It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A380: Hurt American pride?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:27 AM

Originally posted by waynos
Kilcoo; does that mean the earlier doubts over fuel consumption were groundless?

Deathknell - you need psychiatric help. Hope you get some.

Would seem to.

If one of my buddys in Airbus signs into MSN, I'll ask whats the latest.

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:38 AM

Originally posted by kilcoo316

If one of my buddys in Airbus signs into MSN, I'll ask whats the latest.

That would be great, please keep us up to date if you can

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:20 PM
Uh-oh more troubles for Airbus.

A planned upgarde to the A320 has been shelved do to the difficulties with the A380.

Apparently Airbus had been testing an upgraded winglet design for the A320. While the design was "successful" in increasing effiecency it led to increased stress on the center of the wing and the needed strengthening would have led to a weight penalty virtually erasing the gains in effiecency the redesigned winglet offered.

Can I blame this on the A380 or was it just an upgrade that didn't pass muster.

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:31 PM
My dislike for the A380 has nothing to do with who built it.

I dislike it because its a big ugly thing that was designed to cram more people on a flight, thus increasing profits for airlines, instead of moving towards faster, safer, or fuel efficient air travel.

Flying is a fast way to get from point a to be, thus, this A380 seems pretty useless. When I am flying, I wanna get there as fast as possible. The less time spent en route, the better.

The A380 is not a step forward, its pure stagnation and overkill. If Boeing had built the thing, Id have as much dislike for it.

Whoever designs an aircraft that is faster, cuts travel time signifigantly, and revolutionizes air travel with a new engine or energy source gets my approval.

We are running into a worldwide shortage of petroleum, and Airbus reponds by building a big fat gas guzzling beast of a bird? Extremely stupid and short term thinking. If oil oil continues to dry up as its been doing, this thing will be obsolete in a few years. Boeing is starting to move in the right direction by looking at building more fuel efficient designs. Still, it needs to really start looking into alternative sources too. Even a fuel efficient bird still chomps the fuel and pollutes.

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:31 PM
skadi, fuel efficiency is part of the reason for building the A380, it is a fuel efficient design anyway. Plus a full A380 is equal to two smaller types ie less fuel used per passenger per trip.

The A380 is as fast as any other airliner around today (and the 787 as well) thats because all airliners fly at broadly the same speed, give or take the odd couple of mph, for reasons of efficiency, so why is the speed of it even an issue (plus how is it useless???).

If Boeing had built the A380 I'd have been equally impressed with it (and also if Airbus had designed the 787 - its not who built it, its what it is that counts). with ever rising numbers of people wanting to fly you have two options to meet demand. Make more planes or make bigger planes, surely you're not advocating the major trunk routes should be swamped with more smaller planes clogging up the air lanes and landing slots?

Whoever designs a plane that is faster is guaranteeing much higher fuel consumption which is surely what you were arguing against?

New alternative power sources have been actively sought by the aircraft industry as a whole for at least the last 25 years. Airbus Lockheed and Tupolev all actively pursued hydrogen propulsion as far back as 1980 for one example. Alternative fuel solutions aren't just waiting out there fully formed you know?

An alternative viewpoint to your last paragraph would be;

"We are running into a worldwide shortage of petroleum, and Airbus reponds by building a big fat high capacity and very efficient people mover which allows a greater number of people to travel on fewer aircraft freeing up airspace and landing slots at major hubs which can then be used by aircraft like the 787 flying efficiently on long thin routes. Not the perfect overall solution to the crisis but on balance the best available to us at current technology levels. Both Airbus and Boeing need to really start looking into alternative sources for the next generation though. Even a fuel efficient bird still chomps the fuel and pollutes."

Don't you reckon?

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 06:07 PM
specific fuel consumption is a bigger part of the picture. Designing which would be for this case a higher thrust for lower fuel consumption does not impress. The technology has basically has been mastered.

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:47 PM
No, waynos. Im arguing against many things.

Speed: the A380 goes about as fast as other airliners. So theres nothing impressive about it there. What would impress me is developing a new engine, a new design, new system, ect, that would make planes much faster.

Size: Just because it can take on bigger passenger loads does not mean its gonna reduce total movement. It will simply mean more packed flights, as more people will try and fill the vacancies.

Fuel efficiency: I doubt it, a plane of its size.

I am more interested in a plane that travels faster, that can halve travel time. Get me where I wanna go faster. And does it on an alternate fuel or greater fuel efficiency.

I dont care if Boeing or Airbus make it. Whoever does, Ill sing their praises.

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 03:07 AM
I certainly don't disagree with the main thrust of that post, skadi, but given that we must work within the limits of the technology that is available I think the 787 and A380 between them (or their equivalents) offer the best overall solution.

I disagree too that thousands of people will suddenly decide to fly just because the A380 makes more seats available. The demand for air travel and the growth in that demand are present regardless.

When you say; 'Fuel efficiency: I doubt it, a plane of its size.'
bear in mind that a full passenger load from an A380 would require THREE 787's. If the traffic volume on a given route justifies it of course the A380 is the most efficient option, its exactly the ame argument that has justified the 747 all these years.

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 03:13 AM

Fuel efficiency: I doubt it, a plane of its size.

Don't you understand? It can carry 550 people, the amount of fuel burnt per passenger for a long trip is significantly less than current competition. That's basically the whole point of the A380.

It also has high bypass ratio engines, these have one of the biggest bypass ratio in the world, meaning fuel efficiancy.

Size: Just because it can take on bigger passenger loads does not mean its gonna reduce total movement. It will simply mean more packed flights, as more people will try and fill the vacancies.

It means it will reduce total aircraft movement. What do you rignk is better, 3 767s or 1 A380?

[edit on 7-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:54 AM

Originally posted by waynos
Yep Boeing duped them with the sonic cruiser and they fell for it. I wouldn't want to play Texas holdem against them

Boeing snookered them into building that 800 passenger white elephant and then Boeing builds a plane that the market actually wants.

Yup, such comments gave me more than a laugh quite a few times. Another such ludicrous comment that would make the madrassas proud: "The eurocraps fell for the flawed canard layout for the Eurofighter and the rafale by looking at early ATF artist impressions (that were intended to fool)!!!"

[edit on 7/10/06 by Stealth Spy]

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:06 PM
Passenger jet aircraft

1) maximum speed

Tu-144 2500 km/h
Concorde 2330 km/h
Boeing 727-200 Advanced 1010 km/h
Boeing 707-320B 1009 km/h
Tu-110 1000 km/h
Convair 880 991 km/h
Boeing 747-400 988 km/h
Douglas DC-10 982 km/h
Boeing 757-300 982 km/h
Lockheed L-1011-500 974 km/h
HS121 Trident 2E 974 km/h
Tu-124V 970 km/h
Douglas DC-8-63 967 km/h
Airbus 380-800 955 km/h
Boeing 787-9 954 km/h
Tu-154M 952 km/h
Boeing 777-300ER 950 km/h
Il-86 950 km/h
Suhoi Superjet 100 950 km/h
Tu-134A 950 km/h
Tu-104B 950 km/h
Vickers Super VC10 941 km/h
Airbus 340-300 930 km/h
Boeing 737-900 925 km/h
McDonnell Douglas MD-82 925 km/h
Dassault Mercure 925 km/h
Il-62MK 919 km/h
Boeing 767-400ER 913 km/h
Airbus 330-300 913 km/h
Airbus 321-211 904 km/h
Airbus 310-300 901 km/h
Il-96-300 900 km/h
Tu-204-300 900 km/h
Airbus 300-600R 897 km/h
BAC 111-500 891 km/h
BAe 146-300 890 km/h
Embraer ERJ190-200 890 km/h
Bombardier CRJ705 885 km/h
Comac ARJ21 876 km/h
Yak-42 870 km/h
An-148-100A 870 km/h
Tu-334-100 865 km/h
Fokker 100 856 km/h
Embraer ERJ145XR 851 km/h
DH106 Comet 4B 850 km/h
SE210 Caravelle 826 km/h
AVRO Canada C-102 805 km/h
Dornier 328JET 750 km/h
VFW-Fokker 614 722 km/h
AVRO 706 Ashton 707 km/h
Yak-40 550 km/h

2) rate ofclimb

Tu-144 3000 m/min
Concorde 1524 m/min
Dornier 328JET 1125 m/min
Embraer ERJ190-200 1067 m/min
Dassault Mercure 1001 m/min
VFW-Fokker 614 945 m/min
Il-86 900 m/min
AVRO 706 Ashton 880 m/min
BAC 111-500 762 m/min
Tu-124V 720 m/min
Boeing 707 714 m/min
AVRO Canada C-102 677 m/min
Tu-104B 600 m/min
Yak-40 480 m/min

3) ceiling

Concorde 18290 m
Tu-144 18000 m
Boeing 747-400 13747 m
Boeing 777-300ER 13140 m
Boeing 767-400 13137 m
Airbus 380-800 13115 m
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 13107 m
Lockheed L-1011-500 13106 m
Boeing 787-9 13105 m
Vickers 1101 VC10 13105 m
Il-96 13100 m
Boeing 727-200 Advanced 13000 m
Il-62M 13000 m
Boeing 707-320B 12802 m
Douglas DC-8-63 12802 m
Boeing 757-300 12800 m
DH106 Comet 2 12800 m
Airbus 340-600 12634 m
Airbus 330-300 12527 m
Airbus 310-300 12500 m
Tu-204-300 12500 m
Convair 880 12500 m
An-148-100A 12500 m
Boeing 737-900 12497 m
Bombardier CRJ1000 12497 m
Suhoi Superjet 100 12497 m
Embraer ERJ190-200 12497 m
AVRO 706 Ashton 12300 m
AVRO Canada C-102 12285 m
Airbus 300-600R 12192 m
Airbus 321-211 12131 m
Tu-154M 12100 m
Tu-134A 12100 m
Il-86 12000 m
SE210 Caravelle 12000 m
Tu-110 12000 m
Comac ARJ21 11900 m
Dassault Mercure 11887 m
Tu-124V 11700 m
Tu-104B 11500 m
BAC 111-500 11285 m
McDonnell Douglas MD-88 11278 m
Embraer ERJ145 11278 m
Tu-334-100 11100 m
HS121 Trident 2E 10973 m
Fokker F28 10675 m
BAe 146-300 10668 m
Dornier 328JET 10668 m
Yak-42 9600 m
Yak-40 8100 m
VFW-Fokker 614 7620 m

4) engine thrust

Airbus 380-800 1496 kN
Boeing 747-400 1128 kN
Airbus 340-600 1100 kN
Boeing 777-300ER 1024 kN
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 840 kN
Tu-144 800 kN
Concorde 676 kN
Lockheed L-1011-500 667.2 kN
Il-96M 658.4 kN
Airbus 330-300 648 kN
Boeing 787-9 640 kN
Boeing 767-400ER 565 kN
Airbus 300-600R 547.2 kN
Airbus 310-300 524.8 kN
Il-86 510 kN
Il-62M 431.6 kN
Vickers Super VC10 400.4 kN
Douglas DC-8-70 391.6 kN
Boeing 757-300 390.2 kN
Tu-204-220 383.4 kN
Boeing 707-320B 337.6 kN
Tu-154M 310.8 kN
Airbus 321-200 293.6 kN
Convair 990 286.4 kN
Tu-110 262.8 kN
McDonnell Douglas MD-90-55 249 kN
Boeing 737-900 242.8 kN
Boeing 727-200 Advanced 232 kN
DH106 Comet 4 204.8 kN
Yak-42D 191.25 kN
Tu-104B 190.2 kN
Embraer ERJ190-200 178 kN
Comac ARJ21 164.18 kN
Tu-334-100D 161 kN
HS121 Trident 2E 159.6 kN
Suhoi Superjet 100-95 156 kN
Dassault Mercure 137.8 kN
Fokker 100 134.4 kN
An-148-100 134 kN
Tu-134A 133.36 kN
SE210 Caravelle 12 129 kN
Bombardier CRJ1000 129 kN
BAe 146-300 124.4 kN
BAC 111-500 111.6 kN
Tu-124V 106.2 kN
AVRO 706 Ashton 88 kN
VFW-Fokker 614 68.6 kN
Embraer ERJ145LR 66 kN
AVRO Canada C-102 64 kN
Dornier 328JET 53.8 kN
Yak-40 44.1 kN

5) maximum seat capacity

Airbus 380-800 853
Boeing 747-400 624
Boeing 777-300ER 550
Airbus 340-600 440
Airbus 330-300 440
Il-96-400 436
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 410
Boeing 767-400ER 375
Airbus 300-600R 361
Il-86 350
Boeing 787-3 330
Lockheed L-1011-500 315
Boeing 757-300 289
Airbus 310-300 280
Douglas DC-8-63 259
Airbus 321-200 220
Boeing 737-900 215
Tu-204-200 212
Boeing 707-320B 202
Boeing 727-200 Advanced 189
Il-62M 186
HS121 Trident 3B 180
Tu-154M 180
McDonnell Douglas MD-90-30 172
Vickers Super VC10 151
Dassault Mercure 150
Tu-144 140
SE210 Caravelle 12 140
Concorde 128
Embraer ERJ190-200 122
Convair 990 121
Yak-42D 120
BAC 111-500 119
DH106 Comet 4C 119
BAe 146-300 112
Fokker 100 107
Comac ARJ21-900 105
Suhoi Superjet 100-95 103
Tu-334-100 102
Bombardier CRJ1000 100
Tu-110 100
Tu-104B 100
An-158 99
Tu-134A 84
An-148-100 80
Tu-124V 56
Embraer ERJ145 50
AVRO Canada C-102 50
VFW-Fokker 614 44
Yak-40 40
Dornier 328JET 34

6) maximum range

Airbus 340-500HGW 16700 km
Boeing 787-9 16295 km
Airbus 380-800 15199 km
Il-96M 15000 km
Boeing 747-8 14815 km
Boeing 777-300ER 14685 km
Airbus 330-200 13430 km
McDonnell Douglas MD-11ER 13408 km
Boeing 767-200ER 12200 km
Vickers Super VC10 11473 km
Lockheed L-1011-500 11297 km
Boeing 707-320B 10650 km
Il-62M 10000 km
Airbus 310-300 9630 km
Tu-204-300 9250 km
Douglas DC-8-73 8950 km
Convair 990 8690 km
Il-86 8200 km
Airbus 300-600R 7700 km
Boeing 757-200 7600 km
Concorde 7250 km
DH106 Comet 4C 6900 km
Tu-154M 6600 km
Tu-144 6501 km
Boeing 737-900ER 6045 km
Airbus 321-200 5600 km
McDonnell Douglas MD-90-50 5160 km
Suhoi Superjet 100-95LR 4578 km
Boeing 727-200 Advanced 4450 km
Embraer ERJ190-100AR 4448 km
An-148-100E 4400 km
Tu-334-100D 4100 km
SE210 Caravelle 12 4040 km
Yak-42D 4000 km
HS121 Trident 2E 3965 km
Bombardier CRJ700LR 3708 km
Embraer ERJ145XR 3706 km
Dornier 328JET 3705 km
Comac ARJ21-700 3700 km
Fokker 70 3470 km
BAC 111-500 3458 km
Tu-110 3450 km
Tu-134A 3200 km
BAe 146-300 2815 km
Tu-104B 2650 km
Yak-40D 2200 km
Tu-124V 2100 km
AVRO Canada C-102 2000 km
Dassault Mercure 1756 km
VFW-Fokker 614 1195 km

7) production

Boeing 737 6605
Airbus 318/319/320/321 4552
Douglas DC-9 / McDonnell Douglas MD-80/MD-90 / Boeing 717 2439
Boeing 727 1831
Bombardier CRJ100/CRJ200/CRJ700/CRJ900/CRJ1000 1595
Boeing 747 1418
Embraer ERJ135/ERJ140/ERJ145 1100
Boeing 757 1050
Tu-154 1015
Boeing 707/720 1010
Yak-40 1010
Boeing 767 1000
Boeing 777 913
Tu-134 852
Airbus 330 765
Embraer ERJ170/ERJ190 713
Douglas DC-10 / McDonnell Douglas MD-11 586
Fokker F28/70/100 572
Airbus 300 561
Douglas DC-8 556
BAe 146 / AVRO RJ 387
Airbus 340 375
Il-62 292
SE210 Caravelle 282
Airbus 310 255
Lockheed L-1011 250
BAC 111 244
Tu-104 200
Yak-42 178
Tu-124 164
DH106 Comet 114
Convair 880/990 102
Dornier 328JET 83
Tu-204/214 69
Airbus 380 59
Vickers VC10 54
Il-96 29
Concorde 20
VFW-Fokker 614 19
Tu-144 16
Dassault Mercure 12
An-148/158 12
Suhoi Superjet 100 8
Boeing 787 7
Comac ARJ21 6
Tu-110 4
Tu-334 2
AVRO Canada C-102 1

edit on 11-6-2011 by kondor because: type error

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Shamanator
Boeing builds far superior planes in every way compared to Airbus all I have to say is you will never beat America! We are the winners and you are the losers. This is the way it has always been and this is the way it will always be. Don’t even try it losers. America will beat your ass again. Anytime. Bring’em on!

Go USA!!

And I was led to believe that Americans didn't get irony...


top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in