DescentBB

Powerplants

A380-800 - Four 311kN (70,000lb), initially derated to 302kN (68,000lb), later growing to 374kN (84,000lb) thrust Rolls-Royce Trent 900 or 363kN (81,500lb) thrust Engine Alliance (General Electric-Pratt & Whitney) GP-7200 turbofans.


Performance

A380-800 - Max cruising speed M 0.88. Long range cruising speed M 0.85. Range 14,800km (8,000nm). Service ceiling 43.000ft (13,100m).
A380-800F - Range 10,370km (5,600nm).


Weights

A380-800 - Operating empty 277,000kg (610,700lb), max takeoff 560,000kg (1,234,600lb).
A380-800F - Operating empty 252,000kg (555,600lb), max takeoff 590,000kg (1,300,700lb).


Dimensions

A380-800 - Wing span 79.8m (261ft 10in), length 72,75m (238ft 8in). Height 24,08 m (79ft)


Capacity

A380-800 - Flightcrew of two. Standard seating for 555 passengers on two decks in a three class arrangement. Qantas plans to fit its aircraft with 523 seats (in three classes). A380 has 49% more floor area but only 35% more seats (in 555 seat configuration) than the 747-400, allowing room for passenger amenities such as bars, gymnasiums and duty free shops. Cargo capacity 38 LD3s or 13 pallets.





Production

149 firm orders (including 27 freighters) by January 2005. Airbus has forecast a market for approx 1235 airliners of 400 seats and above through to 2020. First deliveries in early 2006.


History
The 555 seat, double deck Airbus A380 is the most ambitious civil aircraft program yet. When it enters service in March 2006, the A380 will be the world's largest airliner, easily eclipsing Boeing's 747.

Airbus first began studies on a very large 500 seat airliner in the early 1990s. The European manufacturer saw developing a competitor and successor to the Boeing 747 as a strategic play to end Boeing's dominance of the very large airliner market and round out Airbus' product line-up.

Airbus began engineering development work on such an aircraft, then designated the A3XX, in June 1994. Airbus studied numerous design configurations for the A3XX and gave serious consideration to a single deck aircraft which would have seated 12 abreast and twin vertical tails. However Airbus settled upon a twin deck configuration, largely because of the significantly lighter structure required.

Key design aims include the ability to use existing airport infrastructure with little modifications to the airports, and direct operating costs per seat 15-20% less than those for the 747-400. With 49% more floor space and only 35% more seating than the previous largest aircraft, Airbus is ensuring wider seats and aisles for more passenger comfort. Using the most advanced technologies, the A380 is also designed to have 10-15% more range, lower fuel burn and emissions, and less noise.
The A380 features an advanced version of the Airbus common two crew cockpit, with pull-out keyboards for the pilots, extensive use of composite materials such as GLARE (an aluminium/glass fibre composite), and four 302 to 374kN (68,000 to 84,000lb) class Rolls-Royce Trent 900 or Engine Alliance (General Electric/Pratt & Whitney) GP7200 turbofans now under development.

Several A380 models are planned: the basic aircraft is the 555 seat A380-800 (launch customer Emirates). The 590 ton MTOW 10,410km (5620nm) A380-800F freighter will be able to carry a 150 tonne payload and is due to enter service in 2008 (launch customer FedEx). Potential future models will include the shortened, 480 seat A380-700, and the stretched, 656 seat, A380-900.

On receipt of the required 50th launch order commitment, the Airbus A3XX was renamed A380 and officially launched on December 19, 2000. In early 2001 the general configuration design was frozen, and metal cutting for the first A380 component occurred on January 23, 2002, at Nantes in France. In 2002 more than 6000 people were working on A380 development.

On January 18, 2005, the first Airbus A380 was officially revealed in a lavish ceremony, attended by 5000 invited guests including the French, German, British and Spanish president and prime ministers, representing the countries that invested heavily in the 10-year, €10 billion+ ($13 billion+) aircraft program, and the CEOs of the 14 A380 customers, who had placed firm orders for 149 aircraft by then.

The out of sequence A380 designation was chosen as the \"8\" represents the cross-section of the twin decks. The first flight is scheduled for March 2005, and the entry into commercial service, with Singapore Airlines, is scheduled for March 2006.

Apart from the prime contractors in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Spain, components for the A380 airframe are also manufactured by industrial partners in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. A380 final assembly is taking place in Toulouse, France, with interior fitment in Hamburg, Germany. Major A380 assemblies are transported to Toulouse by ship, barge and road.





On July 24, 2000, Emirates became the first customer making a firm order commitment, followed by Air France, International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC), Singapore Airlines, Qantas and Virgin Atlantic. Together these companies completed the 50 orders needed to launch the program.

Later, the following companies also ordered the A380: FedEx (the launch customer for the A380-800F freighter), Qatar Airways, Lufthansa, Korean Air, Malaysia Airlines, Etihad Airways, Thai Airways and UPS.

A380 Fuselage




Center fuselage




passing under Bordeaux oldest bridge




A380 section arriving in Pauillac from Hamburg





Right wing




in Assembly line







fatigue tests







Outer dia of the engine is 124\" (~10feet). The relative scale (visible!) difference between man and engine is due to, the engine is nearer to camera perspective than the man.





the \"Danger\" box contains an emergency STOP button; if a pilot- wishes to disembark midair it will bring the plane to a complete stop! a tail camera is operating on this aircraft You could see its display at both extreme screens





A380 Employee ceremony



First to Fly - Singapore Airlines

Nice piece of engineering.

Can you explain a bit more about the Danger box?

In all seriousness, I don’t have a clue as to what the danger box is. My guess is it has something to do with the flight test program.

the "Danger" box contains an emergency STOP button; if a pilot- wishes to disembark midair it will bring the plane to a complete stop!

Genghis wrote:Can you explain a bit more about the Danger box?

Thanks for flying with us today; we hope you have enjoyed your flight. Watch that first step, it’s about 30,000 ft.

Its an airbus, nuff said, pilot has limited control over the aircraft, if the computer fries, the entire thing is toest. If it aint Boeing, I aint going

Immortal Lobster wrote:If it aint Boeing, I aint going

hahahah, nice one

pwnd

The question is

a) If a Boeing would fly in circumstances that make all Airbus electronics fail
b) If a plane the size of the Airbus could be flown w/o computers. The computer doesn't let the pilot leave the physically acceptable flight envelope. Figure what happened if you overrode Boeing controls and tried to do that.

Here is an interesting wikipedia article about aircraft flight control systems.

I found the last paragraph about intelligent flight control systems particularly interesting. That is something beyond the capability of human pilots, I suppose.

American Airlines Flight 587, the Airbus computer over compensated for the pilot, snapped the tail off, even though the computer knew the full deflection was bad, all on board died...why, becuase of a computer. Boeings have a computed system, but they still use a pneumatically powered backup, which is linked via cables to the actual yoke, so if the computer were to fail, mr. pilot still has full control over the aircraft. thats the difference.

Dang, that thing is massive! Nice pictures, too!

Immortal Lobster wrote:American Airlines Flight 587, the Airbus computer over compensated for the pilot, snapped the tail off, even though the computer knew the full deflection was bad, all on board died...why, becuase of a computer. Boeings have a computed system, but they still use a pneumatically powered backup, which is linked via cables to the actual yoke, so if the computer were to fail, mr. pilot still has full control over the aircraft. thats the difference.

How many died because of mistakes a human pilot made? I bet the odds would be massively in favor of computers, even if only taking all the accidents since the introduction of computer controlled avionics into account.

Your argument is like "I don't buckle up because my neighbour died in a car accident because the belt prevented him from getting out of the car quickly enough before it burnt out." In that case, the belt may have caused a person's death, but the statistics still speak an overwhelming language for it.

Actually I believe that AirBus is blaming the pilots for that (I think they are wrong). They called it a training issue. They said that the pilots should have been trained not to fully deflect the rudder. I say that if my plane is getting a bit fiesty, I want all the control surface deflection I can get!

Immortal Lobster wrote:American Airlines Flight 587, the Airbus computer over compensated for the pilot, snapped the tail off, even though the computer knew the full deflection was bad, all on board died...why, becuase of a computer. Boeings have a computed system, but they still use a pneumatically powered backup, which is linked via cables to the actual yoke, so if the computer were to fail, mr. pilot still has full control over the aircraft. thats the difference.

Not only that, but I believe there was an Airbus crash a few years ago because the engine tore off from the wing because the bolts which attached the engine to the wing was too thin.

I'd trust my life to a Boeing than an Airbus.

Aye, Airbus always cuts back in the most crtical areas, and there have been more lives lost to computer aircrafts then pilots, pilots often save a plane after the computer fails, or after a hydrolic system fails. Airbus did blame the pilots(easy to do since their dead!) and called it a training issue, the NTSB agreed to try and save some political face.I too as a pilot, agree with dedman, if the plane is in turbulence, I want as much control as I can get, unlike a boeing,the control systems in an airbus do not have any real feedback, it is strictly fly by wire, no forcefeedback at all in the pilot, so the pilots had no idea how hard they were pushing in on that rudder pedal, they trusted the computer that it wouldnt put the full deflection into the rudder, if It had been a boeing, even though hydrolically linked, they can still \"feel\" the aircraft, so he can say, yeah, thats too much pressure on the surface, ill back it off some. Ive got a whole report I did on AA587 somewhere on my laptop, Ill be glad to throw it up here

Simply put, Airbuses are the hyundais of the sky, thier elegant, thier fast, they do everything thier counterpart does, but their still cheaply put together.

Yeah, silly pilots. Actually wanting to use the rudder. Can you imagine it? Idiots

yeah I know, how dare they (BTW, that was what Airbus said...officially, the pilots arent supposed to use the rudder \"is for use in emergencys only\" W-T-F)

Seems it doesn't work in the emergency, either!

Immortal Lobster wrote:Simply put, Airbuses are the hyundais of the sky, thier elegant, thier fast, they do everything thier counterpart does, but their still cheaply put together.

Kind of like that sentence?

Top Wop, Lobster,

all you do is rest your argumentation on singular information you personally received. You do not bother to investigate thoroughly into the matter, study statistics, find out about the truth.

Actually, you would never acknowledge an Airbus would be better than a Boeing, even if there was proof it was (which I simply don't know).

Because you don't want it to.

I think you are that sad case of that pathological kind of American 'patriotism' that even denies truth and moral standards if it's about your country.

So it's probably just pointless to talk with you about this subject.

Diedel wrote:Top Wop, Lobster,

all you do is rest your argumentation on singular information you personally received. You do not bother to investigate thoroughly into the matter, study statistics, find out about the truth.

Actually, you would never acknowledge an Airbus would be better than a Boeing, even if there was proof it was (which I simply don't know).

Because you don't want it to.

I think you are that sad case of that pathological kind of American 'patriotism' that even denies truth and moral standards if it's about your country.

So it's probably just pointless to talk with you about this subject.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Diedel wrote:Top Wop, Lobster,

all you do is rest your argumentation on singular information you personally received. You do not bother to investigate thoroughly into the matter, study statistics, find out about the truth.

Actually, you would never acknowledge an Airbus would be better than a Boeing, even if there was proof it was (which I simply don't know).

Because you don't want it to.

I think you are that sad case of that pathological kind of American 'patriotism' that even denies truth and moral standards if it's about your country.

So it's probably just pointless to talk with you about this subject.

Translation: "I do not have anything useful to supply to the argument."

"I'm going to personally attack you because you are American."

"I think all Americans are idiots, especially you."

"Now that I'm done attacking you, I have no idea what you guys are talking about so I'm done."

No offense Deidel, but you are starting to remind me a lot of Mobius.

I was reding in aviation week about a 380 wing stress test. It was dissapointing in that it didn't make the safety margin as much as they would have liked. It broke somewhere around %110 of design, hardly a comfortable margin...

scary

see

and I did research, rather deeply into AA 587, airbus denies it was thier fault, that the rudder held up to the required stresses, but the bolts used to hold the rudder on, did not, they sheared. if the co-pilot(pilot flying the aircraft at the time) had been able to feel the pressure being exerted on the tail fin, he would probably said, way to much, and backed off some, the truth of the matter is, the airbus FBW system, does not provide any feed back to the pilot, at all. all inputs into the system are translated by the computer, and relayed on to the correct pneumatic servos, which move the surface. the computer if anything should have at lest recognized how much pressure was being put on it, and stopped any further rudder travel...it didnt. Ive got nothing against a computer aiding a pilot, as long as its a good computer, something that via force feedback is going to give the pilot a fair representation of the pressure s being exerted on a surface, and that the computer be programmed in such a way that it will not allow itself, or the pilot to exceed the maximum stresses. the fact that Airbus doesnt include a Margain of Safety at all when meeting minnimal FAA specs is another matter. the number they give, is the number at which you simply do not exceed, theres 0 factor of safety in that regard. most pilots treat the V speeds with a little leeway, if Va(maneuvering speed) is 99, you can simply operate at around 105, hell, 110 is most likely just fine.

Im not a patriotic american with regards to this, boeing has done lots of good stuff, and that opinion has nothing to do with origin of the company. I applied to a co-op at a nearby aerospace company, who makes the composite portions of the wings, which are sent to england, where the wing is assembled/cut/molded. that company is in the US, hell, Airbus has lots of interest in the US as well.

if anybody should be upset with airbus as a company, it should be the germans, I forgot which 3 towns they were, but airbus moved in and destroyed the local enviroments, and the citizens of those cities had protested airbuses existence there all through the construction of the facility, but i guess since its a european company all is good. have I hit most of the fine points yet? oh yeah, i forgot, airbus is also french, another reason you germans should hate it

Diedel wrote:Top Wop, Lobster,

all you do is rest your argumentation on singular information you personally received. You do not bother to investigate thoroughly into the matter, study statistics, find out about the truth.

Actually, you would never acknowledge an Airbus would be better than a Boeing, even if there was proof it was (which I simply don't know).

Because you don't want it to.

I think you are that sad case of that pathological kind of American 'patriotism' that even denies truth and moral standards if it's about your country.

So it's probably just pointless to talk with you about this subject.

And you? All I presented was actual information. Look it up. I actually read up and enjoy such subjects. And you decided to turn a discussion about planes into a personal attack? I dont give a ★■◆● if Boeing is German, Chineese, or anything. Fact of the matter is, Beoing is the better manufacturer. Just study the damn crashes and check your anti-American, high-horse arrogant attitude at the door.

Seriously, what did I ever do to you?

you were born an american

Sulaco wrote:I was reding in aviation week about a 380 wing stress test. It was dissapointing in that it didn't make the safety margin as much as they would have liked. It broke somewhere around %110 of design, hardly a comfortable margin...

scary

Try to keep in mind that 100% of design strength is still far higher than the maximum strength required for safe operation.

that depends n the manufacturer actually, and airbus does indeed use a very small Factor of Safety. matter of fact, inn AA587, the rudder assembly broke at some number, i forgot what the value was, i think it was a shearing force of like 8500pounds, Airbus said, it wasnt their fault, becuase the rudder was designed for that value. all this info is availanl;e in the NTSB writeup....on their site, if anybody doesnt believe me. and a few other sorces scattered about my schools library.

Actually, The FAA and it’s European counterpart EASA (European Aviation Safety Administration) set what factor of safety is to be used. The manufacturers have very little say in it.

14 CFR 25.301 (a) states

Strength requirements are specified in terms of limit loads (the maximum loads to be expected in service) and ultimate loads (limit loads multiplied by prescribed factors of safety). Unless otherwise provided, prescribed loads are limit loads.

14 CFR 25.303 states

Unless otherwise specified, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be applied to the prescribed limit load which are considered external loads on the structure. When a loading condition is prescribed in terms of ultimate loads, a factor of safety need not be applied unless otherwise specified.

So when you see that the A380 wing failed before it reached it’s design load what that really says is that instead of failing at 150% of the loading it is likely to see in service it failed at only 147% of that loading.

I am comfy with that. In fact, since the F.S. of 1.5 is a rather arbitrary number, AirBus will probably seek a waiver from the FAA to accept the test as is.

I just hope their \"expected load\" is accurate, if not conservative.