Jbond From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5977 times:
I hold has thank all people who have me write about this photo and your enthusiasm for the A380. I cannot answer all but I am going very quickly to send of other photos the next days. Many thanks to all screeners too & A.Net.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5576 times:
FFlyer, you had the choice to not say it, it mattered enough to you.
I can see how you came to that judgement, it is a scale thing. The fuselage is not circlular, it is elliptical; your mind expects a certain amount of asthetic appeal, the kind that comes with a circular fuselage. If the fuselage didn't have a second deck you wouldn't think that way. Technically, based on my interpretation of your apparent logic, a C-5A/An124 should be ugly and short as well, scale-wise. I am certain your opinion will vary somewhat if you have seen it from the top with a thinly-scaled fuselage. It should look normal, aside from the GIANT hang-glider wings.
Atleast all the undercarriage is there...that's a lot of undercarriage!
That thing is phat, b-otch!
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5465 times:
"Cool. Thanks a lot, this is the most fascinating thing happening to aviation since Concorde."
Perhaps, along with the 7E7, it is. But it's pretty sobering and perhaps sad that "the most fascinating things happening to aviation" these days are bread and butter transports whose main reason for being is to help bring up airlines' often lagging balance sheets. Though both are vastly more significant developments for mainstream air travel and fascinating in their own rights, trying to rank them solely in the category of fascinating against the likes of Concorde is a lost cause. The SST is a painful reminder that commercial aviation developers once strove for cutting edge performance, instead of merely improving carriers' bottom line. I know that wasn't realistic but the days when airline builders were focussed on flying people ever faster; trying to make that next big leap toward saving travelers ever more time-the pre-1970's developmental era; man, THAT's when the most fascinating things happened! Airliner development has lost that 'pushing the envelope' mantra that really revolutionized travel in such a short span of time. Today's airliners may be better in about every measurable way but certainly not more exciting.
Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4341 times:
I agree she is ugly, but you have to think something:
The A380-800 is a huge thing, wingspan almost 80m (240ft?) and fuselage length 73m (220ft). Obviously there's a misproportion that will be somehow solved with the longer, 80m, A380-900. But further than that, there is another fact that should have been caught by photographer's views:
I'd say that the pic is taken quite close to the wingtip (though, roughly a few more than 40m) and despite this fact, the whole 73 metres of length fit into the image. The lens used must be quite angular, would not be able to tell how much, but for sure this causes a supplementary distortion of the whole shape.
For COAMiG29 and Trickijedi, some schedules say mid december 2004, and some others late january 2005. From Barcelona it is 3 1/2 hour drive, so for sure a few Iberian Spotters will be there...
Lnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1598 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4257 times:
OKay.. after MONTHS of reading posts about "asthetics" I have to ask:
DOES IT REALLY MATTER IF IT'S UGLY OR NOT?
It's a plane. Is it functional? I guess that's left to be discovered, but, what does the 'prettyness' of the plane have to do with it?
You know, it's sad. We have a little less than a year before the test flights are scheduled to take place. Are we going to have to have "It's ugly!" conversations EVERY time someone posts a pic?
Imagine back when the 747 was built. Never before had anyone seen such a large plane. Was it thought of just as "magnificent" and "majestic" as it is today?
We had NO idea that the 747 would look so majestic as it leaves the runway, or returns to the runway, so did people think it was nasty then too? Who knows.. What matters, is that it's a functional and very successful aircraft, who we have come to love and cherish and be mesmerized by it's sheer size and (what we now now) as beautiful lines.
GIVE IT A CHANCE. Please. For the sanity of ALL of us.
Trijetman From Germany, joined Oct 2004, 29 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3931 times:
Obviously it's not a real beauty, but a lot of other fascinating airplanes weren't either...
However, Airbus never did make an effort to "stylize" their products a little bit to make them more pleasing to the eye. That's why, even as a European, I deeply admire what Boeing is doing with the 7E7: The cockpit windows just look sharp! Even on its current products (747, 757, 767, 777) they use nicely rounded, well designed (aesthetically speaking) cokpits windows that blend in perfectly with the fuselage and give a real visual signature to Boeing aircraft.
Airbus is always, even on the A380, using practically flat windows that consequently create ugly flat spots on the side of the fuselage right behind the cockpit. I can't see an advantage to that; aerodynamically it's probably even slightly less effective and if they're a bit cheaper - it probably doesn't make much of a difference on a millions of dollar object...
Also, Airbus engineers seem to like short stubby noses: Again, I don't see an advantage here, other than that it's not very pretty! Maybe I'm wrong though, so if somebody knows why Airbus' don't have the edge aesthetically - maybe there is a good reason for it?!
In any case, I can't wait to see the A380 in real - maybe Le Bourget next year? It'll really be something!
Ual747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3896 times:
That is one ugly "fat bahstad!" I agree, it would look SOOOO much better if it was longer. I think it's actually shorter than the 747, and around the length of the 772, not sure, and I don't want to look the stats up because I'm hungover.
Airbus3801 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1089 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3447 times:
Who put in their mind that this immediatly calls for an A v. B War, this is not what this post is supposed to be about.
I think the A380 looks quite amazing and think it is the biggest thing since the Concorde. Though the 7E7 is great too, it just cannot be compared against the 380 because they were both made for different purposes. But, the A380 is a bigger advancement because what would catch your eye, a big complete double decker aircraft or a basically crossover between a 757 and 767 with supposedly cool windows. Also, those are artists rendetions of the 7E7 therefore you shouldn't be so quick to judge how it is going to look against the 380.
With all that aside....
Just one question, when is the first test flight going to be?
Best to all of the companies
A I R B U S 3 8 0 #1
but the best to both companies who continue to amaze us with such great aircraft.
M404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2220 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2388 times:
Yes definatly the wing vs rate ratio and lens vs camera angle accent the first. Beauty is impossible to define completly. Remember how many slammed the 7E7 here because the nose and/or tail was not conventional while others were excited by the very same things.
Purpose of design dictates results. Different approaches to the same problems can spawn different results. Beauty might then be additionally defind as acheivement of purpose through design.
[Edited 2004-10-09 22:43:48]
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2069 times:
The 747 carries its bulk with a svelt gracefully appearance. The A380 just looks butt ugly. And this is coming from a big Airbus fan. But what disappoints me about the A380 is how big it's not. In 1969, the then current biggest airliner, the 707, carried about 180 passengers. The 747 more than doubled the ante. And the MGTOW was over 2.5 times greater. What a revolution in size! The current biggest airplane, however, the 747, carries about 450 passengers leaving the A380 only about 20% larger in size and only 25% larger in MGTOW. And no larger in general dimensions. Yet this extra 20% is heralded both by Airbus fans as a huge leap forward, and by anti-Airbus critics as a doomed unweildy monstrosity. It is neither. It's just a ho-hum plane with two complete decks.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
AirOrange From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (9 years 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1880 times:
No, the engines look fatter because of the angle the original picture has been taken. Watch the wing tip and winglet! They seem to be out of proportion too but in fact it is the perpective that effects it.
The picture below gives you a better view on the proportions: