747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13611 times:
With all the new features in the 787 and A350XWB, like lower cabin pressure and large cabin windows, will the A380 look out dated, compaired to the 787 and A350XWB ?
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13612 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): will the A380 look out dated, compaired to the 787 and A350XWB ?
I doubt it...all the OEMs keep refreshing their interiors. A 737NG or new E-jet has about the same "architectural era" inside as a 787 or A350XWB mockup. The windows, obviously, will be different (and nice) but I don't think it will make the interiors look dated.
n49wa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13592 times:
I agree with tdscanuck as far as the interior goes. As for the exterior...IN MY HUMBLE OPINION (yelled to hopefully prevent a flame fest) the airplane itself already does. Reminds me of the Bristol Brabazon - fat, no streamlining (although the Brabazon had a cool looking nose). It IS a technological acheivment, no doubt, but hardly modern and sleek aesthetically like the 787 and A350 are. Again folks, IMHO.
AutothrustBlue From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 13571 times:
The A380's avionics are going to be used as the platform for the A350, only change is in the number of displays. Thus not much difference in that respect. On the other hand, the 787 and A350 have a more futuristic look to them (sharper nose, sleeker cockpit windows) versus aircraft that roam the skies today (A330, 777, etc)
Personally, the 787 makes the 1980s era 767 and A310 seem more outdated when considering all aspects of each aircraft. Same goes for the A330, albeit to a much lesser extent.
RJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13461 times:
The actual pressure difference between 6000ft and 8000ft is only about 8% and most flights are less than 8000ft anyway.
So that'll be sublte. The windows will be nice but subtle as well. You will however likely be 9 across in Y.
If we're discussing looks. Well i think both the A380 and 787 look rubbish. The A380 too stubby, and the 787 - well i hate the droop nose and it looks too meek. Stretches should benefit both. I think i'm getting old.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13225 times:
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 4): The actual pressure difference between 6000ft and 8000ft is only about 8% and most flights are less than 8000ft anyway.
So that'll be sublte.
The whole reason they picked that particular cabin altitude was a bunch of studies that show a fairly sharp break point in the number of people experiencing adverse symptoms at an altitude between 6000 and 8000'. So, although the magnitude of the pressure different isn't that large, the response isn't linear so you get more than 8% improvement in passenger perceived comfort.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9247 posts, RR: 96 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 13047 times:
Quote: The A380 produces 50% less cabin noise than currently flying 747 models and has greater cabin air pressure, equivalent to an altitude of 1,520 m (5,000 ft) versus 2,440 m (8,000 ft). Both features are expected to reduce the effects of travel fatigue
Quote: Other, subtler differences could make flying on the A380 more pleasant than on older planes, though. The A380's engines are noticeably quieter. The cabin pressure will be higher, the air less dry, and the cabin lighting will automatically brighten and dim to mimic changing light outdoors—all of which should make travel less fatiguing. Boeing is promising similar interior improvements on its 787 Dreamliner.
The above reports suggest the A380 falls into the same/similar cabin altitude/humidity category as the 787 and A350.
Maybe it's not as out-of-date as conventional A-net wisdonm would have us believe.......
B777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1015 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 12469 times:
They're all just tubes with low mounted wings where you can hang engines from.
Honestly, there's not much between them apart from the "more electric" architecture of the 787. I'll reserve judgement on the benefits of that until the aircraft has been in airline service for a couple of years. I'll also reserve judgment on the increased humidity level advertised for the 787, whereas the lower cabin altitude will be of undoubted benefit.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
Max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 12458 times:
Quoting AutothrustBlue (Reply 3): On the other hand, the 787 and A350 have a more futuristic look to them (sharper nose, sleeker cockpit windows) versus aircraft that roam the skies today (A330, 777, etc)
What will the A350 nose look like? I remember the original drawings but I thought Airbus said the nose would look more like the A380. I haven't seen any drawings since then, have they released any?
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4282 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12416 times:
It's not so much a matter of outdated or not, it's a matter of ugly or not.
The A388 is just not a pretty airplane IMO. The wings, while beautiful on their own, look too thick and heavy for the rest of the aircraft. The nose is visually horrid, with the big forehead and strangely placed, incongruously shaped cockpit windows. The fuselage is short and stubby. A stretch would help a bit, but not totally fix it.
The 787 and A350, on the other hand, will both have near-perfect proportions. I think the 787 is about as beautiful as airliners get, and the A350 is shaping up that way as well except for its use of the old-looking A380 cockpit section. They have long, slender, elegant wings, aren't too fat, and have graceful empennages and stabilizers. And the 787 has a slicker nose than anything produced to date.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12411 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 6): The above reports suggest the A380 falls into the same/similar cabin altitude/humidity category as the 787 and A350.
Maybe it's not as out-of-date as conventional A-net wisdonm would have us believe.......
It is very quiet too.
Good for travellers on board it, and great for the people on the ground underneath it. Case in point - I walked outside my house on the weekend, and by chance, noticed the SQ A380 going to Singapore flying overheard, departing Sydney. It was still quite low - but if I didn't look up, I wouldn't have know it was there - because it was near silent.
In comparison, you really know when the BA 747-436 or a QF 747-438 RR goes overhead. Those RR engines scream.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9247 posts, RR: 96 Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12327 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9): The A388 is just not a pretty airplane IMO
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course. I don't think the A380 is an ugly plane personally, but there you go.
And of course, ugly and outdated aren't the same thing.
The OP specifically mentions some key product characteristics, which didn't include ugly, of course...
And by which measures the A380 is a) clearly not outdated, and b) quite possibly makes most preceding aircraft look outdated.
But I've long since learned that the A380 will always be considered "old-tech" by those detractors who can't be bothered to actually learn what is underneath the aircraft's skin
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4282 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12183 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 12): And by which measures the A380 is a) clearly not outdated, and b) quite possibly makes most preceding aircraft look outdated.
But I've long since learned that the A380 will always be considered "old-tech" by those detractors who can't be bothered to actually learn what is underneath the aircraft's skin
Quite -- I did not mean to question the technical excellence of the A380, just to express an aesthetic view...
I do wonder how the A388 will compare on CASM to the "holy grail" which I keep holding out hope for, possibly foolishly: the "simple stretch" 787-10. I think if Boeing would just decide to build that plane, it could do to the 5000-6000 nm market exactly what the A333 did to the 4000 nm market.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 12135 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 12): Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course.
You right beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and for some time I thought the A380 not good looking, but their was a photo of an EK A380 at AKL in the sun set, posted on A-net not to long ago. In the photo I realize that the A380 funny shape help it fly so smooth, and that giant tail make it look some what nice.
Quoting cpd (Reply 10): In comparison, you really know when the BA 747-436 or a QF 747-438 RR goes overhead. Those RR engines scream.
Ah, I like it like that! You think the RR on 744 is loud, try the RR 747-200, those NZ 742 flying on the LAX-AKL route non stop, used to be almost as loud as a DC-8 63.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12040 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13): I do wonder how the A388 will compare on CASM to the "holy grail" which I keep holding out hope for, possibly foolishly: the "simple stretch" 787-10. I think if Boeing would just decide to build that plane, it could do to the 5000-6000 nm market exactly what the A333 did to the 4000 nm market.
If it is like the A3510, one might essay, about half way, which is always a difficult place to be???
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16931 posts, RR: 57 Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12002 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 6): The above reports suggest the A380 falls into the same/similar cabin altitude/humidity category as the 787 and A350.
I thought you couldn't do that with a metal frame out of corrosion concerns.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 11948 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16): Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
The above reports suggest the A380 falls into the same/similar cabin altitude/humidity category as the 787 and A350.
I thought you couldn't do that with a metal frame out of corrosion concerns.
Well Doc, how much humidity the 787s and 350s actually have is an interesting question. Takes a lot of water to get the near zero RH air up to whatever it is supposed to be at what 22 C. The pax are supposed to supply quite a bit of it, but every time I do the calculations, I fail to see how 300 pax can supply the tonnage!! Although it all depends on how many times you send the water round and round with recirc.
A prize to the first person to take a hygrometer aboard a 787 service to tell us the real RH.
AutothrustBlue From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 11865 times:
Quoting Max550 (Reply 8): What will the A350 nose look like? I remember the original drawings but I thought Airbus said the nose would look more like the A380. I haven't seen any drawings since then, have they released any?
The A350's nose kind of resembles that of the 787 (this is a judgment call since I am having trouble finding pictures to fairly compare), but it is definitely a departure from the traditional nose and cockpit windows Airbus used on their widebodies since the A300. Not sure if the A350 will inherit some manipulated form of the A380's nose
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 927 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11756 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 17): A prize to the first person to take a hygrometer aboard a 787 service to tell us the real RH.
Is this expected before or after some kid goes after the dimming windows with magnets? I'm sure the Boeing folks, or whoever was contracted to research them has thought of a way to stop this from damaging anything, because if they haven't it will be rather embarrassing!
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11631 times:
Quoting GST (Reply 19): Is this expected before or after some kid goes after the dimming windows with magnets? I'm sure the Boeing folks, or whoever was contracted to research them has thought of a way to stop this from damaging anything, because if they haven't it will be rather embarrassing!
The windows are electrochromic...even if you could flail your magnet around enough to get some voltage to influence the window, it would just go back to normal as soon as the magnet backed off and the window voltage was applied. Other than smashing it with the magnet, I'm not sure how you'd damage it.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1015 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1109 posts, 
You think the RR on 744 is loud, try the RR 747-200, those NZ 742 flying on the LAX-AKL route non stop, used to be almost as loud as a DC-8 63. 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
