Airbus A380
Airbus A380
(OP)
What do you think of the new Airbus A380 that can carry 800 passengers at the one time.
I must admit I'm not to enamoured by the prospect of one of these birds falling out of the sky.
We all gotten used to plane going down with losses in arround 300, but 800 .
Can airline's afford to take a hits of this scale?
www.rte.ie/news/2005/0427/airbus





RE: Airbus A380
RE: Airbus A380
RE: Airbus A380
James Bennetts
Aerospace Engineer
RE: Airbus A380
I dont mean to be a downer, but its not like you can just brew up a batch of biodiesel and head for another continent........
RE: Airbus A380
Actually, fuel costs and/or fuel efficiency are one of the driving factors for making bigger airplanes. The bigger airframe, with two decks, can carry more people more miles for less fuel burned.
In general, drag (and lift) forces rise with the surface area of the plane, roughly proportional to L2 (where L is some characteristic dimension), while internal volume (e.g. payload) rises by L3. Thus, airplanes (and by the same analogy, all vehicles) become more "efficient" in passenger-miles/gallon as the aircraft becomes bigger, all else being equal. The same argument is what explains the "why" of longer trains and supertankers: tons/gallon or (barrels of oil)*(nautical miles)/(gallon).
RE: Airbus A380
I agree that in the USA there won't be many domestic airports upgrading, there again that is not the major market for them.
At the moment in a 747 it takes about 400 tonnes of fuel to fly from OZ to the UK and back. So out of a 2000 dollar return ticket very roughly 600 dollars is fuel. I imagine the profit margin on a seat is of the order of a hundred bucks.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Airbus A380
I've read that Air Canada has already placed an order with Airbus for I think 10 number, so some airports north of you will be up grading.In England the new Terminal 5 will be able to accommodate them.
I understand that Boeing are developing a similar type plane to Airbus,so airports in the US will have to change anyway to keep their competitive advantage.
RE: Airbus A380
Take a look to this data:
UPS: 10 units requested (all freighters).
FEDEX: 10 units requested (all freighters).
ILFC: 10 units requested (5 passengers + 5 freighters)
I think A380 means a great step forward in aviation.
RE: Airbus A380
RE: Airbus A380
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Airbus A380
On the other hand, US have very important airports, where a lot of international airliners make their business (and pay airports for that). Do you think JFK airport is going to allow FEDEX can not operate their A380s?
From my point of view, not only lower ticket prices means "step forward". Do you think "low cost airliners" are a "step forward"? I doubt it, even from passengers point of view. But, for any aeronautical engineer, A380 is an advance, as it was B747 and A320, and as it is B777.
RE: Airbus A380
I agree the A380 should be more efficient, the question remains, will there be the large flying public remaining to fill these things?
At least in the US, the airlines are flying below their true cost, trying to knock the other guy off the fence. At some point, like it or not, our fuel cost will head even higher, and the remaining airlines will be forced to use the true cost of flying to price their tickets, and I cannot see nearly as many people flying to Vegas ( or Amsterdam ) for the week.
Perhaps I am just being grumpy here.......
RE: Airbus A380
i'd be willing to bet that if there'd been an internet back in the 70s much the same would have been said about the 747.
the comments about ultra-long range apply to any plane doing 12 hr flights (A380 or B777). i think there is a difference terminal-side between one plane arriving with 800 pax and two arriving with 400 each.
i guess in about 20 years we'll know which of the marketeers was right (i'll bet than neither is completely wrong).
RE: Airbus A380
"I agree the A380 should be more efficient, the question remains, will there be the large flying public remaining to fill these things?"
Dunno, Pat. Time will tell. But if the ticket price were $100 lower for a Vancouver-to-Heathrow flight, yeah, I'd probably ride the A380.
As Greg and a couple of other people pointed out, the downside to the cheap ticket is sitting in a 800-person cattlecar, and waiting perhaps another 30 minutes to get on/off the plane. My take on this: if I'm flying for over 10 or 12 hours, I probably don't care about another 30 minutes to 1 hour on either end. In-flight I can see problems if there isn't enough legrooom or restrooms.
From an aircraft design standpoint, I hope Airbus has figured out how to fix dutch roll instabilities, and build stiffer planes. Sitting in the back of one of their early planes was one of the few times I felt "airsick" - the tail felt like it was flapping us to our destination. The newer (A340?) planes feel much stiffer, but still not as tight as the Boeing planes.
RE: Airbus A380
RE: Airbus A380
I am not an aerospace type, but I believe the dutch roll tendencies of any aircraft are related to the wing dihedral, not to the diameter of the fuselage.
Early KC-135 aircraft (USAF first jet refueling tanker) used to dutch roll visciously enough in certain parts of the flight envelope that if a pilot attempted to stop the dutch roll but timed the rudder stomp incorrectly, the aircraft could (and did, on a couple of occasions, I am told by old USAF types) shed the outboard engine on the off-rudder side.
If the A320 dutch rolls as bad as you describe, I don't think Airbus has conquered the problem, as the A320 design is much newer than the KC-135.
RE: Airbus A380
I too don't think the problem will get better necessarily with larger fuselage diameter. Case in point is the DC-10; it's tail wags a lot too... of course, having all the engine weight on the tail section doesn't help much, either. My point though, is that unless stiffness and frequency response of the airframe (and passenger comfort)are design considerations, they could end up with a real flying pig on their hands.
RE: Airbus A380
By the way, anyone ever sit in the back of a stretched DC-8? You can actually watch the fuselage deflect torsionally by a significant amount. It has a very long, narrow fuselage that is obviously not very stiff.
RE: Airbus A380
I understand what you are saying. What you describe does not sound like dutch roll (which is actually a roll/yaw movement combined).
And yes I have been in the back of a DC-8 and saw exactly the flexing you described. Fascinating to watch. This was way back in the days when DC-8 aircraft carried pax.
From personal experience, I learned it was not a good idea to point out the flexing to a not so happy with flying lady next to me. I felt bad she was so nervous the rest of the flight, but I was young and tactless and fascinated by having observed something about aircraft, my newly chosen profession!
RE: Airbus A380
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...
RE: Airbus A380
RE: Airbus A380
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
RE: Airbus A380
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.
RE: Airbus A380
"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.
RE: Airbus A380
So what happens if the Airbus does not meet the evac rule?
Stache
RE: Airbus A380
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
RE: Airbus A380
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
RE: Airbus A380
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!
RE: Airbus A380
RE: Airbus A380
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
RE: Airbus A380
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.
RE: Airbus A380
Ooo am I going to get flamed for this!
Steven Fahey, CET
RE: Airbus A380
What no K.F.C. I'll have to talk to the Colonel.
RE: Airbus A380
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
RE: Airbus A380
htt
debodine
RE: Airbus A380
RE: Airbus A380
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.
RE: Airbus A380
jetmaker
RE: Airbus A380
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.
RE: Airbus A380
Regards
Dave
RE: Airbus A380
One issue about losing an aircraft with passengers is the liability cost. With upto 25% more pax than a 747, it will be costly for airlines if one of these birds goes down. However, I'm sure the odds of an accident are greater for 2 smaller planes than one large one as most accidents occur at take-off or landing. Maybe that is actually an offsetting factor.
debodine,
I have no idea to what design parameters the aircraft was designed to. It may have been a cargo requirement, which could be the limiting capacity. However, like everything in aircraft engineering, there are standard which the OEMs design to. For example, the average weight of paxs, the volume of cargo containers, maximum loading per sqft on a cargo deck, floor beam, etc.... Anyhow, like I said, the pax capacity limitation was just something I heard, but if it is true, then that explains the proposal for bars, etc....
jetmaker
RE: Airbus A380
RE: Airbus A380
The A380 was going to be even bigger ie 7-800 seats baseline with growth to 1100, this was perceived as the current sensible limit. A long consultation process was undertaken to assess the impact of an 1100 person plane. It became clear that 550 baseline with 800 growth was the sensible compromise to get it into most airports where it was needed with commercially viable levels of investment in airport infrastructure. It's all been thought through.
An interesting recent development is the death of Concord. There are lots of people desperate to cross the oceans in style with a lot of money to spend. The A380 in some of its initial configurations has a VAST first class section with beds, bar, and restaurant for the select few. I expect this to be an interesting and lucrative new market niche just waiting to be filled. It's a bit like the old airships.
RE: Airbus A380