AirwaySim

Hey 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 :P

Thanks in advance

chrisadams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380

The wings can only leave Broughton at certain times so they can be on the barge at Mosyn in time to go out with the high tide.

You could talk about the use of Carbon Composites in the construction. How that saves weight, and therefore fuel consumption. It's second only to the 787 in composite percentages.

Also talk about the difficulties that come in constructing an aircraft of that size, i.e. Thrust, runway requirements, safety regulations, and how they were overcome. There should be plenty of good articles on the internet to answer your questions.  :)

They were made SOLELY for the reason of being used at airports with no slots available at prime times (Ahem, CDG and LHR).   They are not more fuel efficient than planes that already existed.

Quote from: swiftus27 on June 28, 2011, 10:20:17 PM
They were made SOLELY for the reason of being used at airports with no slots available at prime times (Ahem, CDG and LHR).   They are not more fuel efficient than planes that already existed.

Per seat they are more efficient than a 747-400, and I'd be surprised (though I don't have the figures), if they weren't more efficient than 777s and A330s per seat too.

Without the wingtip fences, the wingspan would have had to have been 5 metres longer. This would have made the plane impossible because it would be over the 80m width limit imposed by commercial airports.

They have to take off on Runway 24L at Manchester (EGCC) because if it took off on runway 24R its tail/rudder would block the ILS (Instrument Landing System).

:laugh: :laugh:

Quote from: J. Oates on June 29, 2011, 06:23:35 AM
They have to take off on Runway 24L at Manchester (EGCC) because if it took off on runway 24R its tail/rudder would block the ILS (Instrument Landing System).

:laugh: :laugh:

A380 operating procedures have been changed at Manchester now. A380s now use the same runway for arrival and departure runway as all other traffic. The timings of the EK17/EK18 service coincide with single runway ops at Manchester and means it should arrive on either 23R or 05L and depart on 23R or 05L depending on wind direction.

MAN A380 ops (http://uk.sitestat.com/manairport/magworld/s?man..AD+35-2011+CHANGE+TO+A380+OPERATING+PROCEDURES.pdf&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=http://www.magworld.co.uk/magweb.nsf/alldocs/C254BB0D1103322D8025789500384B99/%24File/AD+35-2011+CHANGE+TO+A380+OPERATING+PROCEDURES.pdf)

They are planes. (Just a thought in case you needed to be reminded)  ;)

Airbus tries to sell them for building demolition, too. But the first test at Le Bourget this year failed.

They can be used to turn aircraft around very very quickly. (JFK incident)

Airbus is currently developing the A390, which is based on the A380 design.

[attachment expired]

It also comes in a Mach 23-version.

(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deviantart.com%2Fdownload%2F143674347%2FAirbus_A390_by_Yeti112.jpg&hash=ebab98b6bbd0a154c6e0be26b334da02580a5c73)

Some say it is banned from Washington state and that if it were a new prototype it wouldn't randomly catch fire during tests. All we know is its called the A380.

in reality, there is nothing special about the A380 except for its size. It was built using the same old ways as all aircraft before it, just scaled up in size. One interesting thing though would be the ways it is transported for final assembly. It is taken over road in the middle of the night in convoys of trucks.

now the 787 is a totally new process and design. Everything about it is unique.

Quote from: flightsimer on June 30, 2011, 03:24:40 AM
in reality, there is nothing special about the A380 except for its size. It was built using the same old ways as all aircraft before it, just scaled up in size. One interesting thing though would be the ways it is transported for final assembly. It is taken over road in the middle of the night in convoys of trucks.

now the 787 is a totally new process and design. Everything about it is unique.

This is so true...take a smaller plane and increase thrust/wingspan/seating and you get the A380.  The Concorde used the fuel system to change its center of gravity allowing supersonic flight.  The A380 doesn't really have anything unique like this.  The 747 already had two decks, just not the length of the entire fuselage. 

I 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: Dan380 on June 30, 2011, 07:56:56 PM
I 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.  ;)

Obviously not, it's not a big A320, its an A340 with another A340 fuselage stuck to the roof.  ;)

But in seriousness while there is no one thing that makes in unique it is a whole lot of work to have actually got it up in the air. If it was easy to do I'm sure Boeing would have just extended the top deck of the 747 when Airbus originally announced A3XX project.

Bear in mind this is a massive aircraft that can use all the airport facilities, taxiways and aprons of most big airports, still fit in all the size limits and them fly several thousand miles more efficiently than a family car.

Why yes, I am an Airbus fanboy!  :-[ :laugh:

Out 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: Dan380 on June 30, 2011, 07:56:56 PM
I 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.  ;)

Ok Airbus Fan-boy...

Guess what, the 777, the worlds largest twin engined aircraft, took longer to design than the A380 did. The 777 can be traced back all the way to the 70's while it didnt really start taking its current form until 1988 when boeing restarted with a new design. However, the current 777 still used parts from the previous design of the early-mid 80's.

The studies for the VLA category of aircraft were started in the early 90's with both Boeing and Airbus working together. Boeing broke off and abandoned it, while airbus toyed around with it some more. It wasnt until 1999-2000 that they started to seriously design anything close to what today has become the A380.

So from initial designs (close to production design) to first flight, it took each the following.
777- 1988-1994= 6 years, with it being offered for orders starting in 1989.
A380- 2000-2005= 5 years, with it being offered for orders starting in Dec. 2000.

If you want to include the entire design phase, then the 777 creams the A380
777-1978-1994= 16 years
A380- 1992-2005= 13years

So tell me, if the A380 was so hard to make, then why did a twin engine 777 take almost two years longer to develope (yes two, they started in early 88 and it flew in Jun 94)

what do you think is so special about making the a380 compared to any other aircraft other than the pure size? If you can name me five special things that doesnt directly relate to the size of it, then i will retract my statement.

Quote from: chrisadams on June 28, 2011, 10:03:42 PM
Hey 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 :P

Thanks in advance

chrisadams

Chris,

As usual the thread seems to have escalated into a discussion about something else completely.

Anyway, if you've not already seen the programme itself, here are is an episode of Richard Hammond's engineering connections which was pretty interesting I thought when it was on BBC.  He takes things at a slightly different angle, so it might provide some inspiration.

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5S9pa_nVk&NR=1
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYsxXXYrh4I&feature=related
Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znFsQgYBqsM&feature=fvwrel
Part 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SbnPu89ChU&feature=related
Part 5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXgV_nsJKPM&feature=related

Here's also a link to Megastructures A380 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W425f1sZmbQ

This is also in 5 parts and provides some useful information too.

Cheers,

Dave

Quote from: Dave4468 on June 30, 2011, 08:21:44 PM
Out 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?

Airbus really had no clue what the plane was when they first ever mentioned the A3xx. They just "knew" what it was going to do, be more economical than a 747.

Here is how i would show the developement of aircraft

Comet-First Jet, many, many faults. (built using the piston era technologies)
707- First Jet to be designed properly.
747- First large passenger aircraft, also the first jet to use turbofans (i believe)
Concorde- First passenger plane designed to fly at mach 2+. (it was not the first passenger plane to break the sound barrier, that would be a DC-8)
L-1011- while not being a commercial success, this plane was really ahead of its time. The systems on this thing were amazing from what i have read and what people who worked on them said. it and the DC-10 paved the way for the 200-300 seat markets
A300- first plane to use a two member flight crew
A320- first FBW passenger plane
777- first to use a large portion of composites in its design and first large twin.
787- First all electronic plane, first to use composites as its main structural material, first in many cabin features.

Some nice figures you've got there, though completely irrelevant if I'm honest with you. The 777 and A380 are incomparible 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 predecesors, 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 fanboy, I much prefer the aircraft Boeing make, including the 777 and 787. But you're making arguments with fingers in your ears.

Surely 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 PM
Surely 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.

Let's not get into this war yet again.  The A380 in all its superbness is solely for airports that are overcrowded with planes but still have additional demand.  It is a flying cattle car.  It is a potentially large revenue maker if you have it on the right line (JFK to SYD, for instance).   It is NOT more efficient than other planes of the era in Kg.hr/pax but it serves an important purpose.  It was designed in EUROPE for what EUROPEAN airlines were facing... that's the lack of slots.   Airlines in the US are not opting for this beast because there are still many slots available at key international airports.  So, they opt for the more efficient 777 and look forward to when they can service even more airports using 787s when they finally get finished. 

There is a lot to this discussion and really should be relegated to its own thread.

Quote from: Quinoky on June 30, 2011, 10:15:04 PM
Surely I agree with flightsimer. After all, Boeing has had showers in its aircraft for ages.. oh wait. ;)

At the latest the VIP aircraft for the US president on 707 base should have had showers etc. in the aircraft. :)

Quote from: Dan380 on June 30, 2011, 09:46:03 PM
Some 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.

It's not irrelevant at all. In your previous post, you said "Do you really think they would have had it over ten years in development if they were just making it a little bit bigger?". You were trying to say that it took them ten years to build a new plane and that length of time wasn't because of its size but because of its technologies.

All they did with the A380 is upscale everything they previously knew into a bigger plane. The 777 was a new design except for the nose section, which was directly taken from the 767. Technology wise, the 777 had many new things in it as well and new construction methods and materials. It took Boeing longer to design it than it did the A380 which my point was that if everything on the A380 was new, then it would have taken even longer than the 777, but it didn't. Not even to mention the fact that it only took half the time you said.

Answer the underlined portion in your post like i asked in post I first addressed to you. What technologies and systems did they design from scratch? Nothing, if you can prove me wrong, like i said, i will retract my statement. Everything they used was 2000-2004 (at the latest) technology. Making something bigger, doesn't mean it's designed from scratch. That's like saying a CFM-56 engine that powered an A340-200/300 was designed from scratch. No it wasn't, it was just made bigger from the same engine that first flew on the 737 classics. Now I'm by no means saying they are exactly the same or that it's literally just "blown up" in size because nothing is like that in aviation. But they all share the same basic principles in design and its just minor tweaking from there.  

i have been saying this whole time that other than size there is nothing special about it.

If you compare the A380 to the 787, the A380 doesn't even come close to any sort of amount of a technology leap like the 787 does. Everything about the 787 is new, all the systems, interior features, everything. That's why it's been delayed for almost three years now, because everything was knew and Boeing had to learn how redo everything.

Quinoky, sure the A380 has showers in it with ONE specific airline, ONE airline, but no Boeing has ever been delayed over two years because interiors couldn't be installed right. Any plane could have showers installed if the airline wanted them, but it only makes sense for 2 maybe 3 airlines in the entire world to have them installed in the first place, no matter what aircraft. Those two airlines would be Emirates and Singapore and the third possible would be Qatar.

Oh btw way, how many A380 are on order as business jets? Oh righttttt.... 1... How many for the 747-8I.... 8 currently with probably another 3 to come for the next AF1 and a few others for countries that will be getting new presidential aircraft in the coming years. All of those aircraft have showers in them plus an elevator that goes all the way to ground level!


Im also not bashing the A380. Its a great achievement and gets the job done, even though its the ugliest plane ever made, but lets not pretend it is some god of a plane.

Man, someone should have told the engineers at Airbus that the only thing one needs to make a bigger plane, is to take all the plans for the existing plane you've got, throw them on the Xerox machine and hit the "200%" button.

Ta-da!  Upscaled plane!

If only.

You might as well say the 777 is just a stretched out 737 with huge engines on it.

Aerospace engineers used to think like that.  That's how you get thing like the single, but 5-feet tall, tires on the Convair B-36 with wings so huge you could walk in them -- they just took a plane that worked and made everything bigger.  Except they quickly found out, as building engineers learned a long time ago, that didn't work so well.  Because the forces at work against your design don't scale at the same rate as the thing you're enlarging.    Take a bridge that works with a 500' span and make it work with a 1000' span and it doesn't work.

"Nothing special but it's size?"  Is the Burj Khalifa nothing more than your average building upscaled a few times?  Was the Voyager spacecraft hurtling away from us somewhere in the heliosphere nothing more than a slightly extended jaunt around the block?  Was a Saturn Rocket just a glorified bottle rocket?  Is the Great Wall of China nothing but an overgrown fence?  Sure, technically, those are all true.  But the achievement of making some bigger is just a teeny, tiny, little bit more complex than just multiplying the plans times X.

And the time it takes to make something is entirely irrelevant to the complexity of the end result.  Human beings went from never having gone into space to walking on the moon in about as much time as it takes to bring a new model of car to market today.  "Time" is a meaningless number.  How many people were involved?  How many man-hours were ultimately spent?  How much money?  What kind of technological aids (i.e. efficiency multipliers) were available?  The most complex undertaking in the universe can take weeks if you throw enough money and people at it, and the simplest thing to do can take years if you don't throw as much effort its way.  Samsung will bring a new TV to  market in less time than it takes me to actually clean-out my garage -- which one's the more complex task?  It's completely impossible to compare 2 projects to one another on any singular basis alone, so to say that because something "took longer" that it was somehow, in any way, more complex or even a more impressive undertaking is ludicrous.

And whether something was designed "from scratch" is completely moot.  First and foremost, if you want to talk 'complexity' as you seem so intent to do, 'complexity' is not remarkable.  Anyone can do 'complex'.  It is refinement that is hard.  It's all that 'tweaking' to get something to work and be smaller, lighter, or otherwise better, and work 99.9999% of the time that's difficult.  And, frankly, there's little 'from scratch' in the aeronautical world of any significance since Bernoulli and the Wright Brothers.  It's mostly been "tweaking" from there.  2-engine, 4-engine, fly-by-wire, 5000lb-hydraulics, IMAs, CFRP, double-deck, winglets, 2-member crew, etc, etc, etc, they're all "tweaks" to the paradigm.  The 787 or 777 or whatever are no more, no less, of a paradigm shift in commercial aviation than the A380.  There's probably only been 3 paradigm shifts in commercial aviation at all -- the 747, the 707, and the DC-3 -- note the last one was some 50 years ago.  And it's unlikely there will ever be another one barring someone figuring out super-efficient SSTs.

One 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: swiftus27 on July 01, 2011, 01:37:42 AM
One 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.

Well that's just good sense.  Why re-invent the wheel if what you've got works fine, ya know?

It's a different story when you're a consortium, and you get countries to pony up some dough to finance the development of a new plane.  They're going to want a piece of the pie.  And that may mean they want you to expend some money redesigning a part that you buy from their country so that you employ engineers, tooling manufacturers, etc in that country rather than just keep on making the same part you have been for a while and likely getting production efficiencies (i.e. even less jobs).

Hello folks,

sorry to jump in, but I'd just like to add a bit of info on what makes the A380 special. I'm talking from a business standpoint, not from engineering standpoint (since I'm not).
3 positive unique aspects, and 1 negative one as well... (we need to talk on both sides)

What is A380 for airlines ? obviously, a bigger airplane, which was indeed originally designed to increase capacity at crowded expensive airports (like sbdy said before), while being more fuel efficient, etc; This was the original business interest;

Now from a business standpoint, A380 has three key advantages (call them core competencies, unique abilities,... or what best suits you) :

- it is an excellent plane on secondary airports for airlines, which differentiate him from its equivalents. If sbdy need to go from Munich to Singapore, he doesn't care that much about the timetable, but much more on safety and price.
Therefore, if you can offer an affordable flight from this city, and catch all of your demand in one shot, you tremendously reduce your operating costs (less staff needed, no dedicated counter needed (alliance counter is fine),... please note that the new B747-8 is expected to play a similar role.A380 allows business to serve airports with good demand, but not good enough to develop several stops.

- it is also an excellent marketing tool, probably unique. People actually WANT to fly the A380. The airline I work in did a test for that, by tracing the choices of people on the booking website. When people have the choice for the same day, at 1h30 difference, between a B777-300ER and an A380, 72% of people asked for the A380, although it was 6% more expensive. This makes the A380 unique, altough it is also unique by the mess at boarding...

- it is a damn profit maker, the best one of all airplanes, since the cost per seat is far smaller than on all equivalent aircrafts (i have figures, but sry can't share them since they're confidential). it rationalizes the costs, allows big savings, etc. May sound like nothing, but it is crucial for airlines like us.

And one last point making the A380 unique... (not a good one though)... it is probably a program which won't break even... the most admired plane of world need approx. 520 aircrafts to break even, due to tremendous costs generated by delivery issues. However, Airbus benefits from "success loans". They reimburse them only if they break even, downsizing their delivery point to around 125 a/c. This makes life easier for Airbus.

I love Airbus, I admire Boeing as well. I have no clear preference for the brand, but mainly for the type of a/c. To me, B777 is a GREAT plane, as well as the A330/340.

As for the debate on B777 development time, it was strongly delayed because the plane was too advanced at its first release and did not convince. It was also less well balanced than the current ones. The A340 suffers from the same issues of wrong balance. production lines are being slowed down to stop. The A350 will take over with a fresh breath (might also take over A330, but not so soon I guess ;-) )

Ok, I stop there the long reply. Thank you to those who read me to the end.

Kind regards to all of you, and good luck for your presentation mate.

flobacca

Sigma, i agree with you 100%. Every point you made, was what i was actually trying to say, but my "proof" was the wrong way to back it up. And when i typed my last post, it was meant to disprove Dan, not support my reasoning why it is nothing special other than its size.

Somehow i went way to complex with it when i simply could have summed it up with six words: there was no big step change.

However, 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.

Flobacca, good points. It is amazing how the name can affect its ridership. Though, I'm not quite sure yet if it really has to do with the A380 or the current airline's products. I'm guessing since you said Singapore, you work for Singapore Airlines, which is known for its quality product, but when say Austral gets its A380 in a 840 seat config, I'm a little skeptical that people will fly them just because its an A380 especially if another airline is offering flights with say a 777 or 787 or whatever.

Let's not forget, Lufthansa now uses the A380 as well.

Quote from: flightsimer on July 02, 2011, 06:30:56 AM
However, 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.

I have little doubt that most of the new features that the 787 is using will make their way into future models, as that's almost always the case thesedays as models come out so relatively rarely that each must be a fairly significant step over the previous -- I'm sure that's happened with both Boeing and Airbus for every model designed in the last 30 years, it was just that the designs were so similar in general appearance that it was difficult to notice and/or buried deep within the aircraft so it wasn't something  you could see was a shared component or idea.  Since the 787 appears so different (relatively speaking) it will become obvious when subsequent new designs share many of these features. 

But the 787 isn't going to change the way we fly.  It isn't going to bring air travel to the masses anymore than what already exists.  It isn't going to "make the world a smaller place" like the first jumbos by making international air-travel affordable.  It's simply an evolution of what we currently have and doesn't represent any sort of shift in the paradigm of commercial air travel at all.  Lightweight technologies and numerous 'behind-the-scenes' technological improvements save companies money in a time of rising fuel prices, but they won't create $20 plane tickets.   LED lighting, bigger windows, etc may make things a bit more comfortable, but they aren't exactly going to change the way we travel.  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: 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."

I 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: swiftus27 on July 02, 2011, 09:41:07 PM
I 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.

A 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. ;)

Quote from: Sigma on July 02, 2011, 10:26:07 PM
A 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. ;)

its already blown WAY past the A380 :) a funny fact is that there are nearly as many 787's sitting in Seattle now as the entire world's current A380 fleet after six years of production. As for the 747, its about half way there.

But anyways, i agree with swiftus about smaller cities. I mean the first routes for some of the initial operators have already been announced. A lot of them have never been able to commercially be successful until now. Like United's Houston-Auckland or Boston-Asia route that previously was flown but couldn't make a dime. (i can think what city it was, maybe Tokyo but i cant remember) But that was what Boeing designed it to do. It was built for the long thin routes that needed the range but not the capacity and while doing so still be the most efficient aircraft. Anyone can build a small plane with a lot of range, but its going to use a lot more fuel per passenger than even the bigger jets. Look at A318. Only two that i know of in the world are being used for long thin routes. The same with the 737-700ER, i only knew of one route and even it just got replaced last month or the month prior with a 767 i believe.

As for non-stops vs. one-stops. Its really 50-50 as to which is more expensive. I have tried to book one stops around specific aircraft just to experience them for the first time and the one-stops were more expensive than the non-stops.

I was looking for flights between Pittsburgh and Jo-burg and obviously there were no stops. But i could have flown a couple combos like PIT to Atlanta to Jo-burg
PIT to MSP to Paris to Jo-Burg
PIT to Paris to Jo-burg

and they all were relatively the same in price, but i think the MSP one was the most expensive, which it should be. Where one/two stops get more expensive is when they have to fly people backwards to go forwards like me flying PIT-MSP to go on to Paris when i could have just flown directly to Paris in the first place.

Say all those going form CLT-NCE are flying through JFK currently. your assuming that when the CLT-NCE flight starts, JFK-NCE is staying at its current capacity. if that flight is being flown with a 747 for example, they might drop it down to a 787 as well. the 787 is supposed to allow the industry to get away from the hub and spoke system and allow direct flights from the smaller airports that have the O/D capacity there, but nothing to economically serve the route.

Perhaps the 787 will end up 'inventing' new hubs around the world???  Fly into all of the secondary airports around the world and get there without the heavy fees seen at the largest?!?!?  It is very attractive. 

Hello

As for business standpoint here, when we look at the 787, we see, for the first time, a "small" plane for long distances, designed to be efficient on those long distance with few pax. From business standpoint, this is definitely opening great opportunities.

If we look at a company like Emirates for instance. The company intends (officiallu) to operate 120 A380 (although Dubai airport can't handle them for now...). But they also serve secondary airports, where there is not enough demand for these big planes like B777, A380, A330,... A 787 (or the A350-800) are perfectly designed for smaller airports like this, because you don't want to fly daily a big plane doing vladivostock-dubai or Reykjavik-JFK.

From my personal perspective, I firmly believe that the planes of tomorrow for long-haul will be A380, B777-300, B787 and A350 (A330 will slowly disappear to either B777 or A350).

As for this, the A380 is associated in marketing coms to prestige (for all of the 6 (soon 7) airlines operating it. Let's see what it becomes when Air Austral operates it or Air Asia X orders some xD

Have a nice day all

Quote from: flightsimer on July 03, 2011, 07:32:17 PM
its already blown WAY past the A380 :) a funny fact is that there are nearly as many 787's sitting in Seattle now as the entire world's current A380 fleet after six years of production.

So you're telling me there's about 70 787's in Seattle right now?... Really?  ::)

Hmm weren't the skies meant to be full of 787s by the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games according to Boeing ::)

Those 787s on the ground in Seattle aren't much use right now

Quote from: Dan380 on July 06, 2011, 10:51:15 PM
So you're telling me there's about 70 787's in Seattle right now?... Really?  ::)

might want to look up some actual numbers before posting, just two weeks ago i believe it was, Airbus delivered the 53rd A380. They wont hit 70 until mid next year.

As of today, there are currently 39 787's completed and sitting on the ground at paine field, flying or in Austin with another 4 in final assembly with L/n 44 scheduled to enter final assembly in two weeks. In less than a month, the south carolina plane will begin its first 787 destined for United. Once that plant comes alive, production will be at 2.5 a month. Boeing is predicting that 20-25 787's will be delivered this year, so at the end of 2011, the 787 fleet in service will be nearly half of the A380's total fleet in its 6 years of production or 4 years of deliveries. By the end of next year, the 787 will probably be close to twice the A380 fleet.

Don't know where your numbers are coming from mate. 69 A380s have been completed so far, as opposed to 8 787s. (half built doesn't count!)

But it's a stupid point really, because of course 787 production will exceed A380 production, and then some. It's like telling me there are more fords on the road than lambourghinis. Doesn't mean the ford is a better car.  ::)

Quote from: Dan380 on July 07, 2011, 09:40:44 AM
Don't know where your numbers are coming from mate. 69 A380s have been completed so far, as opposed to 8 787s. (half built doesn't count!)

But it's a stupid point really, because of course 787 production will exceed A380 production, and then some. It's like telling me there are more fords on the road than lambourghinis.  ::)

Officially, I believe we are at 50 A380 delivered, and 19 more on testing and rolling.

Last delivery was Singapore Airline's 12th A380 on June 16th, which was as well the 50th A380 delivered.

Haven't seen any more delivery on the log since then.

Quote from: Dan380 on July 07, 2011, 09:40:44 AM
Don't know where your numbers are coming from mate. 69 A380s have been completed so far, as opposed to 8 787s. (half built doesn't count!)

But it's a stupid point really, because of course 787 production will exceed A380 production, and then some. It's like telling me there are more fords on the road than lambourghinis. Doesn't mean the ford is a better car.  ::)

your right it is a stupid point, but i didnt say anything about completed 380's, i said there are nearly as many 787's sitting on the ground in Washington as there are flying in the worldwide fleet. There have been only 51 A380's delivered to date and only 50 currently in service(from airbus' site, I swore i read 53 in one of the press releases during Paris).

The majority of the 787's sitting in washington now don't have engines because of the costs Boeing would have to pay for them to sit with the engines attached. However, for the most part they are done. Its just some rework that came from the testing program that has to be finished. There is only 1 787 left that is currently in side-body rework and then after that, no 787's requires that process.

The same is true for the 747-8's most are sitting with no engines, but as soon as its certified, they will be installed, it will be painted and then they can be delivered right away.

Quote from: flightsimer on July 07, 2011, 05:17:24 PM

The same is true for the 747-8's most are sitting with no engines, but as soon as its certified, they will be installed, it will be painted and then they can be delivered right away.

I like your optimism... might take a bit of time for delivery though ;-)

Any source confirming your figures ? I'm interested to know why they have already produced so many 787 while they don't know :

1/ if a major change is needed to cerify the plane (it happened with the A380 in the flutter test)
2/ What might be production mistakes which need to be updated (also happened w/ A380 for the first 10 aircrafts)

Thx for keeping us informed on this

http://nyc787.blogspot.com/

All things 787. They have two charts that are updated every day on the production status and flight testing of the 787 and a flight testing chart for the 747-8.

The next 787 out of the FAL will be L/n 40 for JAL.

Now i know as of yesterday, Boeing has shifted some aircraft around because it was announced that the first set of wings arrived in Charleston for the first 787 there. But they said it was for a Ethiopian Aircraft, but previously the first aircraft built there was supposed to be for United. They also said the first five built there would be for Ethiopian. So i don't know if they shifted United's aircraft to a later date, or its now being built in Seattle. But for the most part, that is the most accurate list available for production lists.

I know from what has all been said through news releases and from reading posts on a.net from people who are involved with the program, for the 787 there were four main issues that had/have to be dealt with for the 787 that were still issues during testing.

*Side-Body Join- only the first 15 aircraft required it. L/n 15 is currently having it done (according to A.T.787)
*Horizontal stabilizer- I believe all inspections have been completed, but i cant find any info on it. All Horizontal stabilizers that arrived since mid-late last year have been to production standard.
*Electrical panel- fixed with a hardware and software change
*Landing gear- there was some early issues with the landing gear doors or actuators. The second 787 to fly landed with the doors fully open on its first flight. This also was not the only occurrence i saw, but i haven't seen it happen since early in the test program.

Otherwise, i haven't heard of any flaws or issues with the design like the 747-8 has.



For the 747, there were just three main design issues that have already been solved and the corrections have already been certified for use. So they have already started installing all the fixes on all the currently completed aircraft. Boeing is predicting 20-25 747-8's to be delivered this year as well, so it sounds like they are all pretty close to being in final production standard. They haven't announced how far along they are with certification, but they have to be close. I'm predicting they deliver the first to cargolux within a month of the first 787.

* Buffet when gear extended and flaps at 30- changed gear door geometry and position when the gear is extended
* flutter during certain conditions- fixed by using the outer ailerons to dampen the flutter
* Oscillation in the inner ailerons- fixed by installing a larger pump to those ailerons
* The 747-8 is also having issues with its flight management computer, however it won't delay delivery as even without part that is acting up, the computer still has all the capabilities that the 747-400's has. I believe i read that it is the RNAV acting up.

Quote from: swiftus27 on July 03, 2011, 08:22:03 PM
Perhaps the 787 will end up 'inventing' new hubs around the world???  Fly into all of the secondary airports around the world and get there without the heavy fees seen at the largest?!?!?  It is very attractive.  

It may not necessarily be hubs, just more direct international flights from medium sized airports.

As far as 787 concept vs. 380 concept, they will be in an indirect competition.  More flights from secondary airports mean less traffic (and congestion) at the largest airports.  But all of that depends on how airlines deploy this aircraft.

I will actually be flying on A380 Lufthansa to Frankfurt next month - transferring to Vienna there.  I picked that particular flight because of curiosity factor.  That's probably what's behind the current preference other people alluded to.  But everything else being equal (A380 no longer being a curiosity), a direct Austrian Airlines flight to Vienna would win hands down.  Austrian is flying 777 on JFK - VIE route (772 I believe).

Quote from: JumboShrimp on July 08, 2011, 06:42:08 PM
I will actually be flying on A380 Lufthansa to Frankfurt next month - transferring to Vienna there.  I picked that particular flight because of curiosity factor.  That's probably what's behind the current preference other people alluded to.  But everything else being equal (A380 no longer being a curiosity), a direct Austrian Airlines flight to Vienna would win hands down.  Austrian is flying 777 on JFK - VIE route (772 I believe).

After the flight to NZ I had on an EK A380 and EK B777 I can honestly say the A380 has more than a curiosity factor to it. It is noticeably more comfortable than the B777. What I noticed was that the seats in economy are ever so slightly bigger and the windows are much larger. It also seemed a lot airier than the B777. In the future I plan to use A380 where possible after that. 

Quote from: Dave4468 on July 08, 2011, 07:29:48 PM
After the flight to NZ I had on an EK A380 and EK B777 I can honestly say the A380 has more than a curiosity factor to it. It is noticeably more comfortable than the B777. What I noticed was that the seats in economy are ever so slightly bigger and the windows are much larger. It also seemed a lot airier than the B777. In the future I plan to use A380 where possible after that. 

Well, the seating configuration is what an airline orders.  Last summer, I was on a 757 in something United called Economy Plus (or something like that).  The seats were super roomy and comfortable.  and that's on an aging aircraft.

I appreciate the less claustrophobic feel.  IIRC, the old Lockheed 1011 had that...  I will see about A380...

But, as I said, if the difference is a 1 stop flight on A380 vs. nonstop flight on anything else at the same or nearly the same price, it is hardly a contest...

I can appreciate what is being eluded to above me.

The A380 had that WOW!!!!! factor going for it as it was the first double decker (all the way back) in existence.
The 787 is just another widebody that doesn't look too different from its peers already flying. 

Alot of the 'spirit' one has for the A380 comes from this.

Here we go...

"easyJet Atlantic"....  ;D

(https://www.airwaysim.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cardatabase.net%2Fmodifiedairlinerphotos%2Fphotos%2Fbig%2F00007320.jpg&hash=ef93c066eb1955ea0e8e267fc2412bbba1912026)

Wow, that looks very realistic. I think with their business model it would fit as well (fit as many sheep in the cattle car as you can).

Quote from: Quinoky on July 11, 2011, 10:07:29 AM
Wow, that looks very realistic. I think with their business model it would fit as well (fit as many sheep in the cattle car as you can).

No I'm afraid I disagree. The low cost model (in europe at least) favours frequency over mass capacity. Flying a smaller, more economical, aircraft like the 787 would also allow them to serve thinner routes that the A380 could not, whilst keeping fleet costs down.

Essentially the same reasons they haven't been flying 747s on those eruopean trunk routes!

I agree with Quinoky, I've heard more than a few commentators say that the A380 could start long haul low cost flying just by the fact you can get 800 odd people in there. Don't think the frequency argument, while very true for short haul plays anywhere near as much a part long haul.

Quote from: Dave4468 on July 12, 2011, 07:16:26 AM
I agree with Quinoky, I've heard more than a few commentators say that the A380 could start long haul low cost flying just by the fact you can get 800 odd people in there. Don't think the frequency argument, while very true for short haul plays anywhere near as much a part long haul.

We need a true low-cost order to confirm that it's viable, which hasn't been confirmed for now.

I agree on the fact that it costs a lot in maintenance, and I'm not sure that low costs like Air Asia X or similar can really fill a plane up to 800 pax per flight...

But it's true that it can actually accomodate 800 pax in one shot, so technically, we might see a low cost offering that on the long term.

The only all economy classs order for the A380 has been from Air Austral. It suits them because they only really have one long haul route, and its a high demand trunk route. For other low cost operators (If we assume Air Austral can be called one) it makes very little sense to operate the A380.
Don't forget the A380 is designed for the needs of hub-and-spoke airlines, such as Emirates and Singapore, where as low cost operators follow the point-to-point model. Very few routes in the world could support an A380 on point-to-point demand alone, and most are already over saturated by incumbent airlines.

Quote from: Flobacca on July 12, 2011, 04:11:59 PM
We need a true low-cost order to confirm that it's viable, which hasn't been confirmed for now.

I agree on the fact that it costs a lot in maintenance, and I'm not sure that low costs like Air Asia X or similar can really fill a plane up to 800 pax per flight...

But it's true that it can actually accomodate 800 pax in one shot, so technically, we might see a low cost offering that on the long term.

Air Austral...  they will be using their two in 840 pax configs flying Reunion-Paris which is 5050nm. Though i dont know if they are truely a LCC

edit: dont know how i didnt see dan's post above...

Quote from: Dave4468 on July 08, 2011, 07:29:48 PM
After the flight to NZ I had on an EK A380 and EK B777 I can honestly say the A380 has more than a curiosity factor to it. It is noticeably more comfortable than the B777. What I noticed was that the seats in economy are ever so slightly bigger and the windows are much larger. It also seemed a lot airier than the B777. In the future I plan to use A380 where possible after that.  

Thats because Emirates, and most other airlines today, put 10 abreast in their Economy sections. If you ever fly KLM's 777's which are only 9 abreast, i bet your opinion would change greatly.

It will be the same case with the 787. Most airlines are putting 9 abreast, but if you fly it with some of the airlines with only 8 abreast, you will like those better.

Quote from: flightsimer on July 13, 2011, 01:25:13 AM
Thats because Emirates, and most other airlines today, put 10 abreast in their Economy sections. If you ever fly KLM's 777's which are only 9 abreast, i bet your opinion would change greatly.

10th abreast on the 777 is becoming more common - even KLM has adopted it on its 777-300ER fleet. I believe KLM's 777-200ERs are still 9 abreast though, for now at least...
KLM 777-300ER cabin view (http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM---Royal/Boeing-777-306-ER/1747074/L/)

Do you really think there is not enough demand for London-New York LCC model?

800x150 = 120.000 (and those are the lowest available fares... per flight.

Happy landings

Heck, even Amsterdam - New York, Paris - New York or Frankfurt - New York would support an 800 seat low cost service.

Quote from: Maarten Otto on July 13, 2011, 08:31:47 AM
Do you really think there is not enough demand for London-New York LCC model?

800x150 = 120.000 (and those are the lowest available fares... per flight.

Happy landings

Is $120,000 the cost for the round trip?  Or is it in Euro?  Well, you have to account for some overhead.  But at that price, A380 would certainly become very popular...  Right now, there is no advantage for the passenger....  I can already fly to all the places it flies for the same price on other aircraft...

Quote from: Maarten Otto on July 13, 2011, 08:31:47 AM
Do you really think there is not enough demand for London-New York LCC model?

800x150 = 120.000 (and those are the lowest available fares... per flight.

Happy landings

If it was really that simple, why haven't ANY low cost airlines even CONSIDERED ordering the A380? The answers my friend, are written in the posts above.  8)

Also, the high upfront cost isn't too appealing to an LCC.

Actually, besides the NASA-esque initial cost of purchasing it, what the LCC really offer is frequency IMHO.

ACtually Skymark is a LCC, but they are configuring theirs with an all Business class 2nd floor and an all premium econ 1st floor and they will have the lowest passenger count of all current A380 operators.

Quote from: flightsimer on July 13, 2011, 01:25:13 AM
Thats because Emirates, and most other airlines today, put 10 abreast in their Economy sections. If you ever fly KLM's 777's which are only 9 abreast, i bet your opinion would change greatly.

It will be the same case with the 787. Most airlines are putting 9 abreast, but if you fly it with some of the airlines with only 8 abreast, you will like those better.

But the A380 was also 10 abreast. So like for like 3-4-3 on an A380 is allows for bigger more comfortable seats than 3-4-3 on a B777 (and I presume most other things), and the airline can shoehorn in a good lot of people!

Quote from: Dave4468 on July 14, 2011, 05:21:32 AM
But the A380 was also 10 abreast. So like for like 3-4-3 on an A380 is allows for bigger more comfortable seats than 3-4-3 on a B777 (and I presume most other things), and the airline can shoehorn in a good lot of people!

But your missing the point.

The 777 was designed origionally as a 9 abreast aircraft and was marketed as such. However, the majority of the airlines started putting in slightly narrower seats and isles which allowed for 10 abreast. Even now, one of the major changes airlines want for the 777 in the future is having narrow fuselage walls so they can put the 10 abreast in with the safe comfort levels as the plane in 9 abreast.

The A380 is 11 abreast on the main deck when its in the full 840pax config. Emirates seat width on their current a380's, at 10 abreast, is only 18in in economy. Their 777's in 10 abreast is 17in wide. A 777 in 9 abreast has seats 18.5in wide.

The same is true for the 787. Boeing intended it to be 8 abreast but the 9 abreast option was for tour operators like Thomson or Thomas Cook, etc. But as it turned out, the majority of the regular airlines chose the 9 abreast and ironically, some tour operators are using 8 abreast.

So its not that the Aircraft is roomier, its just how the airlines have configured it.

To put in in AWS terms, it's like the A380 has standard seats, and the 777 has HD seats. or maybe, the A380 has premium, and the 777 has standard seats. So yeah, the A380 is more comfortable, but not because of the plane. It's because the airline's config for the A380 is better for the passenger...

Quote from: flightsimer on July 14, 2011, 07:41:24 PM
But your missing the point...

Surely the point is that it is blatantly clear that as costs go up airlines want more people on each plane, so 3-4-3 ten abreast is going to get more and more common? Therefore an economy seat that is just that one inch wider and that one inch more comfortable and that one inch more sell-able is going be better for the airline in question. If the 787s are being fitted out for 10 maybe it should have been made a little wider.

Trust me, one inch makes a BIG difference  ::)

Quote from: BobTheCactus on July 14, 2011, 07:47:24 PM
To put in in AWS terms, it's like the A380 has standard seats, and the 777 has HD seats. or maybe, the A380 has premium, and the 777 has standard seats. So yeah, the A380 is more comfortable, but not because of the plane. It's because the airline's config for the A380 is better for the passenger...

Well yes.. Yes it is because of the plane. You see, it is because of the A380's size that it is now much more economically viable to operate with more comfortable seats.

Quote from: Dave4468 on July 14, 2011, 07:54:42 PM
If the 787s are being fitted out for 10 maybe it should have been made a little wider.

To what end?

If Boeing designed the 787 for 190829018094820948190824908124081092480928409184098240980911 seats per row, then the airline could always add an extra seat per row and make it "HD" seating instead of "standard", and they are back at their original problem.

The heart of the issue  is that airlines are willing to sacrifice passenger comfort for packing more seats in. Just because EK made a decision to have 10 abreast in the A380 and 10 abreast in the 777, that doesn't mean that the A380 is a better plane than the 787 in terms of passenger comfort (if just looking from seat width), it means that when choosing the A380 or the 777 in the configurations of EK, the A380 is a better choice from a seat width standpoint.

Quote from: Quinoky on July 14, 2011, 08:31:27 PM
Well yes.. Yes it is because of the plane. You see, it is because of the A380's size that it is now much more economically viable to operate with more comfortable seats.

Right now, it may be that way.

But:
1) if prices shot up and the airplanes were getting filled, I have no doubt that many airlines would immediately reconfigure to hold more pax, sacrificing comfort
2) the fact that the airlines choose to configure this way has does not mean that the plane itself is less comfortable, it means that the configuration is less comfortable. There is a big difference.

Quote from: flightsimer on July 14, 2011, 07:41:24 PM
The A380 is 11 abreast on the main deck when its in the full 840pax config.

The 853 seat maximum for which the A380-800 is certified is achieved with 10-abreast on the main deck and 8-abreast on the upper deck. The emergency evacuation test of the 853 seat configuration, plus 20 crew members, was completed in 78 seconds. The regulatory authorities prescribe a maximum time of 90 seconds to evacuate all of the occupants from an aircraft. This means Airbus has 12 seconds to play with - perhaps they could look at 11-abreast on the main deck and boost max capacity above 853...

Upper deck (2-4-2) clearly shown on the video below. Main deck is not so clearly shown, but you can see it is 10-abreast (3-4-3) by the seat numbering on the headrests at about 1:35 in the video.
A380 evacuation test video (http://youtu.be/_gqWeJGwV_U)

Quote from: Dave4468 on June 29, 2011, 09:10:14 AM
They are planes. (Just a thought in case you needed to be reminded)  ;)

Wow well without you I don't know where my project would be..... ;)

The reply at the first page (A390 thingy) made me think about this;

What would be the absolute maximum size of an airplane? I mean, at some point, there must be a limit when the gravity beats the lifting force.

But is there any evidence or research that would answer this question?

Forget gravity, try the FAA. Maximum allowed size for a regular commercial aircraft is 80m length by 80m wingspan for taxi and manoeuvre purposes. A380 is 78m wide so can't get much more.

In terms of a maximum theoretical size, physics would not be the limit but most likely the powerplant.

How else does one deal with gravity/downforce?  You need more lift.  To get it, you need more thrust to generate it, less induced drag, and/or more wing area.  

The other way is to have less "gravity" by lowering weight.
 
Alas, you're right.  Most of this is in the powerplant. At some point, there will be diminishing returns as these fans can only get so big.  

There is such a love affair for this 380

Quote from: alexgv1 on August 01, 2011, 02:32:00 PM
In terms of a maximum theoretical size, physics would not be the limit but most likely the powerplant.

Imagine sticking 4 GE90-115B engines on the A380...

The 773 engine?  With 4 of those on an A380, you could fill the plane with liquid metal and it will still have togo power

This is not completely impossible... Airbus is actually working on an improved version of the A380, probably A380-1000. It would be about 750 persons load in "regular seating", but about 1000 is LCC seating.

WOuld probably need powerful engines like B773...

But IMHO, I doubt this project will give birht... A380 is already critically big and the project has been far more costy than expected. I doubt there is a STRONG need for a bigger plane.

Yeah I doubt the initially proposed variants A380-900 and A380F will ever surface. The latter especially as FedEx defected to the 777F.

Quote from: Meicci on August 01, 2011, 01:30:28 PM
The reply at the first page (A390 thingy) made me think about this;

What would be the absolute maximum size of an airplane? I mean, at some point, there must be a limit when the gravity beats the lifting force.

But is there any evidence or research that would answer this question?

Lift, to make it stupid simple, is a function of wing surface area.  Assuming zero improvements in engine power, you would reach a theoretical limit where wingspan/area would reach a point where the wings become too heavy for additional engines to make up for the weight increase.  You could have an aircraft with a wingspan of 1 mile if you had enough engines.

I could have some real fun in this thread, just as well I'm on holiday or I'd be having a field day.

8)

Quote from: LemonButt on August 02, 2011, 03:19:48 PM
Lift, to make it stupid simple, is a function of wing surface area.  Assuming zero improvements in engine power, you would reach a theoretical limit where wingspan/area would reach a point where the wings become too heavy for additional engines to make up for the weight increase.  You could have an aircraft with a wingspan of 1 mile if you had enough engines.

The induced drag would be amazing... new wing designs are also becoming popular.  Look at the 787 in flight.   They curve in this amazing way.

Quote from: swiftus27 on August 02, 2011, 04:09:39 PM
Look at the 787 in flight.   They curve in this amazing way.

Raked wingtips. Twice the drag reduction of blended winglets on long sectors.

Quote from: alexgv1 on August 02, 2011, 04:21:54 PM
Raked wingtips. Twice the drag reduction of blended winglets on long sectors.

A bit off-topic...

Does the wingtips/lets affect how a plane performs in big-ish turbulences?

I ask this because personally I notice the A343 doesn't shake as hard as the 77Ws. Or, more like the shaking of the A343 feels a bit 'controlled'. It can't be a coincidence that I get bigger turbulences whenever I'm on a 77W especially when I've been taking both A343 and 77W approx. 3 times each a year for the past 4 years.

Quote from: LuisSuarez7 on August 02, 2011, 05:22:24 PM
A bit off-topic...

Does the wingtips/lets affect how a plane performs in big-ish turbulences?

Not particularly. Their side area is too small to even add to lateral stability. FYI B77W has raked wingtips also. A343 has only winglets. Only speculation is that the 340 has larger wingspan so adds stability.

I found personally that there was no more shaky experience than the GE90s on the B77W spooling up for a step climb. Very awesome; you can feel the power.

Quote from: alexgv1 on August 02, 2011, 07:18:59 PM
Not particularly. Their side area is too small to even add to lateral stability. FYI B77W has raked wingtips also. A343 has only winglets. Only speculation is that the 340 has larger wingspan so adds stability.

I found personally that there was no more shaky experience than the GE90s on the B77W spooling up for a step climb. Very awesome; you can feel the power.

I see. Thanks for clarifying. :)

With shaky experience, try flying above a monsoon, awesome 8) . I always say to myself 'brace yourself' when I see the plane going towards a wall of cloud at 38,000 feet.

Quote from: LuisSuarez7 on August 03, 2011, 01:22:39 AM
I see. Thanks for clarifying. :)

With shaky experience, try flying above a monsoon, awesome 8) . I always say to myself 'brace yourself' when I see the plane going towards a wall of cloud at 38,000 feet.

You're welcome. Glad to be of some use  :D

Flying into Hong Kong during a tropical storm was interesting. Did it during the great one of '09 in a 330. Lots of windshear, was a point or two where the plane plummeted. And the RVR was tiny. Barely saw the runway until we were on it. Fun stuff.