Just hype, at least for the -800 model. Its range is about 15,000 kilometers, and from London to Sydney is 16,997 kilometers. However, there may be an extended range version that could do the trip.

there are a couple of planes that can do london Sydney, its Sydney london thats the problem.

the wind, you have a tailwind thanks to the jetstream, which helps with fuel saving. on the way back its a headwind.

they A380 can fly hlafway around the world

they A380 can fly hlafway around the world without stopping

it may be able to make it, but not with the legally required reserve fuel would be my guess

It can't do London to Sydney, but apparently it can do London to Perth, so Perth Int'l is trying (or already is) to become A380 capable.

The only thing that can do that flight is the Boeing 777-200LR

Another question: why is there no GE engine option? Surely it'd be only fitting that the worlds largest airliner be fitted with the GE-90 engines, the worlds largest jet engine?

Wouldn't the additional power offset the additional weight?

Quote:


Additional power means additional fuel consumption to cope with the added weight... And you can't increase the volume of the fueltanks.
Congrats, you have just reduced the range of the A380.
I'm sure the airlines enjoy that. 

Also, read Woodlouse's reply. Pretty much sums it up.

Quote:


More powerful engines doesnt necessary equal increased range. I bet that four GE90's will consume considerably more amount of fuel than the current engines available for the A380.

Also throw in the jet engines need for high RPMs to be effective, you soon realize that this can not be done. If you'd keep four GE90's at 90% in cruise, you'd exceed MMO

An A380 tri-jet, now that is interesting 

For design purposes I'd put an S-duct.

The A380-800 is a rather chubby aircraft and would not like to lose some of the rudder surface that has to be sacrificed in order to give way to a straight duct (á la DC10)
And should we make the tailplane higher, then it wont fit in hangars 

With an S-duct, you pretty much leave the rudder intact, at the cost of some engine efficiency. But that's rather minimal I believe  ???

Quote:


Er, why MMO?

If you add power to a plane then I do not think it increases range... see Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer, which is deliberately underpowered.

What adding power does do:

Your takeoff roll gets shorter (assuming the rotation speed is unchanged). But the braking distance in a rejected takeoff is not getting any shorter.

Initial climb gradient gets steeper - more excess power, easier to clear terrain ahead, less time to reach a given flight level.

Cruise altitudes increase - after all, a plane climbs until the engines derate to equal drag...

Landing roll is not getting any shorter. However, the gradients of go-around get better.

So... there was recently a 747 that landed in Rand Airport. 1500 m runway, and it is hot and high! Can A380 do the same?

Quote:


Indeed. That´s where I am inclined to agree. A380 is probably not underpowered to the extent where adding power would increase range. Mind you, there is still the phase of climb to cruise, though. 

Does loss of power decrease range? One of the Route Proving Flights is supposed to be Johannesburg - Sydney - over the South Pole. Would you like being on an A380 over the interior of Antarctic continent and lose power in one engine - would the fuel last to Sydney?

Quote:

Hence the tri-jet idea.

PlutonianEmpire wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2006 at 3:37pm:


Yes It can with a lighter payload.

Quote:


Talking about long-range variants, Airbus has flown A380 at over 590 ton TOW, more than 30 t overload. The freighter (which no one but UPS wants) is to have 590 t MTOW and an extra fuel tank in wingbox.

It seems to me that once Airbus has developed the extra strengthening for Freighter landing gear and wings and the extra fuel tank, they could derive the 380-800 HGW variant.

the a-380 has a service ceiling of 43000 feet