Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Weight Issue  
User currently offlineMark777300 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 388 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7336 times:

It's been discussed a few times before regarding the weight of the A380, but in today's New York Post, a small article in the business section claims that the A380 will be 319 tons over weight or 5 percent heavier than the targeted weight. I thought that the problem with the weight had been rectified some months back,but then this article came out today. Thats not to say that the New York Post is a reliable source, in fact it would be the opposite of that. I was just curious to know if anyone has heard about this recently? 319 tons sounds quite a lot of extra weight on an aircraft assuming that it would be the actual weight of the aircraft when empty!

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7091 times:

The actual numbers range from 4 tons overweight to somewhere around 14 tons, depending upon whom you believe...NOT 319 tons, unless they have decided to add two more decks.


Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
User currently offlineTransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7084 times:

The NY Post? You are quoting the NY Post??? After their latest front page fiasco? Big grin

User currently offlineRoberta From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7083 times:

Towards the end of this thread in Tech/ops, it talks about the same report.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/92968/

The 319 figure is short tons not metric, the A380 will weigh 280 metric tons.



User currently offlineUAlonghaul From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7083 times:

get a few hundred members of the national cheeseburger team on that thing and they will have another reason to worry.

User currently offlineJblake1 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7069 times:

Or just a plane load of the average US customer these days. Every flight I was on this weekend I was seated next to a person of "SIZE". It is getting ridiculous.

Anyone know what passenger average weight estimates Airbus is using in its design/build process?


User currently offlineMark777300 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7015 times:

As I said before, The NY Post is not what I call a reliable source, but there has been much talk about the weight problems regarding the A380 over the pasat months in many News Papers including the Wall Street Journal at one time. Unfortunately I'm not the best at mathematics so I don't really have much of an idea in what the difference is between short tons and metric tons. Regardless, I would have to believe that even a small over weight issue would pose some serious problems for any aircraft to be able to achieve it's advertised range. And yes, what would happen if you crammed the A380 up with plump Americans??

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7000 times:

5% is a huge number. That can't be right.

Even 0.5% would be a relatively huge weight "over-age" that would signif reduce 380 performance.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineMarkATL From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 539 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6932 times:

Do people here actually think that if this project has some kinks at this stage that a Airbus with their expertise and skills won't be able to fix it? Come on guys this is Airbus not some laid off aerospace engineers in their garage.

The A380 is going to be a success. As long as their are slot restricted airports like LHR, NRT etc.



"...left my home in Georgia, 'n headed for the "Frisco" Bay...
User currently offlineSandiaman From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6900 times:

The original source is an AP report confirmed by an Airbus spokesperson. But the article goes on to say that Airbus is committed to maintaining contractual guarantees.

My question: what is the typical difference between contractual guarantees and design goals? As I recall, the performance difference is a few percent. Does anyone know?

Hopefully they will be able to make up the shortfall.

I posted a link to the article yesterday, but my post got deleted.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6838 times:

According to http://www.onlineconversion.com/weight_common.htm 1 ton [metric] = 1.1023113 ton [short]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6831 times:

With the price of fuel the 380 seems to me to big a big flop. That thing is just too damn big!

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6820 times:

With the price of fuel the A380 seems like a great idea... Using less fuel per pax than the 744 becomes a better thing for every cent fuel prices rise.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePhxinterrupted From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6796 times:

"With the price of fuel the A380 seems like a great idea... Using less fuel per pax than the 744 becomes a better thing for every cent fuel prices rise."

Yeah, we'll see what kind of fuel economy this flying pig returns.



Keepin' it real.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17044 posts, RR: 67
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6789 times:

That's another question, but even if it's MPG is 3% over performance estimates, that will still be better than the 744. A bit of a nightmare for Airbus though. Ouch...


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6762 times:

It sure gets confusing.

There have been MTOW hikes on several occasions, because of OEW increases.

Also tons (2240lbs), short tons (2000lbs) and metric Tonnes get thrown around without it being clear which is meant.

Just to make it more confusing, Airbus quote 95 miles per Imp gallon per passenger on their web site, but now a spokesperson is saying 81 mppg. I am assuming that this is a US gallon figure, otherwise all the advantage over the 747 has gone.

Airbus statements about using improved aerodynamics to make up for weight problems, confirms there is a problem.

Would the Virgin and Air France deferments have anything to do with this?

Ruscoe


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6716 times:

Would the Virgin and Air France deferments have anything to do with this?

No. VS and AF both have their stated reasons.

This has been discussed to death. Half the problem here is differences in measurements between the US and the rest of the world, it would be better if figures were quoted in metric exclusively. The other problem is reporters in "silly season" who are short on real news and brewing up articles for which they have no specialised knowledge.

The major weight issue was due to the airlines wanting engines with larger, slower turning fan sections to cut noise down to proposed future limits and below. Bigger fan = more weight.

Airbus also have a habit of publishing figures at the extreme of the predicted envelope, which is why their products often don't fall into the projected numbers. Boeing is more conservative and allows itself a margin of compliance. That is a valid criticism of Airbus that I've heard from engineers and managers alike.

There won't be a valid weight to crow about (either for the pro or anti lobby) until a prototype has been fitted and is flightworthy in full airline spec. Boeing did the weight calculation with #2 of the 777 line proper, which was a United bird with full interior and flight ready. And came in comfortably under the guarantee.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6640 times:

I am sorry but I think Airbus' estimates are way off, that thing is a monster, let us see when that thing starts flying.

User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1893 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6610 times:

The king's new clothes. The thing is obesity. Ignore that fact and build it anyway and suffer the consequences? Or, stop now and admit their mistakes? This is either a monumental success or a monumental failure. Though I am pro Boeing, I hope it succeeds, the world is already pissing away too many resources. But, right is right, and wrong is obvious. This is ego v. progress.


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6451 times:

Mark777300,

". . .small article in the business section claims that the A380 will be 319 tons over weight."

The aircraft weighs 319 tons, it is not 319 tons overweight. That's why you shouldn't read the New York Post (among other reasons).  Big grin


Roberta,

"The 319 figure is short tons not metric, the A380 will weigh 280 metric tons."

Correct about the 319 being short tons, but your math is wrong. 319 short tons is roughly 290 metric tons, not 280. On Monday, Airbus did not refute this figure. This essentially means the A380 is 9 [metric] ton(nes) overweight.

Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6393 times:

Hamlet69 I agree.

However the original OEW was 276T(Airbus Website figure) which gives the 14T o/weight that has also been thrown around.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6376 times:

However the original OEW was 276T(Airbus Website figure) which gives the 14T o/weight that has also been thrown around.

ENGINES

the increase is mostly down to larger diameter fans. That's why the weight figures had to be revised up.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6362 times:

WhiteHatter,
Yes I guess we can class that as an intentional OEW increase to accommodate customer demands.

I sure wish somebody could give an educated guess as to what effect a 9T increase in MTOW will have have upon performance.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineAdria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6340 times:

"I sure wish somebody could give an educated guess as to what effect a 9T increase in MTOW will have have upon performance.".......... less fuel and a shorter range but Emirates CEO doesn't seem to be worried about it(whatever his reasons might be)



User currently offlineRoberta From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6271 times:

a 9t increase in MTOW will mean the aircaft can carry the same amount of fuel. Albeit a shorter range now that you're carrying 9t's more plane.

a 9t OEW increase will mean it will carry less fuel, or less payload, and therefore generally have a shorter range.


25 Dl021 : The plane will fly, but will it sink Airbus? Probably not, although it seems to face some issues to be worked out in addition to the weight problem. A
26 Aztec01 : Nine tons seems like a HUGE number! Still, unlike Howard Hughes's 'Spruce Goose", I can't imagine the A380 becoming the 'Toulouse Goose' of our genera
27 Phollingsworth : The original source is an AP report confirmed by an Airbus spokesperson. But the article goes on to say that Airbus is committed to maintaining contra
28 N79969 : According to Airwise, Der Spiegel [sic?], and the Seattle Times, the A380 is about 14 tons over. I presume that aerospace engineers have to build in a
29 Prebennorholm : There are so many variables being thrown around. We will have to wait and see. There are imperial tons (2240lbs), short tons (2000lbs) and metric tons
30 Hamlet69 : Prebennorholm, "There are so many variables being thrown around." Yes there are, but with modern computer programs such as CATIA, the vast majority of
31 N79969 : I do not think this latest news is a harbinger of failure and do not think that I wrote anything implying that. If Airbus successfully addresses the p
32 Ryanair : While this isn't good news, it's hardly a major problem yet. If one looks back to the 747 program at this stage, most people didn't think it could fly
33 Prebennorholm : Dear Hemlet69, yes, you are right, some of the confusion is really as simple as an "Airbus webmaster fault". And yes, the word "lemon" can maybe be us
34 Dl021 : I said earlier that the airplane would fly and do so pretty well. Everyone else seems to feel the same way, even going so far as to compare the bird t
35 Ruscoe : Ryanair, Interesting info about the engines. I didn't realise how bad that was at the time. I think the problem of comparing the 747 with the 380 prog
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...
A380 Weight Guarantee Related To IFE posted Tue Oct 3 2006 22:52:03 by PolymerPlane
A380 Weight: Can Launch Customers Claim? posted Thu Nov 10 2005 14:55:48 by Art
A380 Weight posted Thu Sep 23 2004 17:29:33 by Trex8
A380 Weight Issues Solved posted Sun Jul 18 2004 11:43:21 by Scbriml
Bloomberg Article: A380 Weight Problems posted Fri Jul 16 2004 18:51:24 by BCAInfoSys
WSJ Article - A380 Weight posted Thu May 27 2004 22:37:38 by Sandiaman
A380 Weight Problems posted Fri May 17 2002 11:39:00 by Rabenschlag
A380 Weight Problem. . . posted Thu Aug 30 2001 03:21:00 by Hamlet69
FI-A380-Battle Continues To Cut Weight posted Mon Nov 13 2006 11:42:48 by Astuteman
Any Resolution Of A380 Wake Vortex Issue? posted Tue Mar 14 2006 12:44:22 by OldAeroGuy