Don't know if anyone ever reads the Debrief section of Airways magazine, but in their June issue, a caption in the debrief section stated something really interesting to me. It states that there was an atricle in The Wall Street Journal that speaks of the "growing Obesity problem" in America. It states that the country should resemble Jennifer Aniston and not 747's. Anyway, afterwards, a comment is made that the A380 is not only larger than the 747, but "it's coming out heavier than anticipated."
Now without turning this into an A vs B battle, does anyone now if this has any truth behind it? This was the first time I ever heard anything of this relating to the weight of the A380. If this is true, I wonder what this will mean for the advertised performance that Airbus is claiming for the A380?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
I wouldn't think that it would be that heavy. Even if its a few hundred pounds overweight, much like most of North America, the Engines should produce more then enough thrust and power to lift it up. If all else fails, just add MORE POWER.
nothing
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
During the development, there has been a weight issue, because Airbus had to take in consideration his customers requests. In addition, some modifications have been made to make the A380 stage 4 compliant.
Stage 4 compliance for noise grants a better access to LHR.
THe problems have been identified during the development phase. So engineers worked them and found solutions, such as the use of new material (glare).
If you want detailed informations, just look at
http://www.airbus.com/A380/default1.aspx
Teva
Stage 4 compliance for noise grants a better access to LHR.
THe problems have been identified during the development phase. So engineers worked them and found solutions, such as the use of new material (glare).
If you want detailed informations, just look at
http://www.airbus.com/A380/default1.aspx
Teva
Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
-
- Douglas7Seas
- Posts: 124
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
I don't know about the weight issue, I'm not that technically sophisticated. But I wonder as to the need for something larger than the 747. I know many leave LAX with very few pax on board, so I don't know.
As to the "prejudice" issue. Being American, I was always very partial to Boeing stuff; however, I got to fly from Detroit to Portland a couple years ago on a NWA A320. Boy was I impressed!! Very nice, very roomy inside. Quiet as can be and an aggressive climber. Flew an A319 from LAX to Sacramento a few weeks ago and the experience was similar.
Well whatever, huh? And, hey, there isn't a more beautiful plane aflyin' than the A340. Those wings man!!! Still like my Boeings though, especially the old stuff.
See ya,
John
As to the "prejudice" issue. Being American, I was always very partial to Boeing stuff; however, I got to fly from Detroit to Portland a couple years ago on a NWA A320. Boy was I impressed!! Very nice, very roomy inside. Quiet as can be and an aggressive climber. Flew an A319 from LAX to Sacramento a few weeks ago and the experience was similar.
Well whatever, huh? And, hey, there isn't a more beautiful plane aflyin' than the A340. Those wings man!!! Still like my Boeings though, especially the old stuff.
See ya,
John
Be different; Be nice.
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
In the early days they weight the pax with handluggage on a big scale....
maybe we´ll have to start that again
Mike//SE
maybe we´ll have to start that again
Mike//SE
Airbus SAS - Love them both
-
- StarCruiser
- Posts: 294
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
I am certain the designers have learned to cope with the weight problem of any a/c. Airbus makes a great product. Boeing makes a great product. Does every comment about one or the other product have to turn into a transatlantic war? Give it a rest!
It amazed me as a child that the DC-3 could fly. But then if you really want to see a challenge, look at the planes the nations of the world fly in their air forces.
It amazed me as a child that the DC-3 could fly. But then if you really want to see a challenge, look at the planes the nations of the world fly in their air forces.
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
You don['t have to be North American to be concerned about 380 weight.
Airbus has admitted the same and estimates that operating costs will be about 1% more than expected. Many think it is worse than this. Airbus has been raising the MTOW of the aircraft to maintain payload/range in the face of increasing OEW.
What the actual weights turn out to be will be very interesting.
Ruscoe
Airbus has admitted the same and estimates that operating costs will be about 1% more than expected. Many think it is worse than this. Airbus has been raising the MTOW of the aircraft to maintain payload/range in the face of increasing OEW.
What the actual weights turn out to be will be very interesting.
Ruscoe
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
What about the tarmac on the airports then? Can they handle such weight? I've heard about some big thing weighing as much as the 380 testing the tarmac on some airports. True or BS?
And the gates. Which airports are getting modifications to be able to handle the 380? LHR, FRA, SIN, CDG, DXB, ICN, KUL, SYD(?) and DOH I can imagine... What about the 380 destination airports, like EWR/JFK, LAX and so on?
I bet you have the answers in another thread...but hey, I'm new.
[Edited 2004-05-11 12:57:17]
And the gates. Which airports are getting modifications to be able to handle the 380? LHR, FRA, SIN, CDG, DXB, ICN, KUL, SYD(?) and DOH I can imagine... What about the 380 destination airports, like EWR/JFK, LAX and so on?
I bet you have the answers in another thread...but hey, I'm new.
[Edited 2004-05-11 12:57:17]
It takes a good musician to play metal, all you need to play hip-hop is a bad growth.
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
Which airports are getting modifications to be able to handle the 380?
Although YUL is getting ready, AF will probably be the only airline to operate the A380 there in the next decade.
Back to the topic, it is a fact that the initial A380s will be overweighed (source?: Airbus!!!) but Airbus is still working on this issue.
Although YUL is getting ready, AF will probably be the only airline to operate the A380 there in the next decade.
Back to the topic, it is a fact that the initial A380s will be overweighed (source?: Airbus!!!) but Airbus is still working on this issue.
E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
I believe weight is almost always an issue during the development phase of airliners (probably any aircraft). If manufacturers are not able to deliver aircraft at the promised weights and performances promised in the sales contracts there are significant financial penalties (for the manufacturers).
One of the reasons the MD-11 wasn't as successful as McDonald-Douglas had hoped is that it did not meet promised weight and performace criteria.
One of the reasons the MD-11 wasn't as successful as McDonald-Douglas had hoped is that it did not meet promised weight and performace criteria.
-
- adriaticus
- Posts: 994
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
Anybody mind explaining the acronyms MTOW and OEW? I'm even newer than Mastodont!
__Ad.
__Ad.
A300/18/19/20/21/30/32/88 An24 ATR42/72 B721/2 B732/3/G/8/MAX B741/2/4 B752 B762/3/4 B772/3 B788/9 Concorde DC8/9/10 E45/70/75/90/95 IL62/86 MD10-30/11 SA340/2000 TU134/154
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
I think Airbus has performed tests to see if the wheels of the A380 will have more pressure (every single one) on the tarmac than the 747... That's the reason the A380 will have so many wheels, to spread the weight equally.
I think they found out that any airport capable of a 747 can handle an A380, the weight of it anyway. The size is another problem
But, btw, MUC already is an A380 aiport.
(MTOW is Maximum TakeOff Weight)
Regards,
René
(My 100th post *g*)
[Edited 2004-05-11 20:05:14]
I think they found out that any airport capable of a 747 can handle an A380, the weight of it anyway. The size is another problem
But, btw, MUC already is an A380 aiport.
(MTOW is Maximum TakeOff Weight)
Regards,
René
(My 100th post *g*)
[Edited 2004-05-11 20:05:14]
Why is 10 afraid of 7? Because 7 8 9.
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
Work is underway at LHR terminal 3 to enable 3 gates to take the A380 in time for 2006. This includes modifying taxi ways as well
-
- prebennorholm
- Posts: 7145
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
It's the same old story on all new aircrafts. Weight is always a problem. One pound less will always mean one pound less of a problem.
As long as the plane isn't finished there are small battles going on. Some engineers want "their systems" to be stronger, more capable, have more redundancies etc. Other engineers are pulling the other way and watching over the weight. It is all compromises, compromises and even more compromises.
It is completely false to believe that just installing more engine thrust can compensate. An airliner is structurally built up to accept a max take-off weight. Every pound more structure weight means one pound less payload or fuel capacity. And it means that until the plane is beercanned it must haul along that pound and burn many extra pounds of fuel doing that.
One day the battles will end, the plane has been built, ready for flight and has been certified. Then future modifications including weight saving measures will call for a new certification program.
There may be a "political problem" as well. When you sell an untested aircraft, then you will guarantee the customer some minimum performance figures, including a max empty weight. If the plane ends up slightly heavier than that, then the sales contract will most certainly state some compensation figures. For instance when the MD-11 was introduced it fell badly victim to such things, mostly on fuel burn figures.
As long as the plane isn't finished there are small battles going on. Some engineers want "their systems" to be stronger, more capable, have more redundancies etc. Other engineers are pulling the other way and watching over the weight. It is all compromises, compromises and even more compromises.
It is completely false to believe that just installing more engine thrust can compensate. An airliner is structurally built up to accept a max take-off weight. Every pound more structure weight means one pound less payload or fuel capacity. And it means that until the plane is beercanned it must haul along that pound and burn many extra pounds of fuel doing that.
One day the battles will end, the plane has been built, ready for flight and has been certified. Then future modifications including weight saving measures will call for a new certification program.
There may be a "political problem" as well. When you sell an untested aircraft, then you will guarantee the customer some minimum performance figures, including a max empty weight. If the plane ends up slightly heavier than that, then the sales contract will most certainly state some compensation figures. For instance when the MD-11 was introduced it fell badly victim to such things, mostly on fuel burn figures.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
-
- PhilSquares
- Posts: 3371
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
FWIW, I have heard the 380 is 10 tonnes over weight. The MTOW is still the same however, the OEW is now alot more than planned. Thus, the payload is reduced.
There have been numerous articles in Flight International and AWST concerning the weight problems of the 380
There have been numerous articles in Flight International and AWST concerning the weight problems of the 380
Fly fast, live slow
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
The original 747 prototype was way above expected weight as well. They had to use titanium and make some other changes to help her loose weight.
As far as the A380 and airports, the weight isn't an issue as much as the size is. The wingspan in 40 feet longer, it's 60 feet taller and you have two full decks of passengers, a bunch of freight, etc. Airbus' website has some really good PDF files regarding the airport issue. THere is a list of dates for airports to be expected to be ready for the aircraft, what Airbus says will be needed to handle a 380, etc.
As far as the A380 and airports, the weight isn't an issue as much as the size is. The wingspan in 40 feet longer, it's 60 feet taller and you have two full decks of passengers, a bunch of freight, etc. Airbus' website has some really good PDF files regarding the airport issue. THere is a list of dates for airports to be expected to be ready for the aircraft, what Airbus says will be needed to handle a 380, etc.
DMI
-
- widebodyphotog
- Posts: 885
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
Same old story with Airbus. Their most recent porker, A340-600, wing is two tonne over expectation. You can expect Airbus heavy aircraft to always come in overweight, under payload, under range, and over budget. No surprse that A380 is far over the OEW they wanted. At this point it's just a matter of how much. Will it be 10 tonne, 15...20?
widebodyphotog
widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
-
- PhilSquares
- Posts: 3371
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
Just another comment about the 380, apparently, VS has delayed the delivery of the 380 for about 18 months. They are now looking at the 777 and some -400s as a solution to their capacity shortfall
Fly fast, live slow
-
- mark777300
- Posts: 377
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
I had also heard that JFK was going to be one of the present airports along with LHR who will be investing in imrovements to cater for the A380. Does anyone know more or less what JFK will be planning on doing and at what terminals will these improvements be made?
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
At this point, there are no hard facts available to any of us. Yes the aircraft is currently overweight but fat continues to be trimmed.
We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
Their most recent porker, A340-600, wing is two tonne over expectation.
Not any more.
Will it be 10 tonne, 15...20?
What ridiculous suppositions.
N
We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
Their most recent porker, A340-600, wing is two tonne over expectation.
Not any more.
Will it be 10 tonne, 15...20?
What ridiculous suppositions.
N
-
- ConcordeBoy
- Posts: 16852
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
What ridiculous suppositions
Taking Airbus' very recent history into account... um, are you kidding us with this?!
Taking Airbus' very recent history into account... um, are you kidding us with this?!
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
-
- DfwRevolution
- Posts: 9308
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
All I can say is when the next Airbus is launched, I'm starting a pool on the final OEW...
Anybody mind explaining the acronyms MTOW and OEW? I'm even newer than Mastodont!
MTOW is the Maximum Take-Off Weight. This is the weight that an aircraft is certified to safely take-off at. Many factors including engine thrust, maximum break energy, and structural strength affect the final number.
OEW is the Opperational Empty Weight. This is the weight of an aircraft after being configured with seats, gallies, ect, but remains unloaded of passengers or fuel.
Boeing's Detailed Product Information has a great overview of all the different weight acronyms, see page 2 of this PDF-
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/acaps/777rsec2.pdf
Anybody mind explaining the acronyms MTOW and OEW? I'm even newer than Mastodont!
MTOW is the Maximum Take-Off Weight. This is the weight that an aircraft is certified to safely take-off at. Many factors including engine thrust, maximum break energy, and structural strength affect the final number.
OEW is the Opperational Empty Weight. This is the weight of an aircraft after being configured with seats, gallies, ect, but remains unloaded of passengers or fuel.
Boeing's Detailed Product Information has a great overview of all the different weight acronyms, see page 2 of this PDF-
http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/acaps/777rsec2.pdf
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
Taking Airbus' very recent history into account... um, are you kidding us with this?!
Tell me about that recent history, oh factless one. Great, so the wings of the 346 were 2 tons over. That's hardly 15 or 20, now, is it?
N
Tell me about that recent history, oh factless one. Great, so the wings of the 346 were 2 tons over. That's hardly 15 or 20, now, is it?
N
-
- DfwRevolution
- Posts: 9308
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
Tell me about that recent history, oh factless one
Just to put 2 tons into perspective, imagine an entire Chevy Tahoe hanging from an A340. We aren't talking about a few ounces here...
Just to put 2 tons into perspective, imagine an entire Chevy Tahoe hanging from an A340. We aren't talking about a few ounces here...
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
-
- QantasA332
- Posts: 1473
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
Just to put 2 tons into perspective, imagine an entire Chevy Tahoe hanging from an A340. We aren't talking about a few ounces here...
Which, depending on some variables (of course), can be cancelled out entirely by a 1°-3° increase in AoA. Obviously that shouldn't have to be factored in to an aircraft's design and of course all weight counts, but just to give an idea of what that sort of weight really means in terms of the greater picture...
Cheers,
QantasA332
Which, depending on some variables (of course), can be cancelled out entirely by a 1°-3° increase in AoA. Obviously that shouldn't have to be factored in to an aircraft's design and of course all weight counts, but just to give an idea of what that sort of weight really means in terms of the greater picture...
Cheers,
QantasA332
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
I could recently talk to an EADS staff on the ILA who works in the carbon fiber processing about the overweight problems of the early A340-600 and the A380.
He said those overweight issues are normal for the first few new aircrafts because the developer still need some experiences with the production of the bird before they can reduce the last bit of weight.
pelican
He said those overweight issues are normal for the first few new aircrafts because the developer still need some experiences with the production of the bird before they can reduce the last bit of weight.
pelican
-
- PhilSquares
- Posts: 3371
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
Not to belabor the point, but increasing the aoa by 1 - 3 degrees will also increase induced drag. With the increase in induced drag there will be a corresponding increase in fuel burn. Thus, the range will be decreased.
Airbus has had a problem with weight in all the aircraft. I have flown the 320 and it is a great airplane. However, if you look at the original design specs, it falls short because of the additional weight the aircraft has.
The original VS 340s were actually ordered by NWA. Those aircraft were cancelled because of the range problems in the original 340s. NWA had ordered the aircraft to go IAD-SEL, IAD-NRT, the aircraft would never make it with any type of payload. Therefore NWA walked away because Airbus could not make the original payload guarantees. True NWA was also in financial straits at the time, but the cancellation cost them nothing.
Does Boeing have the same problem, yes. However, it is not to the degree that Airbus seems to have.
Airbus has had a problem with weight in all the aircraft. I have flown the 320 and it is a great airplane. However, if you look at the original design specs, it falls short because of the additional weight the aircraft has.
The original VS 340s were actually ordered by NWA. Those aircraft were cancelled because of the range problems in the original 340s. NWA had ordered the aircraft to go IAD-SEL, IAD-NRT, the aircraft would never make it with any type of payload. Therefore NWA walked away because Airbus could not make the original payload guarantees. True NWA was also in financial straits at the time, but the cancellation cost them nothing.
Does Boeing have the same problem, yes. However, it is not to the degree that Airbus seems to have.
Fly fast, live slow
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
Those aircraft were cancelled because of the range problems in the original 340s.
That's untrue.
They were cancelled as a result of NW's financial situation, and the cancellation only cost them nothing because 10 years later they finally started taking up 330s.
The original 340-300 didn't have the best range in the world, but it really never advertised that it did. The 340-300X made up for that shortcoming.
N
That's untrue.
They were cancelled as a result of NW's financial situation, and the cancellation only cost them nothing because 10 years later they finally started taking up 330s.
The original 340-300 didn't have the best range in the world, but it really never advertised that it did. The 340-300X made up for that shortcoming.
N
-
- Guest
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
I thought NW cancelled because IAE pulled out of the A340. And cancelled is the wrong word, the orders became deferred A330 orders.
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
They were cancelled as a result of NW's financial situation, and the cancellation only cost them nothing because 10 years later they finally started taking up 330s.
Correct. IAE bailing on the Superfan ten days after they placed their order certainly had an impact on that decision as well, not to mention their engine selection for their huge 320 order in 1988.
Correct. IAE bailing on the Superfan ten days after they placed their order certainly had an impact on that decision as well, not to mention their engine selection for their huge 320 order in 1988.
I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
-
- Blackbird1331
- Posts: 1741
- Joined:
RE: A380 Too Heavy?
I have the gross weight as 1,234,600 lbs.
129 orders for the airplane, 43 of those going to the Emirates.
JFK is getting funding to get ready for the 380.
129 orders for the airplane, 43 of those going to the Emirates.
JFK is getting funding to get ready for the 380.
Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests