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.

 

A380 superjumbo production launched on may, 7 2004

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Giant pic for a giant aircraft :

www.aeronautics.hut.fi...

(This time we have beaten boing and his skyliner...)

No, I'm kidding. If you are ATS addicted for a long time you have reconnize my parody of these days, when ATS looked more like an FSB sub-station than an english language conspiracy board. But I go too far from the topic...

I dont remeber to have seen a thread about the A380 on ATS, so I correct this big error. And also, while I was searching, I found this pix on a german site. My german is a bit limited and I wanted to know if someone know what is this plane...

labourcom.kua.uni-bremen.de...


[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]




posted on May, 11 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Two things,
One, that aircraft isn't in service yet. It is a little too early to claim that one.

Second, the plane you were questioning is the
Blohm und Voss Bv-238V1 which was the largest plane built during WW II. It was blown up in the water on 18 September 1944.

Its dimensions are:
Empty weight 56 tons
Wingspan 197 feet
Length 142 feet
Height 44 feet
Cargo capacity 33 tons
Range 2423 miles at 264 mph



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Nans the pic too big please make it smaller



[Edited on 11-5-2004 by drunk]



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Two things,
One, that aircraft isn't in service yet. It is a little too early to claim that one.

Second, the plane you were questioning is the
Blohm und Voss Bv-238V1 which was the largest plane built during WW II. It was blown up in the water on 18 September 1944.

Its dimensions are:
Empty weight 56 tons
Wingspan 197 feet
Length 142 feet
Height 44 feet
Cargo capacity 33 tons
Range 2423 miles at 264 mph


Thanks,

Yes, it's too early yet to know is reliability. Personnaly, in fact, I used to prefer the Boieng Skyliner project for a simple security reason :

A a380 crash will cause about 500 deaths.
A skyliner only 250...

And such a big plane will be harder to secure, that's sure.



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   
HMMM


That is NOT a french aircraft AT ALL.
Parts of the airframe are being manufactured across europe, and assembled in France.
The airframe material for example (GLARE, Glass Reinforces Epoxy) was invented in Holland.

"Airbus, an EADS joint Company with BAE SYSTEMS, is a leading aircraft manufacturer with the most modern and comprehensive product line."



[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Zion Mainframe]



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 11:07 AM
link   
If thats the case, where's that "wine and cheese" at Nans...at least France has something I would prefer... jk'ing.



seekerof



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
HMMM


That is NOT a french aircraft AT ALL.
Parts of the airframe are being manufactured across europe, and assembled in France.
The airframe material for example (GLARE, Glass Reinforces Epoxy) was invented in Holland.

"Airbus, an EADS joint Company with BAE SYSTEMS, is a leading aircraft manufacturer with the most modern and comprehensive product line."



[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Zion Mainframe]



Yes I'm sorry, I should say European plane.

Cool ! I've found a map of the places where the A380 elements are made, and how it's transported to be assembled in Toulouse :



And an article about the construction of the superjumbo :

seattlepi.nwsource.com...


[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Editted. Thanks for changing the slant of the article, Nans


It just irks me to see "country X has the greatest airplane/women/cheese/wine/bread in the whole world!"

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Amet Khan]



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amet Khan
This is not the type of forum for trolling. Nans, kindly stop posting nationalistic BS.


I'm not trolling !
I'm kidding, but I wanted to make a thread about this plane.


Registered: 18-4-2004


You dont know about the numerous russian aircraft superiority thread we had.

I just wanted to make a thread about A380. It's a forum about aircraft, and not necessarly military aircrafts, but also civilians ones.

The A-380 will be the biggest civil liner ever built. I think it merit a thread.

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Ah Airbus. Funny how they kick and Scream about US aerospace company mergers yet stay silent on thier European Government owned airline kickbacks, interest free loans, and on and on.

The A380 is indeed a large plane. From a tech standpoint it also merits kudos, however, the political aspects make it unpaletable for me. Fortress Europe is indeed slapping themselves on the back.

It will be interesting to be see who is right in 20 years. In the 60's Boeing took a chance with the 747, now it sees a fractional market. Airbus has a different view.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   
i think the a380 is going to be bad for travellers. it takes long enough for a 747 to board... i can't imagine how long i'd be sitting on the tarmac waiting for them to fill up an a380.


-koji K.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
my guess is that this plane is going to see very limited use. the operating costs ALONE would seem enough to bankrupt any airline flying these continuously.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
this is going to be worst than the Concorde it will never make a profit boing has come out with a smaller jet one for going city to city in the US why? because I was watching something in the news a while ago and there were more and more people taking these small planes so boing went with the stats.





West Point
Out



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
this is going to be worst than the Concorde it will never make a profit boing has come out with a smaller jet one for going city to city in the US why? because I was watching something in the news a while ago and there were more and more people taking these small planes so boing went with the stats.


yeah, that's true. regional airlines, unlike major international airlines, did not suffer much post-9/11. in fact, with some airlines their profits increased. this trend is still going on today, with some of the most profitable bases being regional airlines. airbus already has several craft that could operate in this regime, along with several other companies. boeing is just trying to widen its operating base in order to not go bankrupt.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
i think the a380 is going to be bad for travellers. it takes long enough for a 747 to board... i can't imagine how long i'd be sitting on the tarmac waiting for them to fill up an a380.


-koji K.


Every airport which an airline has expressed interest in flying an A-380 to has already started upgrading its terminals to allow passengers to embark and disembark on both levels at the same time should an aircraft capable of such a feat (A380 at the moment, 747 possibly), so you shouldnt be sat on the tarmac any more than you would in a a-340 or a Boeing 767/777. Infact, (dis)embarkation times should be LESS than a 747 currently takes.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
my guess is that this plane is going to see very limited use. the operating costs ALONE would seem enough to bankrupt any airline flying these continuously.


The A-380 costs marginally more to purchase than a 747, but costs only 75% to fly the same routes as a 747. It can carry more passengers at a lower cost, with a comparable flight time. The airlines that buy it will be laughing.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
this is going to be worst than the Concorde it will never make a profit boing has come out with a smaller jet one for going city to city in the US why? because I was watching something in the news a while ago and there were more and more people taking these small planes so boing went with the stats.


The airlines posing interest in the A380 are intercontinental airways, flying routes like London to Newyork, London to Singapore, Hongkong, Australia, etc etc. In these circumstances, its financially better for an airline to be flying fewer but larger aircraft than many smaller aircraft on the same routes. Multiple smaller aircraft bring in higher costs like more landing costs, maintenance etc and are also not as fuel economic.

A 747 costs a comparable amount to service/maintain as a 767/777/a-340 (and the a-380 will costs less than a 747 to maintain), and the landing charges at most airports are exactly the same, so two a-380s carrying the same passenger count as three 777s costs less each flight, saving money.

Oh, and the Concorde was making BA money from around 1990. When the fleet was placed in their ownership, BA found that most of the people flying (CEOs, company directors etc) didnt actually know how much they were paying for the flights, and when they were asked to put a price on the service, they usually gave a figure which was 100% to 150% higher than the actual price, so BA just started charging what those people thought they were spending.

The only cost that wasnt covered was the initial developmnet costs, which were covered by the french and british governments, but in the same vein, BA isnt responsable for Airbus/Boeing covering development costs either.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Ah Airbus. Funny how they kick and Scream about US aerospace company mergers yet stay silent on thier European Government owned airline kickbacks, interest free loans, and on and on.


- Ah come on; tell it like it is/was please!

Europeans didn't just get fed up with US aerospace co. claims regarding dodgy "mergers" it was that whole slice of subsidy dressed up as military expendature that really pissed us off.

You don't think anyone was fooled over that bull# crap & the $7k toilet seats, $4k ashtrays etc etc do you?

As for the idea that the world's airlines aren't interested in lower unit costs per passanger on intercontinental & transcontinental routes!?

Away off and seek medication.....or the next line in dumb Boeing propaganda.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
my guess is that this plane is going to see very limited use. the operating costs ALONE would seem enough to bankrupt any airline flying these continuously.


I believe British Airways has orderer 100+ aircraft, well, they orderered a few and put purchasing options on another 60 or so.

They're going to be the new 747.

I wonder if McDonalds will install a restaurant on these. I can see someone going for it.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
my guess is that this plane is going to see very limited use. the operating costs ALONE would seem enough to bankrupt any airline flying these continuously.


I believe British Airways has orderer 100+ aircraft, well, they orderered a few and put purchasing options on another 60 or so.

They're going to be the new 747.

I wonder if McDonalds will install a restaurant on these. I can see someone going for it.


Yeah, it was said at the launch that there might be shops and restaurants on them. That's certainly different!

I haven't seen the latest order numbers but I seem to recall that Airbus have gotten several large confirmed orders and are more than pleased with how it is being taken up by the world's airlines.

Maybe someone else knows the state of play regarding the current confirmed (and option) order numbers?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join