So, after hearing on a bunch of news-sources about this amazing new plane, the A-380, I’m just wondering if anyone could provide me with some information as to what makes this jet, or the 7E7 for that matter, so special. To me, it seems as if these aircraft look pretty much exactly like 737’s from four decades ago, and I’m wondering if any of these aircraft are really revolutionary, or only evolutionary.
Furthermore, why did the A-380 cost some $13 B to develop? That’s a lot of money. I understand that planes take a lot of money, but it seems like all you have to do is scale a pretty basic design and start gluing it together, so why did it cost $13 B to design? Finally, the vast majority of the effeciency increases on modern jet aircraft are related to the engines, correct? So how do new plane designs even get built? Why does any airline need a new A-380 with 500 seats when they could get a 777 or A-340 or whatever with 450 seats. Do the extra 50 seats really contribute that much to reducing transport costs?
Does the A-380 really cost a full 15-20% less to operate than similar planes, or is that only compared to some less than modern jet? If you applied the A-380’s engines to a 777 or A-340, etc. would you actually realize the claimed 15-20% advantages?
Finally, if Airbus is right about the survival of the hub-and-spoke system, how does adding a complete extra leg onto a trip to get from New York to Boston (for example) not cancel out the 15-20 effeciency increase that it supposedly has?
Apologies for this long and rambling GQ, but does someone want to come in and chat me up for a while about this A-380?
To some extent, appearances are deceiving. Passenger airliners all do a similar job and their designs tend to converge on a similar aerodynamic shape - rather as fish tend to resemble other fish in being “fish-shaped” (with exceptions for highly specialized models).
Personally, I tend to think it’s more evolution than revolution, but understandably the Europeans involved want to trumpet their accomplishment, particularly since those barbarians in North America between Canada and Mexico have dominated commercial jet aviation with Boeing for so many years.
Because it’s slightly more complicated than that. Due to the square-cube law, weight of a plane goes up much faster than power-available does (sort of - I am simplifying here). You can’t simply “scale up”, you have make other changes because in aviation size does count.
The other thing is that while other Airbus designs are in the size range of a 737 or 757 none of them are as big as a 747… and the A-380 is bigger yet. So it’s not the cost of developing another 737, but the cost of developing another 747 (which wasn’t cheap to produce, either)
500 seats is the upper limit you can put on a 747… but it’s NOT the upper limit for an A380, which is around 800 seats if you make them all coach. In other words, you can transport almost twice the people in equal (dis)comfort. Or you can haul more cargo.
As for your other question… new airplanes get designed an built to take advantage of increasing knowledge of aerodynamics, new materials, new forms of automation, and more efficient ways of doing things from constructing them to maintaining them to flying them. These changes may not be obvious to the layperson, but they become significant when running a business.
There is no “similar” jet to an A380, unless it’s the 747. As to whether the claimed advantages will match actual advantages in real life, only time will tell.
It doesn’t.
It may be that Europe keeps or expands upon a “hub-and-spoke” system because it works best for them. In other countries it may not and a different type of aircraft make more sense…
Again, only time will tell.
Wouldn’t be bad if one of our airline pilots dropped in to contribute.
As an engineer, I simply can’t begin to imagine what kind of hell this is going to wreak on runways and taxiways. I don’t know exactly how much it weighs, but I betcha there’s not a whole lot of airfield managers that are going to be happy this thing is slamming down onto their runways.
Anybody got a net weight estimate? Because on second thought, I’d like to compare it with a similarly loaded C-5.
It won’t be too much of a problem. The weight is distributed over 20 landing gear wheels, and will come out to less weight per wheel than a 747. With the weight spread over a greater surface area like that, damage to the tarmac shouldn’t be a big problem.
Anyway, empty, the plane weighs 275,000 kgs and under maximum cargo capacity, would weigh 560,000 kgs.
I think the wingspan is so large that the airports will need special gates to accomodate this plane. Also, if it is configured for 800 seats, how long will it take for all the passenger to board or disembark?
As for the cost, apparently it ran over $2 billion over budget, so the cost is almost $16 billion, not to mention the more than $4 billion in government subsidies it received. I don’t know how much Boeing spent to develop the 747, but I heard it described as a bet-the-company venture, although it was one that paid off. Will the A380 be profitable in the end? Who knows?
the 7e7 is the first commercial airliner that will be built primarily out of composite material, making it much lighter, ie more efficient. It will also use bleedless engines to help improve efficiency. There is much debate on the course that Airbus and Boeing have chosen for the future. Airbus is going for huge numbers to large hub airports with the a380, while Boeing is shooting for mid-range numbers for a more point to point operation. Only time will tell which will work better. As far as technological innovation, the 7e7 seems to have more going for it, while the a380 is simply a huge engineering feat, using conventional methods. However, it hasnt left the ground yet. The composite on the 7e7 is really interesting if you want to do some further reading on it. They literally wrap the tape-like composite material around a drum and then bake it to make the fuselage.
As an Industrial Engineer, I can’t imagine what kind of chaos this is going to wreak in the terminal. Discharging that volume of passengers, with associated luggage, customs/immigration/security, ground transportation, car rental, and even restroom requirements, is going to slow the system to a crawl. Unload two of them at once, and you’ve got Rush Hour - luggage carts bumper-to-bumper, fuming businessmen running late for a meeting, frustrated travellers missing their connections to an ongoing flight. I’m just waiting for the first reports of “queue rage”, where some tightly-wound bozo runs down two kiddies and a grandma in a wheelchair, trying to get to a taxi before everyone else.
Oh, and as far as airports being able to accomodate the A380, the runway length is not a problem. The A380 is supposed to be able to take off and land on any runway that can handle a 747. The problem comes more with taxiways not being wide enough, and of course, terminals being able to handle such a large plane. There arent many airports ready for it yet but its not due to enter service for about a year I think.
and just a few fun quick facts
certain versions or the 777, and a340 are actually longer than the a380.
the four trent 900 or GP-7200 engines on the a380 will produce around 70,000 lbs of thrust each (280,000 lbs total), while the two ge90-115b engines on the 777-300er produce 115,000 lbs each (they actually hold the world record at 127,000 lbs)…pretty amazing I think
Mine’s on 800 seats. People with the bucks will tend to fly in comfort from airports closer to home. Generally, I think the smaller planes we already have will have fewer seats.
Eight hundred paying passengers, NYC to London. That’s half a mil $ or so per flight.
I see where you are going, but I’m thinking about the thickness of the runway. Would 18" or 24" concrete be able to withstand repeated landings by a fully loaded plane? A lot of it depends on the landing gear configuration, construction of the runway and subgrade, the number of passes by this and other ‘heavies’, etc.
And you know it can’t go just to any ol’ airport. It’ll have it’s “usual stops”, which will only beat the crap outta that runway and the taxiways it uses.
And yeah, even on the apron that thing is going to be a pain in the ass at the terminal.
Tripler “We would now like to board rows 86 and higher. . .”
According to the NBC Evening News tonight, Kennedy Airport was spending $120 million to refit for the A-380, LAX was spending $53 million and O’Hare was doing so as part of its major total rehab.
The video is available on their website as number 7 under free video: nightly news.
I thought I also remembered reading some time ago that terminals would have to be jiggered so that two gates could be used simultaneously for boarding, to help alleviate the wait.
Of course, what happens if USAirways buys one of these and has another baggage handler sick-out is anybody’s guess.
At least the goobers running SFO (San Francisco International) got something right - they predicted ultra-jumbo jets when they built the new international terminal a couple years ago and won’t have to do anything more than paint a box on the ramp showing where the A380’s nose wheel should be when it’s parked.
I’m just waiting to see whether the market will guide airlines into cramming 800 coach seats into the plane, or if they’ll go for something more exotic like 50 wildly luxurious first class seats, 200 coach seats and a variety of goodies like one or two bars, a casino, etc.
According to an article I read (no cite) they had to reduce the number of passengers for security reasons. Airbus had to prove that the plane could be evacuated within the same time limit as any other passenger plane. Reportedly they had problems guaranteeing that for the really crammed versions and had to use the space more generously, at least until they find ways to optimize the evacuation.
Heh. I was watching ITV News about this and one of the last things the report said was (this is not verbatim): *“Whether the airlines use the A-380 to cram up to 800 passengers on a flight to make more money or whether they will use the A-380 to give more comfort to passengers remains to be seen”. *
Gee which one do you think they’ll take? :rolleyes:
Having taken several long international flights - the longest being from Atlanta, GA to Cairns, Australia - I would be the loyal bitch of any airline that gave coach seats even a few more inches in legroom and seat width. I mean, coach seats from Atlanta to DC or NYC isn’t that bad, but riding coach from Atlanta to London can be freakin’ murder.