Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: beatspete on January 08, 2005, 12:29:41 pm

Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: beatspete on January 08, 2005, 12:29:41 pm: http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=751309&size=L&sok=&photo_nr=

Link to the latest photo of Airbus' A380. This is the first shot of it with all the engines and paint. The official 'rollout' should be later this month. First flight is probably going to be in March.

Big, huh?
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Corsair on January 08, 2005, 01:16:26 pm: Quote
There is no photo in our database with that ID number.

But I've seen pictures of it and yeah... it's monstrous.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Corsair on January 08, 2005, 01:20:01 pm: (http://photos.airliners.net/cc562e4106c41c483edd32541807f8e6/41e0327c/middle/9/0/3/751309.jpg)
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Thorn on January 08, 2005, 01:20:57 pm: Jesus. Its a freakin air whale.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Rictor on January 08, 2005, 01:38:08 pm: excuse my ignorance, but aside from having 4 engines how is this so different from a 747?
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Corsair on January 08, 2005, 01:44:58 pm: Two complete decks? A passenger capacity of something like 560 people?
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: vyper on January 08, 2005, 01:47:09 pm: I'm trying to figure out the economy of using it, bar the more modern engines (and hence greater fuel efficiency).
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Corsair on January 08, 2005, 01:49:21 pm: Economy? Ha! You fool! Bigger = Better

ALWAYS!
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Col. Fishguts on January 08, 2005, 01:49:52 pm: 2 passenger decks on the whole length of the plane.

EDIT: they beat me to it. And yes the thing is more all-around-efficient than the 747 (which has also 4 engines btw...)
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: karajorma on January 08, 2005, 01:50:34 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
excuse my ignorance, but aside from having 4 engines how is this so different from a 747?

Ummmm. The 747 has 4 engines.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Aspa on January 08, 2005, 01:50:56 pm: Someone needs to do an Ursa size comparison again... or maybe the Sephiroth?
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Col. Fishguts on January 08, 2005, 01:57:03 pm: Here's another pic. (http://www.planepictures.net/a/TLS/1105182547.jpg)

It's a really, really big plane.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: vyper on January 08, 2005, 01:56:56 pm: No no no, you're not getting my point. Of course the engines will be more efficient, but beyond that how does this help any current airline business model?

Successful airlines today operate on an affordable, frequent service basis. If you start having over-sized jets you have fewer flights per day, and thus less flexibility for the passenger/tour operator.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: aldo_14 on January 08, 2005, 01:57:44 pm: Quote
Originally posted by vyper
I'm trying to figure out the economy of using it, bar the more modern engines (and hence greater fuel efficiency).

Well, I think Virgin Atlantic were talking about outfitting it as an ultra-luxury plane and charging shedloads for tickets......
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: vyper on January 08, 2005, 02:00:58 pm: Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14

Well, I think Virgin Atlantic were talking about outfitting it as an ultra-luxury plane and charging shedloads for tickets......

So it's a low brow Concord.

Class.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: IceFire on January 08, 2005, 02:14:22 pm: Big sucker....Boeing is focused now on the 7E7 which is totally different than their previous airliners. Definately no 747.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Corsair on January 08, 2005, 02:28:16 pm: Quote
Originally posted by vyper
No no no, you're not getting my point. Of course the engines will be more efficient, but beyond that how does this help any current airline business model?

Successful airlines today operate on an affordable, frequent service basis. If you start having over-sized jets you have fewer flights per day, and thus less flexibility for the passenger/tour operator.
vyper, I told you, BIGGER = BETTER

it's very simple, logical economics. ;)
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 08, 2005, 02:42:57 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Corsair
vyper, I told you, BIGGER = BETTER

it's very simple, logical economics. ;)
but in this case, BIGGER can't land on all airfields. Only the big ones (i.e. the "hubs")
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: vyper on January 08, 2005, 02:48:28 pm: Unlike cocks, bigger aircraft don't always fit into..erm onto their target.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Clave on January 08, 2005, 02:56:00 pm: I think mine will fit into that plane....
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Unknown Target on January 08, 2005, 02:55:49 pm: The plane is bigger, faster, smarter, and more economically and enviromentally efficient than the 747.
It would be used on long-haul flights, like from New York to Tokyo.
Each system has several coutnermeasure and failsafe systems to back it up, so there's very little chance of the flight being delayed because of mecahnical failure. Not only that, but each system has sensors that tell when it's going to fail, so that it can be serviced beforehand.

The craft has two full passenger decks (the 747 has basically one and a third), which allows it to carry somewhere around 600-800 people. The engines are state of the art, and provide an astounding fuel efficiency rate.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: vyper on January 08, 2005, 02:57:23 pm: We're not listening people.... :rolleyes:
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Roanoke on January 08, 2005, 03:05:10 pm: Actually, most of the international airports are designed to accomodate nothing larger than a 747 so it won't be (overall) that much bigger.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Unknown Target on January 08, 2005, 03:08:57 pm: I think it's rear horizontal stabalizer is about the size of a 747's wing, or something like that.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Corsair on January 08, 2005, 03:09:47 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
but in this case, BIGGER can't land on all airfields. Only the big ones (i.e. the "hubs")
That's actually the point. This is Airbus's ploy to try to take control of the future of commercial aviation. They want to fly A380s between huge hubs, then have smaller planes run shorter routes to smaller, local airports.

Boeing, on the other hand, wants to be flying lots of routes between lots of midsized airports. Hence the idea behind the 7E7 - more flexibility in where it flies.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Nico on January 08, 2005, 03:31:28 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Roanoke
Actually, most of the international airports are designed to accomodate nothing larger than a 747 so it won't be (overall) that much bigger.

Actually, there's plan to refit most hubs to accept it.
Oh, and it's nice and all to say that it's better than the 747, but give it some credits, the sucker is an old geezer now, you can't expect it to beat the newest planes.
That said, the A380 does own :p
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Corsair on January 08, 2005, 04:23:38 pm: It's ugly. The concept for the 7E7 looks much prettier.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: beatspete on January 08, 2005, 04:44:44 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Corsair
It's ugly. The concept for the 7E7 looks much prettier.

Most of the 7E7's concept hasn't really been put into practice. Windtunnel test models haven't featured things like the 'swept' tail.
Whats important is that the A380 is 2 months from flying. The 7E7 hasn't even been started, its still on the drawingboard.

Airbus is designing a challenger for the 7E7 too now. The A350. It doesnt look too special, but thats not the point.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Nuke on January 08, 2005, 05:08:44 pm: it would be cool if two of theese crashed into eachother in mid air, it would kill a thousand people :D
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: beatspete on January 08, 2005, 05:10:46 pm: Quote
Originally posted by vyper
No no no, you're not getting my point. Of course the engines will be more efficient, but beyond that how does this help any current airline business model?

Successful airlines today operate on an affordable, frequent service basis. If you start having over-sized jets you have fewer flights per day, and thus less flexibility for the passenger/tour operator.

Passenger numbers are expected to double (triple?) by 2020. Many large airports have a restricted number of landing slots, and aren't likely to be building new runways, ie London Heathrow. If you want to fly more passengers, you need a bigger aircraft. Simple.

The A380 is ultimately more efficient. To break even on the cost of fuel, crew, landing fees etc, a 747 needs to sell about 70% of its seats. For the A380 this figure is projected to be about 58%. Thus the A380 only needs to sell ~30 more seats to make profit on the flight. That won't be too hard.

The A380 holds potential as a cargo carrier too, Fedex has already ordered it. It works out that instead of flying daily two seperate MD11s (which just follow each other) on busy routes like Memphis to Paris, the A380 can hold the same amount of cargo and fly further. Its cheaper, and cargo is high profit.

The A380 is ugly, but its impressive. Acceptz0r it!
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Fineus on January 08, 2005, 06:08:15 pm: As a slight aside - this is kinda sad - found on the same site as the above:

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=293141

French "taggers" leave ****e all over a Concorde class undergoing restauration.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Corsair on January 08, 2005, 06:11:35 pm: Damn Frenchies...
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: NGTM-1R on January 08, 2005, 06:26:15 pm: Quote
Originally posted by vyper
No no no, you're not getting my point. Of course the engines will be more efficient, but beyond that how does this help any current airline business model?

Successful airlines today operate on an affordable, frequent service basis. If you start having over-sized jets you have fewer flights per day, and thus less flexibility for the passenger/tour operator.

Flights to distant, high-travel places. From the mainland US to Hawaii, for example. Or transatlantic/trans-Pacific flights. (You know, what they use the 747 for.) By accommdating more passengers on one aircraft, you cut down the number of planes and crews you have to send that far. Which saves you money. And since such long trips are generally not spur-of-the-moment but planned well in advance, fewer aircraft departing is ultimately not going to be harmful.
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: MicroPsycho on January 08, 2005, 07:56:32 pm: (http://uploads.savefile.com/users/uploads/a380ursa.jpg)

Spoiler:
I know, its a ****ty picture
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Corsair on January 08, 2005, 08:37:22 pm: :lol:
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: FireCrack on January 08, 2005, 09:00:06 pm: helios
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: Singh on January 08, 2005, 09:45:19 pm: (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v107/anandraj/a380ursaaaa.jpg)
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: oohal on January 08, 2005, 11:45:51 pm: i wonder if it can mount class 3 beams:p
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: vyper on January 09, 2005, 01:16:47 am: I cba aruging my case, but I stand by it. :p

Anyway, that's a travesty doing that to a Concorde. :(
Title: A380. Beast.
Post by: beatspete on January 09, 2005, 04:39:42 am: http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=294003

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=294004

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=293951

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=293950

4 other new photos.
The A380-900 series should be a bit nicer, same aircraft but stretched for high capacity, it'll look a bit thinner. Don't know when the first of these varients is to be built though.