The presence of a passenger loading vehicle with a big fuckin' staircase attached to it seems to suggest otherwise.
Godamn your stupid AFI- do they even have airports near where you live? I live next to 2 different boeing plants up here in washington and their new jet "i think its the 777- you know, the one that has self tinting windows and a ceiling that gives images of the sky" isnt yet in production for comercial flight, but they have static modles out on the field that let buyers walk through and see what the plane would be like on the inside- even though the plane itself is not capable of flight as it sits. Now- unless Im mistaken and everyone but me has the ability to jump 20-30 feet into the air to get on an airplane, it would still take a "stair case" to get up to the modle.....Besides the fact that it would just be rude to make potential buyers walk a couple miles of air strip just to get in the thing- so i assume a shuttle vehicle isnt all that crazy.
French are as usual... Wonder why they do not compare it to B-747 or Mriya, Ruslan or whatever: http://www.airfoyle.co.uk/home/antonov.jpg http://silverstone.fortunecity.com/morgan/251/an225.htm http://www.air-and-space.com/ruslan.htm and this tiny bird : http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_specifications.asp What they are proud of? Finally achieved history? Boeing 747-400 (fully commercially operational -- 1989-02-09 -- Nothwest airlines): Passenger seating configurations: 3-class - 416, 2 class - 524; Maximum take off weight: 396,600 kg or 412,775 kg (ER); Maximum range: 13,450 km or 14,205 km (ER); Cruise speed: 0.855 M or 912 km/h; Wing span: 64.4 m; Length: 70.7 m; Height: 19.4 m; Interior cabin width: 6.1 m. Airbus A380 (fully commercially operational?): Passenger seating configurations: 3-class - 555; Maximum take off weight: 560,600 kg; Maximum range: 15,000 km; Max. operating speed: 0.89 M; Wing span: 79.8 m; Length: 73 m; Height: 24.1 m; Interior cabin width: 6.58 m. So what? Airbus has created a marvel that is operational since 1989 under name Boeing? How pathetic Was really worth 16 years of delay
vadim, the Antonov is a beast! I've seen a documentary about it, originally made to transport the soviet space shuttle among other things. Now it seems it flies again, when you need to transport small items like... a 747 or something I can't remember HOW big a cargo hold it has, but what a BEAST! <for all you people who always misread/get me wrong = BEAST this time in a positively positive way, ok? > <This means YOU, -broz- >
I was never as impressed with the Boeing 747 as I was with the A380. Apart from that Airbus doesn't need to rearrange seats to get to 555 seats. You should compare the 416 to the 555 number. The 524 number is with 0 comfort, and generally is a horrible idea to increase profits. <Z>
Zem, if you wise enough, you will compare the dimensions of those two planes (that I provided intentionally ) A380 is just 48 sm wider that B-747-440 and 2.3 m longer It THAT enough space for 555-416=139 pasengers?! So, mathematically, pasengers in A380 have LESS space per person than in a same 3-class B-474-400 That are not my words, but numbers And Boeing's 2-class configuration means absense of 1st-class section. 555-524=31. 48 sm is not enough for one more seat line, unless you narrow the passes. Is that a plus? OK, we leave the passes normal and pack 31 passenger in 2.3 m space: 9 seats in a row, 31/9=3.(4) rows. 2.3/3.4~0.67 m -- again bullshit. It is not enough to place a standard passenger seat... So, in ANY configuration Boeing provides MORE private space for its passengers than the beloved A380 Hint: you LOVE it BECAUSE of advertising cheats. You even don't pay attention to numbers, but aviation DOES NOT EXIST without numbers
I don't think that many Americans will like the A380. If you think a 737 flight has many drawbacks, just think of a typical A380 flight: -that many more crying babies -that many more chances to get exposed to some disease -that many more chances to sit in close contact with a drunk businessman -that many more rude people kicking the back of your seat -imagine the outcry if a full A380 were to crash I think that there is a "critical mass" for airline fights. The A380 might very well exceed that critical mass. They might have to install holding cells in the planes to detain crazed passengers. I think that Boeing's approach is better: move to medium-sized, efficient jetliners. This approach takes advantage of the scaling laws of physics. A tiny toy car is not damaged from a drop of 10 car lengths. A full size car is destroyed by a drop in the same conditions. The smaller the vehicle, the less proportional weight is added by strengthening the structure. Because of Airbus' disregard of the scaling laws of physics, their A380 holds twice as many passengers as a 757, but weighs almost 5 times more than the Boeing jetliner. As airplanes develop into virtual flying communities due to high passenger capacity, typical flights will have to anticipate problems that do not appear on flights with fewer passengers.
Vadim, I live in a world of numbers, don't talk to me about not seeing the numbers. It's the heighth that matters. The Boeing 747 first class is in the upper deck. The A380 has an upper deck throughout it's whole length. That's where you can put those passengers. And with much more comfort as well. I think you're the one missing the numbers actually. Have you ever compared the two internally? From an engineering point of view the A380 is much more of a beauty than the Boeing. And as for the financial disaster, that's what they said when the Boeing 747 was introduced, the 747 is what saved Boeing. <Z>
Zem, I saw B-747-400 take off in 1991 in Sheremetjevo-2 (Moscow international airport) from 100 meter distance. The proper word would be not impressed, but devastated That bitch takes off and climbs like a damn fighter plane! And local servicemen called it with one word: LEADER... I guess A380 will never draw so much respect from professionals. Yes, public is impressed, but specialists -- definitely NOT.
Have you ever had to take a train? I mean, take a train, at peak hour, on one of the more busy lines... Most people have gotten used to giant objects flying through the sky by now The A380 is very efficient, that's what makes it so interesting. The scaling laws of physics? The toy car just won't have such a big hit-power. Additionally, it will just bounce up, wasting lots of energy in the bounce. A car will crush, the end will bend into the front. The difference thus is that with a toy-car the energy is converted into motion energy, while with a normal car the energy is what crashes the frame. Yup, that's the way airframes are designed. They have to design around completely different concepts when compared with a regular product (such as a house or a car). Gotta respect the laws of aerodynamics. Actually, what Airbus did to the A380 is a bit like what Dassault did to the delta wing. The 757 or any other non-wide body jet is clearly different from the A380. Just like an F-16 is different from a Mirage 2000. It is unclear which is better though, or rather, it's a matter of preferences. Both have their pros and their cons, but in essence they're just two different concepts. A bit like scientists/engineers are undecided wether or not a cone or a ball-shaped nose is best for airflow at speeds below mach 1. Statistically speaking, yes. But consider this parallel: in the ancient days the Romans had a navy, can't remember the names of the boats, but they never sailed far off-coast. As time went by humanity got more audacious and started sailing across oceans, looking for good trade-routes, and eventually, ships became means of transporting passengers. I think the A380 doesn't really differ much. If we're going to make progress in aviation, the A380 is one of two next logical steps. You can either become bigger, or faster. In both terrains Airbus (and more specifically BAe/Dassault) have succeeded. _____ Well Vadim, The specialists I know are impressed. Rightfully so. <Z>
Zembla, smaller objects are stronger not just because they weigh less, i.e. less energy as your explanation for the toy car example. There are more reasons why a toy car survives an impact better than a large car does. For example, if you were an architect who was assigned to build a structure capable of holding 100,000kg, you would want to use the least amount of materials possible in order to cut costs. Would you build a structure that could hold exactly 100,000kg? If you did, the structure would collapse. Not only does the structure need to hold up 100,000kg, it also has to hold up the structure itself. So if your structure collapsed the first time because it held only 100,000 kg, you might build a structure capable of enduring the 100,000 kg and the weight of the structure. Your project collapses again. When you redesigned the structure to hold up itself as well, you forgot that when you added more structural elements to hold up the structure, you added yet even more weight. So in the design process of the A380, the designers were probably frustrated at the drawbacks of designing a large plane; i.e. disregarding the scaling laws of physics. They might have found that the engines needed to get the plane off the ground were heavier than they anticipated. Airbus strengthened the wings for the heavier engines, but had to add extra fuel capacity in order to compensate for range reduction brought about by the extra wing reinforcements. Extra weight and fuel meant that they had to design stronger landing gear, which in turn required stronger hydraulics to operate. Stronger hydraulics meant that a larger pump was needed. A larger pump required strengthening of the structure to accomodate the larger pump. Soon enough, all the extra weight required the use of larger engines. ...And the process began anew. The same phenomenon happened to the Me-109 G-series: So it would seem that the best designs are the smallest, lightest and most simple, as they have few of the design complications which add a surprising amount of weight. With this in mind, I highly doubt that the A380 has per-passenger operatating costs as low as the small 737-800. Operating costs (what it costs the airline to fly the jetliners): Small Jetliners: Boeing 737-800 $15.24 per hour per seat (148 seats, $2,255 per hour operating cost) Airbus A319 $16.29 per hour per seat (122 seats, $1,987 per hour operating cost) Airbus A320-100/200 $17.07 per hour per seat (146 seats, $2,492 per hour operating cost) Mid-Size Jetliners Boeing 767-300 $18.47 per hour per seat (207 seats, $3,823 per hour operating cost) Airbus A300-600 $22.57 per hour per seat (228 seats, $5,145 per hour operating cost) Large Jetliners Boeing 777 $18.34 per hour per seat (266 seats, $4,878 per hour operating cost) Boeing 747-400 $22.11 per hour per seat (369 seats, $8,158 per hour operating cost) From - Air Transport Association of America I think these numbers are averages; i.e. the 747-400 can hold more than 369 seats, 369 must be the average number of passengers on each flight.
funny thing do you think the designers didnt calculate all this that you are arguing now most precisely and checked if it is efficient enough against the expected economical income+psychological impression factor?
and about crushing cars and planes: Do you think that smaller Boeing will survive crush because it is smaller than Airbus? Acctualy I did not get why you used cars as an example. And squirl: comparing A380 to Me109 is rather strange, since A380 is not going to have dogfight (I suppose) and therefore high weight is not big deal. And if you like small simple planes: try to move 500 people through Atlantic using Cessna. Good luck...
One little correction. In the furture the A380 will be able to carry 850 passengers. So if we compare those two planes, we should use the right numbers Cu Flubby http://www.spiegel.de/flash/0,5532,10309,00.html Here is a flash animation, to compare the size. Only click the buttons below.
Source: Boeing The Boeing board of directors authorized production of the 777-300 on June 26, 1995. The first 777-300 was delivered to Cathay Pacific Airways in June 1998. ____ Airbus receives orders very frequently, I don't think Airbus will have to downsize ____ Airbus has always had planes that could compete with the yet to be designed 7E7 (787). As seen above, the 777 has already been around since 1998. Airbus has always had planes to compete on that level. They just upped the level of competition with the A380. Here's an interesting read. <Z>
me too i was there this day, the testflight, on the picture it is flight preparation near the old testpilots building which served for the concorde in 1969. the view is taken from the copter video support, on the left the "corvett" which accompagned a380 for all the flight and took video too.
