Airbus A380 completes first test flight
 

The largest passenger jet in history completed its first test flight this morning. The Airbus A380 is an impressively large airplane with two levels. It can be configured to hold over 800 people, it has a range of 8,000 miles without refueling. It is also quieter than most jets. Almost 150 of the planes have already been ordered by airlines around the world, but you probably won't see it much in the US. It's bigger than needed for most routes here.

How are its pollution levels?

well lots of people on one big plane is more efficient than a few people on lots of planes. I look forward to these things on the Europe-Asia routes I spend too much time on.

You won't enjoy trying to retrieve your luggage. :lol:

High !!

Marvelous invention, has the glide path of a cinderblock. No thanks.

It is also more efficient when operating in failure mode, as it can kill almost twice as many passengers as a 747!

It's kind of cool that we've finally taken another step in commercial aviation, but it's not really innovative, is it? Just bigger? And with newer computers and whatnot. I miss the days of pretty aircraft (e.g., Concorde). This is just the double decker bus of the sky. I expect one day they'll fit those monstrous cruise ships with wings and jet engines. Where's the artistry?

308 TONS of parts taking off and flying in close formation and landing safely represents considerable artistry, in my view.

visual artistry where you look at it and think something besides, "that thing ain't gonna clear the trees"

I think the A380 is a mistake. Well, at least from a passenger's point of view.

Hauling twice as many passengers over the ocean is an international airline's dream. Its more cost effective and already some of the carriers that plan on buying them have spoken of eliminating flights.

The result: your options for a flight go down, your ticket price goes up, and there is the possibility that you get to endure being on a flight with eight hundred people. How miserable is that?

A380? I'd rather be on a 777 or 787.

The one sitting behind you will still be a bratty 8-year-old kicking the back of your seat.

I'm trying to imagine dealing with the families of 800 victims of a crash.

It's not a pretty thought.

I also wonder what an airline will do if a flight is undersold.

Of course, I doubt that it will be used for any 9-11 type attack, because it's made by the French, and nobody gives a damn about the French.

Turns out it's made all over - the Welsh make the wings, the Dutch make the tail, etc.

I'm sure there is an ethnic joke about this similar to the one where, in heaven the french are the cooks, the english the police etc.

Great. A cooperative project by people who really can't stand each other.

Nice.

It's a cooperative effort to prove the EU can really truly compete with the US. If you believe that's a good approach to heavy industry, buy a ticket. :)

I dunno what they were thinking -- Airbus could have just crammed some seats and peanuts into this thing and they would have accomplished two jobs with the same aircraft body.

Bruce's comment about waiting for your luggage is a really good point. 840 people is a lot of people. Airports are going to have to devote waiting areas from two adjacent gates to hold all the people waiting for these flights. Since you are supposed to show up fairly early for international flights, the waiting areas will be awfully crowded. Once it's time to board, they will hopefully have two or more gangplanks leading to this jet, or it will take a while for everyone to board it and find their seats. Getting off the plane will take just as long. And then waiting for your bags will take forever.

The ambassador class lounge that some of these planes will have will likely be very nice though. I can look forward to that for when I'm filthy rich.

Could someone who has Photoshop skills please rustle up a copy of a cattle truck with wings so I can better illustrate how I feel about this behemoth?

Found the list. Actually the Dutch aren't in it:

# Wings - Broughton, Wales
# Fuselage parts - Hamburg, Germany
# Tailfin - Stade, Germany
# Rudder - Puerto Real, Spain
# Nose - Saint Nazaire, France
# Fuselage and cockpit sub-assemblies - Méaulte, France
# Horizontal tailplane - Getafe, Spain
# Final assembly - Toulouse, France
# Cabin installation and painting - Hamburg, Germany

Looks like the French aren't responsible for any of the important surfaces that produce lift or maintain direction. :lol:

They already did. It's already in service.

http://www.eurofighter.com/Default.asp?Flash=True

The French, however, seem to have been reponsible for the assembly, and there for the putting together of bits that maintain pressurization. Which is appropriate, given that they suck.

And the cockpit sub-assemblies which would include controls.
I don't think quality is a problem as previous products have proven adequate.
I only question the practicality and logistics.

LCanal's link is a gyp. I went there and hit the "shop" button and all they had was keychains, mugs, and paraphernalia.....no fighters. :)

I'm glad to see the Europeans are stepping up to the plate to keep the arms race going. The Chinese have really let us down in that department. I guess they don't really have a handle on capitalism yet. ;)

I'm thinking that they will probably start boarding the night before. You can see your movie before you even leave the airport, have a midnight snack, sleep 8 hours in your seat, and take off the next day after everybody finally gets through security and boards. Then I wonder how many restrooms they have on this thing so that everybody can shave and/or put on their makeup before they land the next afternoon :D

A classic example of a Daily News summary verse a Philly Inquirer article on the same subject. The list is of primary contractors. But at least 30% of that plane contains American made parts. Why is the US not in that list? Above is a classic Daily News / Fox News perspective rather than the reality of details: where the actual parts come from. Politicians love this stuff. Its called lying by telling half truths.

Next thing you know, someone will claim terrorist will nuke US soil in the next ten years.

Rather ironic that the 747 was launched just before the world hit a world wide oil shortage. Now we have the A380. Just when all oil producers are producing full out and may not meet future demands.

Given that the A380 is intended to be more fuel-efficient (per passenger mile) than the planes it replaces, it isn't ironic at all.

It's not really _that_ much more spacious than the 747. The 800-passenger configuration assumes single-class economy service, something not offered on the 747. The 747 carries 416 in three-class configuration, the A380 555, so it's about 20% bigger, not almost twice as big. The 747 also comes in 2-class, and carries 524 in that configuration. Shouldn't be any problem with airport facilities; I imagine that like the 747, it will take two jetways and a double-sized waiting area.

But they're unkept promises. Both weight and fuel efficiency missed their targets by close to 10% from what the European press has said. :(

It's in pre-flight mode, it's like beta-testing software, every flight they do at the moment they're constantly tweaking the software. Until that is done it's silly to say whether it's on target or not. At the moment from what I understand they're still working out the limitations of the plane and handling and getting the software to handle that right, I doubt fuel efficiency is even on the radar yet.

Jag, baby, would I lie to you...my oldest and dearest friend......if it didn't involve money or sex?
It's not only on the radar, it's up close and personal. When they plan the aircraft they talk to potential customers everywhere....focus groups if you will. They ask what is wanted and what is needed to erase the potential from the customers names.
Efficiency was #1 to both Questions. The whole project and sales campaign was planned around this touchstone.
They figured out what goals they had to meet to achieve the efficiency they had promised. All other design decisions were made to achieve that touchstone because if they can't do it they are back to square one on the sales campaign and had better have some other things to offer as replacement and convince the customers they are willing to make the trade off. :)

I'm well aware of that but you're not going to get 100% peformance on early flights, until testing and calibration is over it's speculation. In terms of testing priorities, last I checked one of the upcoming tests was taking off so late the tail made sparks, I think that stuff comes before you tweak the engines to maximise mileage.

Jag, while you are a lovely, bright, young man, you're arguing with someone who works for a company that builds airplanes.

Big airplanes.

Big American airplanes.

So what you're saying is that Bruce has an ulterior motive for casting doubt on Airbus? ;)

I'm saying he's in a position to have accurate information about the industry. Particularly the competition ... versus what the advertising wants you to believe about the competition.

No amount of tweaking the software is going to eliminate 10% of the weight...

What were the problems that resulted in that 10% increase?

The 747 was also designed to be significantly more efficient. That did not stop an unexpected energy crisis from almost driving Boeing under. Do to the increase price of oil, 747 sales were nearly impossible even though 747 were so much more fuel efficient.

Naw, I have nothing to do with airplanes.
The Boeing intranet news/announcement/notice website subscribes to a news service. It's called Lone Buffalo and I think it's owned by Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive, or some such.
Anyway, Lone Buffalo posts any news story, no matter how big or small the publication, that has anything to do with the airplane business, commercial or military. Part of the deal is Boeing can't change or edit anything that LB posts.
So I've been following this story and some others pretty closely. Some of the best information, the things that are really telling, come from obscure trade publications. The little tid bits that put the major news stories in perspective and sometimes make the stories make sense.

When an airline says, "We'll buy 35 model 7xx planes," they have to chose which engines they'll use from Rolls Royce, General Electric or Pratt & Whitney. Each engine has plus and minus points the airline has to balance.

When he upcoming Boeing 787 was in the feasability planning stage, they went to the engine boys and said we need xxxthrust, yyy efficiency, with zzz reliability and no bleed. They came back with proposals(promises) and the rest of the plane was designed around those parameters. If the engine boys fail to deliver on their promises, Boeing is majorly screwed. That's why the slightest shortcoming of the engines carries major financial penalties.

Part of the 787 deal is Boeing chose one engine supplier only, rather than one or sometimes two from each supplier and let the airline decide the tradeoffs. I think the engine supplier is eating some of the development costs in return.

Damn, I've gotten long winded in my old age! Anyway, there's a lot of things that come into play when shooting for a desired(or promised) performance. With aircraft, weight is a major, major player. Engine performance is another biggie and usually the contracts with the plane's buyers have big penalties for missing efficiency marks. :mg:

We may have just witnessed the end of the Airbus A380 superjumbo

Interesting article, good old thread. It turns out xoB was right.

Egads, the broken clock has struck again.

That only happens, like, twice a day... which isn't that bad really.

747 program is also ending.