a380900
Posts: 797
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:26 pm

"Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:25 am

It is said that the A380-800 is a little bulky and short compared to what its wings are able to carry. It is a little as if the first A320 had been an A318 or A319 or the first 747 had been an SP. A sign of that is the huge tail typical of shorter aircraft version.

Is there a way to ballpark what should be the "natural" length of the A380? Furthermore, How long would be an A340-600 equivalent (version that stretches the design to the limit)?
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3174
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:32 am

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
Is there a way to ballpark what should be the "natural" length of the A380?

Check your username...
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17049
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:06 pm

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 1):
Check your username...

Lol yes!


Seriously thought, the A380 needs to fit in an 80x80 box or the airports won't take it. The wing is already at the max. If you take length to max (80m) you get the specs for the proposed -900.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11734
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:11 pm

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 1):
Check your username...

 rotfl 

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 2):

Seriously thought, the A380 needs to fit in an 80x80 box or the airports won't take it. The wing is already at the max. If you take length to max (80m) you get the specs for the proposed -900.

I wonder... how critical is that 80m length. For wingspan, I understand due to gate spacing the 80m limit. But for length... there will be corner gates and such that should be able to squeeze a little more through... In the trade of CASM and airframe sales... how hard of a limit is that 80m. Notice I'm asking...

Again, the A380-900 is the model that the A380 should have been launched at (in my opinion).  Wink If you need seats... you *need* seats. But with the delays... how will it due against the B788? B789? I fear a short window is closing before point to point bypasses a few hubs. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a huge fan of the A380 and see dozens of runs from LAX (my home airport).

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17049
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:00 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 3):
I wonder... how critical is that 80m length. For wingspan, I understand due to gate spacing the 80m limit. But for length... there will be corner gates and such that should be able to squeeze a little more through... In the trade of CASM and airframe sales... how hard of a limit is that 80m. Notice I'm asking...

I am guessing that it becomes an issue when the tail sticks out too far from the terminal and aircraft taxiing past hit the tail with a wingtip. Many airports don't have a lot of space in that area.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:19 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 3):
I wonder... how critical is that 80m length. For wingspan, I understand due to gate spacing the 80m limit. But for length... there will be corner gates and such that should be able to squeeze a little more through... In the trade of CASM and airframe sales... how hard of a limit is that 80m. Notice I'm asking...



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 4):
I am guessing that it becomes an issue when the tail sticks out too far from the terminal and aircraft taxiing past hit the tail with a wingtip. Many airports don't have a lot of space in that area.

Exactly. All the airports that have been built or rebuilt the last ten to fifteen years have located taxiways such that aircraft can taxi past an 80m long aircraft at the gate. Even among the twenty-five or so airports that will be able to accommodate WhaleJet operations, few if any could accommodate one longer than 80m except at remote stands.

On top of this issue is the additional problem of turning radius. That is already a problem for the A340-600 at many airports. While much easier to fix than the first issue, taxiway filets would have to be modified.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1767
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:32 pm

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
Is there a way to ballpark what should be the "natural" length of the A380?

A picture is worth a thousand words...  Smile

Big version: Width: 1000 Height: 750 File size: 119kb


This is just my educated guess on exactly where and how much they will stretch it. The length goes up by 6.40 m (ten frames) to 79.4 m. The stretch is a bit longer in front than in back, consistent with past practice (and with physics... due to the large mass concentration at the tail). The plugs are inserted so as to space out the doors as evenly as possible, and door 6 on the upper deck is added in the area already allocated for it on the A388, at the top of the main stairs.
 
mbj2000
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:15 am

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:16 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 6):
A picture is worth a thousand words... Smile

Indeed...

How much more people would carry that beast? 666 vs 555  Smile
Or in FR config 900 people on the STN-PMI shuttle Big grin
Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:32 pm

Two factors:

Length vs Diameter:
Just compute the average diameter. Divide total length by average diameter. Most planes have a figure between 7 and 13. The A388 is somewhere near 8 (don't have the numbers here), like the A310 or the A318. The A346 is somewhere over 13, so even a 50% stretched A380 (i.e. 110m) wouldn't really be "long".

Length vs Wingspan (or rather wing area)
However, For the fuselage diameter, the wingspan is rather small (and has a low aspect ratio), so 110m models are more or less out of the question unless you add wingspan.

SailorOrion
 
legoguy
Posts: 2970
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:50 pm

If the 900 series is ever produced, it would look impressive.

Would the A380 be selling/performing any better if the wing for the 800 was more suited to it's current size, rather than developed for the slightly larger 900?
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:03 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5):
On top of this issue is the additional problem of turning radius. That is already a problem for the A340-600 at many airports. While much easier to fix than the first issue, taxiway fillets would have to be modified.

To be far to other long planes, the A346 turns like a beached whale on its own. Given the 748i looks like a sports car for ground handling in comparison... I think in all honestly the A346 will become the benchmark for all planes to come. Basicly airports and regulating agencies will just not approve any plane worse than the A346 for turning and other ground handling metrics. Makes current airport construction easy as its an existing plane to factor into your planning, and yet its bad enough that you can simply mandate everyone else do better so airports don't have to re-do stuff all the time.

That said, it might be possible to see planes longer than 80m in the future, but the effort and the amount of various groups of people yelling at each other makes it simpler to just stay in the box and burn some aerodynamics if you need an extra couple meters of floor space. Better yet, leave said people that would use that extra length in the airport for the next flight instead of trying to play games with industry standard 80m X 80m box.
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:09 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 3):
I wonder... how critical is that 80m length. For wingspan, I understand due to gate spacing the 80m limit. But for length... there will be corner gates and such that should be able to squeeze a little more through... In the trade of CASM and airframe sales... how hard of a limit is that 80m. Notice I'm asking...

IIRC the 747X proposal of the mid 90s was 85m long - but that never got built.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:13 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 6):
A picture is worth a thousand words...

and the picture certainly makes the A380 look more graceful and natural! My vote is that the -900 is the 'natural' length for the A380. The current -800 model is like the A319 when the natural size is the A320.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
TaromA380
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:35 am

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:47 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 6):
A picture is worth a thousand words...

However, the vertical stabilizer is the same (in the picture). I thought lenghtened versions does have smaller vertical stabilizer. A342 vs. A346 is an exemple.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22927
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:08 pm

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 11):
IIRC the 747X proposal of the mid 90s was 85m long - but that never got built.

The 747-600X would have been 85m long with a span of 77.72m.

It was the only 747 variant with a length exceeding 80m (the 747-X Stretch was second at 79.8m).
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17049
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:55 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 11):
IIRC the 747X proposal of the mid 90s was 85m long - but that never got built.

The 747-600X would have been 85m long with a span of 77.72m.

It was the only 747 variant with a length exceeding 80m (the 747-X Stretch was second at 79.8m).

Indeed it would have. I believe the 80m x 80m box as an more or less formal requirement came along later. But just as the 380 is requiring a bunch of airport changes, so would the 746.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:37 am

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 13):
However, the vertical stabilizer is the same (in the picture). I thought lenghtened versions does have smaller vertical stabilizer. A342 vs. A346 is an exemple.

A longer WhaleJet could, in theory, have smaller vertical and horizontal stabilizers (because of the longer moment arm). However, in the seemingly unlikely case that an A380-900 were ever to be built, the sales numbers would be small enough that developing new stabilizers would not be worthwhile. Two plugs, two more doors, and that's probably the most that could be justified.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17049
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:56 am

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 13):
However, the vertical stabilizer is the same (in the picture). I thought lenghtened versions does have smaller vertical stabilizer. A342 vs. A346 is an exemple.

True, but in this particular case the 345/346 has the 332/333 fin, which is in fact larger than the 342/343 fin. Counterintuitive in some ways.

While it is true that a longer fuse affords the rudder and fin more bending moment and so you normally see a smaller fin., there is a counteracting tendency. Larger aircraft weigh more and thus need larger surfaces. In the 346 case, the 332/333 fin was already available so...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
 
flytuitravel
Posts: 489
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 2:46 am

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:02 am

There is going to be an A380-900 isn't there? Or have things changed? Was it just a proposal or will it materialise?


FLYTUITRAVEL.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:12 am

Quoting FlyTUITravel (Reply 18):
There is going to be an A380-900 isn't there? Or have things changed? Was it just a proposal or will it materialise?

It was just a proposal. If WhaleJet sales start to consistently exceed 50/year, then Airbus might consider it. Until and unless sales pick up, it's just a fantasy.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:08 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 3):
the trade of CASM and airframe sales... how hard of a limit is that 80m.

The 80m x 80m box is defined by the ICAO as "Code F", the largest size in the international standard. Reference is Annex 14 (Aerodromes), Volume 1 (Aerodrome Design and Operation), Amendment No. 3

I'd say that it's a very hard limit indeed. There is no international agreement for support of an airliner longer or wider than 80m. You can build it, but nobody will park it for you. smile 

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 15):
I believe the 80m x 80m box as an more or less formal requirement came along later.

Correct. It was the prospect of NLA's ("New Large Aircraft") that prompted the ICAO to provide the definition of the aircraft reference Code F. I don't recall exactly what year that was, but it came after Boeing proposed going beyond the B744.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17049
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:23 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 20):
Correct. It was the prospect of NLA's ("New Large Aircraft") that prompted the ICAO to provide the definition of the aircraft reference Code F. I don't recall exactly what year that was, but it came after Boeing proposed going beyond the B744.

I remember the NLA concepts. A lot of them looked mean compared to the 380. The cockpit was in "747 position" on the upper deck. The 380 nose makes it look more friendly somehow.

On a side note, the 747-600 was going to be a sweet looking plane. Lovely lines.

And of course there was this guy. Note the US Air headline.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22927
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:19 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 21):
On a side note, the 747-600 was going to be a sweet looking plane. Lovely lines.

I preferred the 747-500X's aesthetics, myself.  Smile
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11734
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:40 am

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 20):
You can build it, but nobody will park it for you.

 rotfl  ok. Thanks. So until there is a "G", 80m is the limit.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 21):

And of course there was this guy.

I loved the MD-12 presentations that I sat in on. They really believed their stuff.  Wink

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17049
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: "Natural" Length For The A380?

Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:05 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 23):

I loved the MD-12 presentations that I sat in on. They really believed their stuff.

It's called "salesmanship". Big grin
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 727LOVER, 7dane7, Alexa [Bot], Baidu [Spider], CONTACREW, flymco753, Guillaume787, hoons90, johnberg, Mikey711MN, NeBaNi, PlanesNTrains, seven3seven, steex, unrave, Viscount724, VX321, wnflyguy, Yahoo [Bot], yendig, zknzf and 243 guests