ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4383 posts, RR: 2 Posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 13101 times:
I was pretty young when the 747 first took wing, so I don't have a means of comparison. But to me the A380 'feels' as though it is being rushed into the air. Does anyone have metrics on the time it took from 'first metal' to 'maiden flight' for the 747 and 777? I use these two examples because they represent 'milestone' aircraft rather than straightforward derivatives of some other baseline.
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3968 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12863 times:
Final 747 design was done in 1965, first flight 1969. I think the A380's taking about the same amount of time.
Hardest part is defining the airplane - what do airlines want, what will they pay for, etc. That alone can take 10 years or more. Boeing knew for a long time that airlines wanted a bigger airplane than the 707 but they went through all sorts of designs until they settled on one that they thought would satisfy everybody (cargo, military and passenger airlines alike). That was 1965, Pan Am placed the first order in 1966, and in fact Boeing then waited until it had more orders before they even committed to building the airplane (they came pretty quickly though, only a couple months later).
First flight was in February 1969, certification came in December 1969 and revenue service started in January of 1970. So it happens quicker than it sounds like you think; about four-five years from the design of the airplane to revenue service. I don't think the A380's being rushed.
My source for this is the book Airliners, by William Green and Gordon Swanborough.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
CactusHP From United States of America, joined May 2004, 348 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12822 times:
Just because the A380 is ahead of scheule, that doesint mean that it's being ''rushed" into the air. It just means that they had minimal complications and problems. Also, Airbus has had a traditionaly longer develoment stage.
Bill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8499 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12716 times:
I've known about the A380 or A3xx as it was back when I first heard about it since about 1997 or 98. Its now 2004 and the thing won't fly untill 2005. Its had a much longer design and development period then the 747 had and there havn't been to many problems with the 747 now have there?
A380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12304 times:
The A380 is on schedule. I think some people just did not realize it was being built for real and are surprised now that it is almost complete.
If anything, the first estimate for the first flight was the end of 2004, it is therefore a little late. Overall, Airbus has been planning this airplane during most of the 90s and then executed the plan flawlessly so far. Pretty impressive. I wouldn't like to compete with these guys.
22right From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 420 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8146 times:
A380 Being 'rushed' Into The Air?
Couldn't resist the play on words here, but there ain't no way in hell that thing will be rushed into the air. It's probably gonna take it's own sweet time on it's take-off roll.... will make an A340-300 takeoff look like a Tomcat with it's ass on fire!
"I never apologize! I am sorry, but that's the way it is!" - Homer Simpson
Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6353 times:
...according to Boeing, the first 747 was delivered before the model was ever certified I'm guessing that the true delivery date was New Year's Eve of '69.
Same here, not gone into it in depth but wasn't that related to the weight and JT9D issues? Both were a major headache at the time.
Understandably so as it was an unprecedented concept in passenger aircraft and broke a lot of new ground. The JT9D was also revolutionary for its time, even more so than the Rolls or GP developments for the A380. They are developments of existing large engines whereas the JT9D was almost a completely new concept in aviation engines (the >40,000lb thrust wide fan engine).