Adios A-380.

[usaf81]

If your just talking about technical achievements then the A-380 is one of the better ones. Its one and only problem is it never should have been built. It was corporate welfare at its worst. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielr.../#56cb0db33c59

There was never a need for it. Experts in the Industry warned about what would inevitable happen, it was never a viable money maker in the passenger plane market. Airports hated the thing. It needed special dual terminals built as well as maintenance hangars. It was so big just wheeling one around the tarmac caused all kinds of slow downs in operations as did the air vortex it created when landing or taking off. I believe it was in the area of 10 mins where'as another airplane could not occupy its airspace due to the turbulence it caused.

Boeing warned them even the 747 size aircraft were on their way out and the 2 engine widebodys were the future. Everyone warned them but Airbus just couldn't help themselves. Corporate welfare was a big part of it but I think the technical challenge really drove them. And to their credit they succeeded.

They succeeded in building a 4 engine Jumbo that could only make money on short hops to Mecca, or places like it, with 600 smelly pilgrims flying on the cheap for their yearly pilgrimage. There just wasn't ever the market for such a jet. I never flew on one but Ive been on them and they are very nice. I was on one that was brand spanking new once, its still had that new plane smell.

Corona didn't help its cause either. Air France and Lufthansa are retiring their fleets and I'd bet they will all be gone in the next few years. https://aviationweek.com/air-transpo...80-retirements

[Peter1469]

I flew business class on them a couple of times. Very nice.

[Safety]

The interesting part is that Airbus forced Boeing to hastily retrofit the 737 with larger fuel-efficient engines instead of redesigning a new airframe, which caused the fatal crashes of the 737Max. That was an oops.

[bulletbob]

The interesting part is that Airbus forced Boeing to hastily retrofit the 737 with larger fuel-efficient engines instead of redesigning a new airframe, which caused the fatal crashes of the 737Max. That was an oops.

odd safety the crashes of both 737 maxs were cause by bad sensors according to news reports not fuel tanks
hummm you been hanging with the wonder from down under by Chance ?


https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/22/1...lained-reasons


A preliminary report from Indonesian investigators indicates that Lion Air 610 crashed because a faulty sensor erroneously reported that the airplane was stalling. The false report triggered an automated system known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS. This system tried to point the aircraft’s nose down so that it could gain enough speed to fly safely.

[bulletbob]

Not fuel efficient engines not the air frame not aliwns not trump but bad sensors safety .lol

[usaf81]

I'm trying to figure out what the 737 has to do with the A-380.

Except for the most produced jet in history vs the least produced jet.

Anyway I wasn't criticizing the A-380 design I was criticizing the geniuses who thought there would be a market for such a passenger jet. The actual airplane is a beautiful design, it was just a commercial disaster.

[Safety]

odd safety the crashes of both 737 maxs were cause by bad sensors according to news reports not fuel tanks
hummm you been hanging with the wonder from down under by Chance ?


https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/22/1...lained-reasons


A preliminary report from Indonesian investigators indicates that Lion Air 610 crashed because a faulty sensor erroneously reported that the airplane was stalling. The false report triggered an automated system known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS. This system tried to point the aircraft’s nose down so that it could gain enough speed to fly safely.

Not fuel efficient engines not the air frame not aliwns not trump but bad sensors safety .lol

Sigh. Ok, when the Boeing 737 (55 year old design) was competing with the Airbus A320 who designed their airframe from the ground up with larger fuel-efficient engines, they decided to just retrofit the newer engines on the 737 instead of redesigning the airframe, which would have been very expensive and extensive. When they installed the engines, it changed the flying dynamic of the airframe because the engines were larger, they sit further forward of the wing nacelle, which gave the aircraft more tendency to have a nose-up attitude. This new design flaw was band-aided out by installing software that automatically nosed down the aircraft if the parameters of a nose-high attitude occurred. This was coupled with an indicator light in the $#@!pit that alerted the pilots of the MCAS making adjustments. However, Boeing in their infinite wisdom, made the installation of the indicator light an optional feature. The dangerous situation of the MCAS nosing down the aircraft incorrectly was usually happening during takeoffs, which is where both crashes of the 737Max occurred. Many pilots of the 737Max reported issues where the MCAS system would engage incorrectly, but they were able to remedy the situation immediately. So yes, "faulty sensors" (MCAS) is what the report says caused the crash, the ultimate reason is more detailed than that.

I say all that to say this, I initially posted in this thread to just share some information about the competitive history between Airbus and Boeing, and to share some insight into the 737Max that I had the opportunity to work on during the investigation, not to take anything away from the A380. But I see that even doing that draws condemnation for whatever reason, so have at it.

[usaf81]

The thread wasn't about the 737. It was about the A-380.

Anyone can make a separate thread about the 737 should they want to.