Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380,the Big Wing And The 900,700 Or 1000 Version?  
User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1112 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5536 times:

As one can see on this picture, the project of the A380 seems to have followed the "Keep It Simple Stupid" principal from an aerodynamic standpoint.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Johan Menten


Single slotted flaps, very straight forward gear retraction systems (worse for spotters as the triple slotted flaps and incredibly complex gear retraction system of the 747 are fun).

I have seen on a powerpoint presentation for Air France that a 5th main landing gear was possible for a A380900 and double slotted flaps as well. (there is a drawing but I don't know how to insert images in posts)

Anyway, I wonder: was this idea of beginning with the bulky version of a type really worth it? It is clear that the A380 could have weighted quite a bit less if people at Airbus had not something bigger in mind (I mean the wing...).

I wonder whether they did that because they thought they would eventually sell more 900 version or because they wanted to make it extremely hard for Boeing to come up with an even bigger product. If it is the latter, then they have sacrificed some efficiency on the 800 version just to scare the competition.

On the other hand, if they sell 30 900 to Emirates at Le Bourget, then the big airlines that are waiting might start seeing the A380 as the inescapable new power house of air transport.

On a side note: is a 700 version really possible? Wouldn't it be pushing it in terms wing size compared to weight? Could it be efficient?

I just got struck by lightning. Is this all "big wing" thing and "-800" naming (as opposed to more classic A380-100 or A380-200 for instance) paving the way for the A380-1000 which would seat... 1000 passengers?

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5492 times:

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
I just got struck by lightning. Is this all "big wing" thing and "-800" naming (as opposed to more classic A380-100 or A380-200 for instance) paving the way for the A380-1000 which would seat... 1000 passengers?

The 8 in A380 was to signify the double deck right? Maybe they started with -800 or something along the same lines???

On the same note, why is the 787 starting with -8,-3,-9?

Whatever happened to -200,-300, and so on?

Shifting gears,
The wing was designed for growth without redesign I thought, so maybe they do lose some efficiency on the-8, but at least when they grow they won't have to redesign the wing.

[Edited 2005-05-02 06:31:46]

[Edited 2005-05-02 06:32:05]

User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1112 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5476 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 1):
Shifting gears,
The wing was designed for growth without redesign I though, so maybe they do lose some efficiency on the-8, but at least when they grow they won't have to redesign the wing.

Yes but will they grow? It's like they're saying to Boeing: "Bigger? Don't event think about it"


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5435 times:

Quoting A380900 (Reply 2):
Yes but will they grow? It's like they're saying to Boeing: "Bigger? Don't event think about it"

If Boeing builds a new VLA, it'll probably be a composite a/c based on the 787. This will probably happen in 20-30 years or so when A380s are up for replacement. However, I could see a A380NG featuring a redesign made out of composites and featuring bleedless engines and electric systems. I wish Airbus had done this the first time around, if they are so confident in the VLA market they should have gone the extra distance and made the 380 with the above features. Then it would have been truly revolutionary instead of evolutionary aircraft.


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5427 times:

Quoting A380900 (Reply 2):
Yes but will they grow? It's like they're saying to Boeing: "Bigger? Don't event think about it"

Well the -900 is going to be stretched and therefore bigger/heavier - and should use the same wing, I think that was the point.


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5423 times:

Quoting NorCal (Reply 3):
wish Airbus had done this the first time around, if they are so confident in the VLA market they should have gone the extra distance and made the 380 with the above features. Then it would have been truly revolutionary instead of evolutionary aircraft.

In defense of Airbus, 10+ years ago when they started working on this behemoth, composites were not all the rage they will (probably) become with the 787.


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5408 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 5):
In defense of Airbus, 10+ years ago when they started working on this behemoth, composites were not all the rage they will (probably) become with the 787.

Let me make this clear, I'm not bashing airbus. This was a huge undertaking on their part. I just think it would have been really cool if they had done it, but as we all know both Boeing and Airbus have finite resources and infinite dreams.


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5386 times:

Quoting NorCal (Reply 6):
Let me make this clear, I'm not bashing airbus. This was a huge undertaking on their part. I just think it would have been really cool if they had done it, but as we all know both Boeing and Airbus have finite resources and infinite dreams.

I didn't think you were.

It would have been cool, I agree - this is probably the last airliner that won't incorporate the new technology. Unless, in the unlikely event, the technology in the 787 proves to be disastrous, but I don't see that happening.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5382 times:

I think both Boeing and Airbus choose the -800/-900 to signify a final version, i.e. no plans for expansion afterwards, ever. RR does not follow that end result logic, hence the Trent 1000.

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
is a 700 version really possible?

Two possible answers here:
  • Boeing made 747 SP didn't they?  

  • If Boeing can make 747A really possible then had Airbus done a -700, I am sure they could have too.


  • Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
    (there is a drawing but I don't know how to insert images in posts)

    A 5th main bogie? That's bull$hit and I am not going to give a reason for that opinion.  

    Scan the pix, upload it on a freeware website like geocites or homestead or whatever, then link it like any online picture where replace "()" for "[]": (img)http://www.whatever.com/urpix.jpg(/img)

    Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
    It is clear that the A380 could have weighted quite a bit less if people at Airbus had not something bigger in mind (I mean the wing...).

    Wings by themselves do not weigh much in comparison to the plane as a whole, for some planes their wings (not including fuel) are usually 20% or less of the OEW.

    Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
    wonder whether they did that because they thought they would eventually sell more 900 version or because they wanted to make it extremely hard for Boeing to come up with an even bigger product. If it is the latter, then they have sacrificed some efficiency on the 800 version just to scare the competition.

       Dude, niether. Forgive my tone, I'm not just talking to you, but eveyone that read this:

    Airlines are customers too, and they are in constant communication with the manufacturer of their owned products. After a while the manufacture gets the idea that the customer is frustrated that there are no products to accomidate it's very specific needs. Hence the manufacturer embarks on the attempt to fill the void that the carrier claims may exist now or later. Markets are made up of customers with a pending need. Fill it any way you want, there is no one solution; which is why some people compare 787 with A380. Choosing a solution however depends on a load of factors, like space contraints in the sky and on the ground, manufacturer and customer labor, etc.

    I have a bias, I do not buy the idea of pride in buisness operation unless it is purely politically motivated and publically stated as such, i.e. Concorde was the only one that bothered going into the commercial market. I do however believe a ridculous number of members on A.net think they represent their country/company and who believe the other members represent their country/company have too much pride and quite frankly I could do without it having to deal with it ever month.

    That said, I do not think Airbus gives a crap for Boeing, neither vice versa except for competition. I do not operate with pride in mind, I just think it is stupid to think with your heart and not your brain. Emos and Logos, which should take center stage in a industry

    [Edited 2005-05-02 07:17:28]


    The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
    User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1112 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5333 times:

    Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
    That said, I do not think Airbus gives a crap for Boeing, neither vice versa except for competition. Not pride, none of this "hard for Boeing to come up with an even bigger product" crap. That is how you people think, not them, a serious lack of details renders a quick and easy decision. Please delete your ignorant words, thank you.

    Dude, Dude, Dude. We are a little edgy arent'we? Airbus is redefining the higher end of airliners. The fact that their wing is somewhat oversized is a threat to Boeing doing something only slightly bigger. Airbus says, we'll still be able to increase our capacity. In other words: if you want to outsize us, you'd better think big.

    Having the biggest airplane is not a matter of pride, it is a matter of having the most cost efficient airplane per passenger (the most obvious thing being that you only pay two pilots no matter the size of the aircraft).

    That is why the A380 is about being the biggest. Not just big for the sake of being big. Why did you understand it that way?


    User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1112 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5324 times:

    Quoting Lehpron (Reply 8):
    A 5th main bogie? That's bull$hit and I am not going to give a reason for that opinion.

    No, I saw it. You can download it it's an Air France presentation about the A380. It's on Kazaa or edonkey.


    User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5292 times:

    Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
    On the other hand, if they sell 30 900 to Emirates at Le Bourget,

    Is 30 aircraft enough to go ahead with production and testing. I can see Emirates wanting these but if no one else buys them will Airbus actually go through the development and testing for such a small amount?


    User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
    Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5257 times:

    Quoting A380900 (Reply 9):
    Dude, Dude, Dude. We are a little edgy arent'we?

    I cannot tolerate even the slightest hint of ignorance, but 90% of the time in real life I do not do what I am capable of doing so online: letting them know wassup.

    Quoting A380900 (Reply 9):
    Why did you understand it that way?

    I brought more into this conversation than you posted, mainly what I keep seeing in other threads, but then everyone is guilty of it and I'm the only one to admit it.  

    When reducing a product down to it's purpose, as all products have, there is not much left to b*tch about that is once you understand the point. I figure of those who do not like this plane (as much logic as that makes) simply have not tried (basic fear) to understand it, hence their disbelief. If they have, they would not be able to argue. It's all a matter of belief really, too many people simply do not, hence the mindless annoying pride/ego slamming A/B wars in here. Funny yes but it raises blood pressure and it is useless, nothing gets learned, more ignorance get recycled.

    I get to leave in a few days for summer break away from a suitemate that actually wanted A380's wings to come off, he claimed Airbus is a piece of $hit but cannot not give reasons for it (like experiences?). How can you not like something you don't know?? Just emotionalism with no thinking, ridiculous. Yes he adores Boeing, especially 767. I do not understand how people can be that way, lack of choices I figure.

    To me A380 is just a machine, I do not see it as ugly or beautiful, I honestly look down at people who do either. I do not like catching myself making humane comments to airplanes, I'm just as coerced as everyone. Is there need to humanize an inanimate object? Is this how humans beings understand things, make them like us?

       A380's comparitive efficiency is a requirement, not it's purpose. Ask those carriers that have bought it and those that will buy it in the future for the purpose, they made it happen, they asked for it. Airbus did not just pop out of bed and decide to research making a better product that Boeing's 747. I'm sure knowing 747's legacy was a bias no doubt, but I hope it was not a deciding factor otherwise we are all in for it.  Wow!

    Quoting A380900 (Reply 9):
    fact that their wing is somewhat oversized is a threat to Boeing doing something only slightly bigger.

    The wing was planned for the larger variant, if it were ever a threat to Boeing it was one such against for which 745X, 746X, 747-Stretch were candidates. They knew about A380 then as A3XX but did not faith in the carriers idea of the future which is odd, IMO, but I understand that Boeing need to make a buck too. A380 is hardly a threat as they are not loosing 747 sales due to Airbus, rather they claim a lack of a 747-sized market is what is doing it. This is why Boeing is not going to make a 747Adv, I am confident they are not that stupid, if so I will not be surprised. They want back what they lost to Airbus, the top spot and unfortunatly it does matter how otherwise they would have pushed SC.

    Nonetheless, if you claim that:

    Quoting A380900 (Reply 9):
    Airbus is redefining the higher end of airliners.

    , then A380 is defining its own niche however large that ends up being down the road, or sky; 747Adv wouldn't be able to threaten it. But time is interesting and people are so random essentially, a trend is not a prediction. All of the aviation industry is based on trends.

    However, if there was ever a doubt in Airbus' minds of A380's market, then they are inacting a business theory that usually works in other smaller consumer industries: make the market. They would be ballsy enough to build it and make them come, right?   

    [Edited 2005-05-02 08:23:02]

    [Edited 2005-05-02 08:25:41]


    The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
    User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
    Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4956 times:

    Quoting A380900 (Reply 10):

    No, I saw it. You can download it it's an Air France presentation about the A380. It's on Kazaa or edonkey.

    hahaha, dude get rid of kazaa and edonkey, unless you have some very good anti-spyware/virus programs. Kazaa and edonkey are hazardous to your computers health  fever 

    Quoting A380900 (Reply 9):
    Dude, Dude, Dude. We are a little edgy arent'we? Airbus is redefining the higher end of airliners. The fact that their wing is somewhat oversized is a threat to Boeing doing something only slightly bigger. Airbus says, we'll still be able to increase our capacity. In other words: if you want to outsize us, you'd better think big.

    Boeing can do something the same size as the 380 if they wanted to in about 15-20 yrs. However it would most likely be built out of composites and weigh a lot less. This is why the A380 as it is now will probably have a short shelf life. I see Boeing building a new VLA (if they ever have faith in the VLA market again) and Airbus doing an NG of the 380 (with composites) to compete.

    The 787 (or the A400 for that matter) isn't a true competitor to the A380, but the technology being developed for it, will threaten the very existence of the 380. It won't happen anytime soon, but either Airbus (new design or 380NG if Boeing offers a competitor) or Boeing is going to develop a composite VLA with bleedless engines and electric systems that will kill the 380.

    If Boeing never builds another VLA, which I doubt they won't, then the 380 will probably have a longer life.


    User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
    Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4905 times:

    Quoting Ozair (Reply 11):
    Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
    On the other hand, if they sell 30 900 to Emirates at Le Bourget,

    Is 30 aircraft enough to go ahead with production and testing. I can see Emirates wanting these but if no one else buys them will Airbus actually go through the development and testing for such a small amount?

    What need? Emirates would have to settle for more 800's. On the other hand, Emirates is something of a "preferred customer".


    User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
    Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4877 times:

    Quoting KC135R (Reply 7):
    this is probably the last airliner that won't incorporate the new technology

    Hmmmm ...

    25% of the A380 is made of composites, and bleedless engines are not really a new technology, but a change in power distibution.


    User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 727 posts, RR: 4
    Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4512 times:

    Quoting Sebolino (Reply 15):
    Hmmmm ...

    25% of the A380 is made of composites, and bleedless engines are not really a new technology, but a change in power distribution.

    AAAh, but the A380 is not 50% composites with an all composite fuselage now is it?

    As for the engines, it is not just the bleedless part that makes them better, this is supposed to be (we'll see in time of course) a big jump in engine technology.

    For your consideration, from GE:

    ---The GEnx will deliver 15 percent better specific fuel consumption than the engines it replaces, helping operators save whenever they fly. It is designed to stay on wing 30 percent longer, while using 30 percent fewer parts, greatly reducing maintenance. The GEnx's emissions will be about 95 percent below current regulatory limits, ensuring clean compliance for years to come, and it will be the quietest, most passenger-friendly commercial engine ever produced.---

    But, if you insist on saying the 787 is just another airplane and nothing revolutionary, I have to disagree with you on that one because it will be a step forward, if all goes as planned.

    While the A380 is an engineering marvel - in it's size, composite wingbox and other areas as well - it is more comparable with today's airplanes than the 787 will be, nothing radically new with it, and rightly so since it has been in the design process for 10 years or so by now.

    The 787 will have:
    -Higher humidity (Since I just read a thread a few weeks ago about how awful the dryness is in the T7, this should be a plus)
    -All composite fuselage, and large use of composites - 50% by weight
    -20% more fuel efficient
    -10% better seat mile costs
    -and a 3 day final assembly process (or so they hope) which greatly reduces labor costs vs other large airplanes which range in the 10-14 day area (someone correct me if my memory is failing)

    You know what I don't get? Why can't we all be happy Airbus is making the biggest (passenger) airplane in the world and that Boeing is making a great mid-size airplane to replace older planes?

    Why is it every time someone says something good about the A380, someone else counters with - it's late, it's heavy, it's ugly, etc, etc...

    And why when someone says something good about the 787 do people say - it doesn't have the shark fin anymore, composites will be too hard to maintain, the nose is ugly, etc, etc...

    I think we can (mostly) all agree, the only real airplane that is a disaster right now is the proposed A350, and even that might surprise us and turn it around.

    [Edited 2005-05-03 02:23:56]

    User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
    Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4374 times:

    Time to answer some questions with athority-

    Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
    Single slotted flaps, very straight forward gear retraction systems (worse for spotters as the triple slotted flaps and incredibly complex gear retraction system of the 747 are fun).

    Also noisy... that was the reason behind the A388 flap system. Triple slotted flaps create lots of aerodynamic noise, equal/greater to that of the engines. The A380 flaps generate less noise, critical for such a heavy airplane (that will naturally displace much air) to meet QC.2 requirements.

    The bumer is, even with these features, the A380-800 will be at the top edge of QC.2 compliance. Heaveir versions (like the A388F, A389) would not likely meet QC.2 requirements 24-hours a day.

    Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
    On a side note: is a 700 version really possible? Wouldn't it be pushing it in terms wing size compared to weight? Could it be efficient?

    I seriously doubt it. Not since the A3XX became the A380 has Airbus offically marketed an "A380-700." The initial plans for the A3XX are as follows:

    A3XX-50 (480 seater)
    A3XX-100/100HGW/100F (550 seater)
    A3XX-200 (650 seater)

    Since the program was offically launched, the -50 went bye bye. The A388 version launched stems from the -100HGW, and I think Airbus would have quite a bit of rework to do if the -50 were to become reality. If this were the 777 program for comparison, Airbus launched with the -300ER rather than 772A.

    Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
    Is this all "big wing" thing and "-800" naming (as opposed to more classic A380-100 or A380-200 for instance) paving the way for the A380-1000 which would seat... 1000 passengers?

    I would be very suprised if the A380 wing has that much versatility. The general rule of thumb is a single wing is optimal for two variants, and performance begins to degrade from that point. I'm sure the existing A380 could be used as a platform for a 1,000 seater in the future, but I do not believe that capability exist as is.

    Not to mention, that market would be damn small.


    User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
    Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4308 times:

    Quoting NorCal (Reply 3):
    If Boeing builds a new VLA, it'll probably be a composite a/c based on the 787. This will probably happen in 20-30 years or so when A380s are up for replacement. However, I could see a A380NG featuring a redesign made out of composites and featuring bleedless engines and electric systems.

    Boeing are more likely to build a composite B777-300/B747 replacement immediately after the B737NG replacement. It seems likely to be based on the 270" circular cross-section study. The interior width would be several inches narrower than the A380, and the upper deck would be sufficient for crew rest, passenger bunks, galleys, and lavs, but not passenger seating. The longest variant would probably be 80 meters and have a capacity somewhat smaller than that of the A380-800.

    Quoting Ozair (Reply 11):
    Is 30 aircraft enough to go ahead with production and testing. I can see Emirates wanting these but if no one else buys them will Airbus actually go through the development and testing for such a small amount?

    30 would certainly be a sufficient number to launch the A380-900. Remember, it is just a derivative, so the development costs beyond that already spent would probably not be more than $1B.


    User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17040 posts, RR: 66
    Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4299 times:

    Quoting KC135R (Reply 16):

    You know what I don't get? Why can't we all be happy Airbus is making the biggest (passenger) airplane in the world and that Boeing is making a great mid-size airplane to replace older planes?

    Why is it every time someone says something good about the A380, someone else counters with - it's late, it's heavy, it's ugly, etc, etc...

    And why when someone says something good about the 787 do people say - it doesn't have the shark fin anymore, composites will be too hard to maintain, the nose is ugly, etc, etc...

    I think we can (mostly) all agree, the only real airplane that is a disaster right now is the proposed A350, and even that might surprise us and turn it around.

    I wish the moderators would take this quote and autopost it into any topic that has 787 or 380 in the title. Well put my man!



    "There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
    User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 727 posts, RR: 4
    Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4252 times:

    Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 19):
    I wish the moderators would take this quote and autopost it into any topic that has 787 or 380 in the title. Well put my man!

    Thank you for the notice!

    When it comes to some topics people need to learn that facts are the only acceptable way to make a point. Speculation and opinion both have a place on this site, but not if a person tries to pass them off as fact.

    It's OK to speculate about some stuff, but not when discussing merits, or lack thereof, of a specific airplane - IMO that should be fact based only.

    It's also great for folks to have opinions, but don't try to pass off opinions as fact either, that's just annoying as hell.  banghead 

    That's why I finally joined the forums, (after months and months - possibly years - of reading them) so I could try to correct some erroneous posts from time to time - not that other people don't do that already, but the more the merrier right?

    Well that and, of course, these are topics I enjoy the hell out of! I hope I have some insight to add to some discussions, and can learn where I don't know things. To me, the whole airline industry has this alluring mystique to it. I hope one day soon I will be IN IT, not watching from a distance.


    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...
    EK A380 Order...What's The Big Deal About? posted Sun Mar 28 2004 13:24:55 by EK413
    What Is The Status Of The A380 Wiring Rework? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 14:48:08 by Nitrohelper
    A380 Not State Of The Art-Due 2 Aluminum Wiring? posted Sun Oct 22 2006 15:54:57 by Coelacanth
    EY304 On The 11/11: 345 Or 773? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 17:01:11 by Pe@rson
    PAN Am The Pioneer's Will Restart Or Not? posted Wed Jul 26 2006 04:00:19 by Clippern7471sp
    Is The 757 Being Reborn Or Just Being Used Better? posted Thu Jun 1 2006 16:22:48 by BHXDTW
    ?! The First A380 Floor Plan! Find The Details! posted Tue May 9 2006 23:34:04 by Keesje
    A380 Evacuation - What Are The Odds Of Success? posted Sat Mar 25 2006 09:44:58 by Ants
    Is The A380 The Concorde Of The 21 Century? posted Tue Dec 20 2005 21:20:04 by Eugdog
    Does The 737NG Have 120 Or 180 Etops? posted Thu Dec 1 2005 12:07:19 by CRJ900