Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Col. Fishguts on April 27, 2005, 10:23:54 am
-
Score one for Airbus
(http://www.airbus.com/A380/Images/mme/2516.JPG)
The world's largest passenger plane, the Airbus A380, has landed safely, completing its maiden flight.
The long-awaited test lasted almost four hours, with the A380 circling the Bay of Biscay before returning to base.
The A380 took off from its production site in Toulouse with a crew of six and about 20 tonnes of test equipment.
Thousands of aeroplane enthusiasts clapped and cheered as the twin-decked, four-engine "superjumbo" made a flypast before landing.
Official site: http://www.airbus.com/A380/Seeing/indexminisite.aspx
-
Christ.. she's big! Glad it flew safetly, and certainly I hope they run into no snags down the line.
-
Only about 30 years late...
-
waits patiently for the crash...
-
I heard it has pool tables on board. How the hell do they expect to play pool on an airplane? :doubt:
-
Colossus of 2005
-
Originally posted by Grug
I heard it has pool tables on board. How the hell do they expect to play pool on an airplane? :doubt:
More importantly, they spend vast sums of money ensuring that weapons can't be bought on airlines... then, for a nominal fee, they equip anyone with a sharp, hard stick that could be potentially sharpened into a stake if snapped correctly.
Great thinking guys ;)
-
Originally posted by Clave
Only about 30 years late...
How's that ?
Global passenger numbers are still increasing and the big airports have no starting/landing slots left free. So you need something that can haul more passengers per flight, and the A380 is probably the most efficient way to do that.
-
wow that big
-
Yes, that big: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40728000/gif/_40728825_airbus_a380416.gif)
-
Good, finally some competition in the jumbo category.
Though I'm more interested in the flying wing design Boeing seems to contemplate.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
waits patiently for the crash...
Would you be saying that if Boeing had made it? ;)
-
Impressive plane indeed. I wonder how different it is to fly compared to the 747?
-
7 stories tall....damn
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Would you be saying that if Boeing had made it? ;)
Pleh. Patriotism is sickening at times.
*has owned fake stock in LockHeed Martin in his econ class in 12th grade*
-
thats one big mofo.
-
Hmmm....
A flying hotel!
-
Equipped with a gymnasium, a dance floor, and many other perks.
Yet i still think they should have kept the Concord flying.
-
Indeed they should have. Or produced an equivelant.
-
The Concorde was far too expensive to maintain for the amount of people that used it. I recently got to see one at the Smithsonians Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles Airport, and the actual cabin area was a lot smaller than I imagined; I'm sure it was incredibly cramped in there. Too bad, though; it would be nice to have widespread supersonic commercial flight. Take the SR-71 Blackbird, for instance; the one in the museum took two hours to fly across the entire continental US. :eek:
As for the A380, very cool stuff. There was a recent feature in Popular Science about the unveiling. That is one massive jet. It will be interesting to see which concept proves to be more popular, the super-jet or Boeing's new, smaller 787 design.
-
When are they going to take Airbus off government subsidies? It's not really fair for Boeing, though I much prefer the idea of flying on a 787 rather than that monster...
Still, the question is, do airlines want to cram as many passengers on to one big fat plane, or do they want to fly economical planes that are more comfortable and already ready to be used at airports. They would have to adjust nose docks and test the effect on airstrip integrity for A380.
-
The problem with a lot of small airliners is that it is a heck of a lot harder to keep track of, perform maintenence, fuel, and staff a large number of smaller airplanes than it is to do this on one large one.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
When are they going to take Airbus off government subsidies? It's not really fair for Boeing,
As if Boeing wasn´t getting federal help neither...
-
its a shabe boeing scraped the blended wing-body concept. that would have been a cool plane. to allow better passenger capacity without increasing wingspan or runway requirements. such a shame.
as for airport security, they are going about it all wrong, get rid of metal detectors and securigy gaurds and issue every passenger a 9mm. :D
-
Remember, the bigger they are, the harder they.....
Great, a bigger weapon jihadists can now use. They better install them new bullet proof doors for the cabin. I bet a plane this big can take out a skyscraper bigger than WTC. That Taiwanese tower perhaps?
Sorry, 9/11 memories still fresh in the head of this eye witness.
-
You know, it really is shining through that this plane is European. :)
No offence Omni, but I find it interesting that you find the Abu Ghraib photos funny and the 9/11 ones horrific.
Edit : After all, how long do you think it will be till Boeing make something even bigger.... you just know it's gonna happen ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
No offence Omni, but I find it interesting that you find the Abu Ghraib photos funny and the 9/11 ones horrific.
Interesting isn't it? I also find it interesting that those handfull of Iraqi POW's are still alive while 3000+ WTC folks are dead. A bit of an unbalanced comparison don't you think?
Amazing who the main stream media would attempted to focus our sympathies for. Though I do not agree with the behavior of the US military folks responsible, those Iraqi POW's get no sympathies from me, considering their history of mass rape/holocaust of Kurds and Sunnis. I presonally see it as more "poetic justice" then "tragic irony".
-
Actually, quite a few of those POW's were tortured to death, and, whilst counting bodies is horrible thing to have to do for either side, I think you've had you blood-debt in citizens by now, but I'm not condoning 9/11 any more than you are condoning Abu Ghraib ;)
Anyway, I'm not here to start an argument, I think we've all stated our cases now, and I don't want to derail the thread :)
-
Peace
Sorry for the de-railment folks. Now to get back to topic.... imagine joining "The Mile-high Club" in that thing!!! Sign me up!
-
LOL I still find the Pool Table funny, the you could go get a coffee and let the game finish itself ;)
-
Shame there's no mention of PCs or Playstations being built into the back of seats though... that'd be quite neat.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Equipped with a gymnasium, a dance floor, and many other perks.
that would be the luxury version with 500 or so passengers.
The economy version will pack 800 peeps.
plenty of people
-
Forget the video games...
Imagine how large the lobsters and steaks being served in 1st class will be!? Of course that will also entail fullsized restrooms, with FULL-sized toilet seats.
-
I watched the maiden flight form the BBC World and there some Airbus expert claimed that this version of A380 is just the one with shortest hull and longer designs based on the A380 design are going to be produced...
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
When are they going to take Airbus off government subsidies? It's not really fair for Boeing, though I much prefer the idea of flying on a 787 rather than that monster...
Still, the question is, do airlines want to cram as many passengers on to one big fat plane, or do they want to fly economical planes that are more comfortable and already ready to be used at airports. They would have to adjust nose docks and test the effect on airstrip integrity for A380.
To be fair, Boeing receives subsidies as well (http://www.guardian.co.uk/airlines/story/0,1371,1323657,00.html). I would tend to agree with the 'both will win' arguement, because IMO there's a market for both planes.... I think the A380 might go in the sort of 'luxury long haul' market with some airlines, though; I know Virgin Atlantic were talking of private rooms with proper beds and bars, etc.
However, what I would like to see would be one with a 5-a-side footie pitch. That'd kick arse.......
-
Yeah, until you hit turbulence. I can see it now..."He shoots...oh no, we've hit a bump! The shot goes wide!" :p
-
I'm not knocking it in any way, BUT we (UK + Europe) should have been building and competing when the 747 first flew - simple as that.
BTW, I miss Concorde...:(
-
All I know is that I would really hate to see one of those big fella's crash.:( 500+ people sounds like a tragedy for the airline industries of the world to me.
[Edit] Well really a tragedy for the whole world.
-
It's a question of utilitarianism over competition I think Clave, for a long long time the 747 was perfect for the role it performed. I cannot knock Boeing for the design, it is a work of functional genius, so there was no need to create a plane to replicate that. However, demands and air traffic are rising.
The idea is bigger planes means fewer in the air, means less chance of collision. Whether that works remains to be seen.
-
Originally posted by Clave
BTW, I miss Concorde...:(
I heard they reckon the next super sonic plane would be a small private, Lear Jet style thing.
-
I bet people will lobby against it like they did with Concorde, damn them!! :mad:
-
Meh, everyone wants bigger faster better, as long as they don't have to pay any more for it ;)
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
I heard they reckon the next super sonic plane would be a small private, Lear Jet style thing.
Most of the newer, bigger Private jets(Gulfstream, etc.) are just barely subsonic as it is
-
There are major hurdles to getting something supersonic is to have regulated properly. One reason the Concorde saw limited usage, particularly over the United States, was because of regulations concerning sonic booms from civilian aircraft. Basically, if you're not military, you can't make one. Coupled with that is the fact that most aircraft designed to fly at supersonic speeds don't fly very well below Mach 1 (aerodynamics and the general form of the lifting body change drastically at that point) and so you can't just fly slower while over land. Boeing had the right idea with it's supersonic design; it had articulated wings, so it could adapt to fly subsonic over the States and supersonic over water or any country without the sonic boom prohibition. Trouble is, the engineers took everything in to account in the design except the weight of the passengers themselves (they even factored in their luggage, just not their bodies) and so the closest thing ever produced to a prototype couldn't fly loaded. With the astronomical costs of breaking the sound barrier and the shift in demand to larger rather than faster planes, the project was scrapped before the prototype was completed.
-
Edit, WTF?!? WHY CANT I DELETE MY OWN POST?
-
I'd prefer to give all my support towrd HUMAN CANNON research vs big birds in the sky.
-
i look forward to the day when a bug in the fly by wire code causes 2 of theese beasts, fully loaded, to collide midair over a dence urban center :D
-
'dence' ?? well yeah, that says a lot really...
-
I was trying to work out if that was 'dense' or 'dance', myself. The thought of the complete destruction of the "Mr Motivator Interpretive Dance School' is most appealing........
-
:lol: :nod:
-
Originally posted by Nuke
i look forward to the day when a bug in the fly by wire code causes 2 of theese beasts, fully loaded, to collide midair over a dence urban center :D
Looks forwards to the day that Nuke is in the dense urban centre at the time. :D
-
And there was me thinking that Commercial Aircraft use liquid hydraulic systems with 1 automated and 1 manual backup...
Fighters use fly by wire, commercial airliners don't need that kind of manouverability ;)
-
I don't know about the backup systems, but AFAIK the new airbus was fly by wire; I think it's partly because they can build in flight characteristics that improve performance (in terms of fuel efficiency), but which rely upon computer-speed reactions.
EDIt; the Airbus A320 from 1988 uses fly-by-wire; http://www.airbus.com/media/fly_by.asp I think it was the first to do so, and I think boeing also use it now.
-
Well, there is a massive increase in response when using Fly By Wire systems, but an increased workload on the entire mechanism. Fighters are given specific pre-flight checks, specially with regard to wire transmission etc (older planes had the wires running along the outside of the fuselage for just this purpose). Commercial airlines tend to avoid it due to maintenance costs, but it's entirely possible that the performance flexibility of FBW would be an advantage as long as the airlines are prepared to maintain.
Backup systems on Commercial aircraft are staggering. Practically everything in a Boeing 747, for example, has about 3 auto-kick backups, and planes from 180 passengers plus these days have auto-landing systems which means that both the pilot and the co-pilot could be out of action, and the plane could still land, be it on a runway, in the ocean etc (though has been pointed out, you don't land a 747 in the ocean, you crash in it)
Most Air tragedies these days come from either Structural fault, which is the responsibility of the ground crew, or traffic control error.
-
There was the flight that went down over New York in early October, 2001, where the pilot literally sheared the tail off of his plane. So pilots can still screw up, given sufficient attempts.
-
Yes, there was also the Concorde crash where, it appears, the altimeter was giving an incorrect reading, though, iirc, Concorde used the old pitot-static pressure based system, which has been replaced by a radar-based system now, since the Pitot-Static valves can become clogged, dials can jam etc.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Looks forwards to the day that Nuke is in the dense urban centre at the time. :D
il be there hulding up a sign that says death to humanity:D