A380 flew into Heathrow today

[Kingfish]

The one thing that caught my attention (okay, TWO things) besides how
solidly the pilot plunked the plane onto the runway (evidenced by wing
flexing) was that only the inboard engines have thrust reversers. I'd
assumed all four did, as any aircraft that heavy would probably need
lotsa help slowing down during the rollout.

MSN video link here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12851908/?GT1=8199

[george]

Kingfish wrote:
> The one thing that caught my attention (okay, TWO things) besides how
> solidly the pilot plunked the plane onto the runway (evidenced by wing
> flexing) was that only the inboard engines have thrust reversers. I'd
> assumed all four did, as any aircraft that heavy would probably need
> lotsa help slowing down during the rollout.
>
> MSN video link here:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12851908/?GT1=8199

It's getting up to where the aircraft don't so much approach the runway
as the world just shrinks to suit.....

[FLAV8R]

One word: UGLY

Sorry Europe... It's not meant to be us versus you, it's just
that Boeing makes a much prettier ship.
Although I will admit that Boeing has no imagination left.
Or should I say, GUTS to put out something new and radical out on the
market. Corporate Weazels.

Yeah, yeah.. I know I said it would be one word, but I just
didn't want to hurt anyones feelings by making it sound like
an American beating his chest.
It's all about style and grace and the A380 doesn't have that.

David - Where are you now McDonnell /Douglas?

[Morgans]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message

> The one thing that caught my attention (okay, TWO things) besides how
> solidly the pilot plunked the plane onto the runway (evidenced by wing
> flexing) was that only the inboard engines have thrust reversers. I'd
> assumed all four did, as any aircraft that heavy would probably need
> lotsa help slowing down during the rollout.

My guess would be that on some runways, the outboard engines would be too
close to overhanging the edges of the runway, and it would kick up debris
that could be ingested by the engines during thrust reversal.

That is an interesting fact that I was not aware of, also.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Kingfish,

FWIW, it taxied by right in front of me when taking off from the Berlin
Airshow to Heathrow. We came in in our Tobago. Cool.

Regarding the reversers: Are you sure they aren't there or did they
just not use them?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Flav8R,

> One word: UGLY
>

Two words: SO WHAT?

When did you last buy an airline ticket based on the (perceived, by you
personally, I might add) beauty of the airplane used? Be honest,
please. I'd really like to know if you ever did.

FWIW, I like its look.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Chris]

Saw it flying over London on its way to Heathrow, this lunchtime. It looked
massive.

Out of interest, it was a pretty windy day here today with some big gusts,
here is the METAR for late this afternoon, reflecting how its been all day.
METAR COR EGLL 181950Z 22016KT 9999 FEW024 SCT035 13/08 Q1004 TEMPO
22018G30KT=

The plane landed on 27L and planted the port wheels down first.

I happen to be at Heathrow in the morning on my way to Glasgow on the red
eye so I might get to see the thing take off as I pass by.

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The one thing that caught my attention (okay, TWO things) besides how
> solidly the pilot plunked the plane onto the runway (evidenced by wing
> flexing) was that only the inboard engines have thrust reversers. I'd
> assumed all four did, as any aircraft that heavy would probably need
> lotsa help slowing down during the rollout.
>
> MSN video link here:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12851908/?GT1=8199
>

[Kingfish]

>>>Regarding the reversers: Are you sure they aren't there or did they just not use them? <<<

Good question. I assume all Trent 900s have the cascade-style
reversers, but I can't imagine why the outboard engines wouldn't. Or,
as Morgans suggested it might be a FOD issue. Then again other large
four engine jets like the A340 and 747 would have the same problem if
that was the case.

[Kingfish]

>>>Although I will admit that Boeing has no imagination left. Or should I say, GUTS to put out something new and radical out on the market.<<<

You don't consider the all-composite 787 new and radical?

[Morgans]

"Kingfish" > wrote

> Good question. I assume all Trent 900s have the cascade-style
> reversers, but I can't imagine why the outboard engines wouldn't. Or,
> as Morgans suggested it might be a FOD issue. Then again other large
> four engine jets like the A340 and 747 would have the same problem if
> that was the case.

I don't know how much wider the 380 is than the 747 at the outer engines,
but I suspect that it is wider.

After viewing the clip of the 380 landing at Heathrow, the outer engine
centerlines are almost at the edges of the runway. FOD looks like a real
possibility, to me.
--
Jim in NC

[FLAV8R]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
> Flav8R,
>
>> One word: UGLY
>>
>
> Two words: SO WHAT?
>
> When did you last buy an airline ticket based on the (perceived, by you
> personally, I might add) beauty of the airplane used? Be honest,
> please. I'd really like to know if you ever did.
>
> FWIW, I like its look.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
I don't have to buy airline tickets, it is one of my benefits to fly for
free.
Since I fly for free I don't board planes with ugly flight Attendants
or ugly aircraft designs.
It will never replace the Concorde for grace or the 747 for beauty.

David - KORL, KGSP

[Jay Honeck]

> One word: UGLY

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's not cool.

It almost looks like the fuselage is too short, proportionately, for the
wings. Kinda like the early, short-bodied 747s looked. (IMHO the
"stretched" 747s look much nicer.)

I wonder if Airbus has a "stretch" 380 in the playbook?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Gaquin]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
> It almost looks like the fuselage is too short, proportionately, for the
> wings.

It is too short. Or, rephrased, remember, those huge, beefy wings are
carrying (essentially) a double fuselage load.

[John Gaquin]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
>
> FWIW, I like its look.

Looks reminiscent of the old Super Guppy

[John Gaquin]

"Chris" > wrote in message
>
> Out of interest, it was a pretty windy day here today with some big gusts,

You could see that in the video.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:2e9bg.155176$oL.119450@attbi_s71...

> I wonder if Airbus has a "stretch" 380 in the playbook?

If they do, it could very well become the first airplane in history to
accomplish outer marker beacon reception and touchdown at the same time.
:-))
Dudley

[Thomas Borchert]

Flav8R,

> Since I fly for free I don't board planes with ugly flight Attendants
> or ugly aircraft designs.
>

Then you obviously don't need to fly often.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> I wonder if Airbus has a "stretch" 380 in the playbook?
>

Yup.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[B A R R Y]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
>> FWIW, I like its look.
>
> Looks reminiscent of the old Super Guppy
>
>

Ever see this?

<http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1029926&WxsIERv=Nveohf%20N300O4-608FG%20Fhcre%20Genafcbegre&Wm=1&WdsYXMg=Nveohf%20Vaqhfgevr&QtODMg=Unzohet%20-%20Svaxrajreqre%20%28KSJ%20%2F%20RQUV%29&ERDLTkt=Treznal&ktODMp=Nhthfg%2018%2C%202005&BP=1&WNEb25u=Fgrcuna%20G.&xsIERvdWdsY=S-TFGS&MgTUQtODMgKE=&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=4323&NEb25uZWxs=2006-04-10%2021%3A52%3A51&ODJ9dvCE=5&O89Dcjdg=796&static=yes&width=1280&height=865&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20%3D%20%27Nveo hf%20N300-600FG%20Fhcre%20Genafcbegre%27%29%20%20beqre%20ol% 20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=6&prev_id=1029927&next_id=1028888>

[Bob Chilcoat]

Watching the rudder excursions (to the right limit stops?), I couldn't help
thinking of what happens to Airbuses that use too much rudder. Of course
the Jamaica, NY Airbus was going a lot faster. He was sure using a lot of
right rudder.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
>>
>> Out of interest, it was a pretty windy day here today with some big
>> gusts,
>
> You could see that in the video.
>

[Thomas Borchert]

B,

> Ever see this?
>

No, I've never seen a link this long.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> Watching the rudder excursions (to the right limit stops?), I couldn't help
> thinking of what happens to Airbuses that use too much rudder. Of course
> the Jamaica, NY Airbus was going a lot faster. He was sure using a lot of
> right rudder
>

You mean, watching those apples, you couldn't help thinking of oranges?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kingfish]

>>> I wonder if Airbus has a "stretch" 380 in the playbook?

Yup.<<<

My God, do we need an airliner with *more* than 800 seats?? That's
reportedly the capacity of the 380 with max density single-class
seating.

[B A R R Y]

Leonard Milcin Jr. wrote:

>
> OMG! What the f*** is that! Flying hangar? Is it used to carry fresh air
> to Japan or sth?
> It looks more like Zeppelin to me than airplane... maybe in reality it's
> some sort of baloon?
>


It's the world's smartest airplane, with a huge brain.

Airbus has a small fleet of them to ferry Airbus parts from factory to
factory.

[Thomas Borchert]

Leonard,

They fly over my hoemtown Hamburg quite a lot, ferrying Airbus parts.
They are based on the 300, I think.

These days, however, we see more and more acceptance flights of the
smaller Airbusses. Fun to watch in all those foreign colors. Not so
much fun to listen to, however, since one of the last check items is to
extend the RAT which can't be retracted in the air. Makes a lot of
noise, that little prop.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Kingfish,

> That's
> reportedly the capacity of the 380 with max density single-class
> seating.
>

Which no one has ordered yet. Somewhere around 550 is the maximum.

Oh, and your comment (with a lower number) was kind of common when the
747 was launched. Funny, how people always react the same to anything
new...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[FLAV8R]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
> Flav8R,
>
>> Since I fly for free I don't board planes with ugly flight Attendants
>> or ugly aircraft designs.
>>
>
> Then you obviously don't need to fly often.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>
Well you are right on that one.
Ever since the US flight Attendants (stewardesses) sued the
airlines for the weight restrictions there haven't been
very many slender ones. Now most look like they
would take your last cookie by force if need be.
I don't know if you have seen this video but I figure
you might enjoy it since it has to do with the A380.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3046542226114078023&q=jetpack&pl=true

Enjoy, David

[gatt]

"FLAV8R" > wrote in message
...
>
> Since I fly for free I don't board planes with ugly flight Attendants
> or ugly aircraft designs.

Having flown for free for many years, I have a difficult time believing
this.

"The attendants are ugly. I think I'll go sit in the terminal for another
few hours and see if the next batch are better.
....oh, wait. It's a 737. Ew. I think I'll pick a different flight...."

-c

[Kingfish]

>>>Which no one has ordered yet. Somewhere around 550 is the maximum<<<

IIRC the A380 was certified during the 90 second aircraft exit trials
for 800 pax

>>>Funny, how people always react the same to anything new... <<<

Now Thomas, no need to be smug... Even if no airline orders the 800-pax
version (with comfy cattle-car seating) the idea of a stretched A380
seems absurd for an aircraft that already has a huge seating capacity

[Leonard Milcin Jr.]

FLAV8R skrev:
> "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
>> Flav8R,
>>
>>> Since I fly for free I don't board planes with ugly flight Attendants
>>> or ugly aircraft designs.
>>>
>> Then you obviously don't need to fly often.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
> Well you are right on that one.
> Ever since the US flight Attendants (stewardesses) sued the
> airlines for the weight restrictions there haven't been
> very many slender ones. Now most look like they
> would take your last cookie by force if need be.

Shame on you. Are you looking like James Bond or what?




Leonard

[C. Massey]

"FLAV8R" > wrote in message
...
> "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
>> Flav8R,
>>
>>> Since I fly for free I don't board planes with ugly flight Attendants
>>> or ugly aircraft designs.
>>>
>>
>> Then you obviously don't need to fly often.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
> Well you are right on that one.
> Ever since the US flight Attendants (stewardesses) sued the
> airlines for the weight restrictions there haven't been
> very many slender ones. Now most look like they
> would take your last cookie by force if need be.
> I don't know if you have seen this video but I figure
> you might enjoy it since it has to do with the A380.
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3046542226114078023&q=jetpack&pl=true
>
> Enjoy, David
>



David...

Thanks for the link. My 11 yr old son loved watching it...




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0620-3, 05/19/2006
Tested on: 5/19/2006 3:21:19 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Kingfish" > wrote:

> Now Thomas, no need to be smug... Even if no airline orders the 800-pax
> version (with comfy cattle-car seating) the idea of a stretched A380
> seems absurd for an aircraft that already has a huge seating capacity

Cargo. And not the self-loading kind.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Chris]

"FLAV8R" > wrote in message
...
> "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
>> Flav8R,
>>
>>> Since I fly for free I don't board planes with ugly flight Attendants
>>> or ugly aircraft designs.
>>>

US flight attendants are the oldest and ugliest flying, at least on the
international routes.

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "Kingfish" > wrote:
>
>> Now Thomas, no need to be smug... Even if no airline orders the 800-pax
>> version (with comfy cattle-car seating) the idea of a stretched A380
>> seems absurd for an aircraft that already has a huge seating capacity
>
> Cargo. And not the self-loading kind.

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/05/rest-of-story.html

\excerpt

As we noted a few months back, both Airbus (and the A380 program) are in a
bit of trouble. The super jumbo was conceived when oil prices were below $40
a barrel, and a 555-passenger jetliner made economic sense. Now, with a
barrel of crude hovering in the $70 range, airlines are looking for aircraft
that are more fuel efficient, particularly on long-haul trans-Atlantic and
trans-Pacific routes. Instead of rolling out a super jumbo of its own,
Boeing wisely opted for development of fuel-efficient jets., notably the 787
"Dreamliner." Over the past two years, the American manufacturer has racked
up 291 firm orders for the 787, compared with only 259 for both the A380 and
the A350, designed to compete directly with the Dreamliner.

Making matters worse, American airports appear to be in little hurry to
expand facilities to accommodate the A380. A 2002 GAO study conservatively
estimated that facility upgrades needed to accommodate New Large Aircraft
(read: A380) at 10 major U.S. airports will total at least 2.1 billion
dollars--a cost that will be borne (ultimately) by travelers and local
taxpayers. At Heathrow, upgrades for the A380 have (so far) run $850
million. The two billion total for U.S. airports is likely low, and there is
opposition in some communities (notably Los Angeles) to expand terminals and
runways to handle the super jumbo. Without wide access to the U.S. market,
the A380 is ultimately doomed; in other words, a passenger flying from
Singapore or Hong Kong on an A380 would have to change planes in Tokyo or
Sidney, adding time (and cost) to the journey.

/end

(see his related post at
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/03/turbulence-ahead-for-airbus.html

TIFWIW


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[John Gaquin]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
>
> My God, do we need an airliner with *more* than 800 seats?? That's
> reportedly the capacity of the 380 with max density single-class
> seating.

Most obvious use for the max density seating would be the Hajj. Best use
for the 380 would be Jakarta-Jeddah. How long til someone [read: Saudi
gov't] leases a few of these for that? 07? 08? Has anyone read whether
the Saudi government is prepping Jeddah for the plane? What about jakarta?
I've flown the 747 in max density config on the Hajj, and I'll tell ya,
that's a lotta damn people! Specially on the return, with the zum-zum
water.

[Thomas Borchert]

Flav8R,

> there haven't been
> very many slender ones. Now most look like they
> would take your last cookie by force if need be.
>

And I'm sure you look like the young Warren Beatty?

A lot of those video scenes were shot in my hometown, Hamburg.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Gatt,

> Having flown for free for many years, I have a difficult time believing
> this.
>

You do? <gd&r>

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Kingfish,


> IIRC the A380 was certified during the 90 second aircraft exit trials
> for 800 pax´

Correct. That's because it is now certified to that number and someone
will certainly order it at some point.
>
> >>>Funny, how people always react the same to anything new... <<<
>
> Now Thomas, no need to be smug...

Didn't mean to be. It's just a tad annoying for a European to see the 380
dissed at each and every occassion with the most absurd logic just
because something that's the biggest and newest is for once not made in
the US of A.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[.Blueskies.]

"FLAV8R" > wrote in message ...
> I don't know if you have seen this video but I figure
> you might enjoy it since it has to do with the A380.
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3046542226114078023&q=jetpack&pl=true
>
> Enjoy, David
>

Thanks for that. I wonder if each plane will require all the parts to be pulled through towns and all that. Looked like
the assembly building is set up for one plane at a time - JIT airplane building, pretty interesting...

[soxinbox]

Watching the video points out how not to build an airplane. I can't believe
this thing could be competitively priced with all the transportation costs
incurred because each country had to build a piece of it. Only a government
committee could have come up with that plan.

I wonder if the tail comes off if you push to hard on the rudder peddles??

"FLAV8R" > wrote in message
...
> "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ...
>> Flav8R,
>>
>>> Since I fly for free I don't board planes with ugly flight Attendants
>>> or ugly aircraft designs.
>>>
>>
>> Then you obviously don't need to fly often.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>>
> Well you are right on that one.
> Ever since the US flight Attendants (stewardesses) sued the
> airlines for the weight restrictions there haven't been
> very many slender ones. Now most look like they
> would take your last cookie by force if need be.
> I don't know if you have seen this video but I figure
> you might enjoy it since it has to do with the A380.
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3046542226114078023&q=jetpack&pl=true
>
> Enjoy, David
>

[Morgans]

"soxinbox" > wrote in message
...
> Watching the video points out how not to build an airplane. I can't
> believe this thing could be competitively priced with all the
> transportation costs incurred because each country had to build a piece of
> it. Only a government committee could have come up with that plan.

I suspect that after transportation costs have been averaged over the
lifetime of production, they will be a miniscule percentage of the cost of
the finished product. There are costs to having all of the production on
one site, also. How about the amount of labor that would be needed in one
site? No one place would have that many workers in one place, so that would
cost money, to import the workers, and the infrastructure to support them.
The cost of building that large of a facility would be substantial, also.

> I wonder if the tail comes off if you push to hard on the rudder peddles??

If the original "departing rudder pilots" had been trained according to
factory specifications, it would not have happened. Blame does not fall
entirely on the pilots, though.

I understand that the 380 is to have subroutines written into the software,
that will prevent over stressing the fin and rudder.
--
Jim in NC

[Capt.Doug]

>"John Gaquin" wrote in message
> It is too short. Or, rephrased, remember, those huge, beefy wings are
> carrying (essentially) a double fuselage load.

And those wings failed their ultimate strength test at 1.47, just short of
1.5, times load limit. How can they stretch it when it isn't strong enough
as it is?

D.

[Thomas Borchert]

Soxinbox,

> Only a government
> committee could have come up with that plan.
>

I recommend a look at how Boeing does it. You'll be surprised.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Capt.Doug,

> And those wings failed their ultimate strength test at 1.47, just short of
> 1.5, times load limit. How can they stretch it when it isn't strong enough
> as it is?
>

Long been fixed.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > And those wings failed their ultimate strength test at 1.47, just short of
> > 1.5, times load limit. How can they stretch it when it isn't strong enough
> > as it is?
>
> Long been fixed.

was it tested?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[john smith]

In article >,
"Capt.Doug" > wrote:

> >"John Gaquin" wrote in message
> > It is too short. Or, rephrased, remember, those huge, beefy wings are
> > carrying (essentially) a double fuselage load.
>
> And those wings failed their ultimate strength test at 1.47, just short of
> 1.5, times load limit. How can they stretch it when it isn't strong enough
> as it is?

See AIR & SPACE, June/July 2006. "SUPER DUPER JUMBO" by Michael
Milstein, page 22-27.

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> was it tested?
>

Uhm, not everything in aircraft construction is tested. But I'm sure
you knew that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > was it tested?
> >
>
> Uhm, not everything in aircraft construction is tested. But I'm sure
> you knew that.

yep, but I would expect that the "fix" be tested since the wing failed
the first test.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Chris]

Good view of the flight deck here

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0957790


"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Capt.Doug" > wrote:
>
>> >"John Gaquin" wrote in message
>> > It is too short. Or, rephrased, remember, those huge, beefy wings are
>> > carrying (essentially) a double fuselage load.
>>
>> And those wings failed their ultimate strength test at 1.47, just short
>> of
>> 1.5, times load limit. How can they stretch it when it isn't strong
>> enough
>> as it is?
>
> See AIR & SPACE, June/July 2006. "SUPER DUPER JUMBO" by Michael
> Milstein, page 22-27.

[Kingfish]

> Now Thomas, no need to be smug...

>>>Didn't mean to be. It's just a tad annoying for a European to see the 380
dissed at each and every occassion with the most absurd logic just
because something that's the biggest and newest is for once not made in

the US of A. <<<

Who was "dissing" the A380? Personally I think it's an impressive
airplane, regardless of where it's built. I just can't imagine a
stretched version considering the current airframe is certified for up
to 800 pax.

[Chris]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 21:19:33 +0100, "Chris" >
> wrote:
>
>>Good view of the flight deck here
>>
>>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0957790
>>
>
> WOW!
>
> Is there a camera on the tail?
>
> All it needs is a wooden ship's wheel. <G>

There is a camera on the tail, the A330 also has them and you get a good
view of the landing from the nose's point of view.

[John Gaquin]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
>
> ......It's just a tad annoying for a European to see the 380
> dissed at each and every occassion with the most absurd logic just
> because something that's the biggest and newest is for once not made in
> the US of A.

I think you're just a tad oversensitive about this whole European thing,
Thomas. The 380 has not been "...dissed at each and every occassion...". A
few people offered the opinion that they didn't like the look. That's just
personal preference. Some folks think the early Boeings ugly, but I think
that 707/727/737 front end a thing of beauty. De Gustibus....... And I
can't see what "...most absurd logic..." you're talking about.
Additionally, that comment that "... something that's the biggest and newest
is for once not made in the US of A..." just simply has no bearing in fact.
The Antonov 225 freighter has been around for 15+ years or so, and there are
any number of gargantuan ocean vessels in service, none of which have been
made in the US. The list can go on. If you need to feel defensive about
European industry and technology for some personal reason, feel free, but
you'll have to look beyond American hubris for someone to blame.

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 13:37:24 -0400, "FLAV8R"
> wrote:

>Ever since the US flight Attendants (stewardesses) sued the
>airlines for the weight restrictions there haven't been
>very many slender ones.

Fly Icelandair or Greenlandair! The girls are so lissome that they
seem to be seven feet tall.

My wife said: "That's the first time I ever saw you pay attention to a
safety briefing."

I was flying from Cork to London last Thursday, and the plane (an
Airbus 320, by the way; the seats barely reclined!) got stacked up for
half an hour because the 380 had tied up everything on the ground. And
that's just the empty plane!







-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 18:34:56 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>> That's
>> reportedly the capacity of the 380 with max density single-class
>> seating.
>>
>
>Which no one has ordered yet. Somewhere around 550 is the maximum.

If anything is certain, it is that the plane in service will pack in
all the seats possible, with the exception I suppose of a biz class
section and likely first class as well. So maybe 700, so as to wring
max money out of the Whale.

Remember the piano in the early publicity for the 747? How many
singalongs around an airborne piano have you enjoyed in recent years?



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:17:07 +0100, "Chris" >
wrote:

>Out of interest, it was a pretty windy day here today with some big gusts,

When we took off from Cork at about three o'clock, the 320 had its
right wing down so far it felt like the Piper Cub taking off on Runway
02 at Hampton airport with a strong onshore (east) wind. I've never
been in a jetliner that got moved around like that 320. My guess is 50
mph straight across the runway.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[B A R R Y]

Chris wrote:
>
> US flight attendants are the oldest and ugliest flying, at least on the
> international routes.
>

Seniority! The young un's (that weren't laid off post 9/11) seem to be
on the MD-88 milk runs.

My own recent experiences have shown that lots of US flight attendants
under 40 are male.

I have three cousins that have been flight attendants. The two girls
(28 & 33) are no longer employed. One was spooked into a new career,
the other got tired of commuting from Florida to NY to do low seniority
bid routes, but was eventually laid off. The guy, straight as an arrow
& 31, gets more bumper than a body shop. He's been married a few times
and has apparently found his dream career. <G>

[B A R R Y]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> If anything is certain, it is that the plane in service will pack in
> all the seats possible, with the exception I suppose of a biz class
> section and likely first class as well. So maybe 700, so as to wring
> max money out of the Whale.

Or Virgin's staterooms.

[Thomas Borchert]

B,

> Is there a camera on the tail?
>

Yes. Taxi assistance.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> yep, but I would expect that the "fix" be tested since the wing failed
> the first test.
>

That's not really the way certification of these things work.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> If you need to feel defensive about
> European industry and technology for some personal reason, feel free, but
> you'll have to look beyond American hubris for someone to blame.
>

Maybe I am oversensitive. Maybe not. Look up the comments regarding rudder
in this thread just as one simple example. But I'll work on it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Cub,

> If anything is certain, it is that the plane in service will pack in
> all the seats possible,
>

While you are right in principle (remember Air France's bar in the
upper deck of early 747s?), fact is that the first 10 or 20 380s have
been ordered with a max capacity of 550, often lower. It also seems
that the first airlines to get it all work on some special interior for
the 380 which differs from their standard seating. This is definitely
the case for Singapore (who get the first), Emirates and Lufthansa
(which will probably use their standard business seat, since it is
brand new and state-of-the-art, but have something different in both
first and coach). How soon those interiors will get ripped out to get
max seating is anyone's guess.

--
Thomas (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

>Although I will admit that Boeing has no imagination left.
>Or should I say, GUTS to put out something new and radical out on the
>market. Corporate Weazels.

So the mostly composite airframe 787 with 20% improvement if fuel
economy, advanced aerodyamic wing and empennage, larger LCD flight deck
displays and dual HUDs doesn't count as imaginative, new or radical?

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-21, Chris > wrote:
> Good view of the flight deck here
>
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0957790

I notice it has a standard PC there running Microsoft Windows. I wonder
if anyone's run Flight Simulator on the flight deck PC :-)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-20, Matt Barrow > wrote:
> As we noted a few months back, both Airbus (and the A380 program) are in a
> bit of trouble. The super jumbo was conceived when oil prices were below $40
> a barrel, and a 555-passenger jetliner made economic sense. Now, with a

Surely, all things being equal, fewer planes carrying more people is
likely to be more efficient than more planes carrying fewer people? Is
one A380 less or more efficient than two B787s?
--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-22, > wrote:
> So the mostly composite airframe 787 with 20% improvement if fuel
> economy, advanced aerodyamic wing and empennage, larger LCD flight deck
> displays and dual HUDs doesn't count as imaginative, new or radical?

No, it's just an incremental improvement on what went on before. The
Sonic Cruiser would have been imaginative and radical. I don't dispute
that many engineering challenges were met with the 787 but that doesn't
make it imaginative or radical - it's just a better
Yet Another two-engines-under-the-wing widebody jet.

But what's conservative is what sells, ESPECIALLY if it comes with fuel
economy. The market doesn't want imaginative and radical. They want
familiar, boring and more efficient. The 'more efficient' bit will drive
the new aerodynamics.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Thomas Borchert]

Dylan,

> The
> Sonic Cruiser would have been imaginative and radical.
>

The Sonic Cruiser would have needed to defy the laws of physics. It was
a product of the laws of marketing.

"Radical" alone is not a quality.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Morgans]

>> yep, but I would expect that the "fix" be tested since the wing failed
>> the first test.
>>
>
> That's not really the way certification of these things work.

Yes, perhaps not, but the original failed, under specs. I'm sure that it
was predicted to be strong enough. After they "fixed" it, you would think
that it would be tested, to make sure the "prediction" was not wrong, again.

It does seem to me, that this test would be a reasonable thing to do, to
assure the flying public that everything was in order.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > yep, but I would expect that the "fix" be tested since the wing failed
> > the first test.
>
> That's not really the way certification of these things work.

Not good engineering to fail a test and not test the fix
(hasn't anyone ever seen a failure mask a different design flaw?)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Morgans]

"Bob Noel" > wrote

> Not good engineering to fail a test and not test the fix
> (hasn't anyone ever seen a failure mask a different design flaw?)

Yep. Not a good choice on AirBus's part, to save the time and money, on
this one, IMHO.

Last I checked, spar failures nearly always kill ALL SOB. Can you imagine
hearing the news report for 800 dead?
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> to
> assure the flying public that everything was in order.
>

I thought we were talking about certification, not marketing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Leonard Milcin Jr.]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> well, maybe China will come up with a 800 first class seating A380. :-)

Second will be located somewhere in the gear compartment... ;~)



L.

[Leonard Milcin Jr.]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> "Leonard Milcin Jr." > wrote:
>
>> Martin Hotze wrote:
>>> well, maybe China will come up with a 800 first class seating A380. :-)
>> Second will be located somewhere in the gear compartment... ;~)
>
> there is no such thing like "second class" in China. *gg*


Living in Poland I should have remember...



Leonard

[Skylune]

by "FLAV8R" > May 18, 2006 at 04:57 PM


One word: UGLY

Sorry Europe... It's not meant to be us versus you, it's just
that Boeing makes a much prettier ship.
Although I will admit that Boeing has no imagination left.
Or should I say, GUTS to put out something new and radical out on the
market. Corporate Weazels.

Yeah, yeah.. I know I said it would be one word, but I just
didn't want to hurt anyones feelings by making it sound like
an American beating his chest.
It's all about style and grace and the A380 doesn't have that.

<<

Totally ridiculous. A commercial passenger cares about cost, comfort, and
on-time performance. Period. They don't give a damn about what the plane
looks like.

[Chris]

Interesting "movie" of the A380 being tracked into Heathrow. This is not
radar but ADB-S.

They have a reciever at my airfield and its great for watching the traffic
without the need for a radar feed.
http://www.kinetic-avionics.co.uk/video/video.html

I think they are marketing the units in the US now. The receiver is
connected to a PC and Bobs your uncle.



"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>> > yep, but I would expect that the "fix" be tested since the wing failed
>> > the first test.
>>
>> That's not really the way certification of these things work.
>
> Not good engineering to fail a test and not test the fix
> (hasn't anyone ever seen a failure mask a different design flaw?)
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>

[C. Massey]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> by "FLAV8R" > May 18, 2006 at 04:57 PM
>
>
> One word: UGLY
>
> Sorry Europe... It's not meant to be us versus you, it's just
> that Boeing makes a much prettier ship.
> Although I will admit that Boeing has no imagination left.
> Or should I say, GUTS to put out something new and radical out on the
> market. Corporate Weazels.
>
> Yeah, yeah.. I know I said it would be one word, but I just
> didn't want to hurt anyones feelings by making it sound like
> an American beating his chest.
> It's all about style and grace and the A380 doesn't have that.
>
> <<
>
> Totally ridiculous. A commercial passenger cares about cost, comfort, and
> on-time performance. Period. They don't give a damn about what the plane
> looks like.
>
>


That apparently isn't true... Hell, look back in this thread. People want
good lookin' planes as well as good lookin' flight attendants...




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0621-2, 05/23/2006
Tested on: 5/23/2006 3:17:26 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[Jay Beckman]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
> Interesting "movie" of the A380 being tracked into Heathrow. This is not
> radar but ADB-S.
>
> They have a reciever at my airfield and its great for watching the traffic
> without the need for a radar feed.
> http://www.kinetic-avionics.co.uk/video/video.html
>
> I think they are marketing the units in the US now. The receiver is
> connected to a PC and Bobs your uncle.

Now that's slick!

Jay B

[[email protected]]

I don't consider changing from an aluminum airframe design to a
composite one "incremental", nor do any of my friends at Boeing. There
are many issues to address including repairability, airframe lifespan
predictions, and manufacturing. The 787 is going to be the first
composite airframe airliner ever made. Prior to this, only GA and
military airplanes have been built with completely composite airframes.
Commercial airliner requirements are not the same as either of the
other two and there are unique challenges to face.

The Sonic Cruiser was an interesting concept, but was scrapped because
it wasn't very feasible...

Dean

[Montblack]

("Martin Hotze" wrote)
> hell, no problem there. fly virgin atlantic. cute 747 and cute blond
> longleged attendants. Well, Richard, well done! :-)


I liked the interview I saw with Richard - talking about his father. His dad
said to him, 'When are you going to start acting like a responsible adult
and grow up?' ...as in get a real job and settle down.

This was a not-too-long-ago admonition from Pops. Richard chuckled with the
interviewer, smiled, and shrugged - 'That's my Dad.'


Montblack

[Morgans]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans,
>
>> to
>> assure the flying public that everything was in order.
>>
>
> I thought we were talking about certification, not marketing.

Nice dodge.

Certification is all about assuring the flying public that everything is in
order. Hell, what is certification, but assurance that the @#%@$%*($ plane
is not going to fall out of the sky?

Sheesh. Grow up.
--
Jim in NC
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("C. Massey" wrote)
> That apparently isn't true... Hell, look back in this thread. People want
> good lookin' planes as well as good lookin' flight attendants...


$1.25/gallon.

Now THAT'S good looking!


Montblack
....just a sweet memory :-)

[Thomas Borchert]

C.,

> People want
> good lookin' planes as well as good lookin' flight attendants...
>

If you look at the thread again, you'll also see that no one seems to
base his flight booking decisions on these factor, though.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C. Massey]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C.,
>
>> People want
>> good lookin' planes as well as good lookin' flight attendants...
>>
>
> If you look at the thread again, you'll also see that no one seems to
> base his flight booking decisions on these factor, though.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>


Read again...

Flav8R...
"Since I fly for free I don't board planes with ugly flight Attendants
or ugly aircraft designs."





---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0621-3, 05/24/2006
Tested on: 5/24/2006 3:54:52 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[David CL Francis]

On Sun, 21 May 2006 at 06:06:36 in message
>, Capt.Doug
> wrote:

>And those wings failed their ultimate strength test at 1.47, just short of
>1.5, times load limit. How can they stretch it when it isn't strong enough
>as it is?

Do you know what the design case used was; or what AUW it was based on?
If not then how do you know it was not strong enough?
--
David CL Francis