Airbus A380

[SAMU]

Gosh!! That's an ugly plane. Comments?

[Nicolas]

Talking only about aesthetic aspects here:

Beautiful, except for the silhouette in full frontal view, as seen from a certain height (from eye height, it's better). Gracious, notwithstanding the enormous size. Yes I do think it is gracious.
Just my opinion.

[Glom]

Because the wings are larger, the fuselage is fatter and the fin is taller, but the fuselage is not longer to the same factor, is does look a little squat. The A389 should look more proportional. But I wouldn't say it's ugly. I don't think it's the best looking aircraft out there and I personally wouldn't consider that Airbus's desire to supplant the 747 as the Queen of the Skies has succeeded (the A389 may stand a better chance), but I think it has its charm.

I think you have to consider that these days, aircraft aren't quite as exciting in appearance as before. There seems to be convergence towards the standard twin with under wing mounted engines. In the days of old, we had the 747 (quad with a hump), the 727 (trijet with rear mounted engines), DC-10 (trijet with underwing mounted and fin engines), the MD-80 (twin with rear mounted engines), the 707 (quad with lo-bypass turbofans), A340 (single decker quad with funny wings). Now, there seems to be convergence. We have the 777 (my favourite, but I understand why people say it's boring), the 737, the A320, the A340. Even Airbus seem to be surrendering the "4 engines 4 long haul" mantra (I knew they would) and replacing the A343 with the A359, you guessed it, a twin with under wing mounted engines. The 787 was supposed to add a bit of distinctiveness to the paradigm, but some of the features have been downtoned (I still think it is pretty interesting). So it is nice to know that the A380 will add a little spice to the mix. In fact, that itself might get it the role of "Queen of the Skies" if for nothing else than it is unique, unless of course the 747ADV goes ahead).

[Nicolas]

And if you think future planes will be boring, a certain forum member called "Nicolas" is doing quite the contrary. You might know the Skycrane helicopter:
http://www.silentthundermodels.com/images/desktop/helicopters/Sikorsky_CH-54_Skycrane_D0848H3W.jpg

Now try to imagine this modular multi purpose concept, but translate it to an airplane instead of a helicopter, including extra versatility concepts incorporated into it. Try to stop before you arrive at Thunderbird2 though :). A possible future concept, being investigated as one of the solutions for an airborne transport problem. Other solutions range from standard to very exotic. I'll show you concepts when I have digitals, but I'm afraid many of them will exist on a hardcopy format only. I'll start a new thread if I have enough information to start one.

I too think the A380 is beautiful because it's distinct. And because it doesn't have a bulge on the front part, it has somewhat more unity than the 747. The 747 looks a bit more refined than the muscular A380 however.

[Maksutov]

Glom,

You left out the L-1011 (http://www.l1011.homestead.com/frombus2zz.html), to me one of the most stylish planes ever to fly, especially in its Delta livery. There was something really slick about the blending of the No. 2 engine intake into the tail and fuselage that was more esthetically pleasing than the rather "Buck Rogers" look to the DC-10's "stuck into the tail" No. 2 engine.

I used to watch one of those Delta L-1011s fly over the road a few hundred feet above me every morning as I drove to work by Bradley Field in CT in the late 70s.


[edit/correct engine #]

[Glom]

I believe the 727 also had the S-turn in the third engine.

[Maksutov]

I believe the 727 also had the S-turn in the third engine.
True, but the 727 had its other two engines rear fuselage-mounted ala the Caravelle/DC-9 method, giving the plane, especially in its shorter versions, a really tail-heavy look.

BTW, I always tend to think of the L-1011/DC-10 tail engine as the "third" engine although technically it's the No. 2 engine. Must be a result of American Airlines' original specification calling for just two wing-mount engines, making the additional engine the "third " one. :D

[Fram]

I voted 'No', because while far from being the prettiest, it is not ugly at all. Then again, there aren't that many big planes I would call ugly...

The most beautiful of all the post WWII large passenger planes has to be for me the Lockheed Constellation (http://www.conniepictures.ch/albums/MAVeillard/2004-08-08_n73544_03_gva.jpg) though...

[Candy]

Must be a result of American Airlines' original specification calling for just two wing-mount engines, making the additional engine the "third " one. :D
Shouldn't that be American airlines? :wink:

[enginelessjohn]

I voted ugly. Most airliners now are dull. To be honest I can't tell the difference between A320s and 737s, and I've spent far to much of my time jumping on and off them. The A380 is at least different, but only it's mother could love it.....

For looks, I'd vote for the VC10, or possibly the DH Comet. However you aren't likely to fly on one nowadays. But for sheer airliner elegance you've got to go back further to either the Lockheed Constellation, or the DH Albatross.... Ahhhhh

Cheers
John

[Glom]

The 737 and the A320 are easily distinguishable from the nose. The 737 has a long pointy nose, whereas the A320 has a round nose.

[Candy]

The 737 and the A320 are easily distinguishable from the nose. The 737 has a long pointy nose, whereas the A320 has a round nose.
I can tell the difference. Of course, I stare at them all day long. I absolutely love when the weather is bad (ceilings), and the flight pattern shifts in the direction of World Head Quarters. The planes fly so low. I feel like I can reach into the sky and touch them. The sound is so loud, it makes my heart beat faster. It is such a rush. I often wonder if this is what true love is like. I get goose bumps just thinking about it. :P

[Argos]

There´s a saying among pilots down here: beautiful planes fly well. The A380 is not a beutiful plane IMO. It appears too heavy. It looks like it won´t sustain itself aloft.

[Nicolas]

There´s a saying among pilots down here: beautiful planes fly well. The A380 is not a beautiful plane IMO. It appears too heavy. It looks like it won´t sustain itself aloft.

I've seen them all closeup and inside out today:

737, 767, 777, 747, 747 cargo, A319, A320, A321, A330, Fokker 50, 70, 27, MD-11 (LOOOOOOOUUUUUD!!) etcetc. I think the A380 certainly isn't ugly among all those. It is a distinctly looking plane. The 777 is beautiful, the MD11 and 747 are very special, the A330 looks elegant, Saab prop planes are nice, and in my opinion the A380 belongs in this line of nice looking planes.

And the A380 does sustain itself aloft :).

The way I heard it, the "beautiful planes fly well" saying is a marketing saying. Passengers think that beautiful planes are good planes, hence they're popular with the passenger. therefor, the airlines buy these planes more than comparable ugly planes, and hence the plane is a success (it "flies well"). I think pilots should now better. But to me, it doesn't matter as I think the A380 is a beautiful plane :) 8) .

[Glom]

Does that mean the 787 will lose momentum with the loss of the shark tail?

[Candy]

Saab prop planes are nice...
Those are some very beautiful creatures! =D>

[Nicolas]

Does that mean the 787 will lose momentum with the loss of the shark tail?

I don't know what it will look like exactly, but it certainly loses some " I want to fly in that one!" factor with the general public if it looks less exotic. Also, it gives a bit of a "we can't keep our promises" impression. But I think that -given that the plane offers good performance and efficiency- the airliners will buy it anyway as there ain't a better looking equal plane at the moment anyway. The lack of a shark tail ain't an argument for the airliners not to buy the 787 for the moment, as they don't have to compete with planes that are more inside the passengers' hearts (like some other better looking craft).

[Nicolas]

Saab prop planes are nice...
Those are some very beautiful creatures! =D>

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s100b_argus/images/S100BArgus_4.jpg

And I like the charm of turning rotors :).

[Trebuchet]

I voted "ugly" because it looks too short and squatty, but at least it's distinctive. As Glom says, everything else looks pretty much the same.

[Nicolas]

I voted "ugly" because it looks too short and squatty, but at least it's distinctive. As Glom says, everything else looks pretty much the same.

note: I'm not saying this is YOUR reasoning Trebuchet, but at least it is some people's reasoning:

A380: too short and squatty. Ugly.

A340-600: way too long and thin. Ugly.

Everything in between: this looks so boring and standard. Ugly.

:roll:

I'll excuse myself to these people, but creating Concorde like things alle the time is an industry killing habit :).

[Jpax2003]

I have to say that, to me, the A380 looks like a piece of white dog poo sitting on a scrap of paper.

[Glom]

Also, it gives a bit of a "we can't keep our promises" impression.

Well it was known from the beginning that it wouldn't stay. It was an engineering nightmare.

[Nicolas]

I have to say that, to me, the A380 looks like a piece of white dog poo sitting on a scrap of paper.

Did you really have to say that, or did you like to say that?

[Glom]

I don't know what it will look like exactly, but it certainly loses some " I want to fly in that one!" factor with the general public if it looks less exotic.

I think the higher cabin pressure, humidity, larger windows and open architecture will make up for that. Given the choice, I'm passengers would opt for a comfortable plane on the inside.

Also, it gives a bit of a "we can't keep our promises" impression.

Well it was known from early on that it wouldn't stay. It was an aerodynamic nightmare. I don't think you'll see any manufacturer putting one in for that reason. Besides, I still think the fin is quite cool looking, if not so exotic as before.

[Jpax2003]

I have to say that, to me, the A380 looks like a piece of white dog poo sitting on a scrap of paper.

Did you really have to say that, or did you like to say that?Do you think turd sounds better? :D

[Nicolas]

Also, it gives a bit of a "we can't keep our promises" impression.

Well it was known from the beginning that it wouldn't stay. It was an engineering nightmare.

But was it said by Boeing from the beginning that it wouldn't stay? I only ever saw images of the shark tail, and messages about the distinct looks.
Unless I missed messages sent out by Boeing earlier than last month, I wouldn't say it was "known" that the tail wouldn't stay. We could expect that from an engineering point of view, but ultimately it is Boeing's message where we should base things on.

[Nicolas]

I don't know what it will look like exactly, but it certainly loses some " I want to fly in that one!" factor with the general public if it looks less exotic.

I think the higher cabin pressure, humidity, larger windows and open architecture will make up for that. Given the choice, I'm passengers would opt for a comfortable plane on the inside.

Also, it gives a bit of a "we can't keep our promises" impression.

Well it was known from early on that it wouldn't stay. It was an aerodynamic nightmare. I don't think you'll see any manufacturer putting one in for that reason. Besides, I still think the fin is quite cool looking, if not so exotic as before.

Have you a link to pics of the new looks?

I agree with your post (but I have questions on the "known" part as posted above). And indeed the passengers will probably still love the plane. But they would love the same plane with cool looks better than an "uglier" one.

[Nicolas]

I have to say that, to me, the A380 looks like a piece of white dog poo sitting on a scrap of paper.

Did you really have to say that, or did you like to say that?Do you think turd sounds better? :D

No. I wonder whether you can give a more serious explanation of your opinion than name-calling. I don't care whether you think it is beautiful or ugly, but I think a somewhat more refined opinion would be in place, certainly on this board.

[Glom]

Looks are subjective. Some people think the toned down fin looks better.

[Nicolas]

Looks are subjective. Some people think the toned down fin looks better.

Do you have a link to a picture? I don't know what it looks like... :(

Rather hard to say something about it that way. But in general: yes looks are subjective indeed, and some people will even like a generally considered "ugly" concept better.

[Jpax2003]

I have to say that, to me, the A380 looks like a piece of white dog poo sitting on a scrap of paper.

Did you really have to say that, or did you like to say that?Do you think turd sounds better? :D

No. I wonder whether you can give a more serious explanation of your opinion than name-calling. I don't care whether you think it is beautiful or ugly, but I think a somewhat more refined opinion would be in place, certainly on this board.Ok sorry. It looks like a refined canine end-product subjected to dry-whitening sitting on a piece of refined white wood pulp. :D

It's not name calling, I really think it looks like that. See the front? Don't you think it has that pinched-off look?

[Nicolas]

It's tapered...but that's a feature of almost every fuselage front.

I see no front looks resembling "pinched-off dog poo" any more than on other cockpits. But that's my opinion...

[frogesque]

I too would be interested in a view of the new configuration. I think the original is far from ugly -- especially in plan view (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/a380/index.shtml)

Boeing, being rivals, will of course have their own agenda.

[Doodler]

I vote ugly, myself. There hasn't been a beautiful passenger jet made that tops Concorde to me. And at 555 passengers fully loaded, I want to see how beautiful the world thinks they are when the first one splats down fully loaded. Lets be cold for a minute here. A 727 goes down fully loaded, and an airline is looking at about a 120 potential lawsuits filed against it. One of these bloated monsters goes down, you're looking at 500+. The insurance underwriter for any airline flying these things is going to need to buy stock in Pfizer to cover the cost of Valium consumed with every flight. These things better perform flawlessly or its some corp's caboose on the grill.

At what point in increased size do we reach a flying Titanic?

[Nicolas]

I too would be interested in a view of the new configuration. I think the original is far from ugly -- especially in plan view (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/a380/index.shtml)

Boeing, being rivals, will of course have their own agenda.

You misunderstood I think! You linked to the A380, which looks in reality like on that pic. We were talking about the 787, that won't look like presented upto now.

[Glom]

The same comment was made about the 747 when it first came out.

[Nicolas]

Indeed.

You could also look at it from the other side: carrying more passengers at once reduces the number of flights, hence the risk for *a*a accident to happen. And less flights reduce (less growth is a reduction as well) the air traffic density, reducing the risk for accidents even further.

Of course, when something does happen, the death toll is large.

[Doodler]

The same comment was made about the 747 when it first came out.

The world is a much more paranoid and litiginous place than it was when the 747-100 first flew.

[frogesque]

Sorry Nicolas, title of the thread is Airbus 380 and my pc is 'unwell'. (been offline for a few days and I'm back on the old 'heap o' junk at the moment). I'm not up to speed yet with BABB :lol:

[Nicolas]

It wasn't totally clear, as we mentioned "787" not too much in that part of the discussion (only "Boeing" sometimes). No problem, this thread went very fast anyway :).

[Trebuchet]

I voted "ugly" because it looks too short and squatty, but at least it's distinctive. As Glom says, everything else looks pretty much the same.

note: I'm not saying this is YOUR reasoning Trebuchet, but at least it is some people's reasoning:

A380: too short and squatty. Ugly.

A340-600: way too long and thin. Ugly.

Everything in between: this looks so boring and standard. Ugly.

:roll:

I'll excuse myself to these people, but creating Concorde like things alle the time is an industry killing habit :).

Actually, you've pretty much put your finger on it! :)

I'll still take the boring and standard but well proportioned over the A340-600 (too long) or any 737 below the -800 (too short).

[Argos]

And the A380 does sustain itself aloft :).

It´has demonstrated that. :) From the point of vantage of a nervous passenger its looking lightweight might help.


The way I heard it, the "beautiful planes fly well" saying is a marketing saying.

Actually, I heard it from an engineer. It´s one of those generalizations :) It makes sense though, because a "good-looking" plane would tend be aerodynamically clean, methinks.

[Nicolas]

And the A380 does sustain itself aloft :).

It´has demonstrated that. :) From the point of vantage of a nervous passenger its looking lightweight might help.


The way I heard it, the "beautiful planes fly well" saying is a marketing saying.

Actually, I heard it from an engineer. It´s one of those generalizations :) It makes sense though, because a "good-looking" plane would tend be aerodynamically clean, methinks.

Maybe many nervous passengers prefer a solid looking plane above a fragile (lightweight) looking one?

You can make very ugly looking aerodynamically clean planes as well :). But take a standard plane, and make it extremely smooth on the surface, and it will look better indeed! ANd it will be aerodynamically clean. Though in some cases, turbulence is preferred above laminar flow.

[Launch window]

LAX begins A380 upgrade
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/americas/news/jar/jar060109_1_n.shtml
As part of a major modernisation programme, Los Angeles World Airports, the operator of Los Angeles International, Ontario International and two other airports, says that it is spending USD75 million specifically to accommodate the A380. Eight projects are involved, the first five of which are already in construction, two are in procurement, and the final one involves the Tom Bradley International Terminal improvements where procurement has also started.

Airbus Looks To Lightweight Future
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/Airbus_Looks_To_Lightweight_Future.html
European aircraft maker Airbus plans to launch a new generation of planes built with light, composite materials to help increase fuel efficiency, a senior company executive said on Monday

UPS firms up order for 10 A380 planes
http://za.today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2005-12-13T170125Z_01_BAN361341_RTRIDST_0_OZABS-TRANSPORT-UPS-AIRBUS-20051213.XML
United Parcel Service has formally signed an order for 10 Airbus A380 superjumbo jets provisionally announced in January

[publiusr]

Modifications already. I wish Branson would get AN-225 in production.

[Nicolas]

Why?

[publiusr]

C-5 replacement. I just don't want it to go extinct.

[Nicolas]

Do you know whether it's better than the C-5 concerning maintenance (which is a problem for the C-5), and whether it's equally well or better usable? Moreover do you know whether starting a series production of An-225 would be good from a cost/nefit point of view compared to designing a new craft altogether?

I think the An-225 is an amazing aircraft and should be sent to a museum the moment it is retired, in order to make it last. I'm not sure whether it is a good decision to start series production of it now (1 and a half were originally built :)). It's an old design and a real line for it has never been established, moreover it is designed for older production methods. Possibly it is a good choice, but I'm not sure.

[Launch window]

The world's largest jetliner, the Airbus A380, will be displayed here for the first time during the Asian Aerospace 2006, next month.
http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news.php?id=177529

San Francisco International Airport has the red carpet all ready to roll out to welcome the new, super-jumbo, 555-passenger A380 jet when it touches down for the first time on the West Coast in spring 2007, reports Jennifer Oldham in the Los Angeles Times. Meanwhile, LAX is still scrambling to put together some scraps and bits of used carpet to roll out in the hopes of not losing on the economic benefit the plane is predicted to bring to the region
http://travelnewsblog.latimes.com/dailytraveler/2006/01/sfo_ready_for_a.html

GP7200 engine installed on Airbus A380 test aircraft
http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2006/01/31/Navigation/177/204453/PICTURES+GP7200+engine+installed+on+Airbus+A380+te st.html
The General Electric and Pratt & Whitney-led Engine Alliance GP7200 engine was installed for the first time on an Airbus A380 ultra-large airliner yesterday.

[Nicolas]

Thanks for the heads up

So they've got 2 types of engines to choose from now?

[publiusr]

I can't wait to see one.

[Launch window]

Thanks for the heads up

So they've got 2 types of engines to choose from now?

the Airbus seems to have 2 choices, Rolls-Royce-Trent and the US Engine Alliance 'GP' or GP-7200
the rival Boeing uses the G.E CF6-80 Engine - earlier with Boeing the engine people from Pratt & Whitney ( American aircraft engine manufacturer ) and General Electric Aviation ( southwestern Ohio United States ) joined forces to produce the GP engine, they were originally trying to give their engine GP-7200 to some proto-type 747-ZXmodel/Boeing600X project, however Boeing's project was axed but the Engine-Alliance GP7200 has now been reoptimised for use on the Airbus A380 superjumbo

The German Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, England's Virgin Atlantic seem to be getting the superjumbo with the Rolls Royce Trent 900 engines

While the people at Air France, the USA's FedEx, and Korean Air have bought the A380 with the EA engine ( GE AircraftEngines and Pratt & Whitney's GP7200 ) at the start of the project it looked like the Rolls-Royce would power the A-380 but since then GE/PW engine increased its share of the A380 engine market to the point where it will now power 48% of the super-jumbo fleet. The USA's Federal Aviation Administration certified it for operation on January 2006, the engine is initially certified at 76,500 pounds of thrust and has the capability to produce over 81,500 pounds with the same bill of material. During its certification program the engine was tested at thrust levels in excess of 94,000 pounds. The EA Engine will also feature on Emirates UAE airlines, and the ILFC ( California's Int Lease Finance Corp ) superjumbo

have you seen how comfortable the 1st class looks
http://www.aviationboom.com/features/img/A380_interior2.jpg
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,123293,00.jpg
http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/jpg01324.jpg
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/acj/images/airbus-corp-jetliner_7.jpg
?

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

more photos here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4183707.stm

In pictures: A380 superjumbo

[Launch window]

Ask the pilot - Believe it or not, Boeing and Airbus combined to sell more jetliners in 2005 than in any other year in history
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/02/03/askthepilot172/index_np.html

Airbus orders two new ships as wing ferries
http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/business/businessnews/tm_objectid=16657781&method=full&siteid=50142&headline=airbus-orders-two-new-ships-as-wing-ferries--name_page.html

Qantas Airways Reiterates Plan to Introduce Jumbo Airbus A380 to Los Angeles
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=077b2a11-e9a4-492e-aab6-3fe5d6fabae7

[The Saint]

If the Airbus can move 800 people at a time, 20 of them could move the population of a whole country in short order. The NWO'd like that!

[The Mangler]

If the Airbus can move 800 people at a time, 20 of them could move the population of a whole country in short order. The NWO'd like that!
Maybe a very small country... ;)

[The Mangler]

We're 'susposidly' getting one in at work sometime this year for a completion. Should be interseting if we do.

[Nicolas]

the Airbus seems to have 2 choices, Rolls-Royce-Trent and the US Engine Alliance 'GP' or GP-7200
the rival Boeing uses the G.E CF6-80 Engine - earlier with Boeing the engine people from Pratt & Whitney ( American aircraft engine manufacturer ) and General Electric Aviation ( southwestern Ohio United States ) joined forces to produce the GP engine, they were originally trying to give their engine GP-7200 to some proto-type 747-ZXmodel/Boeing600X project, however Boeing's project was axed but the Engine-Alliance GP7200 has now been reoptimised for use on the Airbus A380 superjumbo

The German Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, England's Virgin Atlantic seem to be getting the superjumbo with the Rolls Royce Trent 900 engines

While the people at Air France, the USA's FedEx, and Korean Air have bought the A380 with the EA engine ( GE AircraftEngines and Pratt & Whitney's GP7200 ) at the start of the project it looked like the Rolls-Royce would power the A-380 but since then GE/PW engine increased its share of the A380 engine market to the point where it will now power 48% of the super-jumbo fleet. The USA's Federal Aviation Administration certified it for operation on January 2006, the engine is initially certified at 76,500 pounds of thrust and has the capability to produce over 81,500 pounds with the same bill of material. During its certification program the engine was tested at thrust levels in excess of 94,000 pounds. The EA Engine will also feature on Emirates UAE airlines, and the ILFC ( California's Int Lease Finance Corp ) superjumbo

have you seen how comfortable the 1st class looks
http://www.aviationboom.com/features/img/A380_interior2.jpg
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,123293,00.jpg
http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/jpg01324.jpg
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/acj/images/airbus-corp-jetliner_7.jpg
?
Maybe in the first year(s), probably for Virgin. But I do seriously doubt any normal company will continue to fly in such an inefficiënt interior. It is beautiful, but aircraft mainly are public transport busses with wings. Large as the A380 is, it doesn't really have the spare room an ocean liner has. Economically speaking, this seems not good. It's not the intention to make the A380 as exclusive as a Concorde, it should be a general work horse.

Again, I doubt you'll see these kind of interiors often when the A380 has some years on the counter. Those pics were made in an early mock up, mostly to demonstrate just how huge it was and what possibilities there were. In reality, most companies will choose for "seats all the way down" I assume, with some compact luxury in front. But just as the 787 will not have plants in every corner, the A380 will not be flying with bars everywhere. Unless it has "Virgin" on the tail ;).

[The Mangler]

...Economically speaking, this seems not good. It's not the intention to make the A380 as exclusive as a Concorde, it should be a general work horse.
It would probably make a good cargo carrier too. Cargo door mods are probably being drawn now...

Again, I doubt you'll see these kind of interiors often when the A380 has some years on the counter. Those pics were made in an early mock up, mostly to demonstrate just how huge it was and what possibilities there were. In reality, most companies will choose for "seats all the way down" I assume, with some compact luxury in front. But just as the 787 will not have plants in every corner, the A380 will not be flying with bars everywhere. Unless it has "Virgin" on the tail ;).Don't forget about large corporations/royalty. I'm sure they will buy it, and they will have lavish interiors. (We will never fly one those though... But I might work on them :) ) You should see some of the interiors oil money can buy...

[The Saint]

The 1977 crash between a KLM 747 and a Pan Am 747 that killed 583 shook people. What will be the effect, if any of 800 dying in an A380?

[Halcyon Dayz]

I'm not in the market for a private plane that can
only land at the biggest international airports. :razz:

[Nicolas]

It would probably make a good cargo carrier too. Cargo door mods are probably being drawn now...


Actually, a cargo version is being sold now :). It's called the A380-800F, while the passenger version is the A380-800.

What's still on the drawing board:

A380-700 Originally known as the A3XX-50 or A3XX-50R, proposed extended range model with a shortened fuselage for 481 passengers
A380-800 Originally known as the A3XX-100, first production model seating 555 passengers
A380-800C7 Proposed combination passenger/cargo model based on the A380-800 with space for 7 cargo pallets
A380-800C11 Proposed combination passenger/cargo model with space for 11 cargo pallets
A380-800F Originally known as the A3XX-100F, dedicated freighter based on the A380-800 model with a capacity of 25 pallets on the upper deck, 33 pallets on the main deck, and 13 pallets on the lower deck
A380-800R Proposed extended range model based on the A380-800 for 555 passengers
A380-800S Proposed reduced range version of the A380-800
A380-900 Originally known as the A3XX-200, proposed stretch model with a longer fuselage for 656 passengers
A380-900S Proposed reduced range version of the A380-900


The A380-800 variants will be produced when there is demand for it and the standard version gets rolling, certainly the R and S versions. If there's demand and technically it is possible, the A380-900 is on top of the "to be built" models which really have a different airframe. IIRC it was more likely this version would be built than the A380-700 variant.

[Glom]

A380-700 Originally known as the A3XX-50 or A3XX-50R, proposed extended range model with a shortened fuselage for 481 passengers

Unlikely to be built because it would be so massively heavy for its size. The A388 is designed to be stretched, not shrunk. Now that the 747-8 is here, that niche is taken. Airbus's best bet would be a new widebody to sit between the A359 and the A388, basically the direct competitor to Y3. The A340 is officially KIA and the A340E would be throwing good money after bad (and the other alternative is The Mouth's paying airlines to pollute plan). They need to replace it.

That's why I've always thought that the A350 should have been the A360. That way the narrowbody replacement would be the A350 and this large widebody would be the A370. That way they have a second generation family with the continuity that allowed them to be so successful with the first.

A380-800C7 Proposed combination passenger/cargo model based on the A380-800 with space for 7 cargo pallets
A380-800C11 Proposed combination passenger/cargo model with space for 11 cargo pallets


I believe the FAA said they wouldn't certify any more combis. Of course, with two decks, I suppose it is possible they might certify a combi with pax on one deck and cargo on the other.

[Nicolas]

The A388 is designed to be stretched, not shrunk. Now that the 747-8 is here, that niche is taken.

You mean there won't be market space for the A387 or the A389 with that statement?

Good comments. About the combi certification: I heard something about that as well. Of course separate decks might be a different story. But combi on one deck isn't approved anymore indeed if those claims are correct.

[Glom]

You mean there won't be market space for the A387 or the A389 with that statement?

I mean the A387 niche.

[Nicolas]

Ok thanks. I imagined that (you'd need quite some stretch to make a 747 into A389 size :D), but I wasn't sure what you meant.

Which brings us flawlessly to the following point: what did you mean with your A340 comments? I lost you early on :).

[Glom]

Which brings us flawlessly to the following point: what did you mean with your A340 comments? I lost you early on :).

777-200ER 428 - A340-300 244
777-200LR (excl -F) 35 - A340-500 26
777-300ER 189 - A340-600 116

The A340 is on borrowed time. Airbus are cannibalising the A343 with the A359 anyway, which leaves the A340NG and their respective 777 competitors both fly further, faster, carrying more revenue payload all while burning less fuel in the process.

And the A340 is losing marketshare to corroborate this. Early last year, Airbus lost Air Canada to Boeing. Then Qatar decided to introduce the 777 into their fleet, despite already having the A340HGW on order. Then Emirates decided they wanted to be the world's largest 777 operator. Then most importantly, they lost Cathay Pacific despite already being an A346 operator, despite traditionally preferring 4 engines 4 long haul, despite not being able to get Trents on their 777s.

Recently, Leahy has admitted that the A340 has a significant fuel burn disadvantage and has suggested a strategy of paying airlines to pollute by giving cash back to airlines to cover the extra fuel costs. The other option that has been floated is A340Enhanced basically A350ing the A340 with Al-Li fuselage and Trent 1700 engines.

It has question marks over how much it could advance the platform in comparison to the 777LR. Then the large lead time for this product would also giving Boeing the chance the incrementally improve the 777LR, as Airbus did with the A320 family to keep it dominant despite the strong assault from the 737NG (the 777-300ER is already more advanced than when first certified). Furthermore, the lead time will effectively mean Airbus will surrender the market to Boeing for a few years, which will give them the opportunity to sweep the board, just to produce a derivative, which won't be enough to sway airlines to come back.

When it comes to that market, Airbus need to think bigger than trying to plaster their cracks with shortsighted jerry-rigging. Boeing tried that with the 767-400ER (and some have argued the same thing about the 737NG) and look where that got them (the 787 was not a choice, it was a necessity). Even if the A340E could be given an advantage over the 777LR, that's today's aircraft, not tomorrow's. By the time the A340 would come around, Boeing will be close to working on Y3 and then Airbus will be in the same position they were in before.

Airbus like to go on about the commonality of their product line, but commonality only goes so far. And remember that Airbus's rise was not born out of them obsessing over commonality. Airbus were the innovaters. They pioneered the widebody twin, they introduced FBW and the all-glass cockpit into large market commercial aircraft, they brought advanced materials and composites into the fold. Innovation is what made Airbus great.

[Nicolas]

Hopefully it's not what kills them, like Sega :).

It's too bad the A340 ain't the best in the market. I like the aircraft (so does Branson, he has the longest) for its distinguisihing looks, and I like the looks of 4 engines (I'm not talking about the concept, just the looks).

Ah well, we'll see in the future what models are built and how they compare. Well, except for the A380. Hard to compare that unique beast :). (of course it can be more or less compared to the new 747 variant).

[Glom]

It's too bad the A340 ain't the best in the market. I like the aircraft (so does Branson, he has the longest) for its distinguisihing looks, and I like the looks of 4 engines (I'm not talking about the concept, just the looks).

The A340s are pretty aircraft. I occasionally like to take a drive around the Heathrow perimeter road and normally when I do, they are landing on runway 27L. Just in front of the threshold on the perimeter road is a set of traffic lights and when I'm lucky, I get a red light and am sitting there while a landing aircraft goes overhead.

There was this cool time when an Iberia A340-300 flew over beautifully. I did wonder why Iberia would be sending such an aircraft to Heathrow until I learned about sixth freedom traffic. But the really cool time was when a Virgin A340-600 did it. Now that was awesome. The big Trent 500 engines were roaring brilliantly, and the fuselage was a gleaming white (Iberia aircraft are so dirty, like Air France).

Of course, I suppose I give away my true preferences. I'm still waiting to be caught by a Japanese Airlines 777-300ER.

[Nicolas]

The A340-600 is an amazing aircraft to see flying overhead (http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00000000400005/1/47/40756471.jpg). Its slenderness has no compare in current aircraft.

[publiusr]

I love those, the Bear bombers and the Super-Connies. I seem to remember some stretch 707s. My brain doesn't work today.