Airbus A380

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:08 pm

This is a VERY cool 7 minute condensed clip of the making of the Airbus A380.

Check it out...with sound!

http://tinyurl.com/n3c4u

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:59 pm

It's just a shame no one thought about the lack of freewheeling hubs to stop the thing destroying its own tires and trying to tear up the tarmac when it turns around on the tarmac. DOH!

Vindicator · Post by **Vindicator** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:39 pm

If that link doesnt work, try this one: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3&q=airbus

Sweet video though. How long does it actually take?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:49 pm

Mobius wrote:It's just a shame no one thought about the lack of freewheeling hubs to stop the thing destroying its own tires and trying to tear up the tarmac when it turns around on the tarmac. DOH!

Actually, the stuff going around the net about that was incorrect. They were performing scrub tests to determine the amount of side load the gear and tires are expected to see. They max it out on purpose. Even under ideal situations the tires of most commercial airliners will scrub. That is just the nature of the beast.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:52 am

Vindicator wrote: Sweet video though. How long does it actually take?

seven minutes!

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:31 am

yay Boeing!

boo Airbus!

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:18 am

One problem Airbus is having with the A380 is egress certification tests. The FAA requires that a manufacturer demonstrate that the passengers will be able to get out of the plane in a maximum amount of time in case of emergency.

In this case, Airbus has to show that they can get about 800 (I have heard 888 but the final number will be determined by the FAA) out of the plane in 90 seconds with half the emergency exits closed. They aren't supposed to do any dress rehearsals either. They are supposed to load up the plane with a fair representation of the flying public, close the exits, block off half so they can't be opened, and then say GO! The PAX are then required to exit the aircraft. In the past, the FAA has required that the test be performed in darkened conditions with simulated smoke, who knows if they will with the A380.

Airbus has realized that this is a massively tall order. They are currently lobbying the FAA to allow them to use a lot fewer people and then use mathematical models to simulate the rest. It is unclear whether the FAA will allow this.

I personally think that getting between 800 – 900 people off a plane in under 90 seconds under the best of circumstances is close to being a physical impossibility. Imagine your grandmother getting to the exit on the top level. She looks at the three story tall slide she has to slide down and says screw this. She then creates a bottleneck at that exit.

I just don’t see it happening.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:38 pm

Dedman wrote:Imagine your grandmother getting to the exit on the top level. She looks at the three story tall slide she has to slide down and says screw this. She then creates a bottleneck at that exit.

Ya know, pushin' people gets you places.

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:25 pm

A plane that large is stupid in today's airline economy and situation.....2 cents.

Behemoth · Post by **Behemoth** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:13 pm

Damn, i wish i had a job like that looks awesome.

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:11 pm

Point Dedman - they will have plenty of exits, but 900 people... that creates issues. Especially in just 90 seconds. If they were marines, sure, but most people on commercial airliners aren't...

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:47 pm

Sirius wrote:Point Dedman - they will have plenty of exits, but 900 people... that creates issues. Especially in just 90 seconds. If they were marines, sure, but most people on commercial airliners aren't...

They won't have plenty of exits. That is the point. Half of the exits on the aircraft are required to be blocked and unuseable for the test. The MD-11 had difficulty passing the test and it had 400 fewer people on board.

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 11:07 pm

Hostile wrote:A plane that large is stupid in today's airline economy and situation.....2 cents.

Indeed.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 1:55 am

Think they could've found some wider roads for transporting those parts? I mean, that nose section nearly took out a whole block there.

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:01 pm

The emergency exit test has been carried out succesfully in a darkened environment and emergency lighting by 873 test persons today. 33 were injured during the process (one leg broken even). They had cushions, bags and newspapers scattered on the floor to make it more realistic. Only half of the doors opened - which was kept secret until the test procedure was started. 55% of the persons were female, 15% were over 50 years old. The evacuation took 80 seconds, which is a new record.

I wonder how many of you critics would praise the A380 if it had been built by Boeing.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:28 pm

Diedel wrote:I wonder how many of you critics would praise the A380 if it had been built by Boeing.

I wasn't bashing AirBus. I was only skeptical the test would be successful because of the number of people involved. I am glad they passed the test. I want to see that thing fly in the US.

Some conversation about todays test may be found here.

They did have some problems (depending on who tells the story) with the structural tests of the wing. Turns out it failed 3% below design ultimate. Probably not a big deal, but the pro-Boeing crowd has already jumped on it.

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:36 am

When it broke during the test it was already insanely overburdened.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:26 pm

Diedel wrote:When it broke during the test it was already insanely overburdened.

Yes it was. They always are. The wings of airliners are designed to fail at 150% of ultimate load (the highest load the airframe is expected to see in it's lifetime) or something like that. This one failed 3% below where they expected it to. As I said, not really a big deal in reality, but it ads fuel to the anti-AirBus crowd.

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:30 pm

3% isn't a hell of a long way below. If they usually achieve well over 150%, I personally would want to look into ways of improving the wing strength though. When it comes to aircraft, there is no such thing as too safe (as long as it can fly of course).

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:18 pm

If Boeing built the plane, I'd be sad because they built a stupid plane. Since Airbus built it, I'm happy they built a stupid plane. I still think the plane is stupid, I'm just glad it's Europe's stupid plane instead of ours. Means it won't cut in to my wife's profit-sharing bonus (yay Boeing!)

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:18 pm

You're a bad liar, Lothar.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:32 pm

it's because I don't have much practice.

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:06 am

No, just bad skills.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:14 am

So are you going to talk about the A380 or are you just here to cause trouble?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:31 am

I don't think it is a stupid plane. I don't know if it's right for the US market, but it could do very well in the Asian markets. Japanese carriers are already using fully loaded 747's on short haul routes. The A380 lets them carry more tourists.

Even if the plane itself is stupid, it has helped push the technology forward. It is the first (I believe) commercial airliner to use a 5ksi hydraulic system. It makes use of composites for critical structural components like never before, although I think the B787 is using more (I could be wrong).

Plus it is just plain huge, and huge is always cool in this context.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:51 am

Post coun++

Sir Sam II · Post by **Sir Sam II** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:14 am

The video didn't show the interior work! Is the plain interiorless?

I make up good words that need to be in the dictionary.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:15 am

Fair enough, Dedman

Maybe I should have said \"I think making the plane was a stupid market decision\", because I don't think they'll be able to get a lot of sales, even to the busier Asian markets. In large part, that's because the airport terminals are often at capacity with the planes already coming in. It doesn't matter if you can cram 300 more people on to your plane if the baggage claim area can't accomodate them. I could be wrong, though; Airbus has people who are paid to understand that market, while I'm just some guy making random predictions.

It's not a technologically stupid plane. It's cool technology. But I'm hella glad my tax dollars didn't finance it and my income isn't depending on its sales.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:53 am

You raise some very valid points there Lothar. Terminal capasity, terminal configuration, runway capasity, and taxiway capasity are all things that probably went into the decision to not allow the thing to operate at some of the worlds major airports.

Take Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson airport for example. ATL told the carriers that want to operate the A380 that they couldn't do it from here. ATL doesn't want to have to beef up it's taxi ways to handle to the load from a plane with a max take off weight of 1.2 million pounds.

I am still curious to see how they are going to on/off load the PAX with existing terminals and jetways. Are they going to use two jetways per terminal? Are they going to use two terminals?

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Airbus A380

Airbus A380

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: