A380

[s1chris]

In a couple of words "f*** Me". I was on the M4 dropping a colleague back at Heathrow today just as an A380 had taken off. I have seen loads on the ground at Charles d'gaule (spelling) but never in the air. What amazes me was just how slow it was going and how the hell it managed to say airborne. Does anybody know the speed just after take off. I'd be amazed if its much over 100mph.

Cheers Chris

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Looks like it was moving slow but it wasn't. Vr (rotation speed) is about 150 knots~

 

[s1chris]

Yeah it almost seemed to defy gravity. Also the speed that we were travelling didn't appear to much different for a short period. I suppose when you take the fact it is climbing into account then that would answer for its apparent lack of movement forward.

Still an epic aircraft and not a battery fire In sight. I wish work would send me out of Europe so I could get a flight on one.

Cheers Chris

 

[Marcel]

It's not called airbus for nothing. Flying in it is as boring as riding a bus. I'd rather have that cup that Joe flew.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Still an epic aircraft and not a battery fire in sight.

Still not trouble free, Boeing is just getting the bad rap but the A380 probably has just as much if not more serious issues with it but the press seems to be leaving it alone. As of today there's at least 49 Airworthiness Directives issued against the A380. Here's a list from the Australian CASA (who will usually follow North American and European CAAs), see for yourself, some of these are pretty serious but yet common on a new aircraft.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - ADs for Airbus Industrie A380 Series Aeroplanes

For the record, the 787 currently has 4 Airworthiness Directives with more definitely to come.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think both aircraft (787 and A380) will be fine aircraft. I just think because of the competition between Boeing and Airbus they were both rushed into full production a bit too quickly.

 

[Matt308]

Yeah. If you knew the overall problem reports for such a sophisticated airplane you would initially panic. Typical mechanical/avionic problem reports for modern airplanes run in the hundreds, if not thousands.

These problem reports are hierarchically categorized in relation to safety, maintenance, efficiency and business model levels. Type certification (basic airworthiness) was properly demonstrated, but airframe/system integration maturity is an ongoing effort that requires hundreds/thousands of hours of validation effort.

 

[nuuumannn]

This is nothing new and very few advanced modern airliner projects go smoothly, its just that the press always make a meal of these things, which doesn't help either the airlines or the manufacturers. Obviously fires are bad all round (!), but not unrecoverable in terms of development. To begin with the 747 was plagued with issues, many of them surrounding its triple spool high bypass engines, but it certainly did not have a smooth entry into service. There are lots of unknowns in operating both types and time itself proves whether they are good designs or not; its very hard to tell within the first few years of operations as to how successful an airliner will be.

We were shown this video at work since we receive regular updates on the 787 program:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA9Kato1CxA

 

[Matt308]

Yeah... just think of the original 747. It was such a dog efficiency-wise that they originally released the 747SP. How do you think the press would handle that today if it was the A380!!

I mean c'mon how ridiculous does this look! Especially compared to the 747-8!

 

[Gixxerman]

It's not called airbus for nothing. Flying in it is as boring as riding a bus. I'd rather have that cup that Joe flew.

I've had the pleasure of flying on the A380 three times, a return trip (economy class) from London to Singapore on Singapore Airlines in 2009 and this year with Quantas flying from London to Sydney in their 'economy plus' class.
I found it to be very clean, comfortable, quiet, the service was superb and it was, by some margin, the best way to fly distance I have yet experienced.

I was lucky enough to book seat 48D going to and from Singapore, on the lower deck. This seat doesn't have one in front of it so you have all the leg-room you could want.
As for Quantas?
Well, let me put it like this, if I'd paid the (huge) premium for business or 1st class over their economy plus I'd have been seriously pi**ed off.
This was on the upper deck and the seats were excellent once again the service was superb.

I came back from Sydney on a British Airways 747-400 and it really was so obviously a full generation behind.
It was noisey, a bit old grubby, the seats were not as spacious, the in-flight entertainment was nothing like as good but BA did their best with the service.

Frankly I want my flights as a passanger to be 'boring' - if by that you mean a quiet aircraft having excellent seating, modern in-flight entertainment and big enough to support service that keeps the food drink coming as and when you want it.

The thing that strikes me about A380 is the size of that wing 'wing box'.
It is very obvious that there is a huge degree of stretch available to the makers/airlines as and when they want it.
1000 seats is not beyond possibility.
They are merely waiting for the rest of the infrastructure to catch up....although I did not find waiting on bags etc an issue either.

The supposed debate over hub or point to point is in my opinion to miss the point.
Both are necessary in todays travel.

Boeing is just getting the bad rap

I think a large slice of this is down to the anti-A380 PR work Boeing did.
The A380 was slated left, right centre.
Now the boot is on the other foot in my opinion, at least to some degree, Boeing are a victim of the game they tried to play on Airbus.
Their wrapping this up in a US v Euro's patriotic theme, whilst understandable perhaps, is a nonsense.
Both are full of components parts sourced from other countries.

 

[Matt308]

Okay.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I think both aircraft (787 and A380) will be fine aircraft. I just think because of the competition between Boeing and Airbus they were both rushed into full production a bit too quickly.

The 787 is a lovely aircraft, and has sold wonderfully well, but you can hardly say that it was rushed into production. Design concept to delivery was better than eight years. Roll-out of the aircraft was two and a half years behind schedule and first delivery was about 40 months behind initial promises.

The A380 has had one really major issue - the wing rib foot bracket cracking issue - which has so far cost Airbus about 400 million euros and will see A380 deliveries cut from 30 to 15 this year to implement a fix. There have been a couple of other minor issues - both Rolls-Royce and Engine Alliance engines have had some problems, one leading to what is known as an "uncontained failure", some cockpit electronics issues, a wing icing problem and the pitot head problems - but the aircraft has had very high dispatch reliability.

The 787 introduction has been troubled - despite Boeing's marketing spin. There were two engine fires during taxiing, an APU overload, the two battery fires, the emergency locator transmitter fire, some brake failures, fuel leaks and fuselage assembly/manufacturing problems.

As for the ADs - well, check back after the 787 has been in service for another four years.

 

[Gixxerman]

The 787 is a lovely aircraft, and has sold wonderfully well

I agree.
I haven't flown the 787 yet but so long as it is an advance on the 777 I'd be happy.
I flew on one of those going from London to Brunei.
I was quite disappointed.

The one thing the 787 issues has done is open up the market give the A350 a boost.

I expect both to be the dominant long-haul jets....and if the global economy picks up more I also expect the A380 to start to sell very well.
270-ish orders at this stage for such an advanced plane is, in my view, a very good start.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think a large slice of this is down to the anti-A380 PR work Boeing did.
The A380 was slated left, right centre.
Now the boot is on the other foot in my opinion, at least to some degree, Boeing are a victim of the game they tried to play on Airbus.
Their wrapping this up in a US v Euro's patriotic theme, whilst understandable perhaps, is a nonsense.
Both are full of components parts sourced from other countries.

Agree to a point - as the old saying goes "what comes around goes around." The Difference here is the bashing the 787 is receiving is minuscule when compared to other US aircraft that had bugs when they entered service (DC-10). Those buying the PR war against both aircraft know little or nothing about aviation

As for the ADs - well, check back after the 787 has been in service for another four years.

Both aircraft will have volumes of ADs (just like all current commercial aircraft) in the years to come...

 

[The Basket]

Always liked the 747SP and it was certainly capable.

Held long distance records although a sales flop but Boeing had to compete with the Trijets.