Simviation Forum - When is the A380-800...

Reply #15 - Jan 8^th, 2007 at 8:30am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 8:20am:

NDSP wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 7:48am:

Has Airbus found the solution to all of the problems the A380-800 has? The electical and wieght problems that have hurt it for the past year? Huh

Nick

Dunno. But the last I heard the 787 was overweight too. Have they sorted that out yet?

Looking at the 787 section on the Boeing website, in the photo section how many actual photos are there of the 787 structures...

10, 20, 30...

...nope...

...2! The nose cone and the well publicised "Dreamliner" labelled fuselage section.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Jan 8^th, 2007 at 8:33am

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Which means that the 787 is still basically still only an artists impression... Tongue

Dreamliner indeed.

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Jan 8^th, 2007 at 9:47am

Jakemaster Ex Member

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 8:20am:

NDSP wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 7:48am:

Has Airbus found the solution to all of the problems the A380-800 has? The electical and wieght problems that have hurt it for the past year? Huh

Nick

Dunno. But the last I heard the 787 was overweight too. Have they sorted that out yet?

They made some changes to materials, substituted in some titanium to lighten it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Jan 8^th, 2007 at 11:34am

dcunning30 Offline
Colonel
This is me......really!!!!
The Land of Nod

Gender:
Posts: 1612

Charlie wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 8:30am:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 8:20am:

NDSP wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 7:48am:

Has Airbus found the solution to all of the problems the A380-800 has? The electical and wieght problems that have hurt it for the past year? Huh

Nick

Dunno. But the last I heard the 787 was overweight too. Have they sorted that out yet?

Looking at the 787 section on the Boeing website, in the photo section how many actual photos are there of the 787 structures...

10, 20, 30...

...nope...

...2! The nose cone and the well publicised "Dreamliner" labelled fuselage section.

What do you expect? They introduce the 787 and show 2 drawings, then suddenly Airbus produces drawings of the A350EWB that looks suspiciously like the 787! Boeings learned they have to keep their cards close to their chest! Airbus is looking. Cool

TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE 34 RR THE WORLD WONDERS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Jan 9^th, 2007 at 8:53pm

NDSP Offline
Colonel
Jimi is stoned... but
he'll be back
Queens, New York City

Gender:
Posts: 2250

I havent heard of any weight problems in the 787. Its a small aircraft, supposed to replace the 757 and the 767.

I think if it flies the way it marketed to, its a great aircraft. Its an airplane that can be converted to go international or be converted to go city to city (atleast thats what ive heard...). If it works out I think its a better design than the A380 simply because it has great range and doesnt need a lot of runway, much unlike the A380. I have heard that airports like Heathrow are putting in extra work in expanding their taxiways just for the A380. That seems a little over the top to me. Its just a 747 with another 100 or so seats. Sure, its range is better, but it still might be more gas guzzling than expected because of weight conditions.

The A380 deffinatly does have more room in the Cabin for other things than seats, but we all see how much airlines use the space for other things...

Nick

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Jan 9^th, 2007 at 8:57pm

Chris_F Offline
Colonel
Insert message here

Posts: 1364

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 8:33am:

Which means that the 787 is still basically still only an artists impression... Tongue

Dreamliner indeed.

How much can an artist's rendering actually weigh?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Jan 9^th, 2007 at 9:21pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Chris_F wrote on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 8:57pm:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 8:33am:

Which means that the 787 is still basically still only an artists impression... Tongue

Dreamliner indeed.

How much can an artist's rendering actually weigh?

Depends on the paper... Grin

Quote:

I havent heard of any weight problems in the 787. Its a small aircraft, supposed to replace the 757 and the 767...

...If it works out I think its a better design than the A380 simply because it has great range and doesnt need a lot of runway, much unlike the A380.

Well your first statement says its replacing the 757 and 767, yet in the second statement you compare it directly with the A380, which is replacing nothing, and is competing in the 747 market, of which Boeing have had a monopoly for 37 years.

Quote:

I have heard that airports like Heathrow are putting in extra work in expanding their taxiways just for the A380. That seems a little over the top to me.

When you're one of the biggest airports in the world you make your airport fit for any potential airliner, particularly if its an Airbus or Boeing.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Jan 10^th, 2007 at 1:59am

vololiberista Offline
Colonel
Vieni in Italia

Posts: 1042

On the subject of extending rwys to accomodate the A380, one recalls the 60's when the VC10 was designed both for hot high airlfields and short rwys. Along came the 707 and all the airports of the world extended their rwys to allow it to fly.
A fully loaded VC10 is twice as heavy as the 707 and yet requires a take off distance of almost 3000 ft less!!!
The rwy where the VC10's were built was a little over 4000ft!!!!!!!!!!
Vololiberista

Andiamo in Italia&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Jan 10^th, 2007 at 5:45am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

vololiberista wrote on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 1:59am:

On the subject of extending rwys to accomodate the A380

I don't think anyone is. Same runway needed as a 747, just taxyway widening needed AFAIK.

Quote:

The rwy where the VC10's were built was a little over 4000ft!!!!!!!!!!

But they were lightly loaded on a one way trip to Wisley!

One thing I didn't know - in extending the runway at Brooklands for the VC-10 it had a slight kink requiring the aircraft to make a very slight left turn soon after beginning it's take off roll!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Jan 10^th, 2007 at 6:27am

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Chris_F wrote on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 8:57pm:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 8:33am:

Which means that the 787 is still basically still only an artists impression... Tongue

Dreamliner indeed.

How much can an artist's rendering actually weigh?

Depends. Water colours or oil paints?

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Jan 10^th, 2007 at 7:08am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 6:27am:

Chris_F wrote on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 8:57pm:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 8:33am:

Which means that the 787 is still basically still only an artists impression... Tongue

Dreamliner indeed.

How much can an artist's rendering actually weigh?

Depends. Water colours or oil paints?

How much does a pixel weigh?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Jan 10^th, 2007 at 7:14am

vololiberista Offline
Colonel
Vieni in Italia

Posts: 1042

Charlie wrote on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 5:45am:

vololiberista wrote on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 1:59am:

On the subject of extending rwys to accomodate the A380

I don't think anyone is. Same runway needed as a 747, just taxyway widening needed AFAIK.

Quote:

The rwy where the VC10's were built was a little over 4000ft!!!!!!!!!!

But they were lightly loaded on a one way trip to Wisley!

One thing I didn't know - in extending the runway at Brooklands for the VC-10 it had a slight kink requiring the aircraft to make a very slight left turn soon after beginning it's take off roll!

Yes they were lightly loaded running on fumes rather than real fuel for the short journey to Wisley
As regards the kink in the rwy I have seen that on film. A novel idea to extend the take off roll!!
I can tell you that fully loaded on take off at Heathrow they were already above 500ft by the time they passed the control tower!!!

One thing you can all try with a fully loaded VC10 if you have Kai Tak is to line up on Rwy 13 from taxiway alpha, handbrake "on", engines firewalled, let go the brake and rotate before the numbers. How many fully loaded a/c have that kind of performance today? I think it would be tricky in the A380!!!!!!!
Vololiberista

Andiamo in Italia&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Jan 10^th, 2007 at 7:18am

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Charlie wrote on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 7:08am:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 6:27am:

Chris_F wrote on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 8:57pm:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 8:33am:

Which means that the 787 is still basically still only an artists impression... Tongue

Dreamliner indeed.

How much can an artist's rendering actually weigh?

Depends. Water colours or oil paints?

How much does a pixel weigh?

At what resolution? Grin

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #28 - Jan 10^th, 2007 at 10:09am

Jakemaster Ex Member

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2007 at 6:27am:

Chris_F wrote on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 8:57pm:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 8:33am:

Which means that the 787 is still basically still only an artists impression... Tongue

Dreamliner indeed.

How much can an artist's rendering actually weigh?

Depends. Water colours or oil paints?

Paint is also a hot topic for the 787. Boeing doesn't want any airlines to paint more than monotone on the engines because multiple layers of different paints would hamper laminar surface flow

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #29 - Jan 10^th, 2007 at 8:44pm

NDSP Offline
Colonel
Jimi is stoned... but
he'll be back
Queens, New York City

Gender:
Posts: 2250

Charlie wrote on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 9:21pm:

Chris_F wrote on Jan 9^th, 2007 at 8:57pm:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2007 at 8:33am:

Which means that the 787 is still basically still only an artists impression... Tongue

Dreamliner indeed.

How much can an artist's rendering actually weigh?

Depends on the paper... Grin

Quote:

I havent heard of any weight problems in the 787. Its a small aircraft, supposed to replace the 757 and the 767...

...If it works out I think its a better design than the A380 simply because it has great range and doesnt need a lot of runway, much unlike the A380.

Well your first statement says its replacing the 757 and 767, yet in the second statement you compare it directly with the A380, which is replacing nothing, and is competing in the 747 market, of which Boeing have had a monopoly for 37 years.

Quote:

I have heard that airports like Heathrow are putting in extra work in expanding their taxiways just for the A380. That seems a little over the top to me.

When you're one of the biggest airports in the world you make your airport fit for any potential airliner, particularly if its an Airbus or Boeing.

I mentioned the fact that it was replacing the 757 & 767 because someone had made a remark about the 787 having weight problems and I just wanted to know how a 200 seater could have the weight problems the A380 has. Then when I said it was a better design than the A380, I ment overall as an airplane. I realize the strong and weak points of the A380 and the 787, im just comparing the overall design and purpose. Im not saying that the A380 and the 787 are in the same market, its just that there are two new aircraft coming out soon and I gave a quick comparison. It has nothing to do with whats replacing what. Saying that I think the 787 is a better design because of whatever doesnt mean that I think there in the same market. Or for that matter thinking that its replacing anything better.

Also, what happens if the A380 bombs. Doesnt that mean that Heathrow wasted a lot of money for no reason?

Nick

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: