffle them onto smaller planes at either end. So maybe if you are flying from Boston to San Francisco, it becomes much cheaper to fly to NYC take the super plane to Denver or Salt Lake, and then take a third plane to San Francisco. The class of second tier cities becomes a lot broader, and if you are flying from a smallish city to a smallish city, you may get sucked into flying between a pair of hubs nowhere near your home or destination.
If you are making connections off of a flight on one of these you are going to be dumped into an immensely crowded terminal with almost a thousand other passengers. True, they can have to get people off of these within a certain time to meet FAA regulations. But then you are on your own. Better use the toilet before you land.
No, I'm not excited about massive planes like this. I am much more excited about the Boeing 787 which promises to be comfortable, quiet and efficent. Heck, a plane that is a bit more mechanically reliable would be a godsend all around.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The bigger the plane, the more the wings will flex. At one extreme, take a Cessna 140 - you won't see any wing flexing at all (until they actually break). Go a little bit bigger - say, a Cessna 310, and you'll see a tiny amount of wing flexing during taxi operations as you go over bumps in the ground.
Then at the other end, get in a Boeing 747. Watch the wings as you trundle off down the runway. The don't flex, they almost flap. When the pilot flying 'rotates' (brings the yoke back, lifting the nosewheel, increasing the angle of attack to make lift), watch the wings then. Before rotation, the wing tips on a B747 are actually drooping a little. But as the pilot rotates the aircraft, they bend upwards until the entire wing is a graceful curve. The wing tip moves up perhaps 15 feet as the plane starts making lift. In rough air, the wings almost flap again.
Go to an airshow where they are doing a demonstration with the B-52 bomber. In the low level turbulence, you can see the wings almost flapping on that ugly fucker, too.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
In some flight deck photos, there appears to be what looks like a normal PC running (gah!) Microsoft Windows built into the flight deck, complete with a full AT-style keyboard that can be pulled out. It's to the left of the captain, and the first officer has one also, to his right.
:-) (The proper flight simulator, the thing they train the crew in).
Now I wonder if anyone has run MS Flight Simulator yet on the flight deck PC of the A380? Or in an attempt at recursion, I wonder if anyone has run MS Flight Simulator on the flight deck PC of the Airbus A380 flight simulator
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
You talk as if the economy and politics have nothing to do with each other, but that is not true. We are mired in economic sclerosis because no European company is free from the greedy, interfering tendrils of the organs (can I say organs on this web site?) of the European Union. Imagine a picture of prehistoric creatures trapped in a tar pit, slowly but inexorably sinking until they suffocate, only the creatures are businesses and the tar is miles and miles and miles of red tape.
European Union as greedy interfering tendril of the organs? I think that you really don't understand what European Union does and what it has achieved. Currently we have an common European economic area that runs with common rules and standards that are same from country to country. We have Euro as a currency in most of the European Union countries making internal and international trade more balanced and safe. We have European Union Commission that negotiates as an unified front with countries such as USA, China, Japan, Russia and etc.. making sure Europe and European companies are treated fairly and rules of international trade are fair for Europe. What European Union does is to enable common European marketplace where individuals and companies are in the same playing field regardless on their country of origin.
Also to make a note, in Europe, industry and companies have been the driving force of European unification. National, European wide and International companies have for a long seen the need to have for unified Europe. If you go in any European Union member country and look for people who want more unified Europe and who see Euro as an currency beneficial to them you will notice that these people are more likely entrepreneurs and managers of companies engaged to European and international business. If you wonder what is the rational for this, the rational is very easy explain: with European Union there are only one set of rules and standards instead of 27 making it easier for business to concentrate on their core functions and spend less on dealing with bureaucracy.
All in all, European Union does the same job as US Federal Government, or Chinese, Russian, and Indian central governments. In this today's world where political and economic power is more and more concentrated to big or super blocks, small individual countries don't have the resources and power to match this power blocks. Only by uniting together European nations can succeed and make sure that the future still includes prosperous and well-being Europe.
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
If you read the forums on airliners.net, you find a *lot* of anti-airbus sentiment and blind pro-boeing supporters. There are a lot of legitimate grievances against the A380 and airbus. But I still think the A380 is a marvelous airplane. There's nothing wrong with a group of countries deciding they want to build a new airplane and deciding it is worth tax dollars. Even Boeing benefits from the US government's support.
One of the most common complaints about the Airbus seems be that it's an ugly bird. Everyone has their own sense of beauty. The A380 has grace and style of its own. Besides, although passengers might say to themselves as they board, "that's ungly bird," they are still going to get on and fly. I'm looking forward to flying the A380 because of the increased interior comfort (I hope -- we'll see) in cattle class, the increased cabin pressure, and the much reduced interior noise. Boeing's next planes will also follow suit. It's all good.
I can understand your concerns, but the A800-800 was designed specifically to fly long routes between the really large international airports, not fly to secondary airports. That's why airports like New York-JFK, Chicago O'Hare, Miami International, Los Angeles International, San Francisco International, Denver International, and Dallas-Fort Worth are upgrading their facilities to handle the A380, since just about all A380 flights will fly to these American airports I mentioned.
Indeed, San Francisco International is one of the very first airports ready to accommodate the A380, thanks to the gates at the new International Terminal being ready to accommodate the plane and runway/taxiway upgrades that will accommodate the wider stance of the A380.
One other note on KLM.. I found their in flight service to be excellent on all legs of my trip. Their cityhopper transfer in Amsterdam is a pain in the butt though. Anytime you have to ride a bus to get to your plane just sucks.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Did anyone else notice the CNN video that showed the US LAX arrival earlier this week. The mains touched down and the plane aircraft slewed to the right requiring immediate (and large) correction - watch the rudder deflection. Looked like a problem with uneven braking. Both mains touched down twice, the second touch was followed by the slew. On final touchdown the left main touched fractionally first followed by the right main followed by the nosewheel. The correction was needed between the right-main touch and the nosewheel. It did not seem to be crosswind related, though that's a little difficult to tell (have to use wheel smoke etc. which is tough to gauge).
v ideo/business/2007/03/19/vo.ca.airbus.landing.cnn
Don't know if the automated systems or the pilot made the correction but with that large an aircraft there's very little room for error.
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/
As a test on Sunday, organizers boarded more than 500 people onto the aircraft using two jetways with an impressive time of less than 20 minutes.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
When UPS cancelled their order of the freighter model, the total number of orders for the A380 freight dropped to zero, meaning that more passenger models must be sold to recoup the loss...
This also means that Airbus can suspend any additional development concerning freighter models, which will be in itself an economy measure on the program. Instead, it can concentrate on delivering its current clients for the passenger version.
Since the problem for now with the A380 is producing them as fast as possible, to fill up the current orders, it is not really time to worry about future sales. When you have sold all your production for the next 5 years, and you have a hard time meeting the deadlines, you can understand that your clients don't really wish to commit to buy new models until the situation has settled down.
European Union as greedy interfering tendril of the organs? I think that you really don't understand what European Union does and what it has achieved.
i think you actually missed the parent's point! You go on to describe exactly what parent meant! All governments act the same way, and as time goes on they grow, the areas where they interfere grow, and you have greedy interfering tendrils all over the place! I would describe the US government in the exact same way.
I'm not an EUian, so I won't claim firsthand knowledge of the impressions you relay, but from what I've read online--on BBC and other sites, EU-satisfaction is not horribly high, and Euro satisfaction even less so.
I read a very humorous BBC article the other day on this very topic (specifically how many Brits feel the EU is, well, greedy and interfering)--I can't find the link now, but I'll try to dig it up, it was amusing at the very least.
That paper about boarding efficiency suggests the WilMA (Windows/Inside, Middle, Aisle) order of boarding as the most efficient.
While it may be the most theoretically efficient, I doubt that families/small groups (who theoretically will sit in the same row) will want to split up and board separately for the benefit of the theoretical ideal.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Holy crap, MOD PARENT UP! The plane was on the verge of spinning out.
We waited on the taxiway in Paris (CDG) while be burned off enough fuel to take off. We were over weight. The even went to far as to "count the kids". Children are plugged into the weight calculations at a lesser value than adults. And it did take a long roll to get airborn. Paris to Sfran , 11 hours.
Combine them! crash the plane into a city! Oh, wait a second.....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
What you and the parent have completely missed is that government interference has been decreased by the actions of European Union and the development of common European market. Let me educate you from the past: in past individual European governments saw companies and industries as national strategic assets and tools for government control both in inside the country and also in international scene. What this meant was that some industries where completely protected by formation of national monopoly to an individual company or government agency, or in other cases foreign ownership was totally denied or sanctioned to a very small percentage, or in some cases tolls and import taxes were put on place to protect countries companies, or countries standards and laws were written so that it would be near impossible for companies from other countries to fulfill them, or it straightly denied to buy some foreign companies. So the difference with today's situation were we have one European market with one set of rules compared to past when we had 27 different markets with different rules, is very drastic.
Lets make in example of this. I'm from Finland and Finland is nation of five million inhabitants. I have a software company, for my company the Finnish market is very small and for my company to grow I need bigger markets. In past it would have been very difficult to set up foreign operations, but because European Union has established common European market, I can sell my software products and services in whole European Union area with almost 500 million inhabitants with out the need to set up subsidiaries in other countries, with out need to pay import taxes or tolls, with out need to customize my product to country specific standards. Also because Finland uses Euro as a currency, I can sell my products and services to other Euro countries with out currency risks. Also because European Union has mandated that all public projects in all member countries are open to public bidding by all companies regardless of their country of origin, so if in example German government organization would have public bidding race for a specific product or service, my company would be in an even playing field with other companies.
And lets make a better example in more smaller level. Because European Union, people are free to locate themselves freely in European Union area. I can travel freely in European Union area in countries belonging to Schengen treaty I don't even need passport when traveling. If traveling in Europe I happen to fell in love with some place, I can just start living there, I can buy a house, I can get a job i.e. There is nobody telling me that because I'm from Finland I can not stay in their country. What this has meant that if in some cause there isn't enough jobs in Finland, I can freely locate in example in Ireland, or if I marry somebody from other European Union country, she can come freely to Finland or I can move to her country. In past moving between European countries and especially moving from country to country was more harder and one needed to deal with bureaucracy, or in some cases it was not allowed. So because we have a thing called European Union, I'm more free to do and archive things in Europe.
To make a note is that when we talk about European Union, in many countries like in Britain and France, politicians like to blame European Union for all the problems they have in their countries. Also in Britain there are some powerful business men that have straightly dictated that their media companies are anti European Union. Of course problem with the European Union also is that it's very difficult for European Union citizens to understand what European Union does and how valuable the things are that it has achieved: i.e. no war in Europe, common markets, common currency, more and more power to negotiate with US, Russians, etc..
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
You don't know much about this stuff, do you? This is what a problem landing looks like:
2 3249,223248,223247,223246
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?id=2
why no picture of the bathroom?
calling all destroyers
I don't think that had anything to do with breaks, I'm not a pilot, but my father is and usually you don't apply the breaks until ALL wheels are on the ground to help prevent just this sort of problem, and to prevent the front wheels from coming down too hard. This clearly happened well before the front wheels touched down. Having one set of tires touching down before the other set can cause enough drag to twist the plane some too, so that is a possibility. Not only that but on large planes the breaks are next to useless at high speeds, they use reverse thrust instead, which takes some time to engage.
While this is no where close to a "smooth landing", it was FAR from being out of the ordinary. Take a look at this video to see what the planes are really capable of. Search google for: "boeing crosswinds flight test" to find more of the same, those pilots are insane.
Open Source Time and Attendance, Job Costing a
These are the same comments that were made about the 747, and my father told me that they were also made about the 707. Yes, there will be some spectacular crashes with loads of deaths. But that will always happen. For instance, I knew the pilot of the American Airlines DC-10 plowing into Chicago. But it did not matter if he was on a crash with 283 or 2.82. He is just as dead.
If you want to be concerned, then be concerned about the increasing use of Windows in the Airbus Cockpit. Fortunately, the American FAA will not allow it for critical systems (not do-178B and even vista will not be). But airbus and probably the EU FAA (can not remember their acronym) would as well.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I think the wings on every plane do that. If they wouldn't, they would break.
There seems to be a movement towards even more wing flex than we've come to expect. Conceptual drawings of new Boeing aircraft, such as the 787, show enormous wing flex. New materials and engineering are likely allowing for it.
While it might freak out the uninitiated, wing flex is pretty nifty--it absorbs turbulence before it actually reaches the cabin.
Certainly not a "problem landing" and while the brakes are not usually applied until the nosewheel is grounded (else the nose comes down with a bang), the right-main wheels certainly looked like they were offering significant resistance. The nosewheel smoke does not indicate a significant crosswind or gust. I believe a gust would have had to be from starboard to port (camera side to far side) to make the aircraft slew to its right as such a gust would have pushed on the tail and pivoted the aircraft on its mains bringing the nose towards us. Does the profile of the aircraft make it more susceptible to gusts - I would have thought its mass would make it less so. The fact that we see anything at all, given the size of the aircraft, makes the event significant.
:-) )
If it was not a gust and not a braking issue it might indicate a landing geometry problem which would be significant.
While not a "problem landing" it would be nice to find out what the landing analysis was. What were the stresses on the gear during landing? Is there a problem with the automated landing system or was the pilot a little right-toe early? (Perhaps they *were* running the Microsoft Flight Simulator in "direct control mode"
Looked like a sudden gust of wind. Big deal.
I've seen lot of A380 footage - hell, one landed here in Vancouver last year, en route from Sydney back to Toulouse - and it looks and flys like any other airliner. Just a really really big one. They also did cold-weather testing in Iqaluit. Flew in, parked the plane overnight, went out in the morning to see if it would still start (it did). Brrr...
Airbus have guts. I hope they can pull it off.
...laura
But if I was I know that my air-penis envy would be enormous because the Euros would have such a big one, and I would be forced to make all sorts of ridiculous claims that my 787 air-penis's size was not important, and that I didn't feel emasculated because of it.
Giggle.
Off topic, but how can they guarantee it's 90 seconds? In real life most people would be freaking out falling over eachother to get to the exit. Few would have the smarts to stay calm and work their way out effectively. Most would be trying to carry their bag out with them. Some would be fat people trying to grab their bag, and nobody would be able to get past them. When they finally did start moving, they'd be waddling slowly, etc. I just can't see an airplane being evacuated in 90 seconds.
Overflow. If it's a signed short then 32768 + 1 = -1 :P
~= scwizard =~
Airports that are wanting to welcome the A380 are doing renovations to handle the aeroplane. The USA is generally lagging behind in its readiness, but accommodating the A380 is in many airports interests. Currently the A380 is flying to various destinations, so airports can check that are capable of handling the aeroplane, as well a general marketing tour. Just last week the A380 made visit to JFK. A few links on airport readiness:
t ion/read.main/1493607/e 653/n t/article.html?articleID=1187s _2002_March_6/ai_83557785
- http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_avia
- http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05333/614282.stm
- http://www.airport-technology.com/features/featur
- http://www.atwonline.com/channels/aircraftEquipme
- http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/i
The extra problem that the aeroplane poses, on top of the plane itself, is dealing with the number of people arriving in the airport at any one time. Think gate waiting lounges and customs clearance.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
The Airbus A380 is an impressive plane, and should be recognised as such, yet at the same time if you want a plane that just makes your jaws drop, you need to check out the Antonov 225, a truly impressive plane built by the Russians, capable of handling a payload of 250,000 kg (551,000 lb):
5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225
On the Wikipedia page there is also a diagram comparing the size of the 747, A380 and AN-225 and the Spruce Bruce.
YouTube has some videos of the plane:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=an-22
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
"Software used to manage the design and manufacture of the 555-seat A380 at Airbus's Hamburg engineering center isn't fully compatible with that used at company headquarters in Toulouse, France, say current and former Airbus executives, including Charles Champion, who headed the A380 program until September. That's why hundreds of small changes to electrical wiring in the A380 snowballed into at least a year's delay in delivering the world's biggest passenger aircraft and $2.5 billion in lost profit."
Interesting point - but how do you explain that the other Airbus planes were quite successful?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
It's a good thing flying doesn't have a minimum intelligence requirement, or they probably wouldn't *let* you on the plane.
With the increased awareness of global warming, people like you are falling all over themselves trying to be extra-conscious of their CO2 emissions... but this is ridiculous.
There's no good reason to burn coal for power generation, there's no good reason to drive ten times the car you really need, there are large efficiency gains to be had in personal transport, and we should indeed address all of these issues.
But we're talking about airplanes here. Fuel efficiency matters inasmuch as airlines want to pay as little as possible per passenger, but CO2 isn't, and shouldn't be, a consideration at all. What percentage of the global carbon-based fuel usage goes to the aerospace industry? 1%? 3%? Is this where we should be focusing our efforts? There is no substitute for airplanes in long-distance travel, and there is no substitute for kerosene in airplanes. No other fuel has the required energy density, nuclear excepted of course. Even when oil costs $200/barrel, we'll still be using kerosene to move airplanes around because it's the *only* option.
Fossil fuel use is not an all-or-nothing deal: there is, and always will be, room for airplanes. If you don't want to fly because you really think that air travel is a luxury we can do without for the sake of the precious environment, just do us all a favor and try not to impose your craziness on the rest of us.
Now Boeing needs to take a lesson from AMD and cut prices on the 747. All the development costs should have been paid off well before now, and they can squeeze AirBus in the jumbo passenger jet market.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I guess you have more time in real life, even in an emergency situation. And that's the reason for the 90 seconds. A test always has to be better than the real life situation. And if you manage to get all people out of the plan in 78 seconds you can assume it would still be less than 5 minutes in the worst case.
Shut up, Whiney Boeing Shill.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Airlines were interested in the Sonic Cruiser until 9/11 when the entire industry was rocked. Subsequently, the rise in the price of oil made it too costly to sacrifice speed for efficiency.
In contrast... the A350? Airbus launched it, touted that it would defeat both the 787 AND the 777... and subsequently does neither.
Why not point your vitriol at the people who claim that those who don't think the A380 is the greatest thing since sliced bread is due to the "not invented here" syndrome?
and the sheer scale of the thing pushes it further up the charts ...
REPORT ALL OBSCENE MESSAGES TO YOUR POTSMASTER
i was modded down becuase people disagree, not becuase of coherency. I was there for the test, i was one of the people who took part in the test. I dove out of the plane and i may or may not have a different view of some other people here. Maybe im wrong, thats fine but i was there and the people who modded me down were probably not. If you disagree with me respond with why im wrong, dont jsut anonymously mod me down... For shame, people who were not there are passing judgement becuase they "feel" like they know what happened...
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
I took part in the test. Maybe you weren't there all day. Before the actual test we were given an agility test then fed lunch. We milled around, i chatted with some people, practicing my german. Eventually those that failed the agility test were shown away. Look, there was a very robust sample of people taken into the hanger, of that robust cample only the fit people were taken to the actual test. I dont care what you say about watching the test becuase i was inside the plane. Everyone inside knew EXACTLY what we were doing and we all bailed out very fast. You can say what you want but the test was a bit rigged. I understand if you were an observer you might have been shown a skewed test. My point is that you should keep an open mind. Giving airbus the seal of approval is a dangerous thing to do.
I am not anti-technology or anti-corporation. I am pro-people, that is all. I don't know if this big of a plane can be safe or not but i can make a good guess that this particular plane is quite dangerous.
The parent of this post was actually there. Since he responding he is not modding but i will take a guess that the other people who modded my posts down were not there and have no place passing judgement on something they have no first hand knowledge of.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
"The 747-8 is far lighter and far more efficient than the A380"
Bollocks. The A380 has an entirely new wing design, new composite material design, not to mention the newest engine tech going - making it proportionally way more lighter and efficient than the 747-800 - which, as the name heavily suggests, is just a modified version of a 1969 plane design.
As I've said before, the A380's biggest selling point is and will be that it can ship more people for less cash. That is why, when Airbus finally get their act together, they will be as common-place now as the 747 is now.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Boeing did get involved with the American SST effort back in the late 1960's, although it was mostly under the U.S. Government-funded project to build a competitor to the Concorde. Serious efforts to break into this market have all but failed, and the expense for building these kinds of aircraft are so high that serious objections can be raised to if it is even something most companies should even bother with. Obviously Boeing is not spending any serious research money into the concept.
Added to this is the U.S. environmental lobbying groups that were also partially successful in killing the American SST program, including putting on so many restrictions on the location and flight profile of the Concorde and other SST planes that you could count on one hand how many U.S. airports even allowed the plane to land at all. Without the USA as a customer, it effectively killed the SST as a customer. The Concorde also has the problem that the New York-London route was essentially the limit to its flight distance. Going from London to Bombay (or other cities around the world) is essentially out of the picture as they are too far away for serious consideration, and would require a further design change to achieve such a flight range, at the cost of making the plane even more expensive to operate.
And if the enviromental groups were successful in the late 1960's to change opinion and perspective of this concept, these key issues they objected to haven't really be resolved. In addition, the environmental groups are also much better organized today than they were in the 1960's as well.... something to consider if you really wanted to make such a plane.
And to ultimately top off all of these problems with a new edition of the SST, there is going to be some serious competition against companies who are going to be doing sub-orbital flights that would simply blow away any advantages of SST options. Basically, a flight from London to Sydney might take nearly a full day on conventional air transportation (19 hours non-stop), an SST could cut that in half or slightly better to say about 8 hours, and a sub-orbital flight might be 3 hours. I'm not saying that the problems of sub-orbital flight are completely solved, but groups like Virgin Galactic and Scaled Composites certainly are making some significant progress in that area (not to mention other former X-Prize companies) that it is hardly an open field in trying to move in that direction. Basically, why would you spend billions of dollars in a SST system that will take nearly a decade to develop when Richard Branson will be able to fly you to the same destination much faster and for nearly the same price per passenger (as is projected by Virgin Galactic and others in the alt.space community)? Besides, the "cool" factor of being a passenger in an SST is very old fashioned compared to actually going up and into space.
Essentially, I see the window of oppotunity for a company building a cost-effective SST to essentially be closed, if it ever was economical to do in the first place. Certainly even the Concorde only broke-even on costs under a very imaginative and optimistic viewpoint.