Airbus A380's maiden flight

[mhardy6647]

Probably anyone here who cares about such things knows that the huge Airbus A380 made its maiden flight today, but I thought it was worth mentioning. There's a link to a nice AP video from Yahoo's story:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050427/ts_nm/transport_airbus_dc

Please note that I am steering well clear of the Airbus vs. Boeing aspect of this! :-)

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050427/i/r1925773128.jpg

[mhardy6647]

... this is kind of interesting, too...
"Exploding Toads Puzzle German Scientists"
What a great headline.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1894&e=3&u=/ap/20050427/ap_on_sc/germany_exploding_toads

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050423/capt.sge.jmn62.230405161651.photo00.photo.default-311x384.jpg

[Markw]

... this is kind of interesting, too...
"Exploding Toads Puzzle German Scientists"
What a great headline.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1894&e=3&u=/ap/20050427/ap_on_sc/germany_exploding_toads

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050423/capt.sge.jmn62.230405161651.photo00.photo.default-311x384.jpg

Could this be a secret weapon that France has been working on? they did get whupped by the Germans twice, y'know...

actually, that's two toads. which one is exploding?

[heathkit tv]

Pardon my francias, but fleck airbus (AKA "Scarebus" due to their lack of system redundancies and sketchy fly by wire system)

That's a subsidized company that unfairly competes with Boeing etc. Yeah yeah, I can hear it already....Boesing gets money from the Feds etc....but no where near the level that airpus does.

Just one more instance of our great leaders selling us out. Next stop for Boeing: China. No joke. We're screwed. It's been a good run and now it's over.

Anthony

[VinylHanger]

My only problem with the whole Airbus thing is how the morning shows basically did a continuous genuflect (sp) all morning long. Or maybe it was the fact that they bent over on live television and asked Airbus to stick the big 'ol plane up thier butts just for the pure pleasure of it. They even went on and on how the flight was very much as important as the flight of the Wright Brothers. Uh, I don't think so. Oh, and they had to continually explain that the Airbus was from France, it is from France dontcha know.... and that Boing has "Failed" to replace the 747 which is obviously a 30 year old design, though it will still be around for years to come.
They did fail to explain the fact that they haven't sold enough of them yet to make them a viable product, or that there really wasn't a need for them, or that they will burn more precious fuel, expell more pollution and cause more "global" warming, which is odd, considering that they tell me everyday that my SUV and my old Buick and the cows down the road all contribute to the problem.
Other than that stuff, I really don't have much to say about the plane, except it is pretty big.
The frogs were cool :) We've been known to have exploding frogs in our house from time to time, usually following a meal of Taco Bell...... Hmmmmmm..... maybe there is a connection :D

[heathkit tv]

It boils down to two trains of thought....one is that the market will want these giant birds and the other, that a more fuel efficient and smaller plane will be what the airlines seek. Boeing is betting on the latter and I tend to agree.

One must factor in the nightmarish infrastructure that a super jumbo jet requires, existing airports will be hard pressed to adapt their runways and taxiways, let alone the terminals with the multiple ramps......with 800 passenger capacity the time involved to turn the plane is a huge problem....am speaking of restocking food, pillows, etc, dumping the black water, refueling, herding the people in and out, handling luggage, etc etc etc.

A smaller plane has NONE of these issues...is cheaper to purchase and overall I suspect it has lower operating costs per seat when you factor in the cost of the loan itself.

Sure hope I'm correct, not for me to be right but for Boeing and it's employees sake.

Anthony

[Sandy G]

Gonna be interesting to see the reaction when one of these flying barouches decides to turn itself into a Hot Roman Candle on the side of some mountain somewhere-and 800 or so people check out. If it was a Boeing, there'd be howls from everywhere about It's Too Big...since it's an Airbus, & NOT American, there won't be a peep. -Sandy G., crusty olde pharte

[Rex B]

Incorrect Sandy G - there are plenty of American manufactured PARTS on the aircraft - so they'll probably blame that company for the crash! LOL. But seriously, Airbus is a consortium, and there are parts comin from the good ol' USA.

[Sandy G]

Yeah, but you know what I was talkin' about....-Sandy G.

[WhiteSE]

As I heard on NPR...the Airbusers are worried because the new Boeing that is short/medium range is coming out 2 to 3 years ahead, and that they gambled too much on this huge platform. IS the Boeing the 787 i think? they already have like 238 orders for it...

[heathkit tv]

Who here remembers the hoopla when the 747 was introduced? And then within a short time frame came the other wide bodies such as the L-1011 Tristar, McDonnell Douglas DC-10.....America was really on a roll then, notwithstanding the problems of the two latter planes of course.

The thing about the 747 is that the public seems to have the misconception about it being sort of an antique, but they fail to see that it's a highly developed machine that overall has few bugs left (barring the old industry standard crapola wire insulation). The situation reminds me of the good ol Chevy small block, an ancient pushrod engine in a sea of OHC variable valve timing high tech aluminum wonders......none of which outlast the old cast iron turd.

Anthony

[Sandy G]

I never saw what was so outdated about the 707s-to me, you'd have to go far to find a prettier airplane-they certainly don't LOOK 50 years old now.-Sandy G.

[mhardy6647]

The 707's were fuel guzzlers, and their design was such that their fuselage couldn't be "stretched" to accommodate more passengers. They were quite uneconomical. The DC-8, on the other hand, was more readily "modernized"-- remember the stretched DC-8's? I think some of the smaller airfreight companies are STILL using DC-8 Super 63's with modern high-bypass fan engines.

BTW, the ONLY reason I posted about the new Airbus was I love planes and I love to fly... and I thought it was nice to see the video of that big mofo on her maiden flight. I am quite aware of the political and economic implications, but it's still a cool plane (not unlike the Spruce Goose, in some respects!).

But I guess the A380's test flight wasn't quite as interesting as the early flights of the 707's prototype (B367-80)! :-)

"Quickly Boeing turned its attention to selling the airline industry on this new jet transport. Clearly the industry was impressed with the capabilities of the prototype 707 but never more so than at the Gold Cup hydroplane races held on Lake Washington in Seattle, in August 1955. During the festivities surrounding this event, Boeing had gathered many airline representatives to enjoy the competition and witness a fly past of the new Dash 80. To the audience's intense delight and Boeing's profound shock, test pilot Alvin "Tex" Johnston barrel-rolled the Dash 80 over the lake in full view of thousands of astonished spectators. Johnston vividly displayed the superior strength and performance of this new jet, readily convincing the airline industry to buy this new airliner." -- http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/boeing_367.htm


http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/images/header_707_c.jpg

[Rex B]

mhardy-

Doesn't the 707 also currently require a hush-kit to operate? - I know they use those on the 727 for example.....

[mhardy6647]

Dunno... probably. The original turbojet engines were wicked, screaming noisy, and the later turbofans were much noisier than modern engines.

[Rex B]

The next obvious question would be - what do you fly? :scratch2:

[mhardy6647]

passenger :-(

My father worked on his private pilot's license when I was a teen... never finished (not enough discretionary funding available). I get the urge, now and again, but the cost and the insurance hassles has stopped me every time. I have just enough expensive hobbies already.

[merrylander]

As has been noted, where are they going to land that mother? It already takes forever to get off a 747 and collect your luggage - 840 passengers? Fuggedaboutit!

As to subsidies, we already subsidize the airlines - not a one of them builds their own airport, we subsidize trucking companies - I pay gas taxes for roads I'll never use. But subsidize railroads? Don't even think about it. Dubya wants to kill Amtrak, yet the trip to Aspen by rail was some of the best travel we have had in years, and treated royally by a lot of dedicated employees.

Rob

[elroymcgee]

would love to post but i think it would be a conflict of interest, as that I currently am employed by the Lazy "B". and I am sure that I would be very biased.

[WhiteSE]

Well, in my book, Boeing Rules!

[Toasted Almond]

I don't like driving around in anything but a Boeing, and I've been driving around for almost 30 years now. If it's not a Boeing, I'm not going.

Amazing when you think that 20 or 30 years from now, somebody's going to get bombed on by 70-80 year old Bongo 52's, long after the sweetheart bombers (B-1, B-2) are parked permanently in the desert.

[mhardy6647]

I in no way meant to denigrate Boeing, George... I like 'em best too (as a passenger). I used to travel a lot for work, and the only airliners I really didn't feel so comfortable flying in were the DC-10's. They had sort of a bad track record! The 747's on the other hand, have an enviable safety record. I think most of the serious "accidents" with 747's have involved bombs :-(

[Sandy G]

Well, to put it in perspective, if the B-17 had served as long as the BUFF has(50 years this year & counting), they would have still been in service in 1985. The B-29 would have been with us til the early '90s...the C-130 has almost as remarkable a service life as well-it's celebrating its 50th this year, too. And how many have we sold over the years to friends & former friends? But the Tupolev Bears are about the same age as the BUFFs-& I think the Russkies still fly them.-Sandy G.

[Toasted Almond]

Mark, I didn't see anything that looked like a jab at Boeing. I just posted my feelings.

The Russians don't have enough gas to put in the Tupolevs. They should park them next to their sub fleet.

[Sandy G]

Yeah, I'd imagine the Tu-95s can swim about as well as the subs can fly....Glug, glug, glug...<grin>-Sandy G.

[WhiteSE]

Yeah, I'd imagine the Tu-95s can swim about as well as the subs can fly....Glug, glug, glug...<grin>-Sandy G.


hee hee!

[2DualsNotEnough]

If you think about it,the B-52's and the C-130's are the only real constants in the post war era.When I was in the Air Force,youd see dozens of 130's hauling stuff in and out,and it always seemed like the C-5 was always grounded for repairs.It looks sooooo impressive,but if you ever want a good laugh,watch one of those things take off.But be sure to pack a lunch.
Jimmy

[Reel 2 Reel]

Ever since I saw the program on the Discovery Channel...

This is the one that impresses me most...

When I was just a wee lad...I had models of the 727 and 747.....for some reasonI liked commercial airliners over the military aircraft......

[glen65]

They did fail to explain the fact that they haven't sold enough of them yet to make them a viable product, or that there really wasn't a need for them,
Which explains why they are making such a big deal about it. They
obviously need to push a few more of these things.

[Sandy G]

Read in "The Economist" today that Boring may soon have to discontinue the 747 for lack of sales. The only version they're selling much now is the freighter. Le Industrie De Frog De Airbusserie may have a harder time selling the gollywhopper 380 than they thought. Jets just don't wear out, & there apparently is a finite limit to how many 500+seat passenger planes the world needs. -Sandy G.

[mhardy6647]

Read in "The Economist" today that...

shhh... you'll sully your redneck credentials...

You must be a remarkable man, Sandy! ;-)

[heathkit tv]

Sandy usually just looks at the purty piktures!

While it will be a little sad to see the 747 to go out of production, Bowling surely has made a nice chunk of change off of it all these years. I wish good luck (not really) to the frogs with their Albatross 380, they're gonna need it!

Anthony

[Sandy G]

Actually, I guess I DEVOUR "The Economist"-too bad we really don't have a general circulation magazine in this country like it. "Time" & "Newsweek" are more concerned about Paris Hilton's belly button. I have NEVER read anything close to the kind of coverage of say Africa or Eastern Europe that the Economist provides. Given the general higher level of intelligence most of us here seem to exhibit, I'm surprised more AKers don't read it. And, of course, Anthony's right-the Pitchers ARE purty...-Sandy G.

[Toasted Almond]

The 747 has been the Queen of the Skies since it was introduced, and nothing's going to change that anytime soon.

[heathkit tv]

It's a Queen? When did it come out of the closet? :lmao:

Edit: just found this picture.....have a nice trip, see you next fall!

Anthony

[Rex B]

It's a Queen? When did it come out of the closet? :lmao:

Anthony


Oddly enough, aircraft are referred to as "she" just as ships are. :smoke: