Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Link To A380 Type Certificate Data Sheet  
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9904 times:

Hot off the press. Happy reading.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...8E2A886257242006079C4?OpenDocument

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9885 times:

Quoting from the certification:

Production Basis

A380 airplanes, all series and models, are produced in France under production approval FR.21G.0035 issued by DGAC or
produced in Germany under production approval DE.21G.0009 issued by LBA to Airbus.

Is that production approval? IE the Production Certification everyone is now harrping on about in other A380 threads?


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9768 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Quoting from the certification:

Production Basis

A380 airplanes, all series and models, are produced in France under production approval FR.21G.0035 issued by DGAC or
produced in Germany under production approval DE.21G.0009 issued by LBA to Airbus.


Is that production approval? IE the Production Certification everyone is now harrping on about in other A380 threads?

No, this is the approval of the respective factories to produce Part 25 airplanes.

The airplane production certificate comes separately



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9686 times:

The TC states MTOW 560 metric tons which is what Airbus always stated was MTOW... If they haven't done a MTOW RTO... are they limited to a different MTOW in the AFM or??? this is odd to say the least. How are they certified if they haven't done the cert test at MTOW.

I cant imagine they allowed it by analysis. Anyone know if there are operating limitations pending the full RTO test? No individual aircraft has an AC as yet... AFAIK

Thanks


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9594 times:

Quote:
Product Subtype: Large Airplane

A bit of an understatement!



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineJasond From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9539 times:

I have never actually seen one of these but the one thing that stood out was the maximum eligible passenger capacity:

Maximum Passenger Seating Capacity
The maximum eligible passenger seating capacity is 538 on the main deck and 315 on the upper deck for a total of 853.

Interesting that nominally Airbus have always quoted 555 and airlines are in fact going for less to begin with. The certificate indicates approval to carry so many more, correct?


User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9488 times:

Its based only on the demonstrated evacuation test. They got 853 out in the time limit so they could carry 853. So its a maximum that Airbus could allow for but that number may not have any relevance in the real world.

User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8439 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9467 times:

Quoting Jasond (Reply 5):
Maximum Passenger Seating Capacity
The maximum eligible passenger seating capacity is 538 on the main deck and 315 on the upper deck for a total of 853.

Interesting that nominally Airbus have always quoted 555 and airlines are in fact going for less to begin with. The certificate indicates approval to carry so many more, correct?

853 is a single class config. 555 is a three class config, typical of standard operations


User currently offlineJumboForever From Japan, joined Jul 2005, 200 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9443 times:

Quote:
Airplane Flight Manual Refer to A380-841 and A380-842 US Airplane Flight Manuals, Revision 0.3, Issue 1, both dated December 7, 2006, applicable to A380-841 and A380-842 airplanes.

This is something I'd like to read.


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5619 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9417 times:

Quoting JumboForever (Reply 8):
Quote:
Airplane Flight Manual Refer to A380-841 and A380-842 US Airplane Flight Manuals, Revision 0.3, Issue 1, both dated December 7, 2006, applicable to A380-841 and A380-842 airplanes.

This is something I'd like to read.

Me also!!!

Looking thru the TCDS in the Maximum Weights table it gives three sets of weights, for variant "000Basic" "001" & "002". Can anyone see where that is defined in the sheet or does anyone know what they refer to??? Because the differances are very large, eg MTOW is 560,000kg (000Basic), 510,000kg (001) and 569,000kg (001), 59tonnes between 001 and 002!!!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineJasond From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9312 times:

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 7):
853 is a single class config. 555 is a three class config, typical of standard operations

Thanks

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 6):
Its based only on the demonstrated evacuation test. They got 853 out in the time limit so they could carry 853. So its a maximum that Airbus could allow for but that number may not have any relevance in the real world.

Still 800+ in a single high density config might appeal to some operators. Didn't the Japanese pioneer that sort of thing with 747SR's (short range / high density). That's a lot of people to put on an aircraft!!


User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9298 times:

they got over 1000 on a 747 flight, a -200 I think. It wasn't really legal but hey its been done.

Airbus can now plot out a seating layout for up to 853 pax without doing a new evac test. They would still need to cert for layout, aisle widths, head strike zones etc. but that can be shown by demonstration and analysis with out a new test program. Good fer them.


User currently offlineJasond From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9289 times:

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 11):
they got over 1000 on a 747 flight, a -200 I think. It wasn't really legal but hey its been done.

Are there any Japanese customers for the A380? Given their history all the concerns of moving large numbers of people through airports with the A380 shouldn't worry them. They should be experts at it by now.


User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9172 times:

There appear to be 5 fuel tanks in each wing, but none in the fuselage? Is there a figure anywhere showing the location of fuel tanks?

SailorOrion


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9151 times:

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 13):
There appear to be 5 fuel tanks in each wing, but none in the fuselage? Is there a figure anywhere showing the location of fuel tanks?

That is correct, at present there are no fuselage fuel tanks located in the belly yet, however there is room for an additional centre fuel tank in the belly of the plane that will be installed for the A380F and also for the A380-900...


User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9130 times:

Any fuel tanks in the center wing box then?

SailorOrion


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9077 times:

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 15):
Any fuel tanks in the center wing box then?

A center tank in the wing box is optional for the A380F, increasing the fuel capacity to 355850 litres (an addition of 45850 litres,) but none of the cargo operators have ordered this option as far as I know.


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9022 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 14):

That is correct, at present there are no fuselage fuel tanks located in the belly yet, however there is room for an additional centre fuel tank in the belly of the plane that will be installed for the A380F and also for the A380-900...

Would you happen to know if the A380-800R (extended range) will also feature this additional centre tank?

I would imagine that as soon as the A388 program gets back on track, the A388R would be the next model to be introduced.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8977 times:

Quote from text:

Weather Capabilities
The Model A380-800 is qualified to Cat. 1.

What exactly does THAT mean? ILS CAT I is default and CATII/III needs aircraft/operator/airmen certification?

SailorOrion


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1591 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8918 times:

They just are doing autoland tests with MSN02 in Africa. They probably will get CATII/III soon.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Niel Swart



Cant wait to see the RTO test, it sure must be very spectatcular.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8888 times:

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 7):
555 is a three class config, typical of standard operations

That isn't typical, it is inflated based on 1970's/1980's configurations. The real number is 480-520

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 11):
they got over 1000 on a 747 flight, a -200 I think. It wasn't really legal but hey its been done.

It was legal in that it was an airlift to safety in an extreme emergency.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8741 times:

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 9):
Looking thru the TCDS in the Maximum Weights table it gives three sets of weights, for variant "000Basic" "001" & "002". Can anyone see where that is defined in the sheet or does anyone know what they refer to??? Because the differances are very large, eg MTOW is 560,000kg (000Basic), 510,000kg (001) and 569,000kg (001),

This is the first reference I have seen to a 569 tonne MTOW for the A388. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If this is indeed a new MTOW, there is an implication that Airbus is making up for a payload-range short fall caused by:

- MEW above target
or
- Fuel Mileage below target
or
- A combination of the two

If it is none of the above and the airplane has hit it's performance targets, then Airbus should be revising the range capability of the airplane as an MTOW increase of this magnitude should yield a range improvement of at least 300 - 350 nm.

Other good questions relate to how this increased MTOW and the attendant increases in MLW and MZFW were achieved, given the structural test failure.

Was the failure caused because the test was being done to the higher MTOW with Airbus knowing that a 560 tonne MTOW was not sufficient to satisfy customer guarantees?

Did the subsequent structural modification allow the 569 tonne MTOW?

If the structural mod did not allow the 569 tonne MTOW, is it achieved by an operational restriction such as a reduction in the forward CG limit?

Of course, if Airbus does increase the published design range, then the 569 tonne MTOW can be explained by all testing being so successful that Airbus merely decided to certify the increased MTOW to provide a more capable airplane to their customers if they opt to take the higher weight version.

It's great to have more concrete data as provided by the TCDS since it does allow alternate paths for speculation as to the status of the A380 Program.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30584 posts, RR: 84
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 8628 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WINGS (Reply 17):
Would you happen to know if the A380-800R (extended range) will also feature this additional centre tank?

Wouldn't that be pretty much required for the "R" model?  Confused


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8634 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 17):
Would you happen to know if the A380-800R (extended range) will also feature this additional centre tank?

Sure it would.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineAeroman444 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8221 times:

Heard they certified at the Stage 3/Chapter 3 maximums as under Chapter 4 requirements they did not get Heathrow QC2 and are rushing a noise reduction package through and will have better noise levels when they do a final noise test before first delivery.

25 Post contains images Ncelhr : I would hate to be the guy who has to take his Credit Card out to fill it up. Funny how when you download the PDF & check its properties, it is based
26 Post contains links RichardPrice : From Rolls Royce: http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/showPR.jsp?PR_ID=40338
27 Revelation : Excuse me, but these days, it should be operator, not operators...
28 A342 : Excuse me, but until 2009 (?), it should be future operator.
29 Aeroman444 : RichardPrice - that article was written way before the fianl flight test for noise. They got Stage 4/Chapter 4, but did not achieve noise levels low e
30 RichardPrice : And with all due respect, Ive heard nothing of this - everything I have heard, both on and off the record at Airbus and RR, has both the Trent and GP
31 Aeroman444 : RichardPrice - I was at FAA this morning and when I asked if the A380 had noise levels that met QC2 at Heathrow the response I got back was "not yet".
32 Post contains links RichardPrice : Again, with all due respect, thats ... rubbish (not quite what I was going to write there, but I want to give this post a chance at least). Why would
33 Aeroman444 : It's not rubbish. Find me one, just one, of their PR releases that SPECIFICALLY state they have noise levels low enough to count as QC2. They all say
34 RichardPrice : Uhm, see my last post, it has RR stating exactly that. QC2 is also known as 'Quota Count band 2' at Heathrow, thats why they all state it. Im sorry,
35 RichardPrice : Im not saying its noise certified yet, but I am saying that all indications point to no problems getting the required noise levels. The aircrafts quie
36 Aeroman444 : Rolls said that betting that their static engine noise levels would be good enough. After the flight test, they found out they are not is what I am th
37 A342 : May I ask, how many DB below chapter 3 is QC2 ?
38 Aeroman444 : its not margin to stage 3. you add takeoff and sideline noise levels and the divide by two. or for approach it the noise level minus 9 dB.
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...
Airbus Sees End To A380 Cancellations posted Fri Nov 24 2006 08:22:39 by UAEflyer
Rail Link To Connect KUL's MTB With KUL's Lcct posted Mon Nov 13 2006 17:12:32 by 9MMAR
Easa Eyes 15 December For A380 Type Approval posted Fri Oct 27 2006 11:40:13 by Leelaw
A350XWB Launch Aid At Risk Due To A380 Fiasco? posted Sun Sep 24 2006 11:53:17 by Art
Has The Rail Link To Cardiff Airport Opened Yet? posted Tue Sep 12 2006 13:17:32 by 8herveg
Any Airlines Given Reg./Name To A380's? posted Sat Sep 2 2006 07:37:59 by QFA380
Anyone Have A Link To That 767 Cockpit Video posted Wed Aug 9 2006 01:34:00 by Bucks918
A Possible Solution To A380 Wiring Problems posted Sat Jun 17 2006 22:59:35 by A342
Detailed Steps To Identify A/c Type? posted Thu Jun 15 2006 21:54:43 by Chase
Back To The Futur : From Electra To A380 (vid) posted Sat May 13 2006 20:28:41 by Airboeing