Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Lands At 1.3 Million Pounds  
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 18230 times:

Flight International reveals in a recent article (otherwise interesting for its discussion of new cockpit systems) that an A380 achieved a landing weight of 591.7 metric tons, during a test last December. They're pretty flippant about it:

Quote:
The manufacturer happens (...) to have broken the world record for landing weight, but says it has not bothered to declare that because it thinks it will soon break the record again.

I wonder what they're up to.  scratchchin 

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 17684 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Thread starter):
I wonder what they're up to.

There was a thread about this some weeks ago.
Link below.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/4409915

Airbus is eyeing an increase in maximum take-off weight for the A380 as part of a series of improvements over 2010-12.

The airframer, which lists the type's current MTOW at 560t, is not disclosing the size of any increase.

* "small" improvement which operators could trade for increased range or payload.

* It would apply to the A380-800 and would not amount to a new variant of the aircraft. There would also be "no empty weight impact".

[Edited 2009-06-04 23:14:27]


SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 17368 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting WingedMigrator (Thread starter):
an A380 achieved a landing weight of 591.7 metric tons, during a test last December. They're pretty flippant about it:

Probably because (IIRC) they landed MSN001 at about 597 metric tonnes within 2 months of first flight.... (all those years ago...)  Smile

(It was lifted off at 600 metric tonnes, did one circuit and landed again. The landing weight isn't precise, but was (IIRC again) quoted by Claude Lelaie (the test pilot) after the flight.

Rgds


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 17343 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting WingedMigrator (Thread starter):
They're pretty flippant about it:

On a second read, it's interesting to note that they expect to break this weight record very soon.

I'd be interested to know what it's take-off weight was in the December 2008 test flight.....
Per my earlier post, I know 600 tonnes take-off was achieved within 2 months of first flight.

Rgds


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 17300 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 6):
I'd be interested to know what it's take-off weight was in the December 2008 test flight.....

It sure is. Maybe they are planning and testing for a bit more then they announced?


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 17091 times:

RR & GP engines are rated at 70-72 klbs, increasing max thrust to 80 klbs is a lot of paperwork.

User currently offlineImiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 16862 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
RR & GP engines are rated at 70-72 klbs, increasing max thrust to 80 klbs is a lot of paperwork.

Not sure about the GP, but the Trent 900 (972B-84 to be precise  Wink) is already rated at 80klbs for the A380-842.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 16583 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Imiakhtar (Reply 9):
Not sure about the GP, but the Trent 900 (972B-84 to be precise ) is already rated at 80klbs for the A380-842

It is in fact certified at 84 000lb.....  Smile

Rgds


User currently offlineImiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15892 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 10):
Quoting Imiakhtar (Reply 9):
Not sure about the GP, but the Trent 900 (972B-84 to be precise ) is already rated at 80klbs for the A380-842

It is in fact certified at 84 000lb.....

You would be correct in saying that the Trent 980-84 is certified for 84k. However, looking at the airframe and engine tcds on both the FAA and EASA websites, the A380 isn't currently available or offered with the higher thrust Trent variant and seems to be capped with the 972B-84.

Apologies for any confusion.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 13957 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

But the A380 can't get an operating certificate (to carry a payload - people or cargo) at those weights unless it has 20 main wheel brakes, correct?

The A380-800F would have had 20 brakes and her MTOW was 590t.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 13332 times:



Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 1):
* It would apply to the A380-800 and would not amount to a new variant of the aircraft. There would also be "no empty weight impact".

Impressive. It's too bad we're in such a slow down, cuz I'd sure like to see many more A380 orders.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 3):
On a second read, it's interesting to note that they expect to break this weight record very soon.

I'd be interested to know what it's take-off weight was in the December 2008 test flight.....

Maybe they are preparing for the much anticipated (at least by me) A380-900  yes  600T+ ought to be good for the 389 right?

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 7):
It is in fact certified at 84 000lb..... Smile

Are you talking the Trents or the GPs? Nevermind...the GP is certified up to 81.5K, still plenty for the A389  spin 



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11194 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
But the A380 can't get an operating certificate (to carry a payload - people or cargo) at those weights unless it has 20 main wheel brakes, correct?

Maybe this is what Airbus might be after? Proving that they might possibly not need the last 4 brakes which are not installed on the MLG yet? This is just a hunch of course.


User currently offlineFCA767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11123 times:



Quoting Imiakhtar (Reply 6):
Not sure about the GP, but the Trent 900 (972B-84 to be precise Wink) is already rated at 80klbs for the A380-842

Am I right that:

1LB of Thrust would push 1LB of Sugar?

Wouldnt the engine need to be 1.8Million LBS of thrust Big grin


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13110 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10845 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 11):
Maybe this is what Airbus might be after? Proving that they might possibly not need the last 4 brakes which are not installed on the MLG yet? This is just a hunch of course.

This is my suspicion too. But to what weight? (MTOW and MLW)? It seems there is a bit more push for more MLW. Oh, MTOW will be increased... but to what?  scratchchin 

This does lead to the conclusion that the A388 is quite overbuilt...

Sigh... I'm hearing absolutly *nothing* about work going forward on the A389. Anyone else's rumor mill have any information?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well it's clear an A380 can stop 600t with 16 brakes, however at what stress to the equipment?

If it reduces the maintenance intervals, then that raises the maintenance costs as well as means the plane is out of revenue service more of the time.


User currently offlineN243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1632 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10066 times:

Quoting FCA767 (Reply 12):
Am I right that:

1LB of Thrust would push 1LB of Sugar?

Wouldnt the engine need to be 1.8Million LBS of thrust

Nope. At least 1lb of thrust is what is needed to cause 1lb of sugar to levitate or climb vertically. The same rule applies to airplanes. The F-15 is a fighter with a power-to-weight ratio of over 1.0, so it is able to climb vertically while accelerating.

The 1.3 million pounds of the A380's weight is opposed by the 1.3 million pounds of force that the ground beneath it exerts back upwards on the aircraft. In theory, if there were no frictional losses in the tires, wind resistance, etc., then even a 1lb force would be able to move an A380 along the ground.

[Edited 2009-06-05 10:38:03]


B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9988 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 13):
This does lead to the conclusion that the A388 is quite overbuilt...

Well I thought, according to rumors on here, that Airbus had a stretched A380-900 in mind when they built the wing and under carriage on the standard A380-800, as well as requiring the engines to be certified to 80K+.

Should Airbus have ever considered a A380-900 in the first place, so as to eliminate some of the 'over-built-ness' of the A380-800?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
If it reduces the maintenance intervals, then that raises the maintenance costs as well as means the plane is out of revenue service more of the time.

Good point.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6381 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8724 times:

Hmmm....what's the maximum landing weight for the A380-800 currently?

Just wondering what the axle loading on an overweight A380 landing is, and if the airport maintenance staff might be looking to patch some cracked pavement after such a landing...  scratchchin 

Remember, even though the pavement can handle a takeoff at that weight with no problems, additional stresses are passed onto the surface (and landing gear and tires) by a landing...



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8665 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 17):
Hmmm....what's the maximum landing weight for the A380-800 currently?

386-394t per the current FAA Type Certificate.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13110 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8222 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 16):
Well I thought, according to rumors on here, that Airbus had a stretched A380-900 in mind when they built the wing and under carriage on the standard A380-800, as well as requiring the engines to be certified to 80K+.

 checkmark  Oh... I'm part of that camp that believes the A388F and A389 was pre-built into the base A388 (minus the 4 extra brakes, centerline fuel tank for the A388F, and many other details). But there was supposed to be some reinforcing for the 590MT MTOW.  scratchchin 

What I'm getting at is the engineering margins were not 0.00 (other orginizations use 1.00). Instead, Airbus is going through and finding a bit of fudge was kept everywhere at the maximum loads. e.g., a hydraulic line might be designed for 6,000 psi, but it must be able to survive a 'burst test' after wear/tear/corrosion at 15,000psi. If it passes at 15,000psi after 'end of life' wear&tear/corrosion but not at 15,001psi, that means there is 0.00 margin. For other parts, its the 9G crash load that determins how strong they are built. For others, takeoff or landing (with a margin). So I'm wondering how heavy the A388 could takeoff (MTOW) or land (MLW) in its current build configuation. So the 590 metric tonne MTOW could have been already built in by conservatism.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
386-394t per the current FAA Type Certificate.

What proven MLW must be shown to increase? For example, all engines must be run at 103% of maximum RPM. Whatever the maximum fan RPM is during the blade out test, take that RPM/1.03 and that is the maximum allowed in service RPM of the fan. Is there a similar 'knock down' with MLW? Yea... I'm in flight test, so I'll go ask a TD when the fligth test team meets up again... But MLW certification isn't my specialty and we're not working on weight increases right now so I thought I'd ask.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
If it reduces the maintenance intervals, then that raises the maintenance costs as well as means the plane is out of revenue service more of the time.

Nice thing is that higher MTOW or MLW doesn't have to be used. If it provides more revenue... its behoves Airbus to give the customer the option (ideally with an idea of the cost).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 13):
This does lead to the conclusion that the A388 is quite overbuilt...

In fact, this conversation, PLUS forthcoming improvements in engine SFC, and the possibility one day of TXWB or GTF style improvements lead me to think that history will show the A380 to have been considerably overbuilt.......

Which certainly puts its performance in its current configuration into context....  Smile

Rgds


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7968 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 20):
Which certainly puts its performance in its current configuration into context....

Translation: Had the A380 not been so 'overbuilt', it's economics would be untouchable, even by the 787/350  Wink



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7761 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 21):
Translation: Had the A380 not been so 'overbuilt', it's economics would be untouchable, even by the 787/350

They would for certain be better than they are....  Smile

That said, if Airbus can find even the remotest reason to use all that potential, I'm all for it.  pray 
Shame to see it go to waste..  biggrin 

Rgds


User currently onlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7534 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 21):
Translation: Had the A380 not been so 'overbuilt', it's economics would be untouchable, even by the 787/350

I think in some ways, though maybe not all ways, she is already untouchable for these new planes.  Smile But in a few years time we will see how the new kids on the block will perform against the A380. And for sure we will see some upgrades coming to the A380.  Wink


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7340 times:

I have to say Astuteman, I was skeptical about the A380 coming into service overweight, but after hearing SQ's very enthusiastic response about the operating economics of the A380 vs. their 744s, I was blown away, and that is with the very first delivered A380s. I can't imagine how the numbers would look on an A380 designed from the get-go to be the size it is now.

 wave 



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
25 Lightsaber : Most excellent comeback. Ditto my friend. This is but one more reason I think the minimum A389 length should be 85m (Udvay-Hazy's proposal). But I'm
26 EA772LR : This my friend, is the most excellent comeback Couldn't possibly agree more
27 FCA767 : ahhh thanks I guess from your explanation is why the aircraft gradually accelerates down the runway as it doesnt use the thrust equal to the weight..
28 EPA001 : Me too
29 Stitch : Honest and Open Question - How feasible would that plane fit at most "A380 airports"? Would there be worries about sticking out into the inter-termin
30 Lightsaber : Its a no-go for many current A380 airports. That I admit. But Airbus only needs ~30 A389 destinations to launch the type. JFK, MIA, LAX, IAD, IAH, an
31 Post contains links and images EA772LR : How much would an A380-900 weigh in? 600T+ maybe? It sure would be a nice looking plane if Airbus were to follow through and launch it. Aviation-Desig
32 Post contains links AeroplaneFreak : BA and SQ will be the first to get the first increased MTOW. It was somewhere on this site http://a380production.com/ I cannot find it But have a look
33 Astuteman : It could weigh in at whatever the Airlines wanted, including 560/569 tonnes, like the current plane. (Just as the A332 and A333, and the 772 and 773,
34 Stitch : Since it would allow two 77Ws to be consolidated onto a single A389.
35 EPA001 : To the cariers that can fill such a plane on a single trip, that for sure must be appealing to them. If they can not fill such a plane on a single tr
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...
BD E-135 Lands At HAJ With Smoke In Cockpit posted Fri Apr 24 2009 13:08:12 by HT
Angola Airlines Lands At Wrong Airport In Lusaka posted Sun Apr 19 2009 19:26:49 by Viscount724
Turkish Flight #1382 Lands At Wrong Airport posted Wed Apr 8 2009 09:58:57 by Severnaya
A380 Times At LHR? posted Sat Apr 4 2009 16:02:25 by Virginblue4
AWST: A380 Order At Risk posted Sun Feb 15 2009 23:47:20 by N1786b
Another EK A380 Tech At LHR posted Tue Feb 3 2009 15:55:01 by Leezyjet
A380 Flyover At N-BW Funeral posted Mon Jan 19 2009 18:18:19 by Airvan00
A380 Spotting At LAX posted Thu Dec 25 2008 17:06:57 by Aio86
Which Terminal Will Qantas A380 Use At LHR? posted Tue Nov 18 2008 01:51:36 by SeansasLCY
A380 Spotting At JFK Today? posted Sat Aug 2 2008 08:40:34 by Winglet