A380 Crash

[overseas boy]

Passing along info does not start with the tag line "this is why i fly boeing"!
Surely you can't be that stupid to think that it's not inflammatory...... oh wait
Nevermind, enjoy passing along info.

 

[WYOMINGPILOT]

Passing along info does not start with the tag line "this is why i fly boeing"!

You put your family on a Rolls powered A-380, I'll keep mine in a BOEING.

 

[overseas boy]

Thanks Wyoming you have now removed all doubt.....

 

[Dornier 335]

You put your family on a Rolls powered A-380, I'll keep mine in a BOEING.

What about a Rolls power BOEING? Or a GE powered Airbus? Or a PW powered MD 80?

 

[flyboyike]

What about a Rolls power BOEING? Or a GE powered Airbus? Or a PW powered MD 80?

Well, FWIW, so far the only serious accident involving a 777 also involved RR Trents. The AAIB would have us believe that two chunks of ice made it past both FOHEs at the exact same time around 700' AGL.

Just sayin...

 

[WYOMINGPILOT]

Thanks Wyoming you have now removed all doubt.....

Still want to fly in a Rolls powered A-380?

SYDNEY (AP) -- An oil leak was the most likely cause of the mid-air disintegration of a superjumbo engine last month that prompted a global safety review of the world's newest and largest jetliner, investigators said in a preliminary report on Friday.
The Australian investigators also said they found a potentially dangerous manufacturing defect that may still exist in Rolls-Royce engines used by three airlines on their Airbus A380s. Airlines said they were already checking for the new problem

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Inves...32.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=

 

[WYOMINGPILOT]

Deleted

 

[bcp7]

Can we change the title of this article please? There was not a crash.

 

[milflyboy]

- The autopilot was kept engaged till about 700 feet Radio Altimeter, time at which the crew took over manually. Flight Directors were ON.

Is this standard procedure when you have an emergency with controllability issues? I have slim to none experience in Airliners, but I would have thought you would want to fly the thing manually if your flight controls were messed up.

Just asking out of interest

 

[WYOMINGPILOT]

Subject: More on the A380 saga
You'd think that the Qantas A380 saga would be winding down by now, but you'd
be wrong. Qantas is still struggling with the fact that it can't operate the
A380 to the U.S. because the engines simply can't handle it. This means that
things continue to get worse for engine-maker Rolls-Royce, and I imagine
legal bills have only started to pile on. Rolls needs to get this thing
under control, because right now Qantas is in a bad place.

While Singapore and Lufthansa both use the Rolls-Royce Trent 970, Qantas had
to use the 972 to get 2,000 pounds more thrust for its operation. There
actually isn't much of a difference in the engines at all, but one is rated
to give a little more power. For Qantas, that little bit extra is really
important. Qantas has re-started flights from Sydney to places like
Singapore on the A380, because it doesn't need full thrust to operate that
route. However, the prize has always been flights to Los Angeles, and that's
a different story.
At nearly 7,500 miles, Qantas needs every bit of thrust to get off the
ground at LAX with a full passenger load and a lot of fuel. And that full
thrust requirement is apparently why Qantas is having bigger engine problems
with this airplane than anyone else. Any time you use full thrust, you put
more stress on the engine. Engines are supposed to handle that just fine,
but not in this case.Qantas has now found that it can operate no more than 75 flights at top
thrust before it needs to replace an engine. That's ridiculous, considering
each engine can cost $10 million or more. And it leaves Qantas with a huge
problem.
Rolls-Royce had suggested last month that Qantas operate the engines with
less thrust. That suggestion is completely worthless since it would mean
Qantas could carry a mere 80 passengers on the LA to Sydney route. The
airline might as well just operate a 747 at full capacity for a lot less
cost with a lot more passengers. If it can't carry a full load on the A380,
that airplane is worthless. The funny thing is that Qantas didn't even want
the more powerful engines in the first place. It opted for the same ones as
Lufthansa and Singapore originally, but then Airbus announced the A380 would
weigh 5 tons more than planned. That pushed Qantas to order the
higher-thrust engines in order to make the airplane viable on the LA route.
So now Qantas is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It has A380s on the
property but it can't fly them where it wants without needing a multimillion
dollar engine change every few months. Rolls-Royce is going to have to
fix this problem or Qantas is going to have to find an alternative.
The silver lining for Qantas is that it's not going to be responsible for
any of the cost here. Rolls-Royce and Airbus (to a lesser extent, if any),
however, are going to have to open up those wallets. For Qantas, however, itwould much rather just have an airplane that functions properly. Instead,
Qantas now has to go through its peak travel season without the ability to
use the A380 to the U.S.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

According to the Quantas website, they're operating the A380 LAX-SYD. I doubt they're doing it with 80 pax.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

Rolls Royce have made the engines that powered some the A/C's that gave us the freedom to come to sites like this and talk nonsense, making state of the art turbine engines is not an easy prospect, if it was then you would have more than just a handful of A/C engine manufacturers in the world. They are experiencing some rough waters right now like ALL manufacturers have at one point or another but they will come ahead as they have over the 80+ years they have been making A/C engines

 

[JT8D]

What an over-grown piece of plastic garbage. You wouldn't catch me strapping that thing to my fanny.

747 baby. TUFF, bullet-proof, can go ANYWHERE. There is no equal.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/08/battle-of-the-b/

 

[rockhard]

JT8D...

You sound like a typical Boeing guy with a "small package" syndrome. I have a few friends that are just like you... makes me laugh every time.

I've flown both and the A380 is by far a superior aircraft to the B744. I won't mention the B743, B742 or B741 series because we all know they are crap, outdated and lack in a lot of areas.. Don't get me wrong, the 744 is a nice aircraft and Boeing has done a wonderful job with it.... but it's not even in the same league as the A380. The B748 maybe ok... but it's still on the drawing board. Tough to compare when it's a question mark as to whether it will even fly.

The A380 is a beautiful plane to fly in all respects... handling, landing, performance, passenger comfort, etc. The lounge area at the back, the showers in 1st Class are a few of the amenities that the B744 can even compare to. This thing rides out turbulence like a cruise ship in a bath tub... It can climb to FL350 immediately after takeoff when at MTOW of 569 Tons. It can land at MLDW of 395 Tons and needs only 1800 meters (5500 feet) and that's only with AutoBrake Low.

If you're gonna throw daggers... Make sure you have your facts straight and can back it up.

 

[JT8D]

The A380 is a beautiful plane to fly in all respects... handling, landing, performance, passenger comfort, etc. The lounge area at the back, the showers in 1st Class are a few of the amenities that the B744 can even compare to. This thing rides out turbulence like a cruise ship in a bath tub... It can climb to FL350 immediately after takeoff when at MTOW of 569 Tons. It can land at MLDW of 395 Tons and needs only 1800 meters (5500 feet) and that's only with AutoBrake Low.

Ok, you've paraphrased from the Airbus glossy brochure. Do you also serve espresso when you are trying to sell an aircraft?

I noticed you've stated nothing about durability and reliability...the two most important characteristics of an airliner in scheduled service.

It might be capable of these figures when it's not sitting on the ground with maintenance trying to get to the bottom of it's many mechanical anomalies (some of which often have Airbus themselves scratching their heads). Or, if airborne, not trying to find the nearest 20,000ft emergency diversion because of a cascade of abnormals/malfunctions.

And as far as amenities, lounges and showers go? My favorite color is Blue

 

[Gillegan]

JT8D...

You sound like a typical Boeing guy with a "small package" syndrome....

If you're gonna throw daggers... Make sure you have your facts straight and can back it up.

It might not be a bad idea to take your own advice. While I'm not here to throw "rocks" at the 380, the B748 is certainly more than a paper airplane on the "drawing board". It's been in flight test for over a year and actually appears to beat the 380's fuel burn per pound of payload. As far as being the expert because you've flown both, I have no doubt that the 380 is light years ahead of the 744 which has, after all been in production now for 20 years. If the 380 wasn't significantly more efficient, there would be something very wrong. As far as showers and bars, those are more functions of the airline that operates them and don't really reflect on the basic design of the aircraft. (I have flown on the 380 and it is very nice from a passenger point of view) Whether it will turn out to be a money maker over time for the airlines that operate them, it's going to take awhile to really see how that plays out.

This whole Boeing vs. Airbus thing always cracks me up. They both make good airplanes,

 

[rockhard]

As far as reliability and durability goes... I've been flying the A380 for over 2 years now and have had only a handful (less than 5 at best) of tech issues that resulted in any major delays or inconvenience to the passengers. And to date, no cancellations thus far (for me).

That is quite reliable if you ask me. Any new plane has it's teething problems... just ask some of the 777 guys out there what kind of teething issues they ran into. And the 777 has turned into being one of the best Boeing aircrafts ever manufactured. How ironic...

I agree that both Airbus and Boeing make great aircraft. I've flown both and I can honestly say there are things I like about Boeing, and some things I prefer about Airbus.

 

[uba757]

Rockhard, do you fly for EK? if you do, you are not being really honest with the people here about the problems we have had with the "BIG UGLY BEAST"! If you don't, at EK reliability is at right around 85% to 89%. I am not going to talk about the problems we have had with the A380 but there have been "A fEW"

uba757

 

[rockhard]

uba 757...

I do fly for EK and I do fly the A380.

As far as being a "big ugly beats". You are correct. It's not the prettiest from the outside. But it's the nicest ship out there when it comes to passenger comfort. And let me guess, you're one of the same guys who laugh at it, yet can't wait to fly home on it while hanging out in the lounge. Little bit of a hypocrite me thinks. That's ok, I run into your type all the time.

Back to the topic: The reliability is good.... I'm on the fleet, I know as much as anyone. Talk to your fellow Boeing buds and they'll tell you a different story but they do not fly the aircraft. I'm telling you first hand that it is reliable.

It does have it's tech issues every so often but what aircraft doesn't. I"ve been flying for 22 years and I can tell you that "all" aircraft have their tech issues. The only difference is that everyone, including you "Boeing guys" are waiting for something to go wrong so you can run and tell all your other 777 blokes that a A380 just took a delay because we have to change a tire. I"ve flown Boeing too, and I can assure you, they all have their issues every so often.... its called the "Law of Probability".

 

[WYOMINGPILOT]

The EK and Lufthansa A-380s are great aircraft for certain niche markets but the Rolls powered A-380s have BIG problems. The 747-800 is NOT a Drawing board aircraft. It is now flying and going through flight test and only sevral months away from delivery. To date 107 747-800 aircraft have firm orders so the process is very advanced and far from just a drawing board concept. Here are a few facts where the 747-800 will outperform the A-380. It is a niche aircraft also where you need less seats or need to fly cargo at a more efficient rate.

Lower trip cost than Airbus 380
Both the passenger and freighter versions of the 747-8 will allow operators to maximize their profitability. Seat-mile costs for the 747-8 Intercontinental are 13 percent lower than for the 747-400, with 2 percent lower trip costs. The 747-8 Intercontinental is more than 10 percent lighter per seat than the Airbus A380 and consumes 11 percent less fuel per passenger. That translates into a trip-cost reduction of 21 percent and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 6 percent compared to the A380.

Can land at most airports
The 747-8 should be able to operate safely at any airport that currently has 747-400 service. The 747-8 will build on the current 747's capability to fly into most airports worldwide, using the same pilot type ratings, services and most ground support equipment. With a range of 8,000 nautical miles (14,815 km), the 747-8 Intercontinental can connect nearly any major city pair in the world.
Maximizing airline profit
The 747-8 family provides new revenue opportunities that will allow airlines to maximize profits. For example, the passenger airplane has 51 additional seats to accommodate 467 passengers in a typical three-class configuration, and it also offers 26 percent more cargo volume. The 747-8 Freighter offers a range of 4,390 nautical miles (8,130 km) and has 16 percent more cargo volume than the 747-400, which allows it to hold seven additional pallets with the same nose-door loading capability, industry-standard 10-foot (3-m) -high pallets and real-world cargo density capability at 9.9 pounds per cubic foot (159 kg/m3).

More efficient than A-380
Both airplanes represent a new benchmark in fuel efficiency and noise reduction, allowing airlines to lower fuel costs and fly into more airports at more times of the day. The 747-8 Intercontinental is 16 percent more fuel efficient than the 747-400, 11 percent more fuel efficient than the A380 and offers QC2 departures.



Continue reading on Examiner.com: Boeing says 747-800 is 10% lighter and uses 11% less fuel than Airbus A-380 - National Aviation and Aerospace | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/aviation-an...-11-less-fuel-than-airbus-a-380#ixzz1EZqFDUyW​