In a perfect example demonstrating the scaleability of the Klingon Bird of Prey, the Airbus 380 is a massive, double-decker airliner that seats 550 with range and speed equal or greater than the nearest competition, the Boeing 747 (with with it is designed to complete with and supplant).
And all in an airframe that isn't really that different than an Airbus 320 or even 340. Take THAT, K'vort class!
Mark
Posted by Doctor Jonas (Member # 481) on :
Nice flying tin. I still have my thoughts about an 'airbus', but well, people has to fly cheap (and crammed), and with raising fuel prices these days, there's maybe no option.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
You obviously haven't been treated to flying in an Airbus yet. Actually, the A380 is designed to seat up to 800 passengers, so 550 leaves ample room. In fact the machine can even be ordered with built in cinema, lounge, duty-free-shop etc. Just go to the websites of Emirates, Singapore Airlines etc. to see what world-class airlines have in store for future air travellers.
R.I.P. Boeing & Co. Posted by Doctor Jonas (Member # 481) on :
You're right. I've only tried Boeing and McDonnell Douglas aircraft. Maybe I should check a little more. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"And all in an airframe that isn't really that different than an Airbus 320 or even 340."
Well, the A380 is a scaled-up A320 in the same sense that the B747 is a scaled-up B707, and, despite being a truly awesome feat of engineering, really does no more than rely on the same old exploit of the scalable properties of aerodynamics that every other metal tube (aka. passenger aircraft) ever built has relied on since 1935, so, y'know.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Which fits into the BoP parable.
More to the point, the Airbus family is much more consistent within its own architecture than the Boeings or MDs of the world; a pilot requires far less cross training to qualify on Airbuses than different Boeing aircraft. They went so far as to put the cockpit between the two main decks on the A380, so pilot eye-line will be consistent with its other planes.
Almost a shame that the A380, being designed for interhub travel, might never land at my huge (but relatively out of the way) airports here in Alberta. When I go to Toronto in a few years, though...
Mark
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Which fits into the BoP parable."
Not entirely. An A320 directly scaled up to the dimensions of an A380 (which, in your analogy, would still be quite a bit less of an increase than the K'vort/B'rel size ratio, to say nothing of the monstrously large The Defector BoPs) wouldn't fly at all without drastic modifications to its airframe, nor would an A380 or hypothetically even larger aircraft scaled down to the dimensions of an A320. Aerodynamics may scale well, but structural mechanics don't.
And you're right about Airbus' flight-deck philosophy, but, while it has helped the company dethrone Boeing as the number one manufacturer of commercial airliners, cockpit instrumentation ultimately has little bearing on the design of a plane (Boeing could, if there was sufficient demand, retrofit its older aircraft types with the avionics suite of a 777, for instance), because instruments don't determine the flight envelope or operational parameters. Put in Trek terms, the bridge might be shared, but everything trailing behind it is in a bonafide class of its own. B)
[ January 18, 2005, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
To the untrained eye, which is what I'm getting at. I'm not diagreeing with you, but inasmuch as non-plane-freaks wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an A320 and an A380 save for some windows, engine number and sheer size, nor would the average 24th century be able to spot the difference between a B'rel and a K'vort except for those same things, which is I guess what the producers of Trek expect us to believe.
Mark
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
quote:non-plane-freaks wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an A320 and an A380
That's almost like saying
non-car-freaks wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Mini and an X5
True, both A320 and A380 have wings, a fuselage, engines and tail, but I don't think anyone could mistake one for the other even when seen at quite a distance.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I've seen just that - and in planespotting sessions, too. What I'm saying is that the "one-tube" design doesn't stick out among the dozen or so common designs that use it, without messing with the general arrangement. The Airbuses, 737/57/67/77 family et. al., all share the same arrangement, whereas an MD-11 or L1011 would look different, or a 727/DC-9, or the 747 itself. I know several people offhand who wouldn't know a 737 from a 777 from an A340, but could easily pick out the distinctive hump of a 747 any day.
Mark
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Well, you are right about the similarities of say the A340, 737 or 777.
The A380 on the other hand is double-deck all the way through, making for a very distinctive silhouette. It might not be graceful, but it's highly recognisable.
And about the plane-spotting sessions: how can you have spotted an A380 yet? - it has not even made it's first flight yet - let alone been to any airport around the globe...
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
If I had my contacts out, I'd probably not easily tell between a silhouette of a 737 or an A380, as (compared to the Boeing widebodies or earlier Airbuses) they are both proportionately fat and stubby. I'm equating this sort of thing to the masses of people who don't know, or don't care to know.
And no, I haven't seen an A380 in person. I'm talking about everything else - and how, sitting in an airport obs gallery with a group of friends, have heard many people mistake one plane for another...
Mark
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It' a big air-cow.
Someone needs to get off their ass and make a supersonic liner that people can actually afford to use...then I'll be duely impressed.
Sonehow, despite the increased passanger capacity, I think the fare to fly on this behemoth will be more than smaller planes/ airlines.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Forget supersonic. I want trans-atmospheric spaceplanes with a cruise speed of mach 15 and a twenty-thousand mile range. London to Tokyio in 90 minutes, baby. Death to the aircows.
(Boeing has an SST of sorts in the pipeline, which is technically not an "S"ST, but still.)
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Holy crap. How'd you manage to find THAT still on the external website? The Sonic Cruiser has been dead for a while now, since they decided to go forward with the 7E7 concept. I don't think there's any active work being done with that concept anymore.
(BTW, I work for Boeing, but in the defense division.)
B.J.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Bummer. I thought they were R&D'ing it concurrently to the 7E7 (which, when all's said and done, is just another flying pencil), but the lack of updates should have clued me in, I guess.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Planespotters. I never leave home without one.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Forget supersonic. I want trans-atmospheric spaceplanes with a cruise speed of mach 15 and a twenty-thousand mile range. London to Tokyio in 90 minutes, baby. Death to the aircows.
Yeah! Then only a slim fraction of the impossibly small percebtage of people that could afford the Concord would pay even more money to fly on the new uber-plane.
I was watching a program on the Concord the other night and they recalled that British Airways surveyed the Concxord's passengers nad found that most were so wealthy that they had no idea how much their air fare they were paying, but they also thought they were paying far more than the airline was actually charging.
So British Airways raised the fare to meet their expectations.
So much for the adverage joe ever flying supersonic. Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
So much for why Airbus - like Boeing - doesn't bother to develop such a plane...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Oh...they will. For the military.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I think we'll find there's no point in developping a supersonic troop transport if there's no practical way to move the thousands of tons of logistics they need to go with 'em.
Mark
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Concord
Or possibly even Concorde.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Or possibly regular grape jelly.
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: I think we'll find there's no point in developping a supersonic troop transport if there's no practical way to move the thousands of tons of logistics they need to go with 'em.
Mark
No need for troops to be delivered supersonically: not when all that precious space can be filled with snuggly-wuggly-cluster-bombs. Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Yeah, and the plane flies so fast that when they try to drop their bombs over Iraq the manage to hit the ground in California - while the plane is already well over the Atlantic... Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
They'll just drop ball bearings and BB's at that speed.
Or for some real fun: Wonder Balls.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Wonder Bras, and thongs, over Iran. Teach that priesthood to loosen up.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
(Nim, you ought to read the novel Singularity Sky, by Charles Stross, because a.) it is pretty good, and b.) it features something similar. It has some first novel stylistic quirks that can be a little annoying ((Such as a reliance on a few well-traveled metaphors.)), but I think I can heartily recommend it anyway.)
[I thought I could find the first paragraph online, but no dice. Anyway, it involves a travelling fleet in the business of information trading, and for novel bits of data they're willing to provide any material good imaginable. [[Sure, they wind up disassembling a few moons to get at the raw materials, but you can't make an omelet, etc.]] The book opens with them dropping telephones from orbit onto a planet tightly controlled by a sort of Tsarist regime, promising wonders in exchange for cultural trivia, or songs, or whatever.]
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
No need for troops to be delivered supersonically: not when all that precious space can be filled with snuggly-wuggly-cluster-bombs.
They already tried that with the XB-70 Valkyie; it was eventually figured that a mach-3 bomber would be pretty redundant in the days of the forever-faster ICBMs, and even now something travelling any faster than mach-2 woulnd't get you very far with a suitable bomb load. Hence, why even the Mach-2 B-58s didn't last too long, and why the B-52 is still in service. If you want something fast with lots of bombs, hop in an B-1 or an F/A-111. If there are any of those left, that is.
Mark
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Or just drop Hubble on them from orbit. That'll teach 'em!
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: The Sonic Cruiser has been dead for a while now, since they decided to go forward with the 7E7 concept.
Of course, given that one of the technology partners mentioned is "Stork Fokker Aerostructures", the abandonment of the concept is not much of a surprise. Stork fokking is not an effective means of passenger transport, and furthermore can interrupt the emergence of future passengers by preventing the stork from delivering them.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
LOL. No, but I mean it. You win, sir.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Hey, what are you saying here, Guardian two thousand? That the storks will somehow start magically delivering flaming bags of dogshit, instead? I thought that would only happen to expecting gay couples, if Fred Phelps is to be believed.
Regarding A380: Wouldn't it be better with a VTOL C5 Galaxy, like the one they used for "Team Knight Rider"?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You watched "Team Knighr Rider".
(shakes head)
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Yes, ye did. But he also typed "flaming bags of dogshit" in the same post, so we associated one with the other and forgave him.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)