Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mora on December 11, 2004, 10:25:50 AM
-
It's frigging HUGE!
(http://www.planepictures.net/a/TLS/1102693910.jpg)
-
I think we've finally reached the point where it will take longer
to board the aircraft than it will to reach your destination :D
-
Bah, thats nothing, wait til you see THIS! :D
-
Originally posted by Furball
Bah, thats nothing, wait til you see THIS! :D
:lol thanks for laugh i need it
-
Originally posted by Furball
Bah, thats nothing, wait til you see THIS! :D
-
Funny thing about the A380's even their engineers have admited that they are amazed that Boeing designed and built the 747 in 60's with nothing but slide rulers.
As no matter how often they ran it through the compitiion the original Jumbo kept on coming up as the most efficent design and max weight.
It will be interesting to see what it's MTOW will be once it's complete.
"If it ain't Boeing, It ain't going"
...-Gixer
-
Pretty airplane, I am not flying on the damn thing.
Boeing, Going, 'nuff said.
-
Now if they would just paint it yellow and call her 'Big Bird'! :D
(http://photos.airliners.net/b72a50b15702683eacfbedd4a31be279/41bb5498/middle/7/9/4/687497.jpg)
-
W-Europeans are designing a plane that would go head to head with a 40 year old design (jumbo jet)???:lol :lol :lol
-
Originally posted by tikky
W-Europeans are designing a plane that would go head to head with a 40 year old design (jumbo jet)???:lol :lol :lol
It's operating costs per passenger are significantly lower. Anyway Boeing was lucky to get the 747 right. It's still produced without any major re-design.
-
Originally posted by mora
It's operating costs per passenger are significantly lower. Anyway Boeing was lucky to get the 747 right. It's still produced without any major re-design.
Lucky? How about Good? Thorough?
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Lucky? How about Good? Thorough?
How about, lucky, good and thorough. Back in the day they didn't model stuff on computers so they needed also luck to get it perfect.
The 737 is also still produced but it needed a new wing to be competitive.
-
From NFPA ARFF Technical Committee member:
The FAA is not going to mandate that Airbus certify the slides like they have on other aircraft. (90 seconds using half of the available exits). The FAA is going to allow Airbus to do one level at a time. Airbus doesn't want to jeopardize the safety of participants in the certification by evacuating both levels simultaneously. We are somewhat concerned regarding this matter on the NFPA ARFF Technical Committee. The way the slides are oriented, there is a strong argument to support the theory that there are going to be several injuries on an actual aircraft evacuation.
(http://www.arff.info/photos/airbus-slides.JPG)
-
The plane is cool. I'm just waiting for the huge dissapointments when people realize all those fancy bars, shopping malls, workout rooms, casinos and whatever else shown were just so much marketing fluff as they cram into coach class in a 600 seat A380..
:)
-
LOL grunherz. Aint that the truth, but isnt more than 600 seats, cause the 747 has like 550 and its cheaper to make.
-
Do they ever actually use the slides?
-
Crap thats a friggin flying city
-
Do they ever actually use the slides?
Yes. The FAA requires a full-scale emergency evacuation test using half of the exits within 90 seconds. Fire can burn though an aircraft fuselage within 90-120 seconds. Using half of the exits represents fire burning along one side of the aircraft.
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/000/500/577/930605.pdf
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1993/9306/930607.PDF
-
Originally posted by mora
It's operating costs per passenger are significantly lower. Anyway Boeing was lucky to get the 747 right. It's still produced without any major re-design.
Lucky? Isn't a factor you can apply into aircraft design. Like the 727 before it. It was well designed,well built and the project was obviously well managed. End of story luck had nothing to with it.
A380 is little more then a 744 with a streched upper deck. And one that they've struggled to get the weight down to the original specs it was proposed to the airlines as from the begining.
...-Gixer
-
better injured than dead i always say.
still, thats one big bus!
-
Originally posted by mora
The 737 is also still produced but it needed a new wing to be competitive.
Yet it's by far the world's most successful commercial jet airliner ever made.
...-Gixer
-
better injured than dead i always say.
Interesting articles (and video) about Aircraft Emergency Slides and Evacuation.
FAA cites United for lapse (emergency escape slides were usable)
http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=12745
Video
Chaos in the Cabin: Iberia Flight 6250
http://wid.ap.org/video/evac.html
Please note the passengers reaching for their carry-on items.
-
Originally posted by Ozark
Interesting articles (and video) about Aircraft Emergency Slides and Evacuation.
FAA cites United for lapse (emergency escape slides were usable)
http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=12745
Video
Chaos in the Cabin: Iberia Flight 6250
http://wid.ap.org/video/evac.html
Please note the passengers reaching for their carry-on items.
First video didn't play.
Second video: Wow, what the ****? Comes to mind first.
Obviously the people on the second plane should have died because Darwin states that the stupid ones should be left behind.
It is amazing that we make such strides in prevention and safety and even then you have people like this.
Darwin should have pulled out his ruler, measured it closely, and state, "You are not tall enough to ride Life". Please exit.
-
Well, floor space isn't cargo space, until they slap bigger engines on. The first a-380s are gonna be the "cadillacs" of the model. Then they'll get those bigger engines, and that extra floor space will disappear. I'm sure it's been programmed for just that.
And how many toilets does the thing have? 2?
Oh yeah, anyone seen how fast this thing climbs? I hear it makes the 747-100 look like a Me-163.
That evacuation is exactly how I 'picture them. That's why when boarding an aircraft, and asked to locate the nearest emergency exit, I locate it by counting hte number of seats I'm going to have to crawl over.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
Oh yeah, anyone seen how fast this thing climbs? I hear it makes the 747-100 look like a Me-163.
The plane hasn't made it's first flight yet. The Airbus with not so good climb rate is the A340-200.
-
was reading about the Trent 900 engine on the Rolls Royce website a few weeks back, really impressive.
The Trent 900 has been designed for growth and has been certificated to 80,000 lb thrust, although at entry in to service the Trent 900 is only required to provide 70,000 lb thrust
http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aerospace/products/airlines/trent900/default_flash.jsp
-
and yeah, slides are used all the time.
This was two weeks ago:
http://www.atcbox.com/Pictures-forum/btc-4.jpg
okay, not much of a drop there, but imagine if you're on the upperdeck of a 380.
And it's good to see that the A380's safety systems are being held to a lower standard than all the other passenger aircraft out there. I mean, the evacuation verification process was already a joke, this just makes it worse.
and on the 340/380 relationship in the climb, someone posted this on another board:
But, I gather, from friends in Toulouse that there is far worse than the 340 to come..... the dreaded 380! It has not been designed to go up, down or sideways, but go very fast on the ground.
For obvious reasons, it has been nick-named the ''Ostrich'' by people in the know, at the factory!!
-
(http://www.arff.info/photos/airbus-slides.JPG)
Seen better "Slip and Slides"
:rofl
-
The plane hasn't even flown yet and the Airbusstalkers are allready on the roll.:rolleyes:
Another aircraft you shouldn't be boarding. (http://www.embraer.com/hotsites/195maidenflight/english/bandalarga.asp)
-
I love these boards. you suggest that the Bush administration went the wrong way about dealing with Iraq, even in purely military terms, and you get branded an enemy of freedom. You suggest that the A380 is gonna be a real pig of a plane, will soon have 800 seats, no leg room, no bathroom, take 3 hours to board, and, when it tries to land at a field, when a software glitch causes on overrun, instead of causing an embarassment and costing a few million dollars, it will serve as a tomb for hundreds, and all of a sudden the euro-weeinies brand you as some sort of jingoistic boeing booster.
I'll grant you that Embraer is even scarier than Airbus, but neither Embraer nor Boeing have anything to do with it.
And by the way, I like the European Union, and I love the way their big, centralized bureaucracy doles out money to various groups (such as those in Toulouse) without particular attention to accountability. Hell, the EU has paid more than a few of my own bills that way!
But I don't think that anything you or I say is going to change the fact that this pig will climb to alt slower than an employee of the Italian Postal Service, or that average boarding/deplaning times will rival the annual vacation of a German worker, or that the number of bribes, kickbacks and friendly conversations between public and private sectors needed to certify this aircraft approaches those used to finance Chirac's last campaign.
Yeah, the aircraft is a symbol of Big Europe, and it's got its strong points as well as its weaknesses. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The plane is cool. I'm just waiting for the huge dissapointments when people realize all those fancy bars, shopping malls, workout rooms, casinos and whatever else shown were just so much marketing fluff as they cram into coach class in a 600 seat A380..
:)
Only thing that might be profitable might be a small casino on the cargo deck. Certainly the stuff depicted in this picture is not gonna happen:
(http://users.adelphia.net/~luv2hang/380.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Pretty airplane, I am not flying on the damn thing.
Boeing, Going, 'nuff said.
You have been obvious enough (AGAIN) that you like the ring of that "not going if it's not boeing" rhyme. Should I post the real safety numbers, or will you just please stfu, and admit if it was $200 less to fly an Airbus, you would be the first retard in line checking 70 extra lbs of baggage?
-
Where is the Ho house?
-
Brother of my Gf working on the Slaps & Flaps A380.
He actually test it under simmulated flying on ground (ie: minus 60°, 9000 m ect.)
He says this thing HAVE to fly or his company is over ;)
He will get some of the first tickets for the A380 the first few
flights for the press ect. I really hope to get 1 ticket too! :D
R
Gh0stFT
-
now that is a great picture. Business and First class, no steerage, staterooms, casino, bar, restaurant and pantry.
The only thing that rings true about that is the three toilets total.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
You have been obvious enough (AGAIN) that you like the ring of that "not going if it's not boeing" rhyme. Should I post the real safety numbers, or will you just please stfu, and admit if it was $200 less to fly an Airbus, you would be the first retard in line checking 70 extra lbs of baggage?
Actually no.,
Problem is there are few airports that can handle the A380 if I wan't to fly to ORD I'd rather take a 777 that can take me straight there. Rather then a A380 which will have to land at JFK or maybe LAX and then having to board another flight to ORD.
Therefore not only being alot more expensive then the initial $200 Atlantic hop saving but alot longer as well. People these day's prefer to fly to their destination rather then a HUB.
...-Gixer
-
Creamo:
It's not a matter of price. When it comes right down to it I can't trust an Airbus. Any airplane that can and has betrayed its pilots by allowing its computer control program to rip off a control surface...it's not happening.
The A300 (and have no reason to think anything different of the 380) rudder requires 1.5 inches of pedal travel for full deflection of the rudder at 250 knots. At 250 kts it only requres 37.5 pounds of force to move the pedal that distance.
at 300 knots, only one inch is reqired for full deflection and force needed is 30 lbs. All it takes is one bump of turbulence or a sneeze to tap the rudder to full deflection and you've overstressed a critical flight control and stabilizer.
That is information taken out of the May 2003 issue of Flying Magazine. The Jumpseat column written by Les Abend. He is a fairly senior captain at American Airlines, flyes 757s and 767s. He was also assigned as an investigator to the crash and I like to think he'd know a good bit about the info since he was in on the investigation.
Thanks to Expedia.com for allowing me to choose my aircraft type and seating option. And just for fun...
"If it's not Boeing, I'm not going"
-
Haven't more Boeings been lost to rudder failures than Airbuses? Offhand I can think of a single Airbus, 2 737s.
-
And how many A300's have been downed by a bump of turbulence? It's so convenient to forget all the Boeings that have crashed for mechanical reasons. Infact I can think of several Boeing crashes caused by a mechanical failure(rudder hardovers, engine separation, inflight reverser deployment), but not a single Airbus one.
Btw, here's the final report of the AA 587, which puts the blame on the FO(from page 159 onwards):
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf
On page 161 it says that only A300 and A310 have the very sensitive rudder control system.
-
Rather then a Boeing vs Airbus and who has the best planes. I think this is more an argument of who has the best plan for future air travel.
As for once we have the two major aircraft manufactures going in different directions. Airbus with a even bigger whale then the Jumbo and Boeing with the 7E7.
Be interesting to see which one the airlines accept as being most cost effective ,efficent and popular.
Initial problem for the A380 is going to be a limited number of airports that can handle the big plane. Although more are in the works to complete construction and cater for it. Most seem to be dragging their heals as a wait and see before commiting to such a big project.
In addition to that you also have the problem of suitable alternative airports in any flightplan and safety regulations.
I hope the A380 fly's and does well as it's good for compition. And that we won't see a repeat of what the US tried did to the Concorde when it first started flying trans atlantic routes.
...-Gixer
-
A380 isn't about using lots of different airports, it's about using slots at busy hubs more profitably. Places like Heathrow JFK etc there just isn't any more slot space so if you want to run more passengers then you need to put more throught the slot sapce you have + bigger planes.
7E7 is a good concept but it is relying on its efficiencies to sell it to replace existing aicraft - big gamble.
A380's unknown is going to be maintaining the sodding thing. New materials, new systems (e.g. electric doors), new scale (wonder what a main wheel change will look like on a windy day ??)