Started by chrisadams, June 28, 2011, 10:03:42 PM
Quote from: Dan380 on June 30, 2011, 07:56:56 PMI would disagree with both of the two posts above. You can't just make a big, two deck, four engined A320 and expect it to work.Do you really think they would have had it over ten years in development if they were just making it a little bit bigger? Seriously, wake up and smell the sausages, Boeing fan-boys.
Quote from: chrisadams on June 28, 2011, 10:03:42 PMHey all, I've got to do a project on what makes the Airbus A380 unique, I know the obvious (i.e double decker etc) but can someone help me make my presentation slightly more unique Thanks in advancechrisadams
Quote from: Dave4468 on June 30, 2011, 08:21:44 PMOut of interest does anyone know where I could find some concepts of the A3XX when it was officially announced. Does it look pretty much the same as the final A380 did?
Quote from: Quinoky on June 30, 2011, 10:15:04 PMSurely I agree with flightsimer. After all, Boeing has had showers in its aircraft for ages.. oh wait. In all seriousness, though, there's no denying that the A380 truly is an absolutely marvelous piece of modern engineering, if only by its sheer size as pointed out before.
Quote from: Quinoky on June 30, 2011, 10:15:04 PMSurely I agree with flightsimer. After all, Boeing has had showers in its aircraft for ages.. oh wait.
Quote from: Dan380 on June 30, 2011, 09:46:03 PMSome nice figures you've got there, though completely irrelevant if I'm honest with you. The 777 and A380 are incomparable in almost every way.The point you seem to have somehow completely missed is that the size is what makes it unique. Being considerably larger than any of its predecessors, technologies and systems had to be designed from scratch to fit the very unique requirements of the aircraft.Say what you like, I'm not an Airbus fan boy, I much prefer the aircraft Boeing make, including the 777 and 787. But you're making arguments with fingers in your ears.
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 01, 2011, 01:37:42 AMOne credit I will give Boeing is that it appears that every new plane they come out with is 1/2 of a generation ahead of the previous one. Many components on 767 used on 777 and on.
Quote from: flightsimer on July 02, 2011, 06:30:56 AMHowever, i do disagree with you on the latest one. I believe the 787 to have been a big step change from everything in the past simply from the aerodynamics and systems standpoint. It is still a tube with wings like everything else currently flying though, but i think it will impact every new design from this point forward until we transition into flying wings or the SST's or Sub-orbital aircraft or the next high speed transportation system that takes over aviation.
Quote from: Sigma on July 02, 2011, 04:48:35 PM There's not millions of people out there going "I'd really like to travel to Europe and expand my culture horizons but, man, those windows on planes today are just so small that I can't handle it."
Quote from: swiftus27 on July 02, 2011, 09:41:07 PMI disagree with you a TON here.The 787 is designed to NOT fly out of JFK, EWR, LHR, CDG.... It is designed to fly at a tier 2 airport. Imagine Miami to Barcelona? Boston to Berlin? Charlotte to Nice!?!? This plane opens a whole new market for long haul. It will cheapen tickets because fewer people will be flying connections into major cities (with their often large fees). So sorry, I must say that the 787 (if it works the way it is intended) has much larger market potential than the 380 and the 747 before it is.
Quote from: Sigma on July 02, 2011, 10:26:07 PMA smaller plane is almost always going to have a much larger market potential than a larger one. It'd be an utter surprise if the 787 doesn't eventually outsell the 747 and it'll blow WAY past the A380 in sales by an order of magnitude.And direct flights are rarely cheaper than indirect ones. If they are, it won't be appreciably so, and it's not going to expand the market of international flights in any appreciable fashion through a fairly negligible decreases in costs. By and large, air travel is already about as cheap as it can get (as indicated by dismal profit margins). Any slight decrease in rates on individual convoluted routes (like, say CLT to NCE) by way of more direct routes, is only going to be offset by higher rates as a result of decreased load factors on whatever route those travellers are flying on today. No one's going to save money by way of more individual flights all over the place; density is key.And, for the record, you can already fly MIA-BCN direct.