THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM AVIATION FORUM

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Other Topics  Hop To Forums  Aviation    Interesting piece on A380 failure
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Interesting piece on A380 failure
 Login/Join
 
one of us
posted
Some interesting stuff from the bloke who sold them.

https://www.airlineratings.com...ngines-a380-failure/
 
Posts: 7046 | Location: Sydney Australia | Registered: 14 September 2015Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Cougarz
posted Hide Post
Interesting and quite surprising. I can't imagine designing a new plane without having an engine in mind first! What were they thinking?

Every market study Boeing ever did found there would never be a large enough market for this plane. The aviation business was changing from hub and spoke to more direct routes which called for a twin isle aircraft with excellent range but smaller passenger capacity then the A380. Add to that few airports can accommodate an airplane that big. Only eleven in the USA for instance have ramp space wide enough currently.

What many people don't appreciate is that any airport has to be able to move passengers off and on in the same amount of time regardless of its size. So the infrastructure that must be available just to handle passengers and their luggage efficiently for this one aircraft type immediately quadruples.

Boeing was quite sly the way they coaxed Airbus into building the A380. First they never really commited on the idea, then said they would just build a 747 with an upper deck all the way to the back with a new wing and engines. This caused Airbus then to commit. Immediately after they put out the idea of the Sonic Cruiser which Airbus had no response for.

The Sonic Cruiser was to be a twin isle aircraft about the size of a 767. To demonstrate development on it we built an all composite body section prototype supposedly for this aircraft, painted it with the Sonic Cruiser livery and let the industry folks see it. Then Boeing did something they would never normally do. They put it out in the parking lot uncovered knowing any rivals would see it. But instead of being for the Sonic Cruiser it was in reality destined for what became the 787 which Boeing announced after Airbus committed to the A380. This caused Airbus to have to develop two new aircraft simultaneously the A380 and rush a design for the the A350.


_____________________________
Roger

A tyrant needs just three things to be successful; a percieved enemy, a gullible public and a head start.

*we band of 45-70ers*
 
Posts: 2301 | Location: Washington (wetside) | Registered: 08 February 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Where I used to work we made the evacuation slides for the A380.
Early in the design Airbus knew it was going to be over weight. I heard "about a 737 over weight."
The inflator (Part we made)was two bell shaped parts screwed together. To save a couple grams they had use remove the wrench flats! Desperate.

M
 
Posts: 1031 | Location: Arizona | Registered: 09 January 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of DCS Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cougarz:
Interesting and quite surprising. I can't imagine designing a new plane without having an engine in mind first! What were they thinking?

Every market study Boeing ever did found there would never be a large enough market for this plane. The aviation business was changing from hub and spoke to more direct routes which called for a twin isle aircraft with excellent range but smaller passenger capacity then the A380. Add to that few airports can accommodate an airplane that big. Only eleven in the USA for instance have ramp space wide enough currently.

What many people don't appreciate is that any airport has to be able to move passengers off and on in the same amount of time regardless of its size. So the infrastructure that must be available just to handle passengers and their luggage efficiently for this one aircraft type immediately quadruples.

Boeing was quite sly the way they coaxed Airbus into building the A380. First they never really commited on the idea, then said they would just build a 747 with an upper deck all the way to the back with a new wing and engines. This caused Airbus then to commit. Immediately after they put out the idea of the Sonic Cruiser which Airbus had no response for.

The Sonic Cruiser was to be a twin isle aircraft about the size of a 767. To demonstrate development on it we built an all composite body section prototype supposedly for this aircraft, painted it with the Sonic Cruiser livery and let the industry folks see it. Then Boeing did something they would never normally do. They put it out in the parking lot uncovered knowing any rivals would see it. But instead of being for the Sonic Cruiser it was in reality destined for what became the 787 which Boeing announced after Airbus committed to the A380. This caused Airbus to have to develop two new aircraft simultaneously the A380 and rush a design for the the A350.


I have a fascination with almost anything air related. I’ve seen a few shows about how the unveiling of the 747 was really just to meet a deadline, but they had yet to find a power plant to get it airborne.

I also recall stories about the Sonic Cruiser that was just a trick F. In fact, there may be another attempt at a supersonic commercial plane as a collaboration with Lockheed (or something like that) and a subsidiary of the wealthy Bass family from Fort Worth.

That first unveiling on the ground was a huge rush job with mocked up power plants! When they did get the engines, there were some serious and dangerous episodes. I’m still sad I never flew on one, but suppose I may still can with one of the few carriers still flying them.

I also saw a show on the A380 and was amazed at the logistics getting all the sections together for final assembly in Lyon (I believe). Quite an incredible plane.


I meant to be DSC Member...bad typing skills.

Marcus Cady

DRSS
 
Posts: 2856 | Location: Dallas | Registered: 19 March 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Cougarz
posted Hide Post
Well the 747 did have some early engine problems but the JT9T roll out engines were quite real. This was the beginning of the large diameter high bypass turbofan engines so hiccups were to be expected.

The only potentially dangerous episode I can think of was when one test bird landed short in Renton and tore off one of the main landing gears but it still had three others so all ended without serious danger. I didn't work there then, I was still a kid so I'm going by what I heard.

If you want to see an interesting video go on YouTube and look up one of the aborted takeoff tests done without thrust reversers. The brakes and rims catch fire and melt the tires off. No fire suppression is allowed for a couple minutes.

The 747 is quite an amazing airplane, even today. For being so large it can take off in a surprisingly short distance. Our office at the time was on Boeing field when the 747-400 was in flight test. Early in the morning several business jets left the ground after going by our building but the 747 left the ground before getting that far. Test flights aren't passenger flights. They pull the nose up to get altitude as soon as possible - no passengers to scare.

The Sonic Cruiser was indeed real. It wasn't intended to be a supersonic aircraft, but instead cruise at high subsonic (.98 Mach) speeds. Later there was a design study for a four engine supersonic variant. In the end the market at the time cared less about speed (which wasn't that much more than conventional airliners) and more about fuel economy so development went toward the 7E7 which later became the 787.


_____________________________
Roger

A tyrant needs just three things to be successful; a percieved enemy, a gullible public and a head start.

*we band of 45-70ers*
 
Posts: 2301 | Location: Washington (wetside) | Registered: 08 February 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of DCS Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cougarz:
Well the 747 did have some early engine problems but the JT9T roll out engines were quite real. This was the beginning of the large diameter high bypass turbofan engines so hiccups were to be expected.

The only potentially dangerous episode I can think of was when one test bird landed short in Renton and tore off one of the main landing gears but it still had three others so all ended without serious danger. I didn't work there then, I was still a kid so I'm going by what I heard.

If you want to see an interesting video go on YouTube and look up one of the aborted takeoff tests done without thrust reversers. The brakes and rims catch fire and melt the tires off. No fire suppression is allowed for a couple minutes.

The 747 is quite an amazing airplane, even today. For being so large it can take off in a surprisingly short distance. Our office at the time was on Boeing field when the 747-400 was in flight test. Early in the morning several business jets left the ground after going by our building but the 747 left the ground before getting that far. Test flights aren't passenger flights. They pull the nose up to get altitude as soon as possible - no passengers to scare.

The Sonic Cruiser was indeed real. It wasn't intended to be a supersonic aircraft, but instead cruise at high subsonic (.98 Mach) speeds. Later there was a design study for a four engine supersonic variant. In the end the market at the time cared less about speed (which wasn't that much more than conventional airliners) and more about fuel economy so development went toward the 7E7 which later became the 787.


I will not doubt you, as what I saw was on TV. The had rolled/tugged out the shell outfitted like a fancy limo with stewardesses from all the majors which had contracts to buy.

Yes, the actual test flights were crammed with electronics such as a space ship would.

The “Queen of the Skies”!


I meant to be DSC Member...bad typing skills.

Marcus Cady

DRSS
 
Posts: 2856 | Location: Dallas | Registered: 19 March 2008Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Cougarz
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DCS Member:
quote:
Originally posted by Cougarz:
Well the 747 did have some early engine problems but the JT9T roll out engines were quite real. This was the beginning of the large diameter high bypass turbofan engines so hiccups were to be expected.

The only potentially dangerous episode I can think of was when one test bird landed short in Renton and tore off one of the main landing gears but it still had three others so all ended without serious danger. I didn't work there then, I was still a kid so I'm going by what I heard.

If you want to see an interesting video go on YouTube and look up one of the aborted takeoff tests done without thrust reversers. The brakes and rims catch fire and melt the tires off. No fire suppression is allowed for a couple minutes.

The 747 is quite an amazing airplane, even today. For being so large it can take off in a surprisingly short distance. Our office at the time was on Boeing field when the 747-400 was in flight test. Early in the morning several business jets left the ground after going by our building but the 747 left the ground before getting that far. Test flights aren't passenger flights. They pull the nose up to get altitude as soon as possible - no passengers to scare.

The Sonic Cruiser was indeed real. It wasn't intended to be a supersonic aircraft, but instead cruise at high subsonic (.98 Mach) speeds. Later there was a design study for a four engine supersonic variant. In the end the market at the time cared less about speed (which wasn't that much more than conventional airliners) and more about fuel economy so development went toward the 7E7 which later became the 787.


I will not doubt you, as what I saw was on TV. The had rolled/tugged out the shell outfitted like a fancy limo with stewardesses from all the majors which had contracts to buy.

Yes, the actual test flights were crammed with electronics such as a space ship would.

The “Queen of the Skies”!


I had the chance to go on board the "City of Everett" which is what the number one jet was called. This was during the Rolls Royce Trent engine tests for the new 777 where I was training flight test mechanics at the time. The interior including bulkheads were missing other than a few seats bolted to the floor and test racks. The bulkheads are intended to keep passengers in the back from getting scared by seeing the flexing down the length of the fuselage during flight.

The plane was pretty beat up when I saw it having been used as a test aircraft for many years. It's since been restored and sits in the Museum of Flight today. Boeing typically keeps almost all commercial number one planes for test purposes. One exception being the 757 which was bought back and became the F-22 avionics test bed.


_____________________________
Roger

A tyrant needs just three things to be successful; a percieved enemy, a gullible public and a head start.

*we band of 45-70ers*
 
Posts: 2301 | Location: Washington (wetside) | Registered: 08 February 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of DCS Member
posted Hide Post
That’s amazing. It’s the most beautiful airliner that flew/flies.

As I said before, I would love to be about done, but my only real chance now would be aboard an overseas carrier or Air Force 1 in the next 45 days or so.

https://www.airlineratings.com...flight-50-years-ago/


I meant to be DSC Member...bad typing skills.

Marcus Cady

DRSS
 
Posts: 2856 | Location: Dallas | Registered: 19 March 2008Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Other Topics  Hop To Forums  Aviation    Interesting piece on A380 failure

Copyright December 1997-2020 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia