A380 on tour

Tabnabs

Lufthansa have been showing off one of their big toys in Scandinavia today

They landed in Copenhagen, Stockholm and Oslo

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

chughes

I wonder when we'll see one in Dublin.

Can Dublin Airport facilitate the A380 ?

rob88

chughes wrote: »

I wonder when we'll see one in Dublin.

Can Dublin Airport facilitate the A380 ?

it could land there alright..dont know if it has the terminal facilities however

homer simpson

rob88 wrote: »

it could land there alright..dont know if it has the terminal facilities however

I'd like to hope so saying as they are just building a new terminal as we speak, would be a bit silly to not keep up with the jones' so to speak!

homerjay2005

surely the new terminal can cope with these? are ye sure its not a runway issue?

bryaner

I thought it was the runway, she can land in shannon.

testicle

When did John Gormley get his wings?

oglaigh

Would love to see one in Dublin but that aint happening.
Saw one land in sydney before, was an impressive sight!

rob88

bryaner wrote: »

I thought it was the runway, she can land in shannon.

it could land in dublin.. but a fully loaded which was all fueled up prob couldn't take off i'd say.. i'm only guessing this.. don't know for sure

andy_g

she can land in dub but as far as i know taxiways cant take her

the beerhunter

"it". the yoke is an immense lump of manufactured material without mammary glands, should be referred to as an "it".

*Kol*

Saw it/her in Johannesburg the other day. They are doing three flights a week from Frankfurt.

drdeadlift

andy_g wrote: »

she can land in dub but as far as i know taxiways cant take her

If an a340-600 can get in for maintenance im sure the a380 could land here,the handling facilities wont be able to take tho.
It wouldn't be able to get out with a worthy amount off pax/cargo or fuel load tho,another 500m of runway would sort that tho.

Kevster

As I recall, many runways across the world had to be extended to accomodate the Boeing 747 series when they were produced, right? Does the A380 need a longer runway than the 747???

I might be going to Jakarta next year to see a friend... ...and you all know which airplane I'm going to aim to be on if I go!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

chughes

Kevster wrote: »

As I recall, many runways across the world had to be extended to accomodate the Boeing 747 series when they were produced, right? Does the A380 need a longer runway than the 747???

I might be going to Jakarta next year to see a friend... ...and you all know which airplane I'm going to aim to be on if I go!

Is it this ? http://www.expressair.biz/detail2.php?id=2&tab=dornier

Andrew33

the beerhunter wrote: »

"it". the yoke is an immense lump of manufactured material without mammary glands, should be referred to as an "it".

Boats and ships have been called "she's" since Adam was a lad, airliners are no different, it's perfectly ok to refer to an aircraft as a "she".

Andrew33

Is anyone else beginning to suspect that the 380 is not the future of air travel?

lord lucan

Andrew33 wrote: »

Is anyone else beginning to suspect that the 380 is not the future of air travel?

I'm no expert on Aviation business models and economics but to me it seems Boeing had the better idea with the 787. I don't think there is a need or market for an aircraft that size. I'm now off to dig around for some figures which will probably prove me completely wrong!

lord lucan

From what i've gathered,here's the figures:

Airbus A380 - Ordered = 234.

$330m average x 234 = $77.2bn

Boeing 787 Dreamliner - Ordered = 847

$150-$200m,average $175m x 847 = $148.2bn

I think that the 787 being able to land at most airports without new upgrades to taxiways and jetways etc. is also a big factor.

Andrew33

lord lucan wrote: »

I think that the 787 being able to land at most airports without new upgrades to taxiways and jetways etc. is also a big factor.

I think I'd have to agree, and I reckon the original buyers of the 'bus will be stuck with them as the resale market for them has to be pretty limited.

brennarr

The A380 landed in Shannon few years ago but didn't land in Dublin as it didn't have enough space to land and turn safely.

Been on the upper deck to Sydney & return. Fine fine plane

donkey balls

my aul company was going be the launch carrier for the A380f ,we had to strengten some RWYs and any of the new hubs that got built in the last ten years had bigger stands to accomadate the A380.
It was going to be used mainly on the trans pacific/atlantic routes we reckoned it could take the payload of two of our widebodies.

SNAKEDOC

i thought that dublin's new terminal would be able to accommodate the a380 but only one at a time. but not with an air bridge just a gate. would it take much to strengthen taxiways.

Andrew33

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

i thought that dublin's new terminal would be able to accommodate the a380 but only one at a time. but not with an air bridge just a gate. would it take much to strengthen taxiways.

I wonder just how marginal the infrastructure is at Dub that a loaded triple 7 can fly in and out but a 380 can't!

I was about to post the comment above until I looked up the MTOW of a 777 and a 380. Holy sh1t! the 380 really is a heavy bugger.
I thought there might be a difference of 40-50 tonnes, just as well I don't load planes for a living:rolleyes:

A triple 7-200 has a MTOW of 263 tonnes,
A 380-800 can lift 560 tonnes gross!

[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]

scudzilla

So wit this new A380

Say for example it has an emergency (Mechanical, medical etc) and has to land elsewhere it's options are sure gonna be limited

Foggy43

It is more a case of it can land almost every where but getting off the ground again is another issue. I think these were words of Airbus.

Remeber the A380 has only 2 active thrust reversers and they are on the inboard engines. A landing light preservation issue. Runway width is critical for take off.

Turbulent Bill

Foggy43 wrote: »

It is more a case of it can land almost every where but getting off the ground again is another issue. I think these were words of Airbus.

Remeber the A380 has only 2 active thrust reversers and they are on the inboard engines. A landing light preservation issue. Runway width is critical for take off.

Would it not be easier to take off than land on a narrow runway?

Foggy43

No! All 4 engines will be on full power for take off. On a narrow runway the two outboard engines can be on the runway edge destroying anything with jet blast or over the edge injesting any loose materials.

On landing the reversers are on the inboard engines. Only these two engines are allowed to go full power on landing after reverser deployment. The outboards are idling so can be over the edge of the runway without disturbing anything.

drdeadlift

Andrew33 wrote: »

I wonder just how marginal the infrastructure is at Dub that a loaded triple 7 can fly in and out but a 380 can't!

I was about to post the comment above until I looked up the MTOW of a 777 and a 380. Holy sh1t! the 380 really is a heavy bugger.
I thought there might be a difference of 40-50 tonnes, just as well I don't load planes for a living:rolleyes:

A triple 7-200 has a MTOW of 263 tonnes,
A 380-800 can lift 560 tonnes gross!

[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]

The maximum take off weight of a 777 in dub? Full fuel a fairly big load of pax/cargo in dub? Never,he would be in the pitch and putt course in the alsaa before he left the ground.

Its really about how the total weight of the aircraft is displaced across the ground like how many landing gears is all the kilos sitting on.
I seen a documentary about a group that operate the an225/124 they have to plan en-route alternates carefully as the runway paving they needed for their aircraft was very demanding.

Nforce

Finally saw a couple of these up close over the last couple of days ...both Singapore Airlines and Air France versions. No pics as I was in CDG and photography is banned there afaik? Wasn't gonna take the chance.