View Full Version : A380 first flight
Fellow enthusiasts :cool:
The big bird has flown.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4488361.stm
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Airbus%20A380&distinct_entry=true
its big and heavy, their are not many airports that this could fly from in Scotland, the only one apart from maybe edinburgh would be Prestwick as its used for the military
Yeah, think its one of the (many) reasons that they are wanting to build a second runway at glasgow.
PJ Matthews
27-04-2005, 16:23
its big and heavy, their are not many airports that this could fly from in Scotland
Theres not actually that many reasons it would need to fly from Scotland. All major international traffic (which this would serve) flys from one of the London Airports anyway.
This is a big day for European Aviation.
PJ Matthews
27-04-2005, 16:25
This is cycling on Sky Active now aswell.
Cable Monkey
27-04-2005, 16:45
This is a big day for European Aviation.
Its a big day for FRENCH aviation. Any of the other partners were not essential to the project (or any Airbus project) but without the French, there would be no Airbus. From being the pioneers in this field, we have been relegated to non-essential bit part players. Our part in it has been amplified by Rolls Royce's involvement, but they would be there if British Aerospace was a partner or not. Am I just being cynical? ;)
PJ Matthews
27-04-2005, 16:54
Your cynical and perhaps don't understand the proper makeup of airbus and indeed this aircraft.
Daleaholic
27-04-2005, 17:00
read the BBC article in school. Great day for Airbus and the aviation industy in general :)
PS. Thats one BIG ASS PLANE
One thing's for sure,in the event of one crashing. I hope I'm a long way away.
Cable Monkey
27-04-2005, 17:46
Your cynical and perhaps don't understand the proper makeup of airbus and indeed this aircraft.
PJ, I understand that we can't make them on our own. Once upon a time when we still had a manufacturing industry, we could have designed, built and sold them to the world. Times have changed!
Theres not actually that many reasons it would need to fly from Scotland. All major international traffic (which this would serve) flys from one of the London Airports anyway.
This is a big day for European Aviation.
two big airports in scotland, Edinburgh and glasgow and the most important airport Prestwick, ones around london will be used more yes but they will be needed up here as well. I also feel your comment offensive and can also see that you live in England, flights from Glasgow go all over the world as also with edinburgh, the only differance with London is that its used more for bussines etc...
edit: you are also forgetting the range of this aircraft is not very good, hence why their is another plane coming out soon from BOEING which can travel firther on a tank of aviation fuel
Daleaholic
27-04-2005, 18:35
the 777-200LR? I saw it on the news a while back, boeing 777-200LR
http://777.newairplane.com/
PJ Matthews
27-04-2005, 18:47
I also feel your comment offensive and can also see that you live in England, flights from Glasgow go all over the world as also with edinburgh, the only differance with London is that its used more for bussines etc...
Ok I'm from Wales. Am I crying because so called Cardiff International wouldn't take these things? Am I crying because the local airport to me Bournemouth International doesn't take these? no!
Most of these airports simply feed people into the two main London airports which serve the UK for international travel. Most flights from these other airpost are limited to the UK and Europe.
PJ, I understand that we can't make them on our own. Once upon a time when we still had a manufacturing industry, we could have designed, built and sold them to the world. Times have changed!
O.K I must not have understood what you were saying, but equally so, no SINGLE nation in Europe is capable of building aircraft anymore, its a very European affair. Airbus choose southern france for their manufacturing and test facilities due to infrastructure, workforce, available development area and the weather. It could have just as easily been Germany.
from BOEING which can travel firther on a tank of aviation fuel
Yes the 777-200LR. However that aircraft isn't there to compete with the A380. Its target market is that of the A340 and to some extent the A330. They are both pretty close in terms of range and some of the figures quoted are never going to be realised in regular domestic travel situations.
The engines in the A380 are capable of 22 hours of non stop flying (this is likely to be extended) so its more than likely we'll see non stop flights to Austraila on a rgeular basis for example.
Most of these airports simply feed people into the two main London airports which serve the UK for international travel. Most flights from these other airpost are limited to the UK and Europe.
I must disagre, prestwick is limited really to europe because of ryanair having mostly boing 737's but the likes of Glasgow and Edinburgh can take you almost any where, the only reason the airports are bigger in London is simply because of the volume of traffic
The engines in the A380 are capable of 22 hours of non stop flying (this is likely to be extended) so its more than likely we'll see non stop flights to Austraila on a rgeular basis for example.
I think this message is mistaken for Boeing, as becuse this is bigger and hevier it will burn more fuel, after all it has the same as 3,500 car engines under its hood!(a380)
The a380 was not designed for long haul flights, where as Boeing thought their would be a bigger market for long haul and developed a plane to that effect
PJ Matthews
27-04-2005, 19:52
Well this Cking proves you have no idea what you are on about. Long haul routes are exactly what this aircraft is for, making it far more economical and lowering ticket prices. Fuel burn per passenger per mile, there is no better aircraft:
A380 - 8,000 nm./14,800 km
B777 - 5955 nm/11,029 km
B777- 200LR - 8750 nm/16,200 km
So you see, our A380 even in standard configuration is one of the longest range jets in the world, second only to the B777 - 200LR plus the economics: costs are between 15% and 20% lower than on any competitor aircraft.
I must disagre, prestwick is limited really to europe because of ryanair having mostly boing 737's but the likes of Glasgow and Edinburgh can take you almost any where, the only reason the airports are bigger in London is simply because of the volume of traffic
Number one reason is demand.
PJ Matthews
27-04-2005, 19:55
Oh and the only way the 777LR achieves its figures is by significantly reducing the freight capability due to the installation of fuel tanks in the cargo area.
PJ Matthews
27-04-2005, 21:32
The a380 was not designed for long haul flights, where as Boeing thought their would be a bigger market for long haul and developed a plane to that effect
Oh and I think your actually talking about the Boeing Dreamliner or 787. Boeing actually did the exact opposite of what your on about and decided to corner the SHORT HAUL market. That puppy will get you there faster in more comfort although range is limited.
3,500 nautical miles (6,500 km)
If you need me to put you straight about anything else simply ask.
davidmoore83
27-04-2005, 23:30
Its a big day for FRENCH aviation. Any of the other partners were not essential to the project (or any Airbus project) but without the French, there would be no Airbus. From being the pioneers in this field, we have been relegated to non-essential bit part players. Our part in it has been amplified by Rolls Royce's involvement, but they would be there if British Aerospace was a partner or not. Am I just being cynical? ;)
No but you are talking complete rubbish! Most of my professors have been involved in the A380 project including one Prof Jan Wright who was the head of the Ground Vibration Testing......ALL BRITISH MAY I ADD. Thats the beauty of Airbus its european and we all do our bit!
We build the wings ffs! hardly a small bit! and our engineers do alot of the design and testing work also NOT a small bit.
Oh and just to add 4 weeks and i will be a Qualified Aerospace Engineer YAY!
EDIT: I maybe over reacting but you don't seem to have a clue here. Its like say the Brits make part w the germans part x and the french parts y and z then we throw it all together. Doesnt work like that and you will find the work is predominately british, then french then german.
shifty.ricky
27-04-2005, 23:44
Its a big day for FRENCH aviation. Any of the other partners were not essential to the project (or any Airbus project) but without the French, there would be no Airbus. From being the pioneers in this field, we have been relegated to non-essential bit part players. Our part in it has been amplified by Rolls Royce's involvement, but they would be there if British Aerospace was a partner or not. Am I just being cynical? ;)
The wings are made in Chester. I wouldnt call that a bit-part. Reason I know this... I work for the company that does it ;)
PJ, I understand that we can't make them on our own. Once upon a time when we still had a manufacturing industry, we could have designed, built and sold them to the world. Times have changed!
We tried that with the Comet. Didnt work.
PJ Matthews
28-04-2005, 08:52
And lets not forget, all of our Governments have poured money into this project (not the same way Boeing was thrown money), it is vital for our economy. If you look at BAe who are the primary British part of Airbus if you will, they are one of the biggest defence and civil contractors in the world, supplying not just European contracts but American and Asian etc. Whats more they are rapidly growing as they become the prefered contractor for U.S civil and defence contracts aswell.
PJ Matthews
28-04-2005, 08:54
Oh and just to add 4 weeks and i will be a Qualified Aerospace Engineer YAY!
Congratulations, I know just how hard work that is and do not envy you :p. It is certainly rewarding though if you get the right job as I'm sure you very well know. Got anyone lined up that you wanna work for?
Oh and just to add 4 weeks and i will be a Qualified Aerospace Engineer YAY!
I used to be one of those!
davidmoore83
28-04-2005, 19:01
Just going to do a PhD with either Rolls Royce or the M.O.D
I did 4 year apprenticeship at RAE Farnborough with the MoD, 2 Years of which were on job training at British Airways. Then i went to the RAF as a civilian and then onto commerical stuff (Boeing and Airbus) It was a fantastic carear but i decided to get out when i was presented with an opportuinity to get into programming where i could chase my dream job.
We tried that with the Comet. Didnt work.
What muppet designed it with square windows?
shifty.ricky
28-04-2005, 20:40
Someone who didn't own a compass?
DarkEntity
29-04-2005, 15:20
What muppet designed it with square windows?
muppets who had never made a passenger liner before and who didnt know the pressures they were dealing with probably...
DarkEntity
29-04-2005, 15:24
This new Airbus is what the general travellers need, currently the main stay of all intercontinental travel is the 747 400 series or other Boing version...this will hopefully allow more reasonable priced travel and easier travel for all passengers....great day for european industry :)
now all we need to do is get the EU to sanction Concorde Mk2 \o/
and that would completely spank the americans because they could never get a supersonic airliner passed :)
The main problem with producing a second super sonic passenger jet is the increasing restrictions on noise polution around airports, especially in the US, i think near the end of concordes service it was only permitted to land at a couple of the major airports.
Cable Monkey
29-04-2005, 20:05
But sonic boom notwithstanding, would a modern design be quieter by quite a margin?
shifty.ricky
29-04-2005, 20:20
Probably. Thing being is that the majority of an airplanes noise comes from its airframe pushing its way through the air - not the engines.
DarkEntity
29-04-2005, 20:45
i belive more than one company is attempting to produce a replacement to the concorde thats twice the size and as quiet as the standard 747 or better
davidmoore83
30-04-2005, 21:20
Probably. Thing being is that the majority of an airplanes noise comes from its airframe pushing its way through the air - not the engines.
Am sorry to have to be a source of conflict but i must totally disagree.
The biggest source of aircraft noise is the engines (although the air rushing over the airframe also creates noise). The noise from a jet engine occurs at the regions behind the engine or the jet exhaust (efflux). The noise is caused when high velocity air mixes with lower velocity air. At The University of Manchester we have researched many designs of Jet nozzles to try and reduce aircraft noise one such design we have actually decreases noise by upto 22%. The design basically operates as a mixing device in that it allows the high and low speed air streams to mix more 'smoothly' and hence reducing noise production.
Have to say i have had to really bite my tongue in this thread has i have to disagree with alot that has been said but i neither have the time or energy to write massively long responses or get into arguments with people, especially people that don't have a clue on the subject matter they are passing comment on. That last comment isn't directed at you ricky as it was only your last comment i didnt agree with.
Dave
shifty.ricky
01-05-2005, 03:21
Am sorry to have to be a source of conflict but i must totally disagree.
The biggest source of aircraft noise is the engines (although the air rushing over the airframe also creates noise). The noise from a jet engine occurs at the regions behind the engine or the jet exhaust (efflux). The noise is caused when high velocity air mixes with lower velocity air. At The University of Manchester we have researched many designs of Jet nozzles to try and reduce aircraft noise one such design we have actually decreases noise by upto 22%. The design basically operates as a mixing device in that it allows the high and low speed air streams to mix more 'smoothly' and hence reducing noise production.
Have to say i have had to really bite my tongue in this thread has i have to disagree with alot that has been said but i neither have the time or energy to write massively long responses or get into arguments with people, especially people that don't have a clue on the subject matter they are passing comment on. That last comment isn't directed at you ricky as it was only your last comment i didnt agree with.
Dave
God damn Discovery channel telling me lies again.
PJ Matthews
01-05-2005, 07:42
God damn Discovery channel telling me lies again.
Well it all depends on what speed the aircraft is doing, but usually the noise levels generated by the aircraft when at low speed (take off and landing for example) and rather low when compared with the engines. Its these the engines that need to meet noise targets for various airports. When in full flight at full speed you may well be right about the aircraft itself making the most noise (I have no idea of noise levels at the sort of speeds commerical aircraft will fly at) but would be at such a height when at these speeds to make no difference. Certainly at higher speeds you are completely correct as far as I know.
This is most obvious in Military fast jets when flying just below the sound barrier. The other thing to consider is the faster the aircraft is going the louder the noise from both the engines and the aircraft push effect is going to be.
Certainly as far as the population around airports is concerned its the engines that are the problem, not the airframe shape.
Cleaned up the thread.
Please keep it on topic.
And for the records it does not matter if what someone said is identicle to what can be found on another site, as david clearly explained it was taken from his notes, the lecturer could easily have sourced the information from on the internet, i quote other sites all the time and dont link to them unless its needed. The End.
Cleaned up the thread.
Please keep it on topic.
And for the records it does not matter if what someone said is identicle to what can be found on another site, as david clearly explained it was taken from his notes, the lecturer could easily have sourced the information from on the internet, i quote other sites all the time and dont link to them unless its needed. The End.
Good to see the thread cleaned up, after all I did start this thread with a view to invite comment on the A380 first flight.
Just a note, Kynoch, quoting other sites is just that, a quote with reference, copying text verbatim without reference holds no weight in a debate for me. Others may disagree, and that's healthy, this is a forum after all. Someone once told me that the best thing about telling the truth is you don't have to remember the lies :)
Just be good if we could all get on....... *prompts a group hug* Hug anyone?
Back to the big white kite, she is a beauty, is she not?
Sticky, I stand by what I said, ie you had a go at David for no good reason.
But I'm all for peace, there's enough bitchiness in the channels right now without starting here too.
./me gives Sticky a hug :)
And re the plane, yes it's cool. My husband works with Britannia air crews and there's been some interesting conversation about it. Apparently they thought they might have trouble finding people to fly it, several captains had a go in the simulator and failed!
Hug gratefully received, and noted! All is well....... :cool:
<< Edited text used to live here >>
As the A380 info i'd love to hear any inside info on the simulator issues. I suppose that's not the sort of news that would be too much in the public domain just yet.
What a size:
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=321744
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=321462
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=327562
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=328239
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=328080
PJ Matthews
02-05-2005, 21:58
Sticky can you PM me details of the PMs. Thankyou.
Well that's quite mad reading things, i'm quite confused!
Anyway, lot of plane guys here, you think there's some relation between planes/aviation and PC modding? Maybe some of you guys could invent a watercooled jet engine with some cathodes banged in there for good measure :)
Well, the plane certinly seems to have lots of wheels! You think it will be safe? I am quite cautious of planes, and with all the pollution press about them, as well as safety etc, the biggest plane in the world..hmmm.. - Does bigger mean better?
davidmoore83
03-05-2005, 03:14
All aircraft have to meet FAR and JAR (Fedral/Joint Airworthiness Regs) mate. It will be to the same safety standards if not more so than all the other A/C's in the world. Hehe like the modding idea
*dave contacts his prof that works for AB and tells him to whack in cold cathodes in the ****pit :)
think it was something daft like 20+ wheels - check it out on the airbus website there are some crazy stats on there
Graeme*Kustom*
03-05-2005, 09:14
Yes, we had an issue regarding comments made about another store here - apparently some stuff was not 100% factual and some remarks made were going beyond being a little jibe.
For the sake of professionalism , we felt it best that we don't allow rants about competitor stores to be made on the forums - there's a million and one other places where you can do that anyway. End of story !
davidmoore83
04-05-2005, 04:02
More Pic Links:
http://www.baesystems.com/gallery/air/images/Airbus_A380hires.jpg
http://www.airbus.com/events/a380_reveal/event/img/pressroom/024.jpg
http://x-plane.org/images/a380.jpg
http://www.aviationboom.com/features/img/A380_interior3.jpg
http://home.i-cable.com/dick_ming/images/Airbus%20A380-841.2.jpg
Jade Falcon
05-07-2005, 16:29
A few points.
There's no way in hell the A-380 will ever fly from Glasgow, they can't take 747's and they've no real room to expand. You can thank the BAA for running down Prestwick for some obscure reason in the 70's and 80's as it has a number of major points in its favour.
1. A rail link. Glasgow has been 'planning' one for donkeys years.
2. The runway length can take practically any aircraft. As far as I know it can even take the giant An-225, that sodding big cargo plane you see in Die Another Day.
3. It's the only airport in the UK that is guaranteed to be fog free, all due to some strange anomaly. Remember a few years back when most UK airports were fog bound, Prestwick suddenly became useful then.
4. Prestwick used to take International flights, so it's well capable of doing so again. When BAA shoved the landing charges up so much that British Airways pulled out that was the beginning of the end, but Northwest and others stayed for a while.
The complaints all over about airports needing to be modified is a little rich, as I'm sure the same thing happened when the 747 first came into service.
Regarding British passenger aircraft, we have had more than the Comet. The mildly successful short range BAC-111, the Trident, and the Vickers VC-10 which was a bit of a white elephant.
PJ Matthews
05-07-2005, 18:01
Don't forget the last true british airliner, the short haul BAe 146. An aircraft production was finally pulled on a couple years back.
It's the only airport in the UK that is guaranteed to be fog free
What's that all about then just out of interest? Geographical effects? Or do they have some super-cool fog removing shield technology around the airport? Nothing would surprise me these days.
Jade Falcon
05-07-2005, 18:45
What's that all about then just out of interest? Geographical effects? Or do they have some super-cool fog removing shield technology around the airport? Nothing would surprise me these days.
It's apparently some geographical anomaly, nothing to do with technology at all. One 'airport' that could definitely take the A-380 is Macrihanish in the Mull of Kintyre, for years it served as an RAF base and Loganair and their suceeding companies operated there. At two miles long it was the longest runway in Western Europe, though there's no real reason to go there. :)
Daleaholic
05-07-2005, 19:19
Well the A380 is not going to be flying for a while, according to this anyway. http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2196047/
But, it is going on a sales tour which I think will be very successful.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2205049/
An interesting story regarding the plane here, I was quite shocked! Not sure i fancy jumping on this plane now!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502912/posts
Daleaholic
15-10-2005, 14:35
Saw this a while ago, 4th plane has been rolled out now though so they must be hard at work. My god its a beast :D
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/663/a38044hl.jpg
Jade Falcon
15-10-2005, 18:25
An interesting story regarding the plane here, I was quite shocked! Not sure i fancy jumping on this plane now!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502912/posts
Not that I doubt you or your source, but I remain sceptical. There's so much bitching between Boeing and Airbus that any stories could be tainted.
Yes they could be tainted, but I don't think I'll be queuing for a ticket on this bird for a while (just in case - the empty gun & all that).
fatnickc
16-10-2005, 11:57
In the Summer holidays I went to Toulouse, where Airbus is based. I went on a tour of the factory, which was great. I saw a few planes on the production line, and also caught a sight of a green (that's the colour they are before being painted) A380. Amazing.
PJ Matthews
16-10-2005, 12:25
JNM21 - So you'd rather travel on 737s which have a history of just dropping from the sky after faults including cabin pressure failure? 747s with a history of freight door blow outs, 777s with a history of faults including collapsing undercarriages?
Lets not forget your still far, far safer flying than you are behind the wheel of a car or just sat in one. You have more chance of winning the lottery than being in a plane crash.
Jade Falcon
16-10-2005, 17:55
Another board I'm at, there is a guy who works for Southwest Airlines in the USA, which operates an all Boeing fleet and the majority of them are 737's. He says that he doesn't trust Airbus or their aircraft yet he says that he wasn't talking about safety reasons. What else could it be?
I remember a time round about the 80's when there was a crapload of 737 accidents, something to do with early production variants and engine problems. I think basically the US objections to the Airbus are basically that it's not American, the same happened for years with Concorde.
Another complaint is that many airports will need modifications (whether its runways and/or terminals) to accept the A380, but that had to happen with the 747, so fair play I think.
shifty.ricky
16-10-2005, 22:00
Does anyone really think that if a story about the cabin pressure relief values being crapply designed was true that Airbus would sit back and not think about trying to change it. There are only 4 - 10 planes built or in progress of being built so changing them would not be hard. If the A380 fails then Airbus go under so I dont think they would want plane loads of people dying on them...bad PR and all that.
For what it is worht any information source that has a name like freerepublic or other organisations like well the media etc I dont trust when it comes to "reports" or "surveys" of any kind as if they just stood there and went "Yep. Everything is A. OK." then they would not last very long.
In the Summer holidays I went to Toulouse, where Airbus is based. I went on a tour of the factory, which was great. I saw a few planes on the production line, and also caught a sight of a green (that's the colour they are before being painted) A380. Amazing.
The 777 and 747 production lines at Everett are something to see. Had an unofficial tour a few years back and got to walk the entire length of each. Had I known beforehand, I'd have packed a pair of trainers into my briefcase.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.