Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Have You Seen These Two A380 Pictures?  
User currently offlineFJWH From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 969 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 19983 times:

Well, I had not saw them (here on A.net), so I though I share them with you cause probably a lot of you also had not saw these two yet:

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=267133
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=267132

Still don't know what to think of this beast  Smile

FJWH


FlightS in the next 3 months: MSP, PHX, MEM, NCE, TFS, BCN. All round trips from AMS
71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 19721 times:

They're awesome and I have not seen them before! But I cannot wait to see the A380 fly.

All Airbus aircraft look odd until they are painted.

I wonder how much an A380 captain will be paid?



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineFJWH From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 969 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 19550 times:

"I wonder how much an A380 captain will be paid?"

Not only that; I'm also curious which Airbus test pilot('s) gets the honour to take the beast for the first time to the skies!  Smile

FJWH



FlightS in the next 3 months: MSP, PHX, MEM, NCE, TFS, BCN. All round trips from AMS
User currently offlinePlanespotterx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 19536 times:

For anyone who thinks the A380 isnt really that "big", the first pic to me puts it into perspective.

User currently offlineQR332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 19527 times:

Thanks for the pics, first time I see them too. Can't wait till I see this bird in its full form, as BCAL said, it looks very odd.

User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 19518 times:

Surely it will be Airbus' chief test pilot who gets the honour to take the beast to the skies first?




MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineSW733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6330 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 19496 times:

I personally think all planes look ugly without paint, be in Airbus, Boeing, or whatever. Thus, I think this plane looks horrible. But I am sure when I see it with some airlines livery thrown on, i'll think it's beautiful

User currently offlineBoeing777300 From North Korea, joined Jan 2004, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19465 times:

Slightly off topic, where in relation to the airport terminal and the other manufaturing halls are the A380 assembly buildings? I was in Toulouse Airport on Sept 30th and saw nothing remotely big enough to house this beast from the terminal building.


Today, I am absolutely fantastic, tomorrow, who knows?
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19448 times:

I still think the A380 is ugly, but that second link gave me hope that it wont be quite so bad afterall. With some engines, paint, and decent lighting, it might not look half bad....

I do think a slight stretch would make it look much better


User currently offlineFJWH From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 969 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19426 times:

On MyAviation.net I found some other pictures of the A380. Didn't saw them before:


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Harry potter
MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Tero Tuominen






MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Tero Tuominen



FJWH



FlightS in the next 3 months: MSP, PHX, MEM, NCE, TFS, BCN. All round trips from AMS
User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3952 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19399 times:

So how did the A380 manage to get to Jamaica then?

Cheers,

Rob K


User currently offlineGodBless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19285 times:

Is it just me or is myaviation.net really so slow?

I think the size of the A380 will make up for it's beauty, it for sure is not as elegant as a 747.

Max


User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19225 times:

Boeing777300,

contrary to the other Airbus assembly halls, which are to the West of the 2 parallel runways and are easily visible from the terminal, the A380 assembly buildings are not visible from the terminal at all as they are located on the same side of the airport as is the terminal, towards the northern runway end.

BTW, nice pictures indeed! WHOW!


User currently offlineMADtoCAE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19219 times:

To me it looks like the pit will be in the lower deck.
What do you think?
Ashley


User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19199 times:

Wow...its actually not so bad looking, just have to slap on the nose and some engines and whatever goes in that gap in the forward wing root and shes ready...

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineFJWH From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 969 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19105 times:

Just like RobK said: strange!! I believe the A380 has never flown before  Big grin and if it did, certainley not to jamaica  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


FlightS in the next 3 months: MSP, PHX, MEM, NCE, TFS, BCN. All round trips from AMS
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 18994 times:

How much longer until the engines are added?


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineTradewindL1011 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 18516 times:

To me, locating the flight deck on the lower level seems to make absolutely no sense. The original role of the 747 was to be a freighter and thus the upper deck was born to allow for straight in cargo loading. And to this day the 747 has proven to be a fantastic freight carrying vehicle. From what I understand, straight in cargo loading is decidedly faster than side loading. All of the world's largest freighters (and thus the longest taking to load) have straight in nose cargo doors and upper level flight decks. Aside from the 747, the Antonov An-124, An-225, and Lockheed C-5 Galaxy come to mind, all of the world's largest aircraft. Now, why would Airbus counter what appears to be a proven fact and locate the flight deck on the lower level and force the freighter to be side loading only? To me, such a concept makes no sense, but then again, I am not an aeronautical engineer. Could someone give me any logical reason as to why Airbus did this? Although, I would not be surprised in the least bit if there is no reason, as many of Airbus' past decision making has made no sense. Thanks.

-Trent


User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 18479 times:

Pardon me for saying so....
That tail doesnt look too awfully sturdy or even attached too solidly either.
Looks as if its held on by just a few bolts......I think they need a lot more reinforcement than that.....
Its just my observation.....So I'm not soliciting any techincal answers or comments...Just wanted to point it out...

Cheers, Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
User currently offlineEGNR From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 511 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 18382 times:

The cockpit is located between the two decks - not midway between them, but slightly above the lower deck - quite clear in the second pic in the thread starting post. This gives the cleanest aerodynamic shape - no "step" in the line of the nose for the cockpit windows. The price for this is no nose-in loading like the 747.

MSN001 received its first engine on September 23rd. I've only seen a small thumbnail size pic of it, and have heard no further news since then.



7late7, A3latey, Sukhoi Superlate... what's going on?
User currently offlineRedDragon From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1135 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 18336 times:

Re. the location of the flight deck, it's actually somewhat above the lower passenger deck, having a short flight of stairs up from this level to reach it. Regardless, it does still rule out a nose cargo door à la 747. Airbus has presumably decided that the market for truly outsize cargo isn't big enough to warrant designing the A380 with this in mind, as the A380F will retain the three-level layout of the passenger version, with separate side cargo doors for both "passenger" decks.

(I'd assume that Airbus is going to dispense with the grand, wide stairway in favour of something a bit more ladder-like  Big grin, assuming that is that they're going to allow for internal access to the upper cargo deck>)


User currently offlineNWA757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 18213 times:

Thanks for the pics, first time I see them too. Can't wait till I see this bird in its full form. She's going to be massive.


Fly High!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17054 posts, RR: 67
Reply 22, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 18207 times:

I wonder how much an A380 captain will be paid?

In the US, probably as much as a 777/747 Captain.
In the rest of the world, purely according to seniority as usual.


To me, locating the flight deck on the lower level seems to make absolutely no sense. The original role of the 747 was to be a freighter and thus the upper deck was born to allow for straight in cargo loading. And to this day the 747 has proven to be a fantastic freight carrying vehicle. From what I understand, straight in cargo loading is decidedly faster than side loading. All of the world's largest freighters (and thus the longest taking to load) have straight in nose cargo doors and upper level flight decks. Aside from the 747, the Antonov An-124, An-225, and Lockheed C-5 Galaxy come to mind, all of the world's largest aircraft. Now, why would Airbus counter what appears to be a proven fact and locate the flight deck on the lower level and force the freighter to be side loading only? To me, such a concept makes no sense, but then again, I am not an aeronautical engineer. Could someone give me any logical reason as to why Airbus did this? Although, I would not be surprised in the least bit if there is no reason, as many of Airbus' past decision making has made no sense. Thanks.


Presumably:
- Airbus does not project that there is enough of a market for outsize cargo planes to actually enter it with the A380. Remember that the vast majority of cargo has absolutely no need for a nose door. It can be loaded quickly and efficiently from the side.
- The position of the cockpit gives a favorable aerodynamic profile.
- The layout of the staircase and consequent separation of the cockpit area is good for security.




"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineRedDragon From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1135 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 18162 times:

The layout of the staircase and consequent separation of the cockpit area is good for security.

Hmmm, interesting; what kind of configuration are you thinking of?

Regarding the need for nose doors, what actually drives it? Is it just for items that are too long to fit through the side door? Bear in mind that the presence of the upper deck restricts nose door loading height to 8' (≈2.4m) on the 747, versus 10'/3.05m (I believe) for the side door.


User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 18026 times:

That tail doesnt look too awfully sturdy or even attached too solidly either.
Looks as if its held on by just a few bolts......I think they need a lot more reinforcement than that.....


The vertical stab on most if not all non tail-engined large transport aircraft is held on to the fuselage with a small number of large bolts. The only one I have personal experience with is the 737 which has 6 bolts that secure attach fittings on the vertical and fuse. I can't remember exactly but these bolts have about a 1 inch shank.

It does look rather weak from a distance with the closeout panels removed but the fittings are quite strong. Of course even at that they are subject to fatigue and must be inspected to prevent AA587 type accidents from happening.

Dl757md



757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
25 FlyCaledonian : Don't forget the 747 started life on the drawing board as a military aircraft. When Lockheed won the USAF contract with the Galaxy then Boeing looked
26 Flygmolinafmly : Are there any diagrams or pictures comparing the sizes of the 747 and the A380? That might help me visualize the real size. Thanks! Gabriel Molina
27 VS4ever : I would be interested to find out what Fed Ex think about the no nose opening option, as they I thought they had ordered the A380F already and I am su
28 ILoveORD : To be honest, the A380 doesn't look THAT big to me. It's not as big as imagined it to be, that's for sure. Certainly nothing to gasp and awe over. I m
29 Gigneil : FedEx doesn't have any need for the nose-loading door. Its for outsize (long) cargo only anyway. FedEx loads containerized cargo only for the most par
30 Spacecadet : To be honest, the A380 doesn't look THAT big to me. It's not as big as imagined it to be, that's for sure. Certainly nothing to gasp and awe over. It'
31 Aircellist : I guess everybody would like to benefit from an insider's point of view (any Airbus engineer reading?) about the position of the flying deck, but coul
32 DavidYYC : Thanks for those figures to compare with a 747, Spacecadet. It does look short and fat, maybe after few years of production and orders a longer EX ver
33 Post contains images Solnabo : Boeing´s loss.....they had their chance in the 60´s for a double decker but didnt take it! Pitty! Micke/SE
34 Post contains links and images Jeb94 : If they really want an outsized cargo hauler with this thing, they can always make the tail or nose swing to the side like the Canadair CL-44 (tail) V
35 IL76TD : are the airports that are going to accept the 380 making arrangements for double decker loading. If not, i can say this will be a doomed project from
36 Lehpron : Remember folks, the plane looks short because it's fuselage is an ellipse and not the circular shape we are used to. It's an illusion, your eyes decie
37 Gary2880 : i too must say its.. smaller, than i thought it would be, i thought the wheels would be person size or something, hopfuly they`ll build a bigger and l
38 Baw716 : The A380s wings are the most significant aspect of this aircraft's size. They are simply huge; dispropotionately so for the aircraft. However, if a st
39 NORTHSEATIGER : At the end of the day she's a beast and I can't wait for it to fly, It's going to be biggest and best and rival manaufacturers can keep their traps sh
40 RayChuang : are the airports that are going to accept the 380 making arrangements for double decker loading. Not to worry. One of the first things Airbus did in t
41 Francoflier : The nose loading feature of the 747 came from its military-oriented design. It is very helpful to load long loads, but does imply a weight penalty and
42 Falcon84 : Sorry, but that's a butt-ugly aircraft. Just my opinion.
43 JGPH1A : It is a great fat ugly thing, shame - but awesome nonetheless. Re the cockpit and the upper deck - because of the positioning of the cockpit, there ap
44 Post contains images TrnsWrld : Wow that aircraft is unbelievable. The wings just blow me away. What amazes me is that look at the curvature of the wings already and they are nowhere
45 MD80Nut : FJWH, Thanks for the links, they are quite interesting pictures. It's amazing to see that beast coming together and looking more and more like a real
46 Post contains images FJWH : A380 in Airbus house colours?: Will look like this: Or in SQ colours. Looks great I think. FJWH[Edited 2004-10-11 20:10:47]
47 Gigneil : It is likely that A380's wing is designed for the upcoming stretch version, Exactly right. As of the flight deck, has anyone considered that Airbus ma
48 Anxebla : I understand the first A-380 built is not made to fly, but to do electrical/mechanical/avionica tests.Is it true?
49 Gigneil : Its for structural tests. It won't have any electrical or avionics systems installed. The first flying prototype, MSN001, will do all the electromecha
50 Starlionblue : The layout of the staircase and consequent separation of the cockpit area is good for security. Hmmm, interesting; what kind of configuration are you
51 Airbus3801 : The cockpit is located between the two decks - not midway between them, but slightly above the lower deck - quite clear in the second pic in the threa
52 Knoxibus : Re the cockpit and the upper deck - because of the positioning of the cockpit, there appears to be quite a lot of space above it, in the 'forehead' se
53 Post contains images Starlionblue : The cockpit is located between the two decks - not midway between them, but slightly above the lower deck - quite clear in the second pic in the threa
54 Hmmmm... : Two facts: 1) The width of the A380 main cabin is 21 ft 2) The width of the 747 main cabin is 20 feet It would appear to me that it is about the same,
55 Starlionblue : Meaning then that Airbus locked themselves out of a current and lucrative future market just to keep A380 pilots from having to get used to a higher p
56 Hmmmm... : That is exactly the point. The A380 was not a contender for outsized cargo. It has the same width as the 747. And cargo now is big business. So why th
57 N6376m : Though most people won't admit it, most newborns are just butt ugly when they're born. It usually takes a couple days until the cuteness develops. I t
58 Lehpron : Has anyone noticed the design differences/changes between the A3XX and the mock A380 in singapore colors that FJWH inserted for us? There sure are a l
59 Post contains images EGNR : There is an outline drawing somewhere on the 'net showing the A380 against the 747, illustrating the size difference. I can't locate it at the moment,
60 Starlionblue : That is exactly the point. The A380 was not a contender for outsized cargo. It has the same width as the 747. And cargo now is big business. So why th
61 Areopagus : A couple of thoughts engendered by these pictures: 1. Upper-deck passengers should have a very good view out over the wing. (OTOH, lower-deck passenge
62 Post contains links and images FJWH : After planepictures.net one of the A380 pictures showed above is now also here on A.net: View Large View MediumPhoto © French Frogs AirSlides FJW
63 RJ111 : I was fearing the worst for a while but now I think it looks cute! Especially in the photo above (reply 62) I just hope it meets its performance specs
64 Litz : As it exists in this prototype, I think it almost looks too short and stubby. When a stretch version comes along, and the fuselage length complements
65 Post contains images Standby87 : It'll never fly. Look, it's got no engines, there's no glass in the cockpit windows and it's full of holes everywhere else
66 Koad : Looks good so far. Maybe she will free some 747's so they can fly for Ryanair, Germanwings, Southwest and Easyjet.
67 Ruscoe : Just as an interesting exercise, can anyone who uses photoshop or similar put a new nose on the 380 with a high mounted cockpit to see what it looks l
68 Oerk : Totally agree, this version looks short and fat. A stretched version will probably have prettier proportions.
69 Zionstrat : Can anyone comment on the red brace-like horizontal bars in the earlier pictures- Name and purpose? Thanks
70 Starlionblue : Can anyone comment on the red brace-like horizontal bars in the earlier pictures- Name and purpose? At a guess they are attachment points for lifting
71 Gasman : Looks like a flying turd to me..................
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...
Have You Seen These Vidoes? posted Sat Mar 30 2002 18:17:28 by Hkgspotter1
Have You Seen These Planes!? posted Thu Apr 27 2000 19:09:21 by BY291A
Have You Seen One Of These Yet? posted Tue Jun 26 2001 06:14:08 by Lax
Have You Seen An Injury At SXM? posted Wed Mar 8 2006 03:37:50 by StarAC17
Central FL Planespotters - Have You Seen This One? posted Mon Apr 18 2005 05:11:55 by Expex
Have You Seen EI-DAF/DAO/DAQ? posted Mon Nov 8 2004 17:55:23 by Pe@rson
OX 742 HS-UTJ... Have You Seen It? posted Mon Mar 22 2004 02:52:23 by N754pr
Have You Seen This posted Thu Mar 18 2004 04:58:59 by Huskey8
Have You Seen The New F Long Haul Product On EK posted Wed Nov 19 2003 06:58:43 by Mohan
Have You Seen St. Elmo's Fire? (Not The Movie) posted Tue Dec 10 2002 05:06:39 by Critter