A380 flew into Heathrow today

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)

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?

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

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

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

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)

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

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

"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

Morgans,

to
assure the flying public that everything was in order.


I thought we were talking about certification, not marketing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)