Have You Seen These Two A380 Pictures?

FJWH · Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:12 am

Well, I had not saw them (here on A.net), so I though I share them with you cause probably a lot of you also had not saw these two yet:

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=267133
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=267132

Still don't know what to think of this beast Smile

FJWH

BCAL · Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:24 am

They're awesome and I have not seen them before! But I cannot wait to see the A380 fly.

All Airbus aircraft look odd until they are painted.

I wonder how much an A380 captain will be paid?

FJWH · Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:07 am

"I wonder how much an A380 captain will be paid?"

Not only that; I'm also curious which Airbus test pilot('s) gets the honour to take the beast for the first time to the skies! Smile

FJWH

planespotterx · Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:09 am

For anyone who thinks the A380 isnt really that "big", the first pic to me puts it into perspective.

qr332 · Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:09 am

Thanks for the pics, first time I see them too. Can't wait till I see this bird in its full form, as BCAL said, it looks very odd.

BCAL · Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:11 am

Surely it will be Airbus' chief test pilot who gets the honour to take the beast to the skies first?

sw733 · Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:13 am

I personally think all planes look ugly without paint, be in Airbus, Boeing, or whatever. Thus, I think this plane looks horrible. But I am sure when I see it with some airlines livery thrown on, i'll think it's beautiful

Boeing777300 · Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:17 am

Slightly off topic, where in relation to the airport terminal and the other manufaturing halls are the A380 assembly buildings? I was in Toulouse Airport on Sept 30th and saw nothing remotely big enough to house this beast from the terminal building.

DfwRevolution · Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:20 am

I still think the A380 is ugly, but that second link gave me hope that it wont be quite so bad afterall. With some engines, paint, and decent lighting, it might not look half bad....

I do think a slight stretch would make it look much better

FJWH · Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:24 am

On MyAviation.net I found some other pictures of the A380. Didn't saw them before:

MyAviation.net photo:

Photo © Harry potter

MyAviation.net photo:

Photo © Tero Tuominen

MyAviation.net photo:

Photo © Tero Tuominen

FJWH

RobK · Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:28 am

So how did the A380 manage to get to Jamaica then?

Cheers,

Rob K

godbless · Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:57 am

Is it just me or is myaviation.net really so slow?

I think the size of the A380 will make up for it's beauty, it for sure is not as elegant as a 747.

Max

sabenapilot · Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:08 am

Boeing777300,

contrary to the other Airbus assembly halls, which are to the West of the 2 parallel runways and are easily visible from the terminal, the A380 assembly buildings are not visible from the terminal at all as they are located on the same side of the airport as is the terminal, towards the northern runway end.

BTW, nice pictures indeed! WHOW!

MADtoCAE · Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:09 am

To me it looks like the pit will be in the lower deck.
What do you think?
Ashley

USAFHummer · Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:13 am

Wow...its actually not so bad looking, just have to slap on the nose and some engines and whatever goes in that gap in the forward wing root and shes ready...

Greg

FJWH · Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:20 am

Just like RobK said: strange!! I believe the A380 has never flown before Big grin

and if it did, certainley not to jamaica Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Thrust · Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:29 am

How much longer until the engines are added?

TradewindL1011 · Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:15 am

To me, locating the flight deck on the lower level seems to make absolutely no sense. The original role of the 747 was to be a freighter and thus the upper deck was born to allow for straight in cargo loading. And to this day the 747 has proven to be a fantastic freight carrying vehicle. From what I understand, straight in cargo loading is decidedly faster than side loading. All of the world's largest freighters (and thus the longest taking to load) have straight in nose cargo doors and upper level flight decks. Aside from the 747, the Antonov An-124, An-225, and Lockheed C-5 Galaxy come to mind, all of the world's largest aircraft. Now, why would Airbus counter what appears to be a proven fact and locate the flight deck on the lower level and force the freighter to be side loading only? To me, such a concept makes no sense, but then again, I am not an aeronautical engineer. Could someone give me any logical reason as to why Airbus did this? Although, I would not be surprised in the least bit if there is no reason, as many of Airbus' past decision making has made no sense. Thanks.

-Trent

access-air · Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:19 am

Pardon me for saying so....
That tail doesnt look too awfully sturdy or even attached too solidly either.
Looks as if its held on by just a few bolts......I think they need a lot more reinforcement than that.....
Its just my observation.....So I'm not soliciting any techincal answers or comments...Just wanted to point it out...

Cheers, Access-Air

egnr · Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:28 am

The cockpit is located between the two decks - not midway between them, but slightly above the lower deck - quite clear in the second pic in the thread starting post. This gives the cleanest aerodynamic shape - no "step" in the line of the nose for the cockpit windows. The price for this is no nose-in loading like the 747.

MSN001 received its first engine on September 23rd. I've only seen a small thumbnail size pic of it, and have heard no further news since then.

RedDragon · Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:33 am

Re. the location of the flight deck, it's actually somewhat above the lower passenger deck, having a short flight of stairs up from this level to reach it. Regardless, it does still rule out a nose cargo door à la 747. Airbus has presumably decided that the market for truly outsize cargo isn't big enough to warrant designing the A380 with this in mind, as the A380F will retain the three-level layout of the passenger version, with separate side cargo doors for both "passenger" decks.

(I'd assume that Airbus is going to dispense with the grand, wide stairway in favour of something a bit more ladder-like Big grin

, assuming that is that they're going to allow for internal access to the upper cargo deck>)

NWA757 · Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:46 am

Thanks for the pics, first time I see them too. Can't wait till I see this bird in its full form. She's going to be massive.

Starlionblue · Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:47 am

I wonder how much an A380 captain will be paid?

In the US, probably as much as a 777/747 Captain.
In the rest of the world, purely according to seniority as usual.

To me, locating the flight deck on the lower level seems to make absolutely no sense. The original role of the 747 was to be a freighter and thus the upper deck was born to allow for straight in cargo loading. And to this day the 747 has proven to be a fantastic freight carrying vehicle. From what I understand, straight in cargo loading is decidedly faster than side loading. All of the world's largest freighters (and thus the longest taking to load) have straight in nose cargo doors and upper level flight decks. Aside from the 747, the Antonov An-124, An-225, and Lockheed C-5 Galaxy come to mind, all of the world's largest aircraft. Now, why would Airbus counter what appears to be a proven fact and locate the flight deck on the lower level and force the freighter to be side loading only? To me, such a concept makes no sense, but then again, I am not an aeronautical engineer. Could someone give me any logical reason as to why Airbus did this? Although, I would not be surprised in the least bit if there is no reason, as many of Airbus' past decision making has made no sense. Thanks.

Presumably:
- Airbus does not project that there is enough of a market for outsize cargo planes to actually enter it with the A380. Remember that the vast majority of cargo has absolutely no need for a nose door. It can be loaded quickly and efficiently from the side.
- The position of the cockpit gives a favorable aerodynamic profile.
- The layout of the staircase and consequent separation of the cockpit area is good for security.

RedDragon · Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:50 am

The layout of the staircase and consequent separation of the cockpit area is good for security.

Hmmm, interesting; what kind of configuration are you thinking of?

Regarding the need for nose doors, what actually drives it? Is it just for items that are too long to fit through the side door? Bear in mind that the presence of the upper deck restricts nose door loading height to 8' (≈2.4m) on the 747, versus 10'/3.05m (I believe) for the side door.

dl757md · Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:05 am

That tail doesnt look too awfully sturdy or even attached too solidly either.
Looks as if its held on by just a few bolts......I think they need a lot more reinforcement than that.....

The vertical stab on most if not all non tail-engined large transport aircraft is held on to the fuselage with a small number of large bolts. The only one I have personal experience with is the 737 which has 6 bolts that secure attach fittings on the vertical and fuse. I can't remember exactly but these bolts have about a 1 inch shank.

It does look rather weak from a distance with the closeout panels removed but the fittings are quite strong. Of course even at that they are subject to fatigue and must be inspected to prevent AA587 type accidents from happening.

Dl757md

FlyCaledonian · Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:56 am

Don't forget the 747 started life on the drawing board as a military aircraft. When Lockheed won the USAF contract with the Galaxy then Boeing looked at what to do with its design. Add that 25 launch order from Pan-Am and the rest is history (simplified!).

Airbus has designed the A380 primarily as a passenger aircraft.

flygmolinafmly · Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:34 am

Are there any diagrams or pictures comparing the sizes of the 747 and the A380? That might help me visualize the real size. Thanks!

Gabriel Molina

VS4ever · Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:12 am

I would be interested to find out what Fed Ex think about the no nose opening option, as they I thought they had ordered the A380F already and I am sure Airbus will have taken their comments into consideration when making the final design?

Just my $0.02.

VS4ever.

ILoveORD · Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:13 pm

To be honest, the A380 doesn't look THAT big to me. It's not as big as imagined it to be, that's for sure. Certainly nothing to gasp and awe over.

I mean, really, we've already seen really huge aircraft, (I.E. 747s, C5s, Antonovs), c'mon. Sure, it's double deck gives it more girth than a 74, but it's not much longer, and it doesn't look as a big a C5 or Antonov 225, or even An-124 for that matter, which I think is closest size-wise.

I will say this, what does suprise me is the wingspan and the distance of the first engine pylon from the hull. That's pretty damn far. Overall, I'm not a big fan of the look though. That's why I love the A330 so much, the engine nestle right up to the fuselage, creating a long, lean look of the wing. That seems to be absent here (I know it's got 4 engines). Anyway, that's my take on it....

gigneil · Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:04 pm

FedEx doesn't have any need for the nose-loading door. Its for outsize (long) cargo only anyway.

FedEx loads containerized cargo only for the most part. No problem for the 3 main doors.

N

spacecadet · Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:20 pm

To be honest, the A380 doesn't look THAT big to me. It's not as big as imagined it to be, that's for sure. Certainly nothing to gasp and awe over.

It's big, but it's true that it's really not that much bigger than a 747. It basically is a 747 with a shortened nose and an upper deck running all the way to the tail.

The A380 is 239' long. The 747 is 231' long. That's not a big difference.

Wingspan, on the other hand, is a different story. 261' for the A380 vs. 211' for the 747. The A380's wings look disproportionately large, if you ask me, but then it does weigh a heck of a lot.

The A340-600 will retain the title of the longest aircraft, at 247'. Even the 777-300 is longer than the A380 at 242'. The A380 will obviously be the biggest by volume, but it's not really all that long for a widebody aircraft. This is probably why it doesn't look all that big to some people. The fuselage is just taller than other aircraft, so if you look at it from the side, front or back, it's probably not going to look all that big. The wings are what really make it look big to me; if you get a good look at the wings, it starts looking pretty huge.

Aircellist · Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:36 pm

I guess everybody would like to benefit from an insider's point of view (any Airbus engineer reading?) about the position of the flying deck, but could it be also to have the pilots not so far from the ground?

DavidYYC · Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:48 pm

Thanks for those figures to compare with a 747, Spacecadet. It does look short and fat, maybe after few years of production and orders a longer EX version may be produced?!

So when can any of us airline nutters expect to travel in one of these beasts, who is flying it first, and on what route?

solnabo · Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:42 pm

Boeing´s loss.....they had their chance in the 60´s for a double decker but didnt take it!

Pitty!

Micke/SE Laugh out loud

jeb94 · Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:54 pm

If they really want an outsized cargo hauler with this thing, they can always make the tail or nose swing to the side like the Canadair CL-44 (tail)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fergal Goodman

Or the super guppy. (nose)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tom Turner

With the way the decks are laid out internally though, its really not designed for outsized cargo as the ceiling/floor between the decks reduce the ability to carry taller cargos like can be loaded on the big Antonovs and even the 747.

IL76TD · Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:54 pm

are the airports that are going to accept the 380 making arrangements for double decker loading. If not, i can say this will be a doomed project from the beginning, as loading 2 stories from the first level will be a disaster waiting to happen, just get a group of 50 retirees that can barely walk up the stairs without carrying a bag trying to find someone to carry their bag for them

having a capacity of 500-600 kind of loses its glamour when it takes 4 hours to load passengers

lehpron · Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:26 pm

Remember folks, the plane looks short because it's fuselage is an ellipse and not the circular shape we are used to. It's an illusion, your eyes decieve you.

>>"The A380's wings look disproportionately large, if you ask me, but then it does weigh a heck of a lot."<<

It is likely that A380's wing is designed for the upcoming stretch version, which is as long as the span and weighs more than this plane's est. 1.2 million lbs MTOW. Greater wing area means lower ground speed for one. That double deck has got to have moved the CG up real high.

As of the flight deck, has anyone considered that Airbus may want to have have the deck itself no more different (height-wise) than their other large planes for easy pilot transistion? Seems most obvuous to me, second to the aerodynamics. Maybe it is me, does anyone notice the nose similarities between this and 7E7?

BTW, slightly off topic, with the increase in capacity and the claim of lower operating costs, will purchasing a ticket on this compared to a 747 be cheaper, or will airline profit margins elliminate that?

Gary2880 · Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:52 pm

i too must say its.. smaller, than i thought it would be, i thought the wheels would be person size or something, hopfuly they`ll build a bigger and longer version of it to beat a few records

baw716 · Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:11 pm

The A380s wings are the most significant aspect of this aircraft's size. They are simply huge; dispropotionately so for the aircraft. However, if a stretch version comes out, that "perspective" may go away.

Airbus has always focused on the wing as the strongest key feature of their aircraft; especially the A330/A340. This different wing design (as I understand it...and mind you I am NOT an engineer) allows for greater lift with lower thrust; hence the 330/340 do not need the powerplants that the 777 require. As I understand it, this is the key to their range capacity and efficiency.

The A380 wing looks radically different than the 330/340; they are much thicker at the spar than the 330/340 and from what I can tell, will have A310 type winglets, not the A330/340 type.

As to vertical stablizers, what is interesting is the lack of sweep and rather narrow width of the stablizer itself. This is also a very radical departure from other airbus a/c and I don't think I have seen a similar vertical stablizer on another type of a/c flying today. The 777 fin is close, but it has greater width at the bottom than at the top. I don't see much variation between the bottom and the top. If there are any Airbus folks on the thread, I'm curious to know what drove the design of the vertical stablizer.

I suspect when this bird launches for the first time, it will be very interesting to see its climb performance. It seems to me (just an observation only) that the engines at 70,000lbs x 4 is still insufficient to lift that thing off the ground at over 1M pounds of total weight. Can you imagine if 4 GE90-115s were put on that bird...it would be a rocket.

northseatiger · Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:27 pm

At the end of the day she's a beast and I can't wait for it to fly, It's going to be biggest and best and rival manaufacturers can keep their traps shut until their new aircraft make it from paper to reality.

Just my £0.02

RayChuang · Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:44 pm

are the airports that are going to accept the 380 making arrangements for double decker loading.

Not to worry. One of the first things Airbus did in the A380 design was to maintain as much compatibility with 747-400 operations as possible. That's why when you walk in the front jet bridge on the A380 you're right at the bottom of the wide front staircase with easy access to the upper passenger deck; the rear jet bridge accesses the main passenger deck.

Francoflier · Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:01 am

The nose loading feature of the 747 came from its military-oriented design.

It is very helpful to load long loads, but does imply a weight penalty and added complexity.

Since it was "there" to start with Boeing used it on the freighter version, and operators use it daily, even when there is no special reason to use it.
Most of the normal everyday cargo can fit through a large door on the side of the fuselage.

There was certainly no need to change the whole design, make it less efficient, or heavier, just because a few operators might occasionally load the a/c through the nose.
Airbus people probably weighed the pros and the cons of that anyway.

But I am pretty sure you can drill a very respectably sized door on the side of that!

That stubby little thing would sure look better with a couple of extension plugs fwd and aft of the wing...

Falcon84 · Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:06 am

Sorry, but that's a butt-ugly aircraft. Just my opinion.

JGPH1A · Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:08 am

It is a great fat ugly thing, shame - but awesome nonetheless.

Re the cockpit and the upper deck - because of the positioning of the cockpit, there appears to be quite a lot of space above it, in the 'forehead' section of the upperdeck. Will there be any kind of useable space in the forward-most section of the upper deck eg galley space or crew rest ? Perhaps they could install windows and have a scenic leeyooonge ?

trnswrld · Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:13 am

Wow that aircraft is unbelievable. The wings just blow me away. What amazes me is that look at the curvature of the wings already and they are nowhere near being done. Imagine seeing those wings hagning with full fuel, 2 huge engines and all control surfaces. geeez

As mentioned already I to was kind of confused on how this aircraft is going to take passengers. I think regardless of how well Airbus designed the interior passenger enplanement is going to be a VERY long process. Although this might not matter since this aircraft wasnt intended to have a 30 minute turn around time like Southwests 737's Smile/happy/getting dizzy

MD80Nut · Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:22 am

FJWH,
Thanks for the links, they are quite interesting pictures. It's amazing to see that beast coming together and looking more and more like a real airplane. The full double deck design gives the fuselage a very tall looking profile, which is my main visual impression of the A380 so far.

I can't wait to see the first pictures with engines installed, as well as painted in Airbus house colors.

cheers, Ralph

FJWH · Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:09 am

A380 in Airbus house colours?:

Will look like this:

Or in SQ colours. Looks great I think.

FJWH

[Edited 2004-10-11 20:10:47]

gigneil · Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:16 am

It is likely that A380's wing is designed for the upcoming stretch version,

Exactly right.

As of the flight deck, has anyone considered that Airbus may want to have have the deck itself no more different (height-wise) than their other large planes for easy pilot transistion?

Also spot on.

The nose loading feature of the 747 came from its military-oriented design.

It was actually designed from the outset with a freighter in mind.

N

anxebla · Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:22 am

I understand the first A-380 built is not made to fly, but to do electrical/mechanical/avionica tests.Is it true?

gigneil · Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:26 am

Its for structural tests. It won't have any electrical or avionics systems installed.

The first flying prototype, MSN001, will do all the electromechanical tests as well as provide a platform for writing the avionics software.

N

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net