Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Too Big?  
User currently offline777kicksass From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2000, 668 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1732 times:

I found this article:

------------------------------------------------------
The Airbus A380 is so large that it cannot park at a terminal designed for a row of Boeing 747s. It is so long that it will handle some taxiways like a tractor-trailer truck turning into a suburban driveway, wheels mushing into the grass and mud.

It is so heavy that it cannot taxi across some culverts and bridges, including spans over expressways at Kennedy International Airport in New York.

Its engines are spaced so far apart that their exhaust could fry a runway's guide lights. Its body is so wide and tall that tower controllers may have to ban aircraft from nearby runways and taxiways before the plane lands or takes off.

And it carries so many passengers, up to 555 in the initial version and potentially up to 800 - nearly double the passenger load of a 747 - that flights may have to use two baggage-claim carousels at a time to handle all the suitcases.

Source : New York Times
------------------------------------------------------

Do you think there's any truth in this?? Will this affect sales??

Thanks

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBrissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1629 times:

And it is so technologically advanced that it will take air travel to a new dimension in the 21st century.

It hasn't affected sales yet, with SQ, QF, EK, AF, Fedex already ordering it; with Atlas and LH to jump on board soon as well.

Hardly what I would call a sales drought for a new airliner, especially when the product offered by Boeing has won only a token order from QF.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6384 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1614 times:

There will be problems all over.
The last many times I visited ZRH that airport couldn't even accommodate an ARJ-85. The plane was parked somewhere out in the wildernes where we entered some busses which some time later drove us on a loooong journey around the airport and finally delivered us at a "gate".
That way the avarage "jet speed" from gate to gate decreased from around M=0.60 to well below M=0.50.
But what does it matter when it works, it's safe, and it's payable.
All sorts of planes - including the A380 - will suffer from such problems. Airports are always planned to be rebuilt to manage current traffic. But rebuilding takes a long time, and by the time a rebuilding has been finished the airport is equally overloaded again.
The A380 will require more busses than other planes. And then, if the upper deck pax are not going to leave the plane through internal stairs and the lower deck, then some smart welder at the airport will have to construct loooong external stairs which can be rolled to the upper deck door.
That's very likely how it's going to happen.
Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7985 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1576 times:

Preben,

Psst--the Airbus A380 is NOT designed for an airport like ZRH.

It is designed for the really large airports like JFK, IAD, MIA, ORD, DFW, DEN, SEA, SFO, LAX and HNL in the USA, LHR, FRA, MUC and CDG in Europe, and NRT, KIX, SEL, PEK, PVG, HKG, TPE, BKK, SIN, MEL and SYD in in Australasia.

On trans-Pacific routes, the really do need this plane; flights between the USA and NRT, SEL and HKG always tend to be extremely full year round, and you know the A380 will be fully-loaded even on these trans-Pacific routes.


User currently offlineFP_v2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1562 times:

I think you are over stating its size.The A380 will only take up as much spce as 2 747's parked side by side.

User currently offlineAerotech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 259 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1538 times:

The wheelbase won't be any more than the C-5's, so the taxi problem won't be any biggie. The bridge problem will be true, however. The wingspan is'nt that big. Remember the A380 is basically the size of a 747 that has the double deck go all the way back. The runways at it's intended airports are all over 200 ft wide, and the engine layout is not very much wider than a 747s.

User currently offlineAC320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

Actually, someone in a previous post stated the A380 is planned to have the same wheelbase as the 777, allowing it to use airports already modified for Boeing's bird.

User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1536 times:

Prebennorholm,
I flew on a CityFlyer Express Avro RJ100 from London Gatwick to Zurich. I had to park out on the tarmac just like you did. The reason isn't because the airport can't handle it. If Zurich can handle a 747-400 with ease, than a ARJ-100 is no problem! The reason is ZRH doesn't have enough gates, thats why there are many planes parked outside, its the same for Gatwick also. They are building a new terminal in ZRH and it should open next year a believe, this will allow all planes to park an a gate now.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineTristar2000 From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1535 times:

Like aerotech said, apart from the weight problem at certain spots, the plane won't be much of a problem, I believe.

Permit a personnal feeling, it's funny that all the doubts about the A380's success always seems to be coming from the U.S.... I wonder why...

Regards,
Steven


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6384 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1530 times:

Sure BA. I know that the ZRH problem is a capacity problem. And they are building a new terminal.
That's how it is. All major European airports seem to build a new terminal at the moment.
And when it opens, then they will just scrape by, but be terribly short of parking, check-in counters, baggage handling facilities or something else. And while these shortcomings are corrected, then the number of gates will be too small again, and the old busses will get a new era.
All major airports are always too small to be able to function as intended. Shortcuts are usually found to compensate.
My clue was that some airports may also have to make some shortcuts to be able to "accommodate" an A380 in the beginning. But when in, say, 2010 a new terminal is opened, then it will of course be made so it can accept A380s at a few gates.
It's nothing special for airports. Columbus would also have had a problem docking his ship in "West India" if he had crossed the pond in Queen Mary.
Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineSIN_SQ From Singapore, joined Oct 2000, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1522 times:

The journalist of this New York Times may not be an aviation expert. He may lack of understanding of the civilian aviation. What he wrote about A 380 is very extraordinary.

In fact, the size of A 380 is comparable to Boeing 747-400. AN 225 is larger than A 380. Another large aircraft is US C5 Galaxy. These two giants can dwarf A 380.

First generation of A 380's length (73 m / 239ft 6in) is shorter than A 340-600! The wing span of A 380 is only 79.8 m (261ft 10in), well within 80m by 80 m box.

B 747-400's total length: 70.6 m ( 231 ft 10 in )
B 747-400's wing span: 64.4 m (211 ft 5 in)

A 340-600's total length: 75.30m (246ft 11in)

The journalist even missed the point that new proposed of Boeing B 747X Stretch is even longer and larger than first generation of A 380!

Airports always change everytime new larger planes are introduced. Humans have seen big differences between DC 3 and Boeing 747-400.

The pilots of AN 225 and C5 Galaxy can turn their giant planes around in major airport - why not A 380?

Even An 225 and C 5 Galaxy did visit Singapore Changi International Airport and were displayed at Asian Aerospace Exhibition at Changi Airport several years ago. I was there to take a look at two giant planes.  Smile





User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10631 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1478 times:

Even the 777-300 of today is as long as a A380!

User currently offlineHNL747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1461 times:

The more serious issues regarding the A380 do not concern the airside and groundside of an airport as much as it does airspace utilization. A larger and heavier aircraft produces more severe wake, this may require controllers to extend terminal airspace spacing to over six miles (max required for heavy aircraft) for A/C following an A380. Furthermore, runway hold times for takeoff may have to be increased from 120 seconds to accomodate longer wake dissipation periods. By increasing spacing and runway hold times airport capacity will decrease. Since the advent of widebody/heavy jets spacing has increased to 4-6 miles and runway hold times have increased from 60 sec. to 120 sec. this has caused airport system capacity to decrease 20%. The A380 will have the most severe impact on airports that have a high level of aircraft mix.

In places like NRT, SEL, HKG etc. the A380 should pose little disruption to the system. However, at airports like ORD, SEA, LAX and SFO (with high aircraft mix) the A380 could reduce airport capacity as a result of the further spacing and hold constraints it could pose.


User currently offlineHlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1445 times:

I think the A380 would work out in Detroit Metro if Northwest decided to order them. I think the new Northwest midfield terminal at DTW has gate designed big enough in case Northwest ordered aircraft larger than the 747-400. I have seen the AN-124 at several airports across the United States, I figure if taxiways and runways can handle the AN-124 then it should handle the A380.

What I was really curious about was where did Airbus get the number 380 from???

What happened to the 350, 360 and 370???


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7985 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1434 times:

HNL747,

Actually, one of the FIRST issues that Airbus addressed when they designed the A380 was the issue of wake turbulence.

Through a lot of wind-tunnel testing and computer modelling, the current A380 design actually has the same level of wake turbulence as the 747-400. If the world's large airports can handle the 747-400 in terms of turbulence seperation, they should be able to handle the A380 with no issues.


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 41
Reply 15, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1416 times:

It may interest you to know that the 757 creates more wake turbulence than the 747. It is not only to do with weight and size, but also aerodynamics...


"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineHNL747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1393 times:

Yes,

The standard spacing for a 757 is 5 miles in trail.


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...
A380...How Big Is Too Big? posted Sun Feb 29 2004 17:21:56 by Cjuniel
A380 Is Too Big For BA! posted Wed Feb 21 2001 20:38:47 by Cruising
Is The A350 Too Big For Some Who've Ordered It? posted Sun Dec 17 2006 10:33:41 by Eureka
FedEx Cancels A380 Orders/Big Mistake? posted Sun Nov 19 2006 21:42:54 by CJAContinental
SJC Too Big For General Aviation? posted Sat Sep 30 2006 04:09:14 by SJCRRPAX
Are The 320/737 Too Big For US Network Carriers... posted Fri Jan 27 2006 18:28:47 by Boeing7E7
YYZ's T1 - Too Big? posted Sat Aug 20 2005 03:10:45 by Vingt20cent
Virgin...Way Too Much Capacity At Too Big A Cost? posted Thu May 19 2005 16:28:36 by Bmacleod
A380,the Big Wing And The 900,700 Or 1000 Version? posted Mon May 2 2005 06:19:50 by A380900
Too Big & Too Slow.... Been There, Done That! posted Thu Apr 28 2005 14:00:56 by Nsfguy