Nice wrist support for your keboard!!
Major spin piece.
Posted on 02/08/2007 11:06:24 AM PST by skeptoid
Aboard an Airbus A380 -- So this is what all the trouble was about. ....SNIP.... Announcing the latest production setback, Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. said last year that the accumulated two-year delay would wipe $6.2 billion off profit by 2010. ....SNIP.... "Like the 747, it should be operating for the next 40 years," Liberge said. "The demand is definitely there -- this isn't another Concorde."
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.nwsource.com ...
Nice wrist support for your keboard!!
Major spin piece.
The funny thing, I've actually put various engineers to work at different companies here is the US doing work on the A380.
Allot of the Air Frame stress testing and avionics systems were done here.
The side stick is kind of funky but I've had the worst weather ever on an Airbus and it was a smooth ride from Toronto to San Francisco. I don't know how a comparable Boeing would be since I've never ever seen weather that bad through an entire flight.
I still think the A380 is one ugly bird on the outside.
They are taking people for joyrides on the seventh airplane that won't be delivered until 2009
!! Is this a 'production' unit?
Just when do they plan on recouping their $15 billion plus costs?
This is only a "newspaper story" but I get a knot in my stomach reading it.
There is so much at stake and it don't look real rosey for them
Looked at the pictures. Nice shots of the interior in
business and first class. No pictures at all in the
"steerage" section where most of us have to fly.
Exactly. The interior shots were beautiful, but the outside is really unattractive.
It looks bloated and stubby.
None of the grace and beauty you see in the 747 or even the 777.
In pic #12, the silohuette of the nose reminds me of the monster in the movie, "Aliens."
looks as if it would cost airbus more to cancel the 380 than it would to continue the manuf. process. interesting.
you cannot plan a project like the A380 on budget and on time.
Quote a single project of that magnitude that was done on budget and on time.
"Time by time the turtle has to stick out it's head to crawl further." Rumsfeld 2004
You're obviously never flown AirTran...
The 747 was TWO AND A HALF TIMES bigger than anything before. (C-5 was coming along then, though)
It was conceived and designed during the time the SST was in the works, competing with scarce funds.
The A 380 is only 25% bigger than the current 747 and actually smaller than the AN 225 and the engines are performing quite well from th git-go.
My point is: the 747 was on time and it nearly broke Boeing because it was such a leap from its predecessors.
It's very esy to build a plane 100% larger then a 737. It's near impossible to build a plane in the classic shape that is 20% bigger than the Airbus A380.
The demands on the wing construction do not grow linear with the size of the plane.
.. A.) Who said anything about a 2 X 737?
and
. . [2] Is anyone planning to build a plane 'in the classic shape that is 20% bigger than the Airbus A380'?
I said something about scaling problems in engineering and used the 737 and the a380 as an example. Doubling size was easier when planes where smaller - much easier in fact.
Was that to hard to understand ? In that case I apologize for beeing to brief.
2 I don't think so - I guess the next step in per passenger efficiency comes with the major revolution of having planes that are designed into a monowing (like the b2).
That would certainly demand for a change of the whole infrastructure of the airports involved and therefore force many passengers to reach their targets not directly but via a hub.
This is pretty much the niche into wich the 787 will fit - it will not be as efficient as a large scale aircraft but make this up by the ability to be optimized for it's size.
But it will represent pretty much the outer limit of effciency in it's class. (It's highly improbable that there's much potential for major cost savings in that class after the 787.)
So the answer on the rapidly growing demands in passenger cpacity together with the limitations in fuel and increasing demand of unpoluted air - there will be larger aircraft.
Correction:
It's highly improbably using current technology.
that's correct.
If there was a nuclear driven air plane there would be potential beyond 787
How about gravimetric manipulation?
that would end the "your luggage is overweight" discussions :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.