Airbus A380 certified air worthy

[rsmith6621]

2 hours, 55 minutes ago

TOULOUSE, France (AFP) - The Airbus A380, the world's largest civilian airliner, has received its air worthiness certificate from US and European authorities, 10 months before Singapore Airlines is to get the first commercial model.


The certificate was signed by Patrick Goudou for the European Aviation Safety Agency and John Hickey for the US
Federal Aviation Administration at an Airbus facility in Toulouse, southern France.

Standing in a hanger before a massive A380, Louis Gallois, chief executive of Airbus and co-chief executive of the parent group EADS said: "This double seal of approval represents a key milestone for the A380 program.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061212/bs_afp/franceaerospacecompany_061212162607

[thereismore]

1. A380

[Squatch]

2. Something that big flying just ain't natural.

Besides, they don't call it Scarebus for nothing.

[wakeme2008]

3. I love AIRBUSES :)

Boeing wants out of the commerical business :shrug:

[hogwyld]

8. Airbus is kicking Boeing ass

Boeing will be out of the civilian aircraft business whether it wants to or not.

[Squatch]

14. Oh...really?

Link

[Cronquist]

17. How do you figure

People are starting to cancel orders for Airbus.

[Pavulon]

22. All over nyc

because of a 30 pound rudder input. Remember that, you use triple that to stop your car. Pilot moved rudder from hard over port to starboard with inches of pedal and destroyed the plane...( ............. .................... .................... )< less than that much to destroy the plane.

Sorry I'll stick with the 75 and 76.

[krispos42]

4. This A380 is suppose to be a massive boondoggle

It carries twice as many passengers as most other airliners, yet it makes such heavy vortices that it takes twice as much spacing during landing and takoffs. So it takes up two landing 'windows' at airports, negating the concept that it will help relieve congestion by bringing in more people in the same amount of time.

It will probably save fuel, flying one aircraft instead of two smaller ones, and it's size and comforts will be very nice for long-haul flights across oceans, but the advantages of more people per day might well never be realized.

In June, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a safety agency, recommended that all aircraft be held 1 additional minute before departing behind an A380, allowing more time for turbulence to dissipate. Spacing between an A380 and a following plane should be 10 nautical miles on final approach, the committee said, double that of other widebodies. ICAO recommended a 15-nautical-mile separation for all other phases of flight—nearly triple the distance required behind a 747.

Airbus countered with its own three-year study, conducted with the Federal Aviation Administration and Joint Aviation Authorities (Europe's version of the FAA). Its recommendations included a separation of 6 nautical miles for heavy aircraft landing behind an A380, 8 nautical miles for medium-weight planes and 10 nautical miles for light planes.

ICAO does not have enforcement powers, but its recommendations usually are implemented by regulators and air traffic control organizations. If the agency doesn't reverse itself, airports will have to allow more time between takeoffs and landings. At busy hubs that will mean assigning the A380 the equivalent of two landing slots. It would all but erase the chief benefit of the plane; the ability to carry more people into congested airfields.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4201627.html?page=2

It is a big mother, though, isn't it?

[gulfcoastliberal]

5. I shudder to think this will set the record for hightest # of fatalities if one went down...

I have flight privileges with Delta Air; their largest jet currently is the 777, followed by the 767, then the shortened 757. I did take a United flight to Kona, and it seemed find. Considering how we're already being crammed in like sardines, the thought of 500+ other miserable passengers around me doesn't appeal Hope the have plenty of lavatories!).

Side note: There are so many obscenely rich plutocrats that Airbus is taking orders for the A380 for use as private jets.

[Psephos]

6. What a nightmare

For EADS, for the airlines who are getting shafted over delivery, for the passengers who will have to strap themselves into this tubular cattle car.

Billions of Euros gone forever on a plane without a market. Five years ago Boeing looked nearly as stupid. My how times change.

I can't wait to fly on a Dreamliner, myself.

Peace.

[Oreo]

7. How many hours...

will it take to load and unload passengers?

I get antsy waiting for a small plane to deplane.

[hogwyld]

9. That's included in the airport upgrades

for this plane, they had to modify their gates for multiple door use.

[wakeme2008]

10. The Dreamliner is just another 777 all BS at this time.

The 777 was to save tons of money on gas DID NOT....

[Psephos]

11. Read up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamliner

The 787 is a totally new design, not a 777 rehash. It's the first commercial liner to be majority-composite instead of metal (which makes it both lighter and stronger). It uses radical wing design for extra economy, and its engines are interchangeable via pods. (Airlines can use either GE or Rolls-Royce designs.) Because of its favorable fuel use per passenger mile, the 787 is greener than the competition, too.

It gives me pleasure to remember Airbus' haughty insults about the prototype designs for the Dreamliner (at that time called the Sonic Cruiser). They're certainly not laughing now. The Dreamliner is going to eat Airbus' lunch until they can get their Dreamliner copycat (the A-350 XWB) in the air in 2013.

Peace.

[wakeme2008]

18. just BS

THAT is what Boeing said about the 777 until it FLEW and the engines did not save the gas they had talked about ... the 787 is still a wet dream. Maybe it will be so good but who knows TODAY...

[Psephos]

19. lol - it's already built and flying

It enters commercial service in a year.

Boeing has orders for 450 of them, and Airbus is rushing to design and build a copycat version. Hmm, is it possible that Boeing, the FAA, dozens of airlines, and Airbus know something you don't?

Naahh....

[wakeme2008]

21. LOL is Google not on your machine....

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/dreamliner/dreamliner3.html

787 assembly began in 2006. The first flight of the Dreamliner will be in 2007 with entry into service in 2008.

So as of now it is only a pipe dream as far as how much gas it will save... The 777 looked good on paper tooo until the airlines flew it.

[Psephos]

35. The prototypes, not the production planes...lol

:eyes:

Meanwhile, the planes that will be delivered to customers are in early production. 787s will cost 20% less to operate and 30% less to maintain than comparable metal planes. That's why the 787 is the MOST successful commercial airliner launch in history.

You know something all those airlines don't? okkaaaaaaaayyyyy

This is my last post on this thread. You remind me of my little nephew who justs says "no no no."

[wakeme2008]

37. What part of it first flight will be in 2007 didn't you

understand from that site.

Go find any site that says the plane has flown... YOU CAN NOT...

[TommyO]

13. Same here

The Boeing Dreamliner seems to be headed in the right direction - smarter, not necessarily bigger, aircraft design.

[bahrbearian]

15. Boeing will soon be announcing a delay on the Dream Liner,,

You may have to wait an extra year before they can roll one out.

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Don't be hatin' on Boeing...

...at least not for their airplanes, anyway.

The 787 is much different than the 777. The fuselage is mostly
composite, for one thing (I do hope they are dynamically testing the crap out them, the world doesn't need a plastic De Havilland Comet!) The 777 is still
going strong, with the -200LR variant about to enter service.

Airbus and Boeing keep each other on the ball, which is good for everybody
as this tends to drive down fuel use, emissions, and cost-per-hour.

If Embraer or Bombardier were to hookup with, say, Tupolev, Ilyushin, or Sukhoi and get into the large-transport market, things could get really interesting.

[high density]

16. Probably not too profit worthy though

Plus it looks so freaking ugly!

[TommyO]

20. Ugly is an understatement!

I'm with Patrick Smith (Salon's Ask The Pilot) when he said this:

The launch of the A380 is indeed a milestone in the sense that after 35 years somebody finally built an aircraft larger than Boeing's venerable 747. The shame is that they've done so with minimal regard to aesthetics. For all its brawn, the 747 remains on a par with Concorde as an unmistakable icon of industrial design. Unmistakable in a good way: it's a dignified plane whose girth is blended and sculpted by sophisticated, well-bred lines. The 747, you could say, carries itself well. The ponderous, beluga-headed Airbus, while providing TV documentary makers with an endless supply of statistical bullet points, has none of the Boeing's grace or civility.

More at http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/col/smith/2005/05/06/askthepilot135/index1.html?pn=1 (Salon Premium, so you'll need a logon, not sure if they're still doing day passes)

[Nihil]

24. The big question is ...

Do you buy a plane to get your passengers from A to B efficiently?
OR
Do you buy a plane "because it looks pretty"?

Hmm. Tough one.

[Pavulon]

27. Airbus does not pay

us citizens. Their planes are no better than any Boeing product and they are built by europeans who are not us workers. Remember it takes this much rudder play to kill an airbus ............... ......................... ...........................................

port to starboard full deflection no rudder all die.

[Nihil]

29. You'd obviously be surprised how many non-Americans ...

... are involved with the production of a Boeing.

(Nice bit of FUD regarding pilot error BTW. Next time get some facts.)

[Pavulon]

33. Yep only airbus allows

the pilot that ease of killing his entire manifest in one shot...

(>..>....travel full port<<............................full starboard) your dead. Like i said the effort was less than required to stop a car.

Shit aircraft taking us jobs. I go out of my way not to fly it or airlines who use it. BTW the trip7 is a great airplane.

Oh how many airbus incidents are abound.

[high density]

31. Yeah I figured that comment was coming...

:eyes:

I can always count on DU members to over-analyze little opinion statements.

[Pavulon]

23. Boeing us union jobs

airbus not. Period. BTW they make a shitty airplane.

[Nihil]

25. Pardon?

Boeing (US except for the outsourced bits) give better conditions than Airbus (Euro)?

It would be stretching a point to associate better working conditions with a
better plane but *if* someone *was* so silly, how could you defend a Boeing?

[Pavulon]

26. Go to washington state and pitch

that bullshit. Boeing pays people in the us to build passenger jets. Airbus does not.

I dont give two fucks for the person in europe, I care about the guy in Seattle putting his kids through school with a Boeing salary..

How about you?

[Nihil]

28. Ah I see

Sorry about that.
I read your first grunt "Boeing us union jobs" as "Boeing is union jobs"
(adjacent keys and all that). I just wanted to point out that Airbus are
also union jobs.

I didn't realise you were just being an ugly American.
Your last post corrected that mistake - my apologies.

[Pavulon]

32. Sorry

I support american jobs. The state funded airbus can support its own jobs from the European taxpayer. Ugly or not, I put jobs in Washington state over jobs in the EU. That is the real world.

Ugly or not that is the sentiment in the EU, not like I am on a limb here.

[Red1]

30. Idiots

Well, I see the experts on everything are in attendance here.

1. The 787 is a combination of several types of composites, graphite, pre preg carbon fiber etc.
2. The fuel savings will be there, the weight reduction plus the new GE/RR engines will make that happen.
3. Airbus builds a damn good aircraft, how do I know? I worked at the wing design center in Wichita.
4. Airbus stability is good for Americans, they have roughly a thousand engineers in this country building airbus components.

BTW, I'm working in propulsion engineering on the 787

So, why don't you clowns get your facts straight before running your mouth? Suppose your liberal politics are based on the same
types of irrational misconceptions.

signed; An 18 year veteran of aerospace contract engineering

suckas

[Pavulon]

34. Boeing

is a us mil ind complex staple. It will not go away. It will supply airplanes midair refuel, it will not rollover to EU pressure. Airbus is a state funded entity. Boeing does not get stipend from the us taxpayer.

Airbus is not a bad aircraft, however as a supporter of American union jobs and fair trade I will pay extra (personal and corporate) to never fly on one.

I am free to choose what I buy, so I choose not to put my money in airlines that do not support domestic jobs. AKA fuck jet blue and their ilk.

I fly AA and others that fly American jets (although I do hate the 80)

[hogwyld]

36. While the Airbus may be directly funded by European

taxpayers, Boeing is getting a huge indirect tax subsidy in their military portion by overpricing their airplanes, parts, and services to the government. And at least Europe can say that it has a peaceful foreign policy, and has social programs that actually help it's people. Can the U.S. say that???

[mahatmakanejeeves]

38. "... experts on everything...."

I've been watching with a mixture of amusement and horror myself. It was as if I were at a family dinner.

Whoever said it first, this is sound advice:

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Thanks for writing. Best wishes.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

39. A remarkable feat of engineering!

I am always impressed by the grand creations of engineers of every stripe, and aviation is one demanding discipline. For those misguided posters who easily throw around insults, think about this: In this day and age, every great engineering project is carried out by literally hundreds of thousands of people of many nations and disciplines in collaboration