BOEING747400 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 319 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14676 times:
I think the A380 looks too short and awkward. If they could make it longer, then it would look much better!
I would increase the length by about another 15-20% more to make it look more natural and proportional body-wise.
dfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 755 posts, RR: 54 Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14645 times:
Some would say so. It obviously comes down to preference, and we do have a separate forum for that.
A common misconception is that the A380-800 is a "shrink" since Airbus has the option of building a stretched model in the future. But in reality, the A388 is the baseline and no more a shrink than the 777-200 or 787-8.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17853 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14567 times:
Quoting BOEING747400 (Thread starter): I think the A380 looks too short and awkward. If they could make it longer, then it would look much better!
I would increase the length by about another 15-20% more to make it look more natural and proportional body-wise.
Unless you're in the GA market, people don't normally build planes to look good. They build them to perform well.
The reason that the 380 looks a bit stunted is that it's attached to a wing that is larger than it needs to be for an aircraft of that size. But that leaves room for future expansion should enough of a market open up for an even larger aircraft.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
mogandoCI From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1794 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14314 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 3): The reason that the 380 looks a bit stunted is that it's attached to a wing that is larger than it needs to be for an aircraft of that size. But that leaves room for future expansion should enough of a market open up for an even larger aircraft.
so given the wing's supposedly future mission, is the -900 the stretch or the -800 the shrink? i'm voting the latter
tjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2180 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14277 times:
It's not the length of the aircraft that's important, but rather how it's used......
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14137 times:
Quoting tjwgrr (Reply 5): It's not the length of the aircraft that's important, but rather how it's used......
What is important is the area of the cross-section of the fuselage!
Quoting BOEING747400 (Thread starter): I would increase the length by about another 15-20% more to make it look more natural and proportional body-wise.
Commercial aircraft are pieces of machinery. They are not designed to look good, they just do!
BOEING747400 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 319 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14037 times:
I'd like to mention that the A380's wings are too massive.
How about shortening the wing length by 10% whilst lengthening the body by 15%?
Then it would look very sexy like the B747-400 & B748I.
Why can't the A380 look more natural and still be an engineering marvel and also a great performer?
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13834 times:
Quoting BOEING747400 (Reply 7): How about shortening the wing length by 10% whilst lengthening the body by 15%?
The optimum length of the A380 wing span is about 84 meters. Currently the span is 79.8 meters. So to further increase the wing economic performance you have to go wider as opposed to your idea of making the wing span smaller. . That is not a viable option.
Quoting BOEING747400 (Reply 7): Why can't the A380 look more natural and still be an engineering marvel and also a great performer?
It is an engineering marvel and a great performer as a result of the shape. They designed it marvelous with the optimum efficiency for such a type of airliner in mind. To look nice was not a design target, to be as good as it can be was, and still is. .
Now in time the A380-900 will emerge, but the question is when? .
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8608 posts, RR: 96 Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13775 times:
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 2): But in reality, the A388 is the baseline and no more a shrink than the 777-200 or 787-8.
I don't believe that's correct, to be honest.
If the 787-8 had the wing originally intended for the 787-9, instead of the other way around, I might have agreed.
The A380-900 is built into the A380-800.
Quoting BOEING747400 (Reply 7): How about shortening the wing length by 10% whilst lengthening the body by 15%?
Because the wingspan reduction would destroy the economics.
Airbus wanted the wingspan to be 83m - 84m to optimise the induced drag (lift drag) of lifting c. 600 tonnes.
80m is therefore already sub-optimal in that respect.
72m would be a disaster economically
Quoting BOEING747400 (Reply 7): Why can't the A380 look more natural and still be an engineering marvel and also a great performer?
MCO2BRS From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 488 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13774 times:
Quoting BOEING747400 (Reply 7): I'd like to mention that the A380's wings are too massive.
How about shortening the wing length by 10% whilst lengthening the body by 15%?
Then it would look very sexy like the B747-400 & B748I.
Why can't the A380 look more natural and still be an engineering marvel and also a great performer?
I think you'll find that Airbus has done its homework, and the A380-800 we see is the best possible version it can be in terms of R&D costs, operating economics in the VLA market segment. Anything less than what we have now, and the aircraft may not be as efficient or have a less market potential, or have higher R&D costs and therefore have a higher RoI.
Engineering the -800 to what it is now and over-engineering the wing is the best way to go to still allow for further stretching/improvements if the market presents itself. Personally, I think its only a matter of time before we see the -900 officially launched (maybe a re-launch of the freighter also?)
Threepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2016 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8677 times:
Quoting BOEING747400 (Reply 7):
Then it would look very sexy like the B747-400 & B748I.
While the 744 remains the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft on the planet, the new 748 is not in the same league without the stretched upper deck. Hopefully the new I version restores the proportions; it look promising on paper.
Quoting MCO2BRS (Reply 10): Personally, I think its only a matter of time before we see the -900 officially launched (maybe a re-launch of the freighter also?)
The way the price of oil is currently trending, I agree. The -900 is likely only waiting for Airbus resources to be released from current projects.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
solnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 696 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8349 times:
Quoting BOEING747400 (Reply 7): Then it would look very sexy like the B747-400 & B748I.
A 40 y/o queen and they´re not a full double decker as we all know.
That said I´m really looking forward to the -900 version with the 80X80 m box.
Guess you have to live with the -800 model for some time..
dfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 755 posts, RR: 54 Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8219 times:
Those are constraints yes, but not the requirements that drove the design. Like all other transport aircraft, the A388 was sized to carry a given payload that was decided based on customer feedback and market forecasts.
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1944 posts, RR: 57 Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7658 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 14): Steve Udvar Hazy suggested an even longer version.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 11 Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7270 times:
Quoting kaitak (Reply 1): There is talk of a stretched A380-900, but we probably won't see that for a few years (although some airlines are already interested in it).
Why would airlines be interested in a stretched A380 when none of the current (and near future) operators have chosen to come anywhere near installing the maximum number of seats that the current version can hold.
Quoting incitatus (Reply 6): Commercial aircraft are pieces of machinery. They are not designed to look good, they just do!
Asiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 913 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6618 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 18): Why would airlines be interested in a stretched A380 when none of the current (and near future) operators have chosen to come anywhere near installing the maximum number of seats that the current version can hold.
Because airlines are not maximizing the number of seats, but maximizing revenue and profit.
aerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 715 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6080 times:
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 19): Quoting 474218 (Reply 18):
Why would airlines be interested in a stretched A380 when none of the current (and near future) operators have chosen to come anywhere near installing the maximum number of seats that the current version can hold.
Because airlines are not maximizing the number of seats, but maximizing revenue and profit.
I'm waiting the for AirAsiaX, 11 abreast main deck economy A389 with over 1000 seats... CASM KILLER!!!
413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5379 times:
Instead of aisles, there are hamster catchers that after you press a button, it picks you up from your seat, and carries you to the nearest laboratory.
9252fly From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 1223 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5284 times:
Quoting tjwgrr (Reply 5): It's not the length of the aircraft that's important, but rather how it's used......
Quoting 413X3 (Reply 21): Instead of aisles, there are hamster catchers that after you press a button, it picks you up from your seat, and carries you to the nearest laboratory.
I must admit to having an appreciation for wit and a small injection of humour into an otherwise ordinary thread.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 3001 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5150 times:
I wonder why I'm posting in yet another BOEING747400 thread but I guess it's kinda fun.
Quoting BOEING747400 (Reply 7): Then it would look very sexy like the B747-400 & B748I.
Yep, a sexy hunchback !
Quoting 474218 (Reply 18): Why would airlines be interested in a stretched A380 when none of the current (and near future) operators have chosen to come anywhere near installing the maximum number of seats that the current version can hold.
But they use all the floor space and cargo capability available.
Quoting 474218 (Reply 18): If it looks good it will fly good.
But might not be efficient.
I like the 747 wing because it's swept back like a fighter wing, but it's not the most efficient design.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
catiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 1914 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5091 times:
Quoting touslesciels (Reply 12): While I have the attention of this group, I might underscore what I put forward in the previous paragraph; this group's tone and manner comes off as alienating in the extreme. There is far too much patronizing and off-putting airline geek-ness that I personally find repulsive. There is also too much of a US myopia viewpoint to many of the comments on here. By that I mean too many of you seem to be either Robert Crandall or the highly embarrassing, puffed-up, american middle-manager (we've all seen the type in terminals all over the world: overweight, dark-suited with a white shirt with one of the lower buttons open to reveal skin, loosened red tie, dragging a wheelie suitcase and, invariably, either on his Bluetooth phone or, worse, trying to text, walk briskly on a moving sidewalk and drag his wheelie behind him). Are you one of these two people? Then put a lid on it for a month, sit down, lower your blood pressure and let someone else speak for a change.
Fortunately no one has a gun to your head forcing you to look at these forums. As for "letting someone else speak for a change," last time I checked I paid for the opportunity to use this site. I'm going to get my money's worth.
Back to the OP: anyone know how much additional commonality was built into the current design in order to make the stretch variant a reality without much re-engineering?
etherealsky From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5047 times:
Haha, that's starting to look almost like an obese A340; I like it
"And that's why you always leave a note..."
25 Aesma: The current -800 is already impressive to see up close (or not so close), that 85m stretch would really look like a flying building !
26 BOEING747400: I love the 85 m stretched version of the A380 because it looks the most natural and sexiest although quite obese because of the double decker design.
27 PGNCS: Airlines generally don't buy airplanes because of how they look, they buy them because of the profits they can earn. Exactly; as others have said the
28 nycdave: In terms of aesthetics, what throws me off is the positioning of the cockpit, the "eyes" of the structure, as it were. Where the 747 has them up high
29 BOEING747400: I like a longer A380 with a frontal face that looks similar to that of a B747-400. How about that?
30 Aesma: Well, the 747 cockpit is cramped compared to the A380 cockpit. Also, apparently you can't put passengers in the nose with current regulations (that th
31 nycdave: Yes, but those aren't matters of aesthetics, and that's what the comment was about!
32 afterburner: Airlines don't choose aircraft based on how they look. Period.
33 AKLRNO: Has anyone pointed out that airplanes have to fit airports? You can ask for some changes, but there is a limit. The A380 is a double-decker because be
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 319 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11361 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2929 posts, 
.
.
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8608 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2016 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 696 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2007, 913 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 715 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 3001 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
