# Airbus A380



## sitarro (Aug 7, 2012)

This shot has some scale figures in it that are near the nose gear. This is the first arrival of a Lufthansa Airbus 380-800 to George Bush Intercontinental Airport. The city spent 70 million dollars on building a new passenger loading bridge along with widening of runways and taxiways to accommodate this whale. How comfortable are you going to be on an aircraft with 549 other people on board......... I won't fly in it, it's an Airbus on top of the other reasons. It will hold 81,000 gallons of fuel also.









Check out the guy with the orange safety vest, I didn't miniaturize him in Photoshop....that is true scale!


----------



## Warrior102 (Aug 7, 2012)

I would fly on it - no problem. 

We'd pack 500+ on a 747 flying to Japan/Korea, no problem. 

I bet this plane is very luxurious - even for us poor slugs riding in coach.


----------



## sitarro (Aug 7, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> I would fly on it - no problem.
> 
> We'd pack 500+ on a 747 flying to Japan/Korea, no problem.
> 
> I bet this plane is very luxurious - even for us poor slugs riding in coach.



Wait, you're talking about a Boeing aircraft, one that pilots actually fly. Airbuses don't have cables going to the control surfaces because the pilot isn't actually flying it, a computer is. The miracle on the Hudson wouldn't have needed to be if that would have been a Boeing 737 instead of an Airbus, studies have shown that the engines didn't have that much damage...... the sensors were clogged with goose guts and told the computer the engines were overheating and it shut them down. A pilot on a 737 would have given them or even one, more throttle and turned it around to land at LGA or even EWR.

My brother knew a guy that owned an aircraft salvage yard, he told him if you saw the way Airbuses were put together compared to how Boeings are built, you wouldn't get on one. Sure they fly lots of trips every day but when it comes to being up at 37,000 feet traveling at 500 mile per hour.....if it's not Boeing, I ain't going.


----------



## Warrior102 (Aug 7, 2012)

I'm pretty sure the pilot can "click off" the autopilot on this beast and use his brains and skills to manually fly it.


----------



## sitarro (Aug 7, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> I'm pretty sure the pilot can "click off" the autopilot on this beast and use his brains and skills to manually fly it.



Yes, they can turn off autopilot but they can't shut off the computer, the control surfaces are controlled by the computer with servos like a rc model airplane..... if the computer screws up, you are shit out of luck like the Air France passengers and crew that went into the Atlantic in 2009 when their Airbus decided it wanted to be a submarine instead of an airplane. The pilots fought it all the way down to the ocean from 38,000 feet. It was of course blamed on pilot error because nobody would ever get on one of those things again if they knew the truth. The pilots can only make suggestions and hope the computer agrees to do what they want.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 7, 2012)

Nonetheless, it sure is a purdy thang.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 7, 2012)

Are you saying there are no emergency backup electrical buses?


----------



## Warrior102 (Aug 7, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> Are you saying there are no emergency backup electrical buses?



So glad you chimed in....


----------



## Warrior102 (Aug 7, 2012)

sitarro said:


> The pilots can only make suggestions and hope the computer agrees to do what they want.



Link?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 7, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying there are no emergency backup electrical buses?
> ...


notsureifserious.jpg


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 7, 2012)

The Airbus A380 has *backup* Pitch and Roll controls. (Of course it does, otherwise the FAA wouldn't allow it to fly *in or over* the U.S.) :Look at page 24:
http://www.coe.pku.edu.cn/tpic/20119195656394.pdf


----------



## Warrior102 (Aug 7, 2012)

Only one incident in it's entire service life (first one rolled out in 2005) - 

On 4 November 2010, Qantas Flight 32, en route from Singapore Changi Airport to Sydney Airport, suffered an uncontained engine failure, resulting in a series of related problems, and forcing the flight to return to Singapore. There were no injuries to the passengers, crew or people on the ground despite debris falling onto the Indonesian island of Batam.[236] The A380 was damaged sufficiently for the event to be classified as an accident.[237] Qantas subsequently grounded all of its A380s that day subject to an internal investigation taken in conjunction with the engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce plc. Other operators of Rolls-Royce-powered A380s were also affected. Investigators later determined the cause of the explosion to be an oil leak in the Trent 900 engine.[238] Repairs cost an estimated A$139 million (~US$145m).[239] As other Rolls-Royce A380 engines also showed problems with the same oil-leak, Rolls-Royce ordered many engines to be changed, including about half of the engines in the Qantas A380 fleet.[240]


----------



## sitarro (Aug 7, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> The Airbus A380 has *backup* Pitch and Roll controls. (Of course it does, otherwise the FAA wouldn't allow it to fly *in or over* the U.S.) :Look at page 24:
> http://www.coe.pku.edu.cn/tpic/20119195656394.pdf



Very impressive documentation Mad, I guess I just like the idea that if I have a stick or a yoke to pull back on it is attached to the elevators by something physical. My three airline Captain brothers with a combined 85 years of flying experience agree, none want to get on one. One started his career in the A300 and said it was easily the worst aircraft he had ever flown. Because of a merger, the airline I work for, saddled us in Houston with A319s and A320s, they are maintenance nightmares that have destroyed our on-time departure counts. No pilot that I know wants to fly them and gate agents hate them.

According to an accident report I read, the U S Airways Airbus that hit the geese, suffered relatively minor damage to one engine and the other was still running from what was revealed in the "autopsy" of the engines. The one the computer shut down had a small chunk out of one blade. It was the person's opinion that filed the report that looking at the damage that was suffered a 737 would have turned around after continuing their climb and landed at LGA...... he is a pilot and a crash investigator.


----------



## sitarro (Aug 7, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> Only one incident in it's entire service life (first one rolled out in 2005) -
> 
> On 4 November 2010, Qantas Flight 32, en route from Singapore Changi Airport to Sydney Airport, suffered an uncontained engine failure, resulting in a series of related problems, and forcing the flight to return to Singapore. There were no injuries to the passengers, crew or people on the ground despite debris falling onto the Indonesian island of Batam.[236] The A380 was damaged sufficiently for the event to be classified as an accident.[237] Qantas subsequently grounded all of its A380s that day subject to an internal investigation taken in conjunction with the engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce plc. Other operators of Rolls-Royce-powered A380s were also affected. Investigators later determined the cause of the explosion to be an oil leak in the Trent 900 engine.[238] Repairs cost an estimated A$139 million (~US$145m).[239] As other Rolls-Royce A380 engines also showed problems with the same oil-leak, Rolls-Royce ordered many engines to be changed, including about half of the engines in the Qantas A380 fleet.[240]



There is the cracks that have developed at the root of the wing where it connects to the fuselage, that caused the grounding of all of them until a fix was implemented.

The Airbus A380 wing cracks: an engineer's perspective


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 7, 2012)

I watched that documentary a few years ago about how they build the components in different countries and bring them all together for final assembly. What caught my attention was that the brand new aircraft fully loaded is already pretty close to MAX T.O.W. Aircraft gain weight during their service life from repairs and upgrades but it just seemed odd that it would be that close from the git go.


----------



## sitarro (Aug 7, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> I watched that documentary a few years ago about how they build the components in different countries and bring them all together for final assembly. What caught my attention was that the brand new aircraft fully loaded is already pretty close to MAX T.O.W. Aircraft gain weight during their service life from repairs and upgrades but it just seemed odd that it would be that close from the git go.



Do you happen to be on Boeing's Facebook site? They send out some cool video. I saw one a while back where they took the new 747-8 and loaded it up to a t.o.w. of 1 million pounds..... it didn't just get off of the ground, it climbed out nicely. I believe they added another 5,000 pounds to set a record....not sure, seems like the million would be a record.


----------

