Airbus A380 to take flight for the very first time

[HeilSvenska]

The graceful giantess of the sky, the newly launched Airbus A380 will make its maiden voyage on April 27th, 2005, if the weather and technicalities allow. On the flight will be the Vice President of Airbus’ Flight Test Division, Fernando Alonso (not the Spanish F1 star).

The Airbus A380 was launched January this year as the European rival, if not replacement for the aging Boeing 747. It is said to be the most advanced passenger jet and one of the most efficient. It is definitely the largest. It's one of the most expensive as well, as the A3XX-A380 project is rumoured to cost 12billion+euros. Thanks to its large size, the A380 can have many facilities that are not available in existing commercial jets such as a duty-free shops, bars, parlors, plus casinos and beds, in which one has at least two ways to get lucky according to Sir Richard Branson. The coolest thing for me about the A380 is that you can have one with Rolls-Royce engines.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4481733.stm
http://www.airbus.com/airbus4u/articles_detail.asp?ae_id=1686

[RC45]

Without airports upgraded to handle the influx of pax when a couple arrive it's a rather pointless upgrade.

Could you imagine a Heathrow or Schipol or O'Hare that had regular 747 traffic replaced with a fleet of these.

I can think of 2 scenarios - the first is that without jetway upgrades embarking and disembarking will take 3 times as long...

and the second is after jetways are upgraded the fact that twice as many pax will be arriving and departing for the same number of flights.

:roll:

[GT-R_R34]

just think of ticket lines.
i don't think that LAX is going to be ready. i think most of the 380 are going to be at the remote gates.
the plane is great if they are going to use 1 plane instead of 2 747's.

[T-Bird]

It will be one hell of a sight seeing these things flying around here (not too far from O'hare flight circle traffic) It's very easy to identify the planes overhead Maybe I can get on one when I go overseas next year.

[gobs3z]

I think it's a great looking plane, but the concept they're going after with more people per flight is going to flop imo. Boeing's 7E7 seems to me to be a better way for air travel by having a more luxurious cabin for the common person which will make air travel a lot more comfortable than it is today and will also get people back to wanting to fly since it won't be a hassle/uncomfortable on the plane. This is still trying to get the most people possible on an aircraft to save money for airlines. Looks awesome, but not the best idea for this time period of air travel.

[HeilSvenska]

It's no longer called the 7E7 (E probably being Experimental), it's now more ubiquitous sounding 787.

The 787 does sound great, but it's still years away, unfortunately.

What i want to know is what's going on with the Sonic Cruiser concept. Boeing's been quiet about it since 2002. It's supposed to be the fastest commercial plane since the Concorde.

[gobs3z]

The "E" in 7E7 stands for efficiency. And the last update was in 2002 for the Sonic Cruiser from Boeing. I think it's in the works but they just need to get past the issues of cost vs. speed. Thats where the Concorde lost out and was a business catastrophe. They're using a "cranked arrow" which has so little drag that plane can fly sub-sonic ( Mach .95-.98 ) and not waist fuel that the delta wing on the Concorde has which wastes a lot more fuel than this Sonic Cruiser concept. They might use the 777's engines if it's ever built. Here's a neat rendering
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_plane2-lg.jpg

[blah]

The baggage people are screwed. Think about how much baggage will come form one of these. Now think of 2 or 3 at once.

[vexor]

^^^ That's a lot of baggage....

But I heard that Vancouver International Airport is all ready to take these new A380 planes, hopefully if i see one in the skies i'll have my camera with me and grab a few pics of it.

[zondaland]

The interesting thing for me is that airbus tend to manufacture their planes from composite materials, while boeing tend to manufacture theirs from aluminium. This means that the A380 (and other airbus planes) are relatively light compared to their size. Also with the A380 being so much newer than the 747 I understand that it is significantly better aerodynamically. Overall I understand that the actual costs per passenger for the A380 will be less than those for the 747.

Living in Sydney I can also assure you that the A380 will be used where airlines have strict quotas on flights into airports (the Sydney airport is pathetically tiny). For example Singapore Airlines is one of the major buyers for the A380 and plan to try to crack the Australian market more with the A380.

[gobs3z]

The interesting thing for me is that airbus tend to manufacture their planes from composite materials, while boeing tend to manufacture theirs from aluminium. This means that the A380 (and other airbus planes) are relatively light compared to their size.

This is where the 787 comes in. Boeing is using composite materials, very light weight, and airbus is bashing boeing saying that they're composites are not advanced enough to be put into service and they're rushing it which is at all not true, but thats competition for ya. The 787 is supposed to make air travle A LOT cheaper than it is now. Boeing is thinking of created an all new Boeing 747 called the 747 Advanced to compete with the A380. Boeing is still selling 747 cargo planes but next year they'll be finished with the 400 model and maybe we'll see an even larger jet from Boeing if the A380 has a market.

[gigdy]

The "E" in 7E7 stands for efficiency. And the last update was in 2002 for the Sonic Cruiser from Boeing. I think it's in the works but they just need to get past the issues of cost vs. speed. Thats where the Concorde lost out and was a business catastrophe. They're using a "cranked arrow" which has so little drag that plane can fly sub-sonic ( Mach .95-.98 ) and not waist fuel that the delta wing on the Concorde has which wastes a lot more fuel than this Sonic Cruiser concept. They might use the 777's engines if it's ever built. Here's a neat rendering
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/tb_plane2-lg.jpg

The sonic cruiser is very dead. and should and will probably never be revived.

[GT-R_R34]

to let everyone know the 787 is going to replace the 767 not the 747. saw it on the latest aviationweek. don't know if they just came out with the 767-600. now they are going to use the 777-200LR (LongRange). i think Boing is going after the long range and fuel economy. rather than how many people can it load into it.

[zondaland]

I did read that Boeing are of the belief that the airline routes will suffer a major fragmentation. They feel that traditional high volume routes will diminish, with people going to more destinations, they are also apparently of the opinion that in the future there will be many more direct routes, rather than the current system of essentially major hubs with smaller routes from there. Because of this they were saying that they felt large planes (747, A380) would not be in high demand over the longer term. But as with all things, logic and modelling could very easily be shown to be a complete moron. If the A380 is immensely popular then no doubt Boeing will launch a competitor.

[jakaracman]

140 orders (and new ones keep comming) shows that it'll at least be financial success for Airbus, if not (if Boeing is correct) for alirlines.
And it's supposed to be more comfortable for economy passengers than current planes, because it's a double-decker and could pack 600+ pax if otfitted the same as 340 or 747, but will "only" pack 500-550 ...

[blah]

I hate airbus. Im a fan of Boeing, ive always thought of airbus as cheap.

[gobs3z]

Well i've always seen Boeing as the leader in passanger air travel since they've been in the game the longest and have the most experience with innovation. To my knowledge Airbus doesn't have any defense contracts like Boeing. Since Boeing has defense contracts it forces them to push the limits innovation. Boeing has far more advanced technologies than Airbus just by looking at the other branches they. Boeing lost out on the JSF program, but they gained several advancements in aviation from the fight with Lockheed over the contract. Taking what they learned from their aircraft they can apply it to their passanger aircraft such as less expensive ways to build carbon fiber wings and composite materials.

[blah]

LOL I love it how our American members here all say boeing is the best and they are far more advanced when airbus just have launched the most hightech and biggest passanger plane today.......

In a couple of years when boeing realize this plane are a sucses they will also build their giant......

I realize you want to support your own company and all, but this plane is great and it will bring passanger travel a step further...

Of course we should have had cheap super sonic flight instead, but it doesnt seem to be the way it goes..... :(

Its ok as long as boieng makes the planes that will bomb your house thats all that matters. 8)

[gobs3z]

I just can't think of anything that Airbus has ever done to drastically change the aero industry. Well Boeing developed the first glass cockpits for production airliners, and the Boeing 247D was the first truly modern airliner. It was almost like the Concorde of the early 1930s because it was so fast. And airbus adds extra seats to an airplane, wooptydoo, haha. :wink:

The Euro-Fighter is one hell of a plane, it took England, Germany, Spain, Italy to develope it. While the lonely U.S. developes the more superior F-22. Lets just hope all these countries fight with each other and never against or else brembo might just end up watching Euro-Fighter crash in front of his house.

[blah]

LOL yeah I guess when the imperalistic hands of the US starts making havoc in Europe too that will be the case, we just have to try and use those crappy F-16 planes and such to defend us..... :lol: if we havnt gotten the Euro fighter by then that is...... :wink:

Next time the germans come skiing into your villages dont call us, well be busy driving our SUVs on rims anyways. :lol:

[gobs3z]

I just can't think of anything that Airbus has ever done to drastically change the aero industry. Well Boeing developed the first glass cockpits for production airliners, and the Boeing 247D was the first truly modern airliner. It was almost like the Concorde of the early 1930s because it was so fast. And airbus adds extra seats to an airplane, wooptydoo, haha. :wink:


LOL your post reminds me of those people who think its just to slap a turbo charger on a engine and by magic make a ton more power..... :wink:

I do not say that boeing havnt made great planes, but for how long can you live on have done and the past....... :P ....the E-type jag was fast in its days too, but not that fast compared to what you get today...... :wink:

Are you saying you can't just put a T-78 turbo on a Suzuki Swift and make 1200hp, your crazy!!! :lol: The only other large aircraft designer is Lockheed, and maybe someday they'll put Boeing and Airbus to shame.

[blah]

I just can't think of anything that Airbus has ever done to drastically change the aero industry. Well Boeing developed the first glass cockpits for production airliners, and the Boeing 247D was the first truly modern airliner. It was almost like the Concorde of the early 1930s because it was so fast. And airbus adds extra seats to an airplane, wooptydoo, haha. :wink:


LOL your post reminds me of those people who think its just to slap a turbo charger on a engine and by magic make a ton more power..... :wink:

I do not say that boeing havnt made great planes, but for how long can you live on have done and the past....... :P ....the E-type jag was fast in its days too, but not that fast compared to what you get today...... :wink:

Are you saying you can't just put a T-78 turbo on a Suzuki Swift and make 1200hp, your crazy!!! :lol: The only other large aircraft designer is Lockheed, and maybe someday they'll put Boeing and Airbus to shame.

I think boieng is gonna take over lockheed in the not to far future. THey are working together more and more on tech and planes. AIrbus will be crushed! You know us americans, we cant have the french out do us.

[gobs3z]

The U.S. government won't let Boeing take over Lockheed, ever...... For the reason that they need two major aircraft manufacturers to keep competition high which drives the technology portion of the aeronautics. And the you know the U.S. feels about monopolies. :wink: If history says anything, I'm pretty sure that all the French Euro-Fighters will end up in their enemies hands in no time.

[blah]

AHAHAHAHAHA That was a good one about the french. They will end up with all their missiles, the tags not even off them.

Also i wouldnt be suprised if the Government allowed it in order to fight airbus. Hell they let McDonald Douglas and Boeing merge and McD was the second biggest in the world.

[RC45]

LOL I love it how our American members here all say boeing is the best and they are far more advanced when airbus just have launched the most hightech and biggest passanger plane today.......

In a couple of years when boeing realize this plane are a sucses they will also build their giant......

I realize you want to support your own company and all, but this plane is great and it will bring passanger travel a step further...

Of course we should have had cheap super sonic flight instead, but it doesnt seem to be the way it goes..... :(

Airbus and Boeing are equal counerparts in the jet liner business.. but such a huge plane is a stupid idea.

All you do is place a huge strain on existing airports that are already stretched to capacity.

[RC45]

Airbus and Boeing are equal counerparts in the jet liner business.. but such a huge plane is a stupid idea.

All you do is place a huge strain on existing airports that are already stretched to capacity.

Thats a retarded statment RC there will be the same amount of people traveling in 2006 with or without the Airbus...
The only differene is that if all the Boeing jumbos where changed with Airbus planes there would be half of the planes flying in and out of the airports thereby less "traffic jams" in the air and on the run way.......

Its easy really if you take 20 cars out of the city and put the people in them onto a bus there will be 20 less cars cluttering up the traffic and everybody will be coming and going faster......it just happens that it was Airbus launching its plane first and not the mighty Boeing so you dont like it.....
Im sure you will change your tune when Boeing announce their big bird as Im sure it must be terrible for an American company not to have the biggest plane anymore, and when its the French who got it, it must be even harder.... :lol:

Give it a few years and Boeing will come around when they see the Airbus doing well.....they hoped for 150 sold planes by the summer of 2005 by now they have sold 144 and they flew it for the first time two days ago.......It seems it will work out nicely for Airbus...... :D

I will call any company who makes such big aircraft stupid.

Fewer flights with the same number of pax is not the profitable answer.

It is also not what over stressed airports need.

It is not about the planes and pax - it is about the airport infrstructures to handle the comings and goings efficiently.

Singapore Air replacing a couple 747's for the haul from Aussie to Singers is not the only type of route that exists in the world.

Number of flights will not be reduced they will stay the same or go up - there by simply putting strain on the airports.

*shrug*

[gobs3z]

You also have to realize this plane would barely make a dent in having less flights since it will be placed in mostly international flights such as New York to Birtain or San Fransisco to Japan. 747's that make those trips now are barely getting booked with the way the airline industry is moving. The A380 will end up carrying passengers with plenty of seats left open. If they give it just a little larger passenger capacity than the 747 and put the extra space to leg room and comforts. It's supposed to be about a 550 passenger airplane with capabilities of 800 passangers(hope that never happens).