Big Bird Takes Off (and lands safely)

[Gareth]

Watched it live... bit geeky, I know, but I kinda like planes, having worked for Air France a few years back.

Personally, I think that Airbus are going in the right direction in developing a supersized plane, as opposed to Boeing who are concentrating more on mid-sized planes such as the Dreamliner.
__________________

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Tolouse has a very nice new terminal building nowdays, after all it is where Airbus bigwigs meet and greet the great and the good of the airline world when they pick up the keys to their shiney new aircraft.

and the Government officials when they get a backhander ...not that Boeing don't get (more than) their fair share too.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Absolutely, I'm just amazed it had the runway length

There is a lot of space down there. STN for example also has a huge long runway (for those B52s to take off from back when it was a Military base).
__________________

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

You put body jacks under the plane and then merrily run the undercarriage up & down.

But make sure all the jacks are in place before you try this. Lufthansa wrote a 747 off last year by performing this test without one of the jacks in place, snapped the plane in two.
__________________

Originally Posted by Gareth

Watched it live... bit geeky, I know, but I kinda like planes, having worked for Air France a few years back.

Personally, I think that Airbus are going in the right direction in developing a supersized plane, as opposed to Boeing who are concentrating more on mid-sized planes such as the Dreamliner.
__________________

and the Government officials when they get a backhander ...not that Boeing don't get (more than) their fair share too.

They are both going in the right direction. The market needs the supersize me plane for ultralong haul and capacity constrained destinations where price sensitivity exists. The Dreamline (787) is going to compliment the 777 perfectly on US coast to coast and transatlantic routes where frequency is also a key factor. If you look at BAs schedule they fly a mixture of 744s and 777s out of JFK hourly from 6pm to 11pm. This suits the business pax perfectly as they can miss their 7pm and know they have an 8/9/10 flight to catch (and pay for the benefit). On a Tokyo > London route where departure times are constrained by arrival times and airport opening / closing hours the 380 is far better.

Re backhanders - the EU are more open about the whole process, the US provide a lot of money to the commercial airline co's through their military divisions, the 747 is a commercial offshoot of military development, wheras the 380 has been financed by explicit soft loans for the project (no claims it would make a great military freighter / transporter).

[bmxbandit]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Absolutely, I'm just amazed it had the runway length.

a few back of the envelope calcs:

4 x trent 900's produce a maximum of 84,000lbs of thrust each
MTOW is 590,000 Kg so max accn is about 2.25m/s/s

could reach mach 0.25 in about 1500m. sounds reasonable...

edit: they reckon 3000m is needed, should be able to hit mach 0.35 if its flat out!

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

They are both going in the right direction. The market needs the supersize me plane for ultralong haul and capacity constrained destinations where price sensitivity exists. The Dreamline (787) is going to compliment the 777 perfectly on US coast to coast and transatlantic routes where frequency is also a key factor. If you look at BAs schedule they fly a mixture of 744s and 777s out of JFK hourly from 6pm to 11pm. This suits the business pax perfectly as they can miss their 7pm and know they have an 8/9/10 flight to catch (and pay for the benefit). On a Tokyo > London route where departure times are constrained by arrival times and airport opening / closing hours the 380 is far better.

Yep, I'd agree that development for both superjumbos and mid-sized is necessary, as they're targetting different markets (nice examples, by the way ). I just wonder whether Boeing's decision to effectively scrap the plans to stretch the 747 and instead solely concentrate on the 7E7 was a good decision. I think Airbus have the right idea, even though they're now going to be several years behind being able to compete with the Dreamliner.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Gareth

<snip> I think Airbus have the right idea, even though they're now going to be several years behind being able to compete with the Dreamliner.

Really? The 330/340 class of aircraft is already a widerbodied aircraft that the 777, it is fly-by-wire reducing the weight and technologically ahead of the 777, for Airbus to build their 787 will IMHO be a re-engineering of the 330 putting lighter composites in place instead of the metals that are currently there.

Anyway perhaps they are planning a supersonic dreamliner sized 'craft once they have the 380 launched.

She's home again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4488361.stm

Thread title updated accordingly.

She?? She SHEEEEEEEEEE, Le Avion, not LA

Originally Posted by gary_580

She?? She SHEEEEEEEEEE, Le Avion, not LA

Typical. I thought the French were meant to be romatic, how can they class something as graceful as that a 'he'?

Airplanes are definitely 'she'.

Originally Posted by gary_580

She?? She SHEEEEEEEEEE, Le Avion, not LA

Actually it l'avion - and yes, that's a 'masculine' noun, but like with ships etc. aircraft are usually referred to as 'she'. (In the English speaking world, anyway)

Just see what happens when someone tries to do away with that:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/...omy/138678.stm

So when the company's newspaper, Lloyd's List, ventured to suggest that ships should no longer be called "she", a tempest was unleashed. Now the publication has accepted that "for the considerable future", ships will be "she".

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Actually it l'avion - and yes, that's a 'masculine' noun, but like with ships etc. aircraft are usually referred to as 'she'. (In the English speaking world, anyway)

And the world is English speaking, much to the annoyance of the French.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Chris T

And the world is English speaking, much to the annoyance of the French.

but they did cunningly stick the ÃÃâ€*’© on ConcordÃÃâ€*’©.

[Halcyon]

Its briliant it toook off. Such a great thing to see.
I would have loved to be onboard.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Its briliant it toook off. Such a great thing to see.

Yeah - looked quite smooth for something that big.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I would have loved to be onboard.

I think I'll wait for a flight after it's been certified.

Taking no chances, the crew had been equipped with parachutes. A handrail had also been fitted, leading from the cockpit to an escape door.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4488361.stm

[BBKing]

One of the points about the A380 is it needs the same or less runway than a 747, so anywhere a 747 can land/take off a 380 can too (this includes Stansted, where the runway is only about 10,000 feet actually, a fair bit less than Heathrow). Whether it can park at the terminal is a different issue - I'm a bit concerned about what happens when one of them has to divert to an airport it can't park at - do they put it in a corner and empty the toilets every hour till the original airport is open again? Pleasant.

As far as I can see from the order book, the 380 is aimed squarely at the Gulf airlines and south east Asian countries - it's best suited to long-haul flights rather than hops to New York and other eastern US destinations (which barely counts as long-haul when it's only using about half your maximum range). 787s and 777s should have the Atlantic run sewn up - there are lots of suitable places to serve direct either side of the pond, so Boeing's strategy appears sound there. Long haul to Hong Kong, however, it breaks down and Airbus cleans up. I think there's room for both and given that China is going to be so damn important Airbus may be pointing the way forwards.

[bmxbandit]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Whether it can park at the terminal is a different issue - I'm a bit concerned about what happens when one of them has to divert to an airport it can't park at - do they put it in a corner and empty the toilets every hour till the original airport is open again? Pleasant.

If one were to land at Nottingham East Midlands Airport (which is almost big enough in terms of runway size) then they would do what they do for all planes there, park it up on an empty stretch of concrete, then ferry people & bags around on those funny vehicles...