747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4166 times:
I was looking at a article about the Airbus A380, and it got me to thinking about how big this plane had to be in person. Have any body here seen one in person taking off, landing or just on the ground. If you have, could you tell how it climbs for example, dose it have a low slow climb like a 747 or A340 or does it jump of the ground. Does it look bigger than a C-5 or A 224. I just wonder how this giant beast look in person. Thank you.
Fraport From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4136 times:
I've seen it at Le Bourget and I have to say it doesn't look that impressive as you may expect. Yes, it's big, but for the diameter of the fuselage it's way too short. So it appears like a blown up A318.
In Le Bourget it climbed quite steep but it should have been very light. Eventhough it didn't climb as steep as the A346, which was really impressive. I guess when it is in commercial service it will have a similiar take off performance like a B744.
It's an aesthetic mess, honestly. From some angles, it looks cool, but from many it looks weird.
One reason Boeing went the extra mile on the 787 aesthetics, BTW. There are style points in this world, especially these days. The 777 is far too plain, and will likely be the last plain all new design you see from B.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
9V-SPJ From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 748 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3987 times:
I saw it at Le Bourget as well and it is a giant of an aircraft. When it takes to the skies, it just looks like a whale with wings! The climb rate was pretty good, although it was lightly loaded. Looked good when it came in for a landing, and the roar of those RRs when they started up...... some power!
Knoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 249 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3941 times:
Too hard to tell now unfortunately because my office has a partial view of the runway at TLS. So it becomes "normal" for me.
I must have seen it take-off or land at least 30 times now. To be fair, it does not look that big, but it is so difficult to compare it if you do not have say something like a B737/A320 doing a parallel landing...(not advisable I guess.)
There is one thing that everybody who has seen it here agrees on, is that it looks far more impressive during landings than during take-offs.
Often when we see the approach, we often mix the A340-600 with it until it gets real close however.
But when you are just standing very close to it, you really get to feel the sheer size of the wings and the tail.
Got to say the tail really sticks out.
No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
FCKC From France, joined Nov 2004, 2348 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3914 times:
As many mentionned above , it is not so impressive as it was described.
What i think is impressive , are the wings , which are longer than the fuselage !!!!!!!Certainly they are very efficient.They should be the strong power of this plane.Congratulations BAE.
Personnaly i like it , even if the proportions are not so good (i am a lover of the 747SP) , but when Airbus will stretch the fuselage (A380-900) , i really think it could be a gracefull plane , even if it's quite difficult to get an elegant plane with a double deck.Put a full double deck on a 747 , and it will loose its majesty.Think the 300 and 400 version already loose some , compared to the 100 and 200 version.
Also the A380 is very quiet.It's a friend of the neightbour airport living people.
Toulouse From Switzerland, joined Apr 2005, 2751 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3785 times:
Saw her first flight and many other times at work and from my house here at Toulouse.
As others have stated, while it is impressive looking, it's not as impressive as one may have expected. What really got me was two weeks ago when they were doing some tests and it flew over my front garden about 8 times, banking and heading back south giving me a great view of the 380 from the rear, and what really gets me is the sheer massive size of the wings.
Slowly, the 380 is growing on me. It's certainly not the most beautiful in my opinion, but nor is it unattractive to see.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21369 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3625 times:
Quoting Mariner (Reply 6): Huh? Admittedly it is only a paper plane, but that 787 nose is a long way from aesthetically pleasing to me.
That is a matter of your opinion, not related to my point.
My point was that for the 787, B is taking aesthetics into account. They are not an afterthought to aerodynamics, as is true on so many other models at this point.
Whether you like the look is your opinion. Fine. But you can not deny that B wants you to THINK about the look.
On the 777, which I like, B made the most generic, plain plane you could possible build. To a certain degree, it has a "perfect" proportion to it (772), and you can appreciate it for that. But it isn't exciting.
The A380 is a plane that was about size first, efficiency second, looks maybe 4th, if not lower down the list. There were things that A could have done rather easily to improve the looks, but it wasn't a priority, and honestly, I agree with that philosophy for that jet.
And this lack of aesthetic focus shows, from the behemoth wingbox to the giant bald forehead, to the location of the cockpit, to the giant A318 proportions. But it doesn't diminish the enormity of the jet or the impressiveness of the effort.
I also agree that the wings are the most imposing feature of the A388. They are just beyond massive. The tail is out of proportion though, much like a 736 or an A318, so tall to keep the thing in a straight line because of the wingspan.
And I too think that the A389 will come into it's own as the plane that looks "right" of the family.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24403 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3574 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17): Whether you like the look is your opinion. Fine. But you can not deny that B wants you to THINK about the look.
Yes, all I have in life is my opinion. And I don't think anyone sets out to design an ugly aircraft. They may achieve it, but its a by-product, not an intent..
And I do not see that Boeing wants me to think about the look of the 787 anymore than - say - de Havilland wanted me to think about the look of the Comet.
Aesthetics were not the only reason the Comet's engines were placed where they were, but that element was there, a desire to make the aircraft look sleeker, more "modern".
The "perfect proportions" of the 777 may not be exciting to you, but I know aircraft engineers who are astonished by the simplicity of it and, they say, the grace. In that simplicity, they say, is beauty and elegance.
Form follows function, perhaps. So I am puzzled that you think Boeing "got aesthetics" for the 787.
Beyond that, I agree with your comments about the A380.
KennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3481 times:
I saw it fly twice at Le Bourget, my first impression was it wasn't that big, it was only when you saw vehicles and people around it that you realise how big it really is it looms over everything, looks a bit short but the -900 will be in perfect proportion. As for maneouverability, not demonstrated to be as agile as the A346 but you don't go throwing your only prototype around like a Typhoon at this stage in the game.
As for aesthetics by design, its a freakin airliner not a designer dress, designed and built to do a job, not mince around looking pretty pretty
Grimey From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 446 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3471 times:
I met some woman once who said she seen it and it didn't look as big in person. There was a thread a while back about the B747 didn't look as big in person and I have to agree but it also depends on what angle you look at it, just my own opion.
Glidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1020 posts, RR: 47
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 5 days ago) and read 3405 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): If you have, could you tell how it climbs for example, dose it have a low slow climb like a 747 or A340 or does it jump of the ground.
I saw the A388 in LBG. The a/c took of with an amazing low angle. Indeed, it looked a little bit as it was jumping of the runway. (Took of a bit like a helicopter, if you compare the nose angles)
This could be, due the not slotted flaps. It seems that the A380 uses the engine blow together with the flaps to create additional lift. Really cool!
Btw, the a/c was really silent. It leaves the noise behind the airport fence....
I agree! I made the trek to LBG this year and the whole airbus show was impressive. The music and people clapping was rather moving. The thing that stood out the most to me was how quiet it seemed on take off and on fly by's. Really the loudest thing I remember was the engine start up, but that probably because I was standing right next to the fence. It was beautiful to see in person in my opinion, and truly magnificent to see in the air
: I was in Toulouse for all of July and saw it several times after take off and on final approach. Seemed quite lumbering but that's probably inevitable
: I saw it too at LBG and I have nothing further to add like the most of the guys here! Only I was really impressed by the noise! (there was not much of