It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Looks like Airbus did it.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
They may have been in their earlier models, I really don't know. I never really followed them very much and I've only flown on a few of them so far.




posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I wouldn't be so sure... Well have to wait and see...



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   
There are a couple of points I'd like to pick up on;

Firstly Dalllas is quite right about Airbus being first with fly by wire on a commercial airliner, the Airbus A320 was the first FBW airliner to go into production anywhere in the world and I remember the shock of seeing its cockpit with pull out trays for the pilot and co pilots lunch where the Yoke should be!


As a point of history however it was not the first FBW transport to fly, that was an experimental conversion of the Vickers Viscount way back in the 1950's.

Second, I 'm not sure that anyone is claiming that the A380 will be a huge success. The arguments I remember on here basically revolved around someone saying 'it will not be a success' and someone else replying 'yes it will'. The level of its success is something that only time will tell and my only prediction is that it will not be a failure


Also, the point about Airports not coping because there are already too many 747's coming in and adding a couple of A380'S is unthinkable (I paraphrase, I know) misses the point that if all those 747's were actually replaced by A380's then the airport in question would have 1/3 to a 1/2 as many actual landings to deal with



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   
It's not so much the landings that are the problem, as it is the number of passengers coming in. Even with some of the 747s being replaced by the 380, you're still talking about more passengers coming in if they're even a little over half full. We get by just fine with the number of landings, but the majority of our international flights come in within just a couple of hours of each other, so the total passenger count is pretty high already during that time.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 05:29 AM
link   
No, you missed the point, and I don't remember if it was you or someone else but the point I was replying to did refer to the number of 747's not the number of passengers, but it is still valid either way.




Even with some of the 747s being replaced by the 380, you're still talking about more passengers coming in if they're even a little over half full.


Although perhaps oversimplified my point was that 4,500 passenger being delivered by ten 747's would, instead, be delivered by just SIX A380'S.

The point being that the airline could replace its 747's with fewer aircraft to meet the same demand, not greatly increase the numbers of passengers coming in.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Looks like there are more troubles with the A380 than are being let out!

For those of you who aren't passingly familiar with what this is all about .... someone was trying to turn Airbus' great big, brand-new, A380 aircraft a little too sharply (we don't know whether under it's own power, or while it was under tow).

As new-aircraft design problems go, this will likely prove to be a very expensive one for Airbus to deal with. It's either that, or the aircraft will only be able to operate in and out of airports that have the extra fifty-acres it will need to get safely turned-around. It'll be interesting to see how they solve this one.


Ok, let me shed light on this one. It was a deliberate 90 deg angle tow to test destructive forces when the aircraft is abused. The aircraft was under tow, not its own power, and the main gear steering was switched off for the test.

Let me repeat - it was a deliberate and informative test, it did no damage to the aircraft but it was designed specifically to see if harsh treatment by a towing rig would damage the aircraft. There are no 'troubles being let out' at all.




Airbus elected NOT to make their main landing gear system (four separate gear with four wheels apiece) steerable. Why? You save a considerable amount of weight -- not to mention some serious extra cost -- by not doing so. There is a trade-off, however ...


Actually the fuselage gear are steerable, all the wheels independantly. When the aircraft is towed at a 90 deg angle, the wing gear are designed to lift slightly on demand, and they turned both of these features off for this test.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Also, the point about Airports not coping because there are already too many 747's coming in and adding a couple of A380'S is unthinkable (I paraphrase, I know) misses the point that if all those 747's were actually replaced by A380's then the airport in question would have 1/3 to a 1/2 as many actual landings to deal with


ITs rare but I would agree with you on this aspect. many airlines are looking at sending one A380 when they may have needed a couple of A340's or 747's. Its all about slots in busy airports. If they can get away with one flight instead of two, the seat/mile cost is hugely in an airlines favor, not to mention that it does not have to fight for extra slots etc.

That being said, the airlines will have to sort out when and where the A380's will land. Given the large numbers of passangeers getting off at once (as opposed to say an AM / PM arrival using 2 planes will be challanging if several are disgorging at one time.

The A380 will simply not be seen at smaller airports unless the load factors justify such a huge plane.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Frederick me old son, apart from debunking trash I do believe that is the first 'Airbus' related post we have agreed upon. Congratulations all round on this historic event!
( I want a 'champagne' smiley but I dont think there is one )



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   
It still actually amazes me the amount of people who are dead set on thinking that the 747 is the biggest an aircraft should ever be. If an airport cant handle the passenger numbers brought in by an A380, then sorry but theres something seriously wrong with that airport. For the past 55 years, passenger numbers has done nothing but increase massively each year, and if you are saying that an aircraft is too large because the airport isnt supplying a good service, then you are focusing on the wrong party here. The 747 doubled the number of passengers per flight when it entered service, and the airports grew to cope, and so they should with the A380.

Airports are run for profit, if they arent providing a decent service, then you need to complain. Theres no reason you should stand around waiting for luggage with 600 people for any more time than you would if you had come off a 747. The airport is getting paid on a per passenger basis for handling you, so if they are supplying the same service for an A380 as a 747 gets, then the airlines and yourselves should complain loudly, because the airlines are paying more than they should be and thus so are you. Theres no reason why an airport shouldnt increase the level of service provided for larger aircraft.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Add another 50-60 to the 787 bracket:


China plans to sign a deal next month confirming five airlines' orders for 50 Boeing 787 Dreamliners, a Chinese news agency said Friday. The Boeing Co. said it was still negotiating with those carriers and a sixth airline to seal commitments for a total of 60 orders placed in January.

China Said to Sign Deal on Boeing Orders





seekerof



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
It still actually amazes me the amount of people who are dead set on thinking that the 747 is the biggest an aircraft should ever be. If an airport cant handle the passenger numbers brought in by an A380, then sorry but theres something seriously wrong with that airport. For the past 55 years, passenger numbers has done nothing but increase massively each year,


Richard, i used to unload bags at SFO. First off, yes traffic has increased alot over the years, but also airports (esp the big international ones) are more 24/7 entities than they were in the past. So you do have alot of flights spread around the clock.

I can attest to the Chaos that 3 747 caused when unloading I cannot imagine 3 A380's at the same time. One fundemental part that of that is that the internal infrastructure of most airports have not keep pace with the traffic requirements.

Also, I doubt highly that the airports will give a snot about somebody complaining. The first class and business class passangers get off first anyway and they are the ones the airlines listen too. Poor schlubs like me in coach will be lucky if we get to complain to a voice mail let alone an actually human who will nod with sympathy and thats about it.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Qwazzy says:


True, it's easier to have all your parts come from countries "next door", but Boeing is probably building parts for planes in Japan JUST BECAUSE IT"S CHEAPER, thus having to lay-off a thousand people.


Japan has a higher standard of living than the US does; why else does a Japanese-made car cost so much?


A Japanese car costs so much because of what you said and because it's a better car than Ford, Chrysler/Dodge, and all the others.



[edit on 31-7-2005 by Qwazzy]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Theres no reason why an airport shouldnt increase the level of service provided for larger aircraft.


Exactly, in a few years there's probably going to be bigger planes. That means the airports have to expand. They might as well do it now.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Qwazzy]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I live on an island that is 144 miles around. We're already packed in here like sardines, and we have one of the bigger airports in the US. Where exactly do you expect us to expand? We've got a big business district right across the street on one side, ocean on two sides, and a USAF base on the other. We CAN'T expand anymore. If we remove our fuel tank farm we can get rid of the maintenance area, and add at the most 6 more gates.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I live on an island that is 144 miles around. We're already packed in here like sardines, and we have one of the bigger airports in the US. Where exactly do you expect us to expand? We've got a big business district right across the street on one side, ocean on two sides, and a USAF base on the other. We CAN'T expand anymore. If we remove our fuel tank farm we can get rid of the maintenance area, and add at the most 6 more gates.



A new airport maybe? Airports HAVE to expand! The government didn't think of it 50-60 years ago! Where I live, new buildings are constructed till the sidewalk. There's some much congestion going on and now they can't make the road bigger!



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
There's nowhere to PUT a new airport. The only areas close to big enough are already in use growing food, or aren't big enough to put a new airport. We'd either have to move the entire business area, then expand, or do like Kansai and build an offshore airport.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
We'd either have to move the entire business area, then expand, or do like Kansai and build an offshore airport.



Which airport are you talking about? Is it big? How much gates?
seticlassic.ssl.berkeley.edu... Ring a bell?

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Qwazzy]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Honolulu. 6 hardstands, 28 international gates, about 20 interisland gates. Not sure what year this was from, but we've always been in the top 25 for busiest airports. We're a major point of entry for the US coming from Asia. A lot of military flights also land here so they don't have to clear Customs when they land on the mainland. We so cramped for space that we share our runways with Hickam AFB so they don't have to take up more space for runways.

24 Honolulu (HNL) 21,971,556



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   
LINK

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Qwazzy]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
And that has exactly what to do with the lack of space for Honolulu to expand? SeaTac is busy too, but they've got more room around them than we do here.







 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join