Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/1032961/

Topic: A380: Failure.
Username: Brons2
Posted 2003-02-24 22:06:18 and read 4522 times.

I was reading an article about the engineering work going on in regards to A380 development. I am more convinced than ever that this airplane will be a flop. They are doing a lot of things with this plane that I would consider questionable.

1. The center of gravity will be farther aft in this plane, in order to enable use of a smaller tail structure. This was tried before with the MD-11 and it did not work well. Reason, it introduces relaxed stability to the pitch axis. This is common on fighter aircraft, but (imho) undesirable on a civillian airliner. The MD-11 is difficult to control in flight if one should find themselves in an unusual attitude. If the A380 is going to have some of the same flight control characteristics, they better get to work on the software to make sure it doesn't have the same problems with high altitude upsets and landings that the MD-11 does. Even if they perfect the software, if the A380 were to go into direct law, the pilots would need to transfer fuel forward in the fuselage in order to maintain a reasonable center of gravity. Who wants to do that in an emergency situation?

2. Variable frequency power generation. Whereas it will certainly make the alternators lighter, the tradeoff is not worth it, IMHO. This was tried on the MD-90 before, and it created many, many problems. This is part of the reason that the MD-90 was a failure. All equipment will have to deal with power frequency fluctuation from 380-760 hz rather than a constant 400hz like on other planes. Maybe these issues have been ironed out since the MD-90. For Airbus' sake, I certainly hope so.

3. High pressure hydraulic system. Instead of the normal 3000 psi hydraulics, the A380 will use a 5000 psi system with electrical backup. This system is untested in commercial airline use, and one would think that it would be prone to less reliability due to the high pressure of the system. It will also be more costly, because fittings will need to be made with titanium rather than steel.

4. Weight. This is the most glaring problem right now for this airliner. As has been discussed many, many times before, so I won't go into it. Suffice it to say the MTOW has increased to 1,190,000 lbs to 1,235,000 already, with more sure to come...

I don't know why they insist on using technologies that failed for MDC, but it doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Perhaps they have hired MDC engineers to work on this product, who knows....

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: N79969
Posted 2003-02-24 22:08:02 and read 4501 times.

I think it is far too early to call this aircraft a failure.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: KLAX
Posted 2003-02-24 22:12:16 and read 4477 times.

Agreed, wait and see. They're too far into the project to stop now anyway, the roof has just been raised on the production hangar!

-Clovis

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Brons2
Posted 2003-02-24 22:21:26 and read 4436 times.

I think it is far too early to call this aircraft a failure.

This is true, however by doing these things I think they are setting themselves up for failure.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. For the first time, Airbus is really blazing a trail for themselves. Up until this point, they have merely refined what others have done. With the A380, they are really covering uncharted territory, due to the sheer size of the thing. I don't think some of the choices they are making bode well for the success of the program.

That's my $0.02.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Sabenapilot
Posted 2003-02-24 22:21:38 and read 4433 times.

The A380 a failure???? have you been smoking pot or what???
Airbus has sold over 100 planes even before its first flight!!!!

Besides, since when is innovation prove of failure?
Is a 2 men cockpit a failure?
Are winglets a failure?
Is FBW a failure?
Is cockpit commonality a failure?
is a common type rating a failure?
All this was first introduced by Airbus and is now slowly picked up by others (not to name them) in an effort to match the indisputable industry leader.

Oh, and surely you don't want to compare MDD engineers to Airbus engineers do you? I mean: MDD is no longer around after the came up with some failed products, whereas Airbus engineers managed to get their company from virtually nowhere to the first place on the market in less the 20 years!

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: BWIA 772
Posted 2003-02-24 22:23:52 and read 4420 times.


It is to early to consider this aircraft a failure. Technology has developed since MD tried these so called failed techniques that may now render them viable. It is only obvious that 380 will take aircraft technology further. The porotype hasnt even been put together and you are calling it a failure?? Based on what??

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Brons2
Posted 2003-02-24 22:24:22 and read 4417 times.

The A380 a failure???? have you been smoking pot or what???
Airbus has sold over 100 planes even before its first flight!!!!


At one point MDC had around 300 orders for the MD-11, before it ever flew. Funny how a lot of those orders evaporated when the shortcomings of the plane became known....

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Brons2
Posted 2003-02-24 22:26:51 and read 4405 times.

It is to early to consider this aircraft a failure. Technology has developed since MD tried these so called failed techniques that may now render them viable. It is only obvious that 380 will take aircraft technology further. The porotype hasnt even been put together and you are calling it a failure?? Based on what??

OK, OK, the title of the thread sucks.

However, I am quite concerned of the final product, let's say that much. You are correct that technology has advanced since MDC tried some of these techniques. Let's hope for the sake of the program that they have.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: BR715-A1-30
Posted 2003-02-24 22:29:13 and read 4389 times.

Will you girls please let airbus do their job. They know what they are doing.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: N79969
Posted 2003-02-24 22:29:37 and read 4385 times.

Brons2 points out some serious issues but I think it is still very premature to say how this aircraft will perform. New technology and new products are inherently risky.

"I mean: MDD is no longer around after the came up with some failed products, whereas Airbus engineers managed to get their company from virtually nowhere to the first place on the market in less the 20 years!"

MDD did not have the US government bankrolling its civil projects and it is now gone. Airbus did not launch the 320/330/340 and so on because of the spectacular sales sucess of the A300 and its various follow-ons. If Airbus were left purely to its own engineering talent and financial wherewithal it would have been gone extinct by 1980-something.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Backfire
Posted 2003-02-24 22:32:41 and read 4370 times.

I'll bet Noel Forgeard is in front of his PC right now, bricking himself because he's reading this thread of technical experts' opinions unfold and watching the future of the A380 crumble before his eyes.

But then again, maybe not.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Qb001
Posted 2003-02-24 22:36:16 and read 4348 times.

Brons2,

Granted, the MD-11 was not a success. It was even given the nickname "Scud" by AA pilots, in reference to the Iraq's "Scud" missile, because you know where it takes off from, but you're not too sure where it is going to land  Laugh out loud .

On a more serious note, the MD-11 had a fuel burning rate 6% higher than announced by MDD. Ultimately, that's what killed the MD-11 (and, sadly, MDD as well).

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Brons2
Posted 2003-02-24 22:37:34 and read 4341 times.

MDD did not have the US government bankrolling its civil projects and it is now gone. Airbus did not launch the 320/330/340 and so on because of the spectacular sales sucess of the A300 and its various follow-ons. If Airbus were left purely to its own engineering talent and financial wherewithal it would have been gone extinct by 1980-something.

Now, now, let's not bring these arguments forward again, Lord knows they're old and tired.

Instead, I would like to discuss the technical merits of the technologies discussed above, and how Airbus will mitigate the weight factor. Evaluate the A380 purely for the A380's sake.

Discuss Big grin

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Brons2
Posted 2003-02-24 22:39:25 and read 4329 times.

Will you girls please let airbus do their job. They know what they are doing.

Hi BR!

Can I be looking forward to more hate mail from you in my email inbox?

Oh and BOT....
What do you think of the A380?

Regards,
Jim

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Racko
Posted 2003-02-24 22:43:01 and read 4312 times.

Brons2, I'm quite confident that the Airbus engineers have thought about all these points and they have a reason why they decided to do it this way. The A380 is still a conventional aírliner, just bigger than all the others.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: N79969
Posted 2003-02-24 22:45:27 and read 4300 times.

Fair enough Brons2. Sabenapilot opened the door for that one. You might be interested in knowing that Joe Sutter, Chief Engineer of the 747 program, made some very specific criticisms of the A380. Sort of like your remarks actually There was an article in the WSJ a while ago. Although he is a Boeing man and loves his baby, his opinions are widely respected throught aviation.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: N79969
Posted 2003-02-24 22:50:39 and read 4267 times.

He opened the door again...

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Hmmmm...
Posted 2003-02-24 22:53:56 and read 4257 times.

Even if they perfect the software, if the A380 were to go into direct law, the pilots would need to transfer fuel forward in the fuselage in order to maintain a reasonable center of gravity. Who wants to do that in an emergency situation?

This is the same system Concorde uses.


All equipment will have to deal with power frequency fluctuation from 380-760 hz rather than a constant 400hz like on other planes.

Are you suggesting that higher frequencies are less reliable?

This system is untested in commercial airline use, and one would think that it would be prone to less reliability due to the high pressure of the system. It will also be more costly, because fittings will need to be made with titanium rather than steel.

No one would not think that. That's patently absurd.

I don't think you have a clue about technical issues. What I do think is that you read an article somewhere and you are spinning THIS story from THAT article.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Qb001
Posted 2003-02-24 22:55:03 and read 4248 times.

Technically, the high-pressure system has been used by the military for over 20 years. If such a system can resist the 9G jet fighters have to sustain, I don't see why it wouldn't work in a commercial airplane.

The increased pressure means the system will need less hydraulic oil, thus contributing to some weight saving; that's the rational behind this engineering decision.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: 777236ER
Posted 2003-02-24 22:58:56 and read 4219 times.

Sabenapilot resorts to calling Boeing fans "pathetic". Cute. Maybe the A380 will be a failure. Time will tell. It's generally accepted it's a fair bit overweight.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Sabenapilot
Posted 2003-02-24 23:03:36 and read 4196 times.

I did not cal Boeing fans "pathetic" at all, what I called pathetic is the premature joy some people seem to have in saying the A380 will definitely be a failure, not because of a superior product from Seattle beating it, but because of unconfirmed mostly exagerated internal troubles.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Eg777er
Posted 2003-02-24 23:24:54 and read 4131 times.

Like it or not, it's called progress. If Airbus get it right with the new technology on the A380, such as the high-pressure hydraulics and the GLARE carbon-fibre, expect those technologies to be quickly adopted onto every new and re-invented aircraft being constructed; within a matter of years.

Secondly, with regards to the MD-11's handling characteristics, I seem to recall a NASA-funded research project investigating handling using engine power (to build on the rudimentary techniques developed during the Souix City disaster). A number of successful approaches/landings were performed using an MD-11 with modified flight control software. Does anyone have anymore information? Seems NASA had confidence in the MD-11's abilities at least!

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: SailorOrion
Posted 2003-02-24 23:29:06 and read 4116 times.

Interesting, I spent the past four years studying aerospace engineering (after being interested in airliners for at least 15 years), studying up to 50 hours a week (when not administering networks to earn some cash ... ) and I have NO clue about whether the A380 will be failure or not. I personally know chief of future projects at airbus (we meet regularly discussing new developments), still I have no idea about the A380 success ....

How do others (especially journalists who cannot distinguish a GE90 from a trumpet because both are round, have a hole in the middle and make noise) get their information about that? I really should have payed more attention in my "devination magic in aerospace" class ....

SailorOrion

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Magyar
Posted 2003-02-24 23:43:10 and read 4067 times.


This subject cannot be discussed objectively.

Unfortunately, all the relevant people on the upper-left side of the Atlantic
(face the map, north is up) is very interested in the failure of A380 and
most of the irrelevant ones are hoping for it. On the upper-right hand side
of the Atlantic the situation is reversed.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Brons2
Posted 2003-02-24 23:56:51 and read 4025 times.

OK let me set one thing straight:

The thread is poorly titled. I don't own a crystal ball, and I can't tell whether or not the A380 is going to be successful or not. Nor can anyone else. I'm not interested in starting another A vs. B war, either, so let's not go there.

Even if they perfect the software, if the A380 were to go into direct law, the pilots would need to transfer fuel forward in the fuselage in order to maintain a reasonable center of gravity. Who wants to do that in an emergency situation?

This is the same system Concorde uses.


I am not that familiar with the fuel transfer system on the Concorde, however, I have read this before. I would assume in the 1970's era flight deck on the Concorde, that this does add to pilot load. On the A380, fuel transfers like this will only be necessary IF there is a complete computer failure, which is unlikely. The plane is meant to cruise at a more aft CG than other civillian airliners, the idiosyncracies of which will hopefully be well handled in software.

I guess in the case of a complete loss of FBW, ie Direct Law, that the fuel transfer would be covered by checklists.


All equipment will have to deal with power frequency fluctuation from 380-760 hz rather than a constant 400hz like on other planes.

Are you suggesting that higher frequencies are less reliable?


This system does not use HIGHER frequencies, it uses VARIABLE frequencies. This caused problems with multiple computer resets when tried before in the MD-90. It was unreliable, in general. THAT is what I am suggesting, that Airbus might be adopting an unreliable electrical generation system.

This system is untested in commercial airline use, and one would think that it would be prone to less reliability due to the high pressure of the system. It will also be more costly, because fittings will need to be made with titanium rather than steel.

No one would not think that. That's patently absurd.


Which part is patently absurd? That a closed system with higher pressuration would require more robust containment and be more prone to leaks?

Technically, the high-pressure system has been used by the military for over 20 years. If such a system can resist the 9G jet fighters have to sustain, I don't see why it wouldn't work in a commercial airplane.

The increased pressure means the system will need less hydraulic oil, thus contributing to some weight saving; that's the rational behind this engineering decision.


Fighter jets usually never make it to 20,000 hours even. Civillian airliners are expected to last much longer. If the military is using a high pressure hydraulic system on a large transport like a C-141, C-5B or C-17, I'd be interested to know about it.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Hamlet69
Posted 2003-02-25 00:03:58 and read 4003 times.

"Airbus has sold over 100 planes even before its first flight!!!!

Is FBW a failure?
Is cockpit commonality a failure?
is a common type rating a failure?

All this was first introduced by Airbus and is now slowly picked up by others (not to name them) in an effort to match the indisputable industry leader.
"

- Airbus had 160+ orders for the A318 before its first flight. How many does it have now?

- FBW was introduced in military aircraft well before Airbus even considered the A320. This does go to show that military tech can work in civilian applications.

- Apparently Sabenapilot has never heard of the 757 or 767. Developed 5 years before the A320.

- Ditto. The only thing Airbus did was take the example Boeing set with the 757/767 and apply it from the A320 to the A330/340. This is also where Boeing failed, by not introducing it in the 737 Classics and the 747-400.


BTW - completely agree it is way too early to call the A380 a failure.

Regards,

Hamlet69

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: AvObserver
Posted 2003-02-25 00:28:38 and read 3958 times.

Sabenapilot, your own obvious bias shows mightily in your retort.

"Besides, since when is innovation prove of failure?"

-The first 2 claims are highly debatable.

"Is a 2 men cockpit a failure?" - Boeing's development of the 757 and 767, underway since 1972, launched in 1978, way predate the A320 series.

"Are winglets a failure?" - This, too, is debatable, since the initial research on this was done by NASA under direction of Dr. Richard Whitcomb-it was NOT initiated by Airbus, even though Airbus put the first airliners with winglets into service.

On the remaining counts you're correct except for...
"All this was first introduced by Airbus and is now slowly picked up by others (not to name them) in an effort to match the indisputable industry leader." - You're jumping the gun, here-Airbus only becomes the 'indisputable' industry leader WHEN it has delivered more planes in a single year than Boeing, an event that hasn't occurred yet, though it's expected to later this year. This, of course, could be derailed by unanticipated order deferrals on cancellations later in the year. As the saying goes: "Don't count your chickens UNTIL they hatch"!

And...
"Oh, and surely you don't want to compare MDD engineers to Airbus engineers do you? I mean: MDD is no longer around after the came up with some failed products, whereas Airbus engineers managed to get their company from virtually nowhere to the first place on the market in less the 20 years!"
- I think you must mean 30, not 20 years. And let's not forget the generosity of the European taxpayers that made this possible during those formative years!

On the main point, I DO agree it's WAY too early to know if the A380 will fail, either technically, or in the marketplace. Bear in mind, however, that even over 100 orders is no guarantee of success when the program breakeven point is at least 250 airframes. And if the A380 were to suffer the initial sad fate of the MD-11 and fall short of its' performance claims, a lot of those firm orders could become cancellations. So it's also too early to say it WILL succeed.






[Edited 2003-02-25 00:32:06]

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Brons2
Posted 2003-02-25 00:31:38 and read 3946 times.

Oh please, no A vs B stuff.

I agree with the last paragraph of your post though.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Hmmmm...
Posted 2003-02-25 01:18:25 and read 3882 times.

Back pedal city.
First this opening line:

I am more convinced than ever that this airplane will be a flop.

Then this much later:

I can't tell whether or not the A380 is going to be successful or not.

Then you have the gall to say that you are not interested in any Airbus vs. Boeing debates.


Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Yyz717
Posted 2003-02-25 03:38:43 and read 3720 times.

even over 100 orders is no guarantee of success when the program

Not to mention that the initial orders were likely heavily discounted & likely won't contribute to the breakeven point. Subsequent orders will not be so discounted hence will be harder to come by.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Sllevin
Posted 2003-02-25 05:02:53 and read 3596 times.

The hydraulics are my primary concern. They could become a serious reliability issue -- nothing seriously life-threatening, but bad enough to impact dispatch reliability.

But clearly, if the A380 flies and has a block-hour cost the same as the 747, it'll be a success. If it fails to meet that cost goal, it'll be a very rockey road.

Steve

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Jwenting
Posted 2003-02-25 06:50:37 and read 3511 times.

The main problems of the 380 will be weight and the very fact that it introduces new technology (for the airline industry) in this day and age.
In the current economic climate airlines tend to be conservative in what they buy (as large companies usually are, but more so).
Having a high-tech product and trying to sell that to a conservative client who'd rather have proven tech because he knows it won't go wrong on him is not the road to success.
Just look at Beechcraft and their model 2000 Starship 1. A revolutionary new aircraft that could beat the jet powered business aircraft at both performance and economics. Problem was it looked too different and had all those new materials in it. All were well-proven in the military aviation industry but the customers preferred the familiar shape and metal of the Learjets and Citations.
Airbus could be setting itself up for a similar situation here (though the A380 is shaped more conservatively than the Starship is).
Only 52 Starships were built, only 40 or so are still flying... Beechcraft is no more (though the brand is still sold under the name by Raetheon).
That's a classic example of trying to sell hightech to an industry that doesn't want it...

The heavy weight problems of the A380 can't help either, and the sheer size will make more than a few people nervous too (there were people that said the 747 would never be able to fly... There are still people that refuse to get on one because they don't think it can land safely again...).

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: FDXmech
Posted 2003-02-25 07:08:54 and read 3485 times.

>>>The increased pressure means the system will need less hydraulic oil, thus contributing to some weight saving; that's the rational behind this engineering decision.<<<

Increased pressure will actually mean smaller, lighter hydraulic actuators.

Don't like the variable frequency power generation system, though time will tell.

As far as being a failure commercially, who knows? But even if that were the case, Airbus isn't a financial basket case like MDD where the A380 operator would be left holding the bag. I believe AI would still support their product regardless of its commercial success.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Brons2
Posted 2003-02-25 07:20:15 and read 3460 times.

Back pedal city.
First this opening line:

I am more convinced than ever that this airplane will be a flop.

Then this much later:

I can't tell whether or not the A380 is going to be successful or not.

Then you have the gall to say that you are not interested in any Airbus vs. Boeing debates.


You misconstrue my thoughts. While I think PERSONALLY it will not be a success, I cannot tell the future, thus my 2nd post. Nothing says what I believe is necessarily what will happen; hey, they're opinions, everyone has one.

The reason I say I am not interested in a A vs. B debate is because there is nothing new to say that has not been said in the past. And, I wanted to talk about the A380 on it's own merits. But by all means, if you have some information on the A vs. B wars that hasn't already been stated 487 times, please share it with the group! In a separate thread, that is.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Brons2
Posted 2003-02-25 15:34:47 and read 3083 times.

Don't like the variable frequency power generation system, though time will tell.

If you're really a mechanic with FedEx, I imagine you will get to know it quite well...

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Hmmmm...
Posted 2003-02-25 17:50:35 and read 2952 times.

Brons2, give it up. You back pedaled from here to St. Louis after your original post came under attack. You didn't do a very good job of defending it, so now you are trying to explain what you "really meant" to say. So credibility is lost. Don't post that type of hot-button topic if you are not willing, or able, to defend it.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Klaus
Posted 2003-02-26 01:45:43 and read 2781 times.

None of the new technologies or assumed issues is necessarily a real problem in itself.

Only screwing up on the implementation could turn them into real problems.

By the way, as far as I can remember, the MD-90 electrical problems were related to electronic constant frequency converters that were supposed to make the mechanical CSDs redundant. Which is a pretty normal technology, but it got screwed up back then as is possible with every technology if bad decisions are taken.

The A380 "wild frequency" system won´t need those converters or CSDs anyway.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: EGGD
Posted 2003-02-26 02:14:07 and read 2747 times.

Brons2 has a point here. Look at what Airbus are doing with the A380, they are introducing new technology into their aircraft, how stupid of them! I think they should be more like Boeing and model their new aircraft projects on aircraft and technology that already exists and is in use...

You can't make progress without using new technology...

I think this whole thread is pointless, its just a dig at airbus and will (and has) started another A.v.B flamewar....

meh, close it.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Gigneil
Posted 2003-02-26 03:23:05 and read 2701 times.

But not a flamer war... like we have going in another thread.

Sorry I couldnt' resist.  Laugh out loud

Obviously just because MDD didn't do it right, doesn't mean Airbus hasn't learned from their mistakes. A high pressure hydraulic system does actually make some sense and has years of military application.

There's an A380 technology update...

http://www.airbus.com/media/a380_technical.asp

N

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Dw747400
Posted 2003-02-26 03:37:05 and read 2690 times.

I think that modern flight computers and FBW will solve potential instability problems, but some of the other problems seem fairly significant. Of course, if you look at some of the problems facing the 747 (particularly the engines), the A380 doesn't seem to be any worse off.

I think that Airbus has significant challenges and that it may be the 380 does not live up to expectations, but I agree with the general consensus it is far to early to call it a flop.

Topic: MD11 And PCA [RE: A380: Failure]
Username: S.p.a.s.
Posted 2003-02-26 03:41:28 and read 2684 times.

Secondly, with regards to the MD-11's handling characteristics, I seem to recall a NASA-funded research project investigating handling using engine power (to build on the rudimentary techniques developed during the Souix City disaster).


The name of the program was PCA - Propulsion Controlled Aircraft, and actually it wasn't only tested by NASA at the Dryden Flight Test Centre but approved and offered to the MD11 customers as a feature, basically a modified software on the FADEC .

I don't recall the right numbers, but at least three landings were made only using differential thrust on the engines.

Try to get more info searching PCA + MD11 on Google, many years ago, Flight International wrote a nice report on it.

On a side note, aircraft used for tests was c/n 48600, now flying with Delta.

Regards,

Renato

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: BWIA 772
Posted 2003-02-26 05:28:51 and read 2639 times.



The A380 dont know why airbus desont call it the 350 and the first variant 100/200 version is going where no aircarft has gone before. 2 main possibilities can come out of this venture.

1) A380 is a success and forced boeing to lay catch up if they really want to bring the 747 up to A380 level or like the L1011 programme when they finally get it right it is to late and Boeing has already captured the majority of that market.

2) A380 is the first major aircarft flop for this century and Boeing optimises on the A3-0's short commings lauch the 747Ng and rejoice in success as the 737NG programme has done.

As a Boeing fan I wont mind if it failed but that's a tad childish. I hope that the 380 bring innovations in aviation and that it is not under powered.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Eg777er
Posted 2003-02-26 11:03:10 and read 2541 times.

Thanks S.p.a.s - I remember the article in Flight........aircraft was in very cool looking polished metal scheme!

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Solnabo
Posted 2003-02-26 12:40:01 and read 2482 times.

Face it, guys, if 380 is a sucess, thousands of Boeingstaff
has to go, and that scare´s the pants(to put it nicely) of them.....
Lets see what´s happends in, lets say, 10-15 years!
Reg  Big thumbs up
Michael/Sthlm/SE

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: RIX
Posted 2003-02-26 23:19:47 and read 2312 times.

Sabenapilot, you forgot to mention rounded windows...  Smile
Solnabo-the-trashman, name one "Boeingstuff" thing that will go if A380 is a success. If you believe anybody will order a 500+ aircraft when 400+ capacity is needed, I'll disagree.

As for A380 to be a success - so far none of Airbus or Boeing original basic designs (meaning not a derivative nor inherited after merger) was a failure. I don't see why A380 should be an exception. Which doesn't mean we can't discuss our points of view here without another (not unexpected) bunch of hysterical reaction posts...

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: Prebennorholm
Posted 2003-02-27 00:39:23 and read 2252 times.

It was said over and over that MD-90 was a failure.

It was rushed on the market in an attempt to rescue an almost bankrupt producer. That has always been the way to ask for initial troubles. And initial product support suffered from lag of resources.

The fact is that the MD-90 is probably the best plane ever from Douglas or MDD. Maybe the best from any producer.

SAS is very happy with the dozen examples they managed to get before production ended.

Strong rumors tell that SAS is thinking about sweeping the market of used MD-90s, if they can get their hands on a fair number of this plane, which they consider very high quality and extremely reliable in service.

The problem might have been that the MD-90 is technically very different compared to the MD-80, and since so few were produced, then there are few clever hands out there to treat them as they deserve.

SAS has a well over 100 strong mixed fleet of 737NG, A321, MD-80 and only 12 MD-90. With plenty of planes parked during the present slump, then one would assume that this dozen MD-90 with their own unique type rating would be the first to be shed or parked away. But not so. It's a good plane. Just too bad that MDD folded just when they should have harvested the fruits of their product qualities.

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: AC320
Posted 2003-02-27 00:41:33 and read 2244 times.

Doesn't the computer technology exist for Airbus to get a very good estimate of how the final product will perform based on simulations?

Topic: RE: A380: Failure.
Username: 747-451
Posted 2003-02-27 00:54:18 and read 2231 times.

A380, failure...no.

Perhaps like most things it may not necessarily be as good as it looks on paper...since there is NO substitute for the real world...

Topic: AC320
Username: Klaus
Posted 2003-02-27 02:06:21 and read 2187 times.

AC320: Doesn't the computer technology exist for Airbus to get a very good estimate of how the final product will perform based on simulations?

Yes, if those simulations hadn´t become pretty accurate by now, both Boeing and Airbus wouldn´t be able to manufacture planes with the efficiency they´ve got. But there´s still a margin of error.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/