Airbus A380

[Leadbelly 0]

The nightly T.V. news here in the U.S. had a short piece on the new Airbus A380. It's unveiling will be tomorrow (Jan. 18th). It's wingspan is about 100 yards, fully loaded it carries one million pounds, and can take up to 800 passengers. There will be showers on some, and possibly duty free gift shops on board. Two decks, passengers on both, the interior pictures looked pretty awesome. They said Singapore Airlines would be the first to start using them for commercial flights starting next year.

[Tahoe_Bill 0]

My 2 baht worth.

IMHO... This is an amazing aircraft.

Singapore Air will take the lead, not a shock because of their consistent ranking as the global #1 or #2 airline. However, I’m not sure why one of the major carriers of the 4 countries that subsidized the “entire 380 project†isn’t getting the 1st plane. It seems that the citizens of the UK, Germany, France or Spain have paid enough of the hard earnings in various taxes to let them have the bragging rights of having the first A380. I can't wait to see an A380 in flight.

The obligatory URL: http://www.airbus.com/dynamic/media/index.asp

[Emil 0]

Bill,

 

Maybe they don't have an airline that has a route with a demand in those numbers. Those planes are only profitable if they can come close to filling up the seats.

[Tahoe_Bill 0]

Emil,

 

As usual you are on the mark.

 

Per Airbus the following orders have been placed;

 

Airline / # planes ordered

Emirates 43

Lufthansa 15

Quantas 12

Singapore Airlines 10

Intl Lease Finance 10

Federal Express 10

Air France (Groupe) 10

Virgin Atlantic Airways 6

Thai Airways Int’l 6

 

Et al … 17

[Greg_B 306]

Nice 3D information on the new BKK Airport site, about the A380..

 

 

 

http://www.bangkokairport.org/demo/en/3d1en.php

[BigDUSA 71]

Interesting no American carriers have ordered any? Maybe they are waiting for Boeing new Dreamliner?

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Interesting no American carriers have ordered any? Maybe they are waiting for Boeing new Dreamliner?

 

More likely because they are all bankrupt.

[pattayahappy 0]

 

More likely because they are all bankrupt.

LMAO

[Hub 203]

 

More likely because they are all bankrupt.

They need some of those juicy EU subsidies.

 

Hub

[cowboy 0]

The US carriers don't dare. Bush is not through fucking them over yet. His goal is to break the IAM&AW which controls all the mechanics.

[BigDUSA 71]

The US carriers don't dare. Bush is not through fucking them over yet. His goal is to break the IAM&AW which controls all the mechanics.

Many US airlines fly Airbus metal. Why would the Pres push one way or the other. Airlines will buy the plane if the figure they can make money with it.

[nidnoyham 30]

800 Passengers= 1200 peices of baggage, about 34 containers to unload, about 7 of those little electric tugs, pulling 4 each. Hmmm.. could be best to have just carry on bags.

[Emil 0]

If what they are saying about the new plane Boeing is developing, I would prefer the American carriers to use them. Although it is a smaller aircraft it is planned to fly faster than a 747, a greater distance and at a lower operating cost. If that is true then we could see non stop flights from the US. I would love to see about 4 hours cut from the current time that it now requires me to get to LOS.

[Eneukman 1]

From what I can gather, it seems to me that the new airbus will be ideal for routes where there is high demand such as London to New York or London to Australia via either Singapore or Bangkok. As the planes carry more passengers, fewer daily flights would be required.

 

On the other hand, the smaller Boeing would be ideal for routes such as Edinburgh or Glasgow to the USA. That could have a knock on effect in reducing the demand for flights from London though.

 

Alan

[cowboy 0]

747 now routinely fly at speeds approaching 550 mph. The new plane is not going to be supersonic (600mph) so I do not understand how it can be much faster.

[Emil 0]

Cowboy,

 

I don't recall how much faster this new plane will fly, but even at a 50 mph increase it will shave off over 1 1/2 hours to LOS. Add that to 1 less connection (2 hrs), 1 less landing and take off, and a direct path to your location and you'll save at least 4 hours. I thought Mach 1 was closer to 750 mph than 600 mph.

[Leadbelly 0]

Emil, you were very close. According to a Google search on it, Mach 1 is 717 mph...

 

"Mach number is a common 'ratio' unit of speed when one is talking about aircrafts. By definition, Mach number is a ratio of the speed of a body (aircraft) to the speed of sound in the undisturbed medium through which the body is traveling. It is said that the aircraft is flying at Mach 1 if its speed is equal to the speed of sound in air (which is 332 m/s or 1195 km/hr or 717 miles/hour.) An aircraft flying at Mach 2 is flying at twice the speed of sound in air, etc.

Mach numbers are named after Ernst Mach (1838-1916), an Austrian philosopher and physicist. The term Mach number came into use in 1929."

[Emil 0]

No wonder they are out the door 15 minutes after they walk in.

 

Hub

only 15 minutes. Do you know where I can get a longer version of Ravel's Bolero? I need on about the same lenght as Beethoven's 5th.

[bigfoot 0]

747 now routinely fly at speeds approaching 550 mph. The new plane is not going to be supersonic (600mph) so I do not understand how it can be much faster.

Formerly known as the A3XX, Airbus' double-decker passenger jet, the A380, will be the largest airliner ever built. Lengthwise, it would nearly stretch from goal line to goal line of a football field while its wing tips would hang well beyond the sidelines. Three full decks will run along the entire length of the plane. Upper and main decks will serve as passenger areas, and will be connected by a grand staircase near the front of the plane and by another smaller staircase at the back. Although the lower deck will be reserved primarily for cargo, it could be outfitted for special passenger uses such as sleeper cabins, business centers or even child care service. In a one-class configuration, the A380 could accommodate as many as 840 passengers. The more likely three-class configuration will still offer an unprecedented 555 passenger seats. Either way, the A380 would offer 30% - 50% more seating than its direct competition, the Boeing 747-400.

 

Although the A380 will be able to fly a distance of over 10,000 miles, the plane's usefulness will not be limited to long-haul flights. For instance, many flights within Japan are among the highest in passenger capacity and would be well suited for A380 service, despite their short distances. Whatever the flight distance, a new breed of engines will be required to lift the plane's 1.2 million pounds into the air. Rolls Royce and GE/Pratt & Whitney are both working on engines to provide thrust that will max out at 75,000 pounds. By comparison, the first American jet airliner in service, the Boeing 707, was powered by only 10,000 pounds of thrust.

 

As amazing as it will be for this behemoth to take off into the air, the A380 faces significant challenges on the ground as well. To integrate into existing airports, the A380 must fit the standard airport-docking plan. The plane's nearly 262-foot wingspan meets this requirement by about 18 inches. Its outer-most engines, however, would hang just beyond the standard 150-foot runway width, requiring upgrades at many airports. The plane's weight will be distributed to 20 landing gear wheels, actually producing less weight per wheel than the 747. The cockpit location, between the main and upper decks, is designed to give pilots a vantage point on the runway similar to that of current airliners.

 

Due to recent technological advances, Airbus claims the A380 will be a more efficient plane than its rival, the 747. Airbus states the A380 will use 20% less fuel and will fly quieter, cheaper and more environmentally friendly than the 747. Airlines seem to be impressed. So far, ten carriers have declared their interest in the plane, placing options to order a total of 66 planes. The first A380 is scheduled to take flight in September of 2004 and may enter commercial service as early as October of 2005.

 

 

SPECIFICATIONS

 

Manufacturer Airbus

First Flight: September 1, 2004

Wingspan: 261 feet, 10 inches

Length: 239 feet, 6 inches

Height: 79 feet, 1 inch

Weight: 606,000 pounds (empty)

Top Speed: 652 miles per hour

Cruising Speed: 630 miles per hour

Flight Altitude: 43,000 feet

Range: 8,000 miles

Engines: 4 engines Rolls-Royce Trent 900 or Engine Alliance

Passenger

Accommodations: 555 passengers

[cowboy 0]

My mistake,

for some odd reason I was thinking Mach 1 was aorund 600 mph. Checking it out I find that closer to 750 mph is correct. It actually makes perfect sense when I think about. The speed of sound varies based on temperature and density of the medium. Since at higher altitudes the temperature is colder and the air is thinner I am not sure of what Mach 1 would be at the planes typical flying altitude probably 40,000 feet as I remember. (hope I didn't screww that up too)

[Leadbelly 0]

This site has some pictures of the plane taken by National Geographic. Three of the thumbnail pics on the left can be made larger to see some interior shots of the Airbus A380.

 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...lleries/airbus/

[vegasdave 0]

The 380 has a very specific market in mind and should do well. The 7e7 will be a more versital plane. It is aimed more at point to point as opposed to the hub and spoke system. It is the first airliner to use carbon fiber for the fusalage and will weigh about 20% less then normal. It will be capable of long range and also can be used on shorter flights as well. It will have better cabin comfort in terms of presure, and humindity and has larger windows ect. It should find a very wide appeal for lots of different routes. I think the 380 is just a bigger version of a typical plane, but the 7e7 will actualy break lots of new ground. (no pun intended). Both will do very well.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

They need some of those juicy EU subsidies.

 

Hub

Subsidies, preferred suppliers, tax breaks ........ it all amounts to the same thing.

 

Seriously though, the 380 and 7e7 are two totally different markets. If any comparisons are to be made they should be 747 v a380 and 7e7 v a340/350. Since Thai has already gone for the a340 and only Continental, of the major US carriers, has gone for the 7e7 it doesn't seem likely that the 7e7 is going to change anybody's LOS travel plans....... and certainly not any time soon. By the time the 7e7 and a350 are flying Pattaya will probably be overrun with Chinese package tourists, young, tattooed Euro yobs and calorifically challenged US rednecks. The rest of us will be sat up in Nong Khai, nursing a Chang and reminiscing about the "good old days".

 

Tom

[rkt 0]

My mistake,

for some odd reason I was thinking Mach 1 was aorund 600 mph. Checking it out I find that closer to 750 mph is correct. It actually makes perfect sense when I think about. The speed of sound varies based on temperature and density of the medium. Since at higher altitudes the temperature is colder and the air is thinner I am not sure of what Mach 1 would be at the planes typical flying altitude probably 40,000 feet as I remember. (hope I didn't screww that up too)  

Here's a link to the speed of sound.

 

My Webpage

 

 

[pattayahappy 0]

 

An extra 4 hours in Los would suit me fine.

 

Hurry up and get the buggers airborne!

 

4 hrs = 3 X short time

 

2 X soapy massage

 

3 Oily wanx

 

1 3/4 long time boomsing with a buffalo.

LMAO