A380 airbus - monster of the skies

falkor · 2005-01-21 14:18:31

Digital fly-by-wire primary flight controls on the A380

The world’s only twin-deck, four-aisle airliner

The airlines’ solution to growing demand for air travel

The green giant, more fuel-efficient than your car

The A380’s twin-aisle twin deck passenger cabin offers the long distance traveller a whole new level of comfort. A cabin designed around a large sample of today’s real passengers providing more space regardless of class of ticket, wider seats and aisles. Optional lower deck use for rest areas, business, bar or other amenities can further enhance the A380 travel experience.

COCKPIT:
FLY-BY-WIRE AND SIDESTICKS

Reflecting its fly-by-wire advantages, the flight deck entirely lacks the cumbersome, old-generation control columns of its competitors. Instead, it has the neat and simple sidesticks which pilots find so easy to use. Additional benefits are an unobstructed view of the instrument panel and a slide-out working table in front of each pilot.

ECAM AND EFIS SCREEN DISPLAYS

Gone are the dozens of round instrument dials, now replaced by just six CRT screen displays. All six screens are fully display/function interchangeable and there are electro-mechanical instruments as back-up.

Four screens, two in front of each pilot, form the Electronic Flight Instrument System, while two central screens are the display part of the Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM).

Four screens, two in front of each pilot, perform Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) functions.

The outboard screens - Primary Flight Displays (PFDs) - carry data on a range of parameters including speed, altitude, aircraft attitude and heading. Current status of the Flight Management System (FMS) is also shown. The inboard Navigation Display (ND) screens show data on the aircraft’s position and course. These may be displayed in selectable modes: Arc, Rose ILS, Rose VOR or Plan.

Two screens in the centre of the main instrument panel display information derived from the ECAM whose sensors throughout the aircraft keep systems under constant surveillance. The upper and lower screens - both manually and automatically - show engine and systems parameters and warnings.
===========================
Yikes what a monster, just check out that double decker bus of the AIR!! But how long is it going to take to check in 555 passengers? It can take well over an hour to check in 320 passengers for standard 747s, so what are we talking for 555 passengers? 2 hour checks in? Then at the other end how long will it take for you to find your luggage? British Airways have bought a grand total of zero.

http://www.airbus.com/product/a320_flight_deck.asp] hey will this thing take us to Mars?

Grypd · 2005-01-21 14:33:48

The A380 is a gamble like the 747 was it will need to have runways lengthened to be able to operate. The owners of the airports in the 70s where willing to do this for to accomodate 747's will they do it for the A380 now?

But as an example of engineering and design the A380 is truly a wonderous machine.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-21 14:36:59

Airports will also require double-deck passenger terminals and lots more boarding umbilicals for such a beast.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-21 14:41:20

What about metal fatique in time, for something so large?

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-21 14:42:55

It shouldn't be a problem, its just a matter of how much metal you use. I am sure that Airbus tested the structure of the thing just like Boeing does... bend it until it breaks.

Grypd · 2005-01-21 14:44:20

Not really if they are already able to accept the 747 as it too is a double decker. The only real concern is that it requires more runway to be safe and the amount of passengers coming in and out of these "bridges" will be a lot more intense.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-21 16:02:50

===========================
Yikes what a monster, just check out that double decker bus of the AIR!! But how long is it going to take to check in 555 passengers? It can take well over an hour to check in 320 passengers for standard 747s, so what are we talking for 555 passengers? 2 hour checks in? Then at the other end how long will it take for you to find your luggage? British Airways have bought a grand total of zero.
http://www.airbus.com/product/a320_flight_deck.asp] hey will this thing take us to Mars?

Too bad we couldn't put a nuclear powered rocket on it and send it to space for a Earth to Moon space ship.

Oh, well!

We dream though.

Larry,

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-21 16:17:51

Amazing what Western engineers and hefty government subsidies can do.

But are bigger planes really the way to go? More flights out of increasingly congested hub airports or smaller planes flying routes more in line with where people actually want to get to?

If the A380 is European governments' attempt to crush Boeing and seize market share it might make sense. Otherwise, I don't see the demand for an even bigger behemoth aircraft being that high. If ten years down the line the A380 is a huge success I'll admit I was wrong, but at the moment I suspect that Boeing's 7E7 is going to fare better.

On a different note:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid … d=66782005

Tsunami or not, business is business.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1106345920

PurduesUSAFguy · 2005-01-21 16:48:32

It's very impressive, but it's in my opinion it's an airliner designed for an era that's coming to a close, the future is smaller airplanes allowing people to travel point to point? Just look at the insane sucess of the CRJ and ERJ from Bombardier and Embarer(sp?)

EADs and the EU is desperate to crush Boeing as it's a symbol of American technology. They are doing a pretty good job of buying market share, but that's all they are doing since they can sell airplanes at a loss with no concern where as Boeing has to turn a profit.

I agree with Cobra though, I think the 787 is a beter bet for the future, although I think the A380 will find a niche in the cargo market, although I doubt Air Bus will break in on it.

Euler · 2005-01-21 17:05:29

Another option would be to give supersonic transports another try. Using modern technology, it is possible to build supersonic aircraft with operating costs significantly lower than Concorde's and have reduced noise issues as well. When you combine improving technology with increasing numbers of wealthier people, supersonic transports should get increasingly more competitive.

That would be good for space enthusiasts as well since some supersonic transport technology can be applied to launch vehicle designs.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-21 17:10:53

Yeah, the way France et al. prop up EADS is down right anti-competitive, they don't have to make profit if EU taxpayers are helping to foot the bills. However, thanks to the notoriously pro-EU WTO (have they ever found against the EU?), the EU will force countries to buy the monster jets as an award for their victory, then the things might be built in number after all.

As far as the market, the Boeing 7E7 sounds like it will be a hit.

Super-sonic civil transports are probobly not going to happen, the decreased travel time isn't worth it for enough passengers to make up for the development costs.

Euler · 2005-01-21 17:24:05

Super-sonic civil transports are probobly not going to happen, the decreased travel time isn't worth it for enough passengers to make up for the development costs.

That really depends on how much it costs to develop and how many of them end up being sold. If you can sell enough then the development costs are not such a large burden.

It is something of a risk though. The only times it has been tried before it has failed economically, and while the conditions are better now then they were before the question is whether the economics have improve enough to make it successful.

In any case, it has a much better chance then the hypersonic rocketplane transports that alt-space people hope will lead to a SSTO.

dicktice · 2005-01-21 17:27:21

Distances and times to travel between continents, in the absence of faster (i.e. supersonic) commercial aircraft, dictates that there be more room to move around while travelling in order to avoid the illnesses caused by sitting still for up to double-digit hours at a time. The Airbus 380 answers that need--up to a thousand of em--which will be with us if-and-until supersonic and/or suborbital types are possible and affordable. Airships even, carrying as many passengers in leasurely comfort, at altitudes low enough to watch the surface features being passed over--opening up pole-to-pole circumnavigation--are under long-term development in Europe. (Zeppelin GmbH). The time for the aerial equivalent of transoceanic steamship (as opposed to hypersonic) mass transport is now. I didn't see it coming, but the demise of the Concorde Experiment showed the development of supersonic--atmospheric--commercial travel to be a dead-end. So we're stuck with subsonic airspeeds for commercial travel. So what? By developing remote-presence communication worldwide, with a speed of light "time-to-get-there," there'll be no need to scamper about the world just get to somewhere on time. I'm really looking forward to the near future, when destination trips are enjoyable, interactive excursions again.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2005-01-21 17:35:13

Super-sonic civil transports are probobly not going to happen, the decreased travel time isn't worth it for enough passengers to make up for the development costs.
That really depends on how much it costs to develop and how many of them end up being sold. If you can sell enough then the development costs are not such a large burden.
It is something of a risk though. The only times it has been tried before it has failed economically, and while the conditions are better now then they were before the question is whether the economics have improve enough to make it successful.
In any case, it has a much better chance then the hypersonic rocketplane transports that alt-space people hope will lead to a SSTO.

I'd actually disagree with you on that one, with recent developments with non-boom areodynamics and highly efficent high trrust engines I'd wouldn't be suprised to see Boeing revive a modified version of it's previous next generation airliner, the sonic cruiser resurected, modified for no-boom aerodynamics and with different engines since they already have alot of ground work done on that and alot of tooling made.

dicktice · 2005-01-21 17:43:27

I couldn't agree more: But I'm too old to wait for that. I'll be lucky to be alive to experience the first Mars landing. But if you think about the next 15 years, come on, get real!

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-21 17:46:58

Uh, the Sonic Cruiser wasn't a super-sonic airliner.

The demise of the Concord shouldn't be taken as the demise of super-sonic civil aviation, it was an idea that was before its time and could not be executed both technologically and economically, which is clearly illustrated by the ticket price. A super-sonic airliner that can do both is possible today with out superior aerospace technology instead of 70's brute-force turbojets, the big question is the economics.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2005-01-21 17:55:57

Uh, the Sonic Cruiser wasn't a super-sonic airliner.
The demise of the Concord shouldn't be taken as the demise of super-sonic civil aviation, it was an idea that was before its time and could not be executed both technologically and economically, which is clearly illustrated by the ticket price. A super-sonic airliner that can do both is possible today with out superior aerospace technology instead of 70's brute-force turbojets, the big question is the economics.

I know the sonic cruiser was sub sonic, it's target cruise was .98 mach if memory serves, but it provides a good starting platform. Even the illistrations boeing released about it's 'envisioned' no-boom sst were obviously revamped from their sonic cruiser work.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-21 18:26:43

Perhaps, but it will still be a daunting technical challenge to make a practical low-noise SST that doesn't break the bank in fuel or maintenance bills. Old design concepts re-hashed probobly won't be enough.

Grypd · 2005-01-21 19:52:15

I suspect that with the fear that is prevalent now in western travellers of deep vein thrombosis a plane which you can get up in and actually walk a distane and even actually do some exercise will find a good market.

I also suspect that the era of the cheap sardine long haul flight will be coming to the end if the horor stories of people getting off the plane from a flight from london to sydney and pretty much dropping dead continue.

Still reading the A380 glossy brochure it seems they did do there homework when it comes to the largest airports. Apparently sixty of them say they can take the A380 without much if any changes either to runway length or to passenger embarkation/demarkation.

Still it will come down to this the A380 is designed to travel between the really busy city airports and as such these airports have very very tight airspace slots. If a plane can take more passengers for less fuel and still fit in it should do very well. I also seem to think that the dreamliner is selling itself to the cheaper airlines which like easy jet fly into the airports that are located far out of the towns and cities they are supposed to go to.

Euler · 2005-01-21 20:40:43

Perhaps, but it will still be a daunting technical challenge to make a practical low-noise SST that doesn't break the bank in fuel or maintenance bills. Old design concepts re-hashed probobly won't be enough.

Fuel should not be a big issue. A good SST might even be able to beat subsonic airplanes in terms of fuel efficiency. Getting low maintenance costs is the key.

GraemeSkinner · 2005-01-21 22:37:56

I'm not sure I'd wish to travel on the A380, when it comes down to it I don't think I'd wish to go where that many people are going

In regards to supersonic flight, part of the fun is the journey (as long as its comfortable I'm getting older) if you shorten the journey too much it'll take all the fun out of travel - as long as there is room of course (I'm over 6' and not a small frame :;): ) I don't mind the extra time in the air.

Graeme

DonPanic · 2005-01-23 18:06:39

LO

Embraer airplanes are from Brasil.

Fuel should not be a big issue. A good SST might even be able to beat subsonic airplanes in terms of fuel efficiency. Getting low maintenance costs is the key.

No sir, you're daydreaming, you can't violate physical laws that say that if you want to double speed, you need 4 times more energy at least, and you need heath resistant quite expensive marerials such as large amounts of titanium so that High speed travels will remain a privilege,
Know what ? maintenance for four 250 seats jets is much more expensive than the maintenance cost for one 1000 seats jet

But don't worry, Mr Serge Dassault of Falcon Jets told on TV that if there was a market for 150 mach++ affair jets, he would rush to build a 30/50 seats supersonic one.

Developping Air industry and making jobs out of it in Europe isn't some kind of war machine at USA, after all, France, Germany, GB and Italy are among the aircraft and space pionner countries together with USA. Anyways USA is part of the A380 with components, mainly reactors: jobs for P&W and GE.
Sure theses companies don't scream at Airbus subventions.
A market opportunity takes place as the 747 is slightly outdated.

Euler · 2005-01-23 19:08:34

No sir, you're daydreaming, you can't violate physical laws that say that if you want to double speed, you need 4 times more energy at least, and you need heath resistant quite expansive marerials such as large amounts of titanium so that High speed travels will remain a privilege, but don't worry, MrSerge Dassault of Falcon Jets told on TV that if there was a market for 150 mach++ affair jets, he would rush to build a 30/50 seats supersonic one.

The aerodynamics of a supersonic object are substantially different from the aerodynamics of a subsonic or transonic object. While normally the drag increases in proportion to the square of the speed, when an aircraft gets above about mach 1.2 the drag will actually start decreasing for a while. Lift/drag ratios of most aircraft are lower for most supersonic aircraft, but as the XB-70 showed an aircraft that is designed to get fuel efficiency while supersonic can actually have a better L/D ratio at supersonic speeds than normal aircraft get at subsonic speeds. In addition, the supersonic aircraft will be flying at a much higher height than a subsonic aircraft, so it will get the drag-reducing benefits of flying in much thinner air. Supersonic flight does subject many parts of the aircraft to greater heat and strain, which is why I said that keeping the maintenance costs low would be the key to economical operation.

DonPanic · 2005-01-23 19:35:42

LO
Lfting mass at high altitudes is energy waste too.
Since more than 30 years, aircraft companies show their latest plans and concepts for a SST each year. Would be a ten years program when decision has been taken.

DonPanic · 2005-04-28 09:35:57

LO
A380 had its 3 and 1/2 hours maiden flight.
Better be a successful plane. 40% of the components value is US

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-01-21 14:18:31

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#2 2005-01-21 14:33:48

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#3 2005-01-21 14:36:59

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#4 2005-01-21 14:41:20

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#5 2005-01-21 14:42:55

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#6 2005-01-21 14:44:20

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#7 2005-01-21 16:02:50

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#8 2005-01-21 16:17:51

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#9 2005-01-21 16:48:32

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#10 2005-01-21 17:05:29

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#11 2005-01-21 17:10:53

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#12 2005-01-21 17:24:05

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#13 2005-01-21 17:27:21

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#14 2005-01-21 17:35:13

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#15 2005-01-21 17:43:27

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#16 2005-01-21 17:46:58

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#17 2005-01-21 17:55:57

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#18 2005-01-21 18:26:43

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#19 2005-01-21 19:52:15

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#20 2005-01-21 20:40:43

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#21 2005-01-21 22:37:56

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#22 2005-01-23 18:06:39

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#23 2005-01-23 19:08:34

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#24 2005-01-23 19:35:42

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

#25 2005-04-28 09:35:57

Re: A380 airbus - monster of the skies

Board footer