Atomic Systems

Hi folks.

First post in this forum - I'm no aviation expert, although I do have FS2004 and a few other bits n bobs

Just wondering what everyone thinks to the new Airbus A380?

I've been keeping an eye on its development for around 2 years now, and glad to see its finally ready for flight testing.

Cheers

Gary

Well, I hate it, to be honest. It is another step in the wrong direction for aviation. It is just to big, too unattractive, too characterless. It has too many seats - can you imagine the number of people at airports and trying to get on and off the aircraft? What happened to smaller aircraft that had character and were worth flying on? I am fed up with aviation at the moment, all it cares about now is how many passengers it can pack into its aircraft. Once there was a time when it cared about quality, not quantity, and was respected for it. Now the only thing airlines care about is profit, especially the low cost airlines, for whom this sort of aircraft is suited.

I agree, but then I'm not paying the running costs.

From an engineering point of view it is a great achievement, however I am seriously worried about it being a couple of tonnes overweight.

Not a patch on Concorde...

regards

Dan

Personally I have deep misgivings about squeezing up to 900 people into one aeroplane. Eggs in one basket eh? Can't put them back together again afterwards.

Ironically the Branson idea of putting entertainment areas on one deck may be safer than a fully seated layout...

regards

Dan

I dread to think what would happen if that thing crashed.

I thought planes were designed to avoid crashing? So that isn't a problem, then.

As for flying smaller planes, fine, if you can afford to pay £1000 for a short haul flight - don't forget in 1952 BEA's ordinary tourist fare from London to Paris was £11-14/- (£11.75p). In 2002 I flew from London Stansted to Belfast (slightly further) for less tha £25 after fifty years of inflation. The Paris Economy fare using the calculation for comparing prices given on the Government National Statistics website would be £207.82 today. Easyjet currently offer a day return on Tuesday 1 February from Luton at 05.50, return 21.45 for £183.81 including taxes, or on the 28th February the same trip would cost £68.81. £207.82 for over an hour in a Vickers Viking, noisy, vibrating, unpressurised but with plenty of legroom, or as little as £69 for just under an hour in a smooth, relatively quiet and pressurised Boeing 737 but with less room. I think most people would agree that bigger, less characterful planes mean that flying is no longer the preserve of the rich and famous, and also means that many ordinary, non-executive or glitterati people can get out and about to visit places they would only have been able to dream of in 1952.

And of course you were far more likely not to get to your destination in 1952 than now.

Much as I enjoy flying in Air Atlantique's DC3 and Dragon Rapide, recreating the kind of aircraft used on domestic and international flights in 1952 (remember, the Viscount was only just entering service, as was the Comet, so it was DC3 or Viking to Paris back then), I wouldn't want to fly in them for the 2hr trip from Birmingham to Paris as it was then.

That said, I'd rather have a 1-11 than a Boeing.

Good points, but I have to say I would much rather fly in a DC3, Comet, Viscount, etc. than an Easyjet 737, even for 2 hours. But I suppose the general public don't appreciate historic aircraft designs, so most people would rather fly in a 737.

Thinking about the A380, the one advantage to its size that I can see is that we now only have one aircraft instead of 2 or 3 (or even 4) to carry the same number of passengers, so there are less aircraft in the sky - good for safety, but the flip side is that for people aspiring to be pilots (like me), fewer pilots are needed for the same number of passengers.

I don't think it will mean fewer aircraft, it will just mean the need for more aircraft as demand conitnues to increase exponentially will be reduced. There's enough demand already to fill A380's on the existing number of slots but which is being priced off by demand management fares - the low fares airlines have shown that.

I think many people probably would like to fly in a Comet or Viscount as they offered comfortable, quiet, smooth travel that in some respects was better than some modern types - don't forget the 737 still uses the same basic fuselage sections as the 707 which was the contemporary of the Comet. However, most people would not be able to afford to fly at all if the world was criss-crossed be Comets and Viscounts, they were hugely expensive to operate even when relatively new due to the thirsty early jet technology. If Dan Air in the 80's found the Boeing 727 more economical than the Comet (which is saying something as the 727's have since been replaced by many airlines as being too noisy and expensive despite some having only been built in the 80's alongside still-flying 737-200's) then how much more expensive would they be in today's airline climate?

Very expensive. My mum used to work for Dan-air, and she says that the 727s were very noisy, far worse than the 737-200s (which were newer though).

I thought planes were designed to avoid crashing? So that isn't a problem, then.

I'm not saying that one will crash.

If one was to be involved in an accident, it could easily be the biggest airline disaster since those 747's crashed on the runway in the 70's.

Yes, but given the right set of circumstances two full commuter passenger trains could collide, hit a train of petrol tankers, in a station surrounded by housing cause an explosion killing most of the passengers and a fair few around in the surrounding area but does that mean we shouldn't run packed commuter trains and dangerous goods in the same area at the same time? Or trains should only carry no more than 100 people?

There's risk in everything - Air crashes are rare, train crashes are rare. When they do happen, though they are catastrophic and tend to kill many people simply because of the forces involved and the numbers of people on the plane or train.

After all, a twin seater Cessna crashing on Clapham Junction in the middle of the rush hour could potentially kill as many as a large jet crash.

Redbaron wrote:Very expensive. My mum used to work for Dan-air, and she says that the 727s were very noisy, far worse than the 737-200s (which were newer though).

And now the 732 is considered too noisy!

Well I think the 380 is a great non-USA achievement in these days where Europe seems to want to just bow to cheap and cheerful. It's helped on the jobs front in my area as well. AND it's good to remind the yanks every now and then that we can do best... Brabazon? Comet? Concorde? 380?

But I must agree with Mark... Modern jetliners are built as profit-making machines and nothing more. They look soul-less to us today because all the competing companies are designing aircraft with maximum profitability in mind. And because of the law of diminishing returns, everyone's coming up with similar efficient designs.

Of course, profitability was still a watchword in the good old days, propliner or early jetliner, but there was more room for experimentation. And again as Mark points out, the jet-set were able to pay a fortune for luxury travel.

I'll bet in 1952 (assuming we're talking to aircraft enthusiasts) there were plenty of people bemoaning the old Handley Page biplanes, and saying that Comet had no style in comparison. I'll bet they'd have given up first class Comet seats to get into a Sunderland or S3 for hours on end... Mind you, I'm not sure which I'd go for...

The 380 is new, but that won't stop it from becoming a 'classic' in 50 years time. And then we'll all be clamouring to get a seat in one when the (yawn yawn ) Yamaha-Boeing 1500 seat triple decker makes it's debut.