Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will The A380 End Up Being Stretched?  
User currently offlineJean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 19
Posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3783 times:

I'm quite sure that a year (or more) ago, when the A380 was in earlier design phases, the plan was that an A380-900 would be developed, which would be a significant stretch from the basic -800 series, providing even higher capacity and better economics.

It seems that talk of this has died down, since in all the recent A380 discussions, I haven't heard anyone mention a larger A380. Perhaps with so many people speculating (inaccurately, in my opinion) that the A380 will be way too big and cause a great deal of hassle even in its basic form, Airbus has decided not to hype and even bigger plane. Also, it's possible that R&D is being focused on one 'variant' in order to minimize costs.

But I was recently reminded of this possibility again when, in another thread, it was mentioned that the A380's basic design actually looked proportionally short and stubby. The look of the plane might suggest that a stretched variant is very much in order. Even if the number of Pax on a standard A380 proves a problem, I would think that some airlines and definitely some freight companies would be interested in an A380-900, especially if it provided superior economics (and it really should.)

So, does anyone think we are likely to hear again of an A380-900? Perhaps once orders pick upt for the basic version, and the financial risk no longer looks to be so daunting?


Next flight.... who knows.
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8037 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3757 times:

Actually, a more likely variant is the A380-700, a "shrink" version that will have more range than the A380-800. The A387 could be a perfect 747-400 replacement and with its much longer range, the very possibility of LHR-SYD non-stop may not be out of the question.  Wink/being sarcastic

User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3631 times:

Sooner or later the chances are, it will be. A plane is designed with the structural redundancy and capacity to be stretched in mind. This means the first (basic) model is often somewhat heavier than it would be if it were never to be stretched. A stretch usually has better empty weight per passenger and therefore fuel efficiency. Also, I do not think the fuss about the initial A380 size is justified. The initial A380 is designed to fit anywhere that a 747 can go, I believe. A stretch would probably not be able to meet that criterion, so that's why it's likely to be delayed. But eventually, once airports upgrade and terminals & taxiways are built with A380s and larger things in mind, it will be produced (IF the basic A380 turns out to be a success)

User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3550 times:

While there may be a shrink, I would expect the A380-800R, the heavier MTOW version of the A380, to be next on the development list, assuming that there's demand for it. Given the rather lukewarm orders for the 772LR and A345, I'm not sure that enhanced range is going to be a big seller.

The A380-700 might be interesting. Much would depend on the actual economics of the aircraft. Also, the actual weight of the aircraft would be an issue. If the A380-700, fueled for the same destination as a 747-400 can carry the same passenger load at the same weight (i.e., ~900,000lbs), then clearly, it would totally displace the 747.

However, if the -700 weighs in at, say 1.15 million pounds to do the same job as the 747, even if the actual economics are better (i.e., the plane itself weighs more but burns less fuel in flight), an issue may arise with regards to being able to operate it out of airports that haven't upgraded to A380 standards.

Steve


User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3521 times:

Looking at the numbers, a vanilla A380-800 has 49% more usable floorspace than a 747-400, but the operating empty weight is 52% higher. That's despite the 380 benefiting from a "clean slate" design, the latest construction techniques, lightweight materials, &c...

That smells of over-engineering to me. It has *definitely* been built for stretching. I can't imagine Airbus thinking any other way. We could argue about possible markets, and how airports deal with the extra traffic, until we're blue in the face - but the base A380 design is clearly ready for a stretch.

Shrinking too - although an A380-stubby would have very tough competition from lighter aircraft, think of it like the A318  Smile



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineTsv From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3435 times:

The A3XX Briefing (1998 3rd Quarter) from Airbus listed the following models :

A3XX-50 Length 70.5m MTOW 508t Range 14 200km
A3XX-50R Length 70.5m MTOW 550t Range 16 200km
A3XX-100 Length 73.0m MTOW 540t Range 14 200km
A3XX-100R Length 73.0m MTOW 583t Range 16 200km
A3XX-200 Length 79.4m MTOW 583t Range 14 200km

I'm pretty sure there were later Briefings (after it was designated A380) but that was the latest one I had readily to hand.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineAA61hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3425 times:

Man, this thing is going to be aimed by terrorists, I could only imagine if it was streched. It's a sitting duck.


Go big or go home
User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3399 times:


Man, this thing is going to be aimed by terrorists, I could only imagine if it was streched. It's a sitting duck.

AA61Hvy: actually I would think that smaller aircraft carrying a lot of fuel would make better targets for terrorist strikes, since that would mean lesser number of people to subdue in ordedr to turn it into a missile.

That makes MCLR type aircraft like the 767/777 or the A330/340 more attractive since they carry a heck of a lot of fuel.

-Roy


User currently offlineMarara From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 678 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3377 times:

AA61hvy

That has to be the most stupid thing iv heard in weeks.



I like work: it fascinates me. I can sit and look at it for hours. Jerome K Jerome
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 6 days ago) and read 3348 times:

Anyway, back to the original argument.

It seems that talk of this has died down, since in all the recent A380 discussions, I haven't heard anyone mention a larger A380. Perhaps with so many people speculating (inaccurately, in my opinion) that the A380 will be way too big and cause a great deal of hassle even in its basic form, Airbus has decided not to hype and even bigger plane.

At the risk of oversimplifying - "market reasons"?
Nobody wants to buy a 600+ seat monster this year.

Also, it's possible that R&D is being focused on one 'variant' in order to minimize costs.

However, the design still seems rather overengineered. In addition to the weight arguments (and the stubby appearance  Smile ), look at the wing area; 845m². That's 61% more than the 744, whereas the weight increase is 'only' around 50% depending which numbers you look at.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13752 posts, RR: 61
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3309 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quite some time ago, someone posted the proposed layouts for the A-380. It included thr -800, a stretched -900 series, and a shortened -700 series as well.

There was also a COMBI version! I believe it was the -800 airframe used for the combi, if memory serves.

Does anyone out there have these plans? I can't find them anymore.  Sad



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineEnginesrus From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3239 times:

If memory serves, the so-called A380-900 was intended to be the baseline aircraft, meaning that the launch A380-800 is a shrink to begin with. To double shrink it into an A380-700 seems unfeasible from an engineering and cost point of view but an A380-900 will make a lot of sense 7-8 years from now...

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6540 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3178 times:

Enginesrus is right. The A380 has a stretch potential. But there will be no rush. We won't see it in this decade.

If we will see it, that will also depend upon whether the airlines will be able to convince the major airports that when renewing runways and aprons they shall prepare for 1.500.000+ lbs MTOWs.

Sure a stretched A380 could be a fine plane, but it may also happen so that it is generally agreed that it will be too expensive to build the gound infrastructure for such a plane. Ground costs might easily cancel out potential savings in the air.

Same way trucks grew larger and larger 50-60-70 years ago. At least in Europe it has been generally agreed that max weight of a truck is 40 tons and it is too expensive to build roads for heavier vehicles.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineTeahan From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 5310 posts, RR: 61
Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3164 times:

EA CO AS,

Here are those proposed layouts. Copyright Airbus.



Jeremiah



Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1373 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3030 times:

There is an AW&ST article dated January 1, 2001, and entitled, "Was Boeing 747 A Prologue?" at http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010101/aw30.htm. It includes a table of dimensions & weights for the A380-100 (now -800), 747-400, and 747-400X proposal. The comment after the table says,

"Low wing loading and high OWE/passenger suggest that the A380-100 is the first of a family that will be stretched, while 747s are up to 42% heavier than the original 747-100. The square-cube law may also make the OWE/passenger high. The A380's newer wing technology shows, in that it needs 4 deg. less wing sweep for essentially the same cruise speed."




User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2980 times:

OWE/passenger is a misleading measurement because initial layouts for the A380 have deliberately used a fairly low density thus far. Hence why I used OWE/usable area earlier.

Otherwise, I couldn't agree more with you  Smile



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2960 times:

hmm, no gyms, spas, shopping malls and bars in those official Airbus shots? Big grin


I wish I were flying
User currently offlineUN_B732 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 4289 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2953 times:

Where are all the bars and such we have been told of????
I bet VS will do that...I remember when they said fitness centres :-((.
What is going to happen to the A380 Fitness Center and malls?



What now?
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

They're going the same way as the 747 bars and couches: to the scrapheap during the first maintenance cycle to make room for more cattleclass seats.


I wish I were flying
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will The A380 Certify In 2006? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 18:47:18 by OldAeroGuy
When Will The A380 Start Flying With Airlines? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 13:40:08 by JamesJimlb
How Long Will The A380 Last? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 05:50:16 by COIAH756CA
What Livery Will The A380 Be In @ LHR? posted Tue May 16 2006 10:40:58 by Artist01
When Will The A380 Visit AMS? posted Thu Mar 2 2006 17:38:04 by DIJKKIJK
Is The A380 Showing Up On Any Scheds Yet? posted Mon Jan 16 2006 00:12:49 by UAL747
Will The A380 Visit DUB? posted Sat Jan 14 2006 19:46:08 by Shamrocka330
Will The A380 Fly To New Zealand? posted Thu Jan 5 2006 09:30:59 by Airnz777pilot
When Will The A380 Make A North America Trip? posted Thu Dec 1 2005 14:58:51 by Tappan
Will The A380 Ever Visit Hong Kong? posted Sat Nov 26 2005 09:48:05 by CaptainTim