"Both costly and risky"

johncard · Post by **johncard** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:08 pm

.....but could we afford not to build it? Now I actually quite like planes, I took several pictures en route between Manchester and Malaga for our summer holiday (an A320?), but I do believe that pollution is a problem. Enter this........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6113418.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6120132.stm

Any thoughts?

John

danielw2599 · Post by **danielw2599** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:35 pm

Anyone else thinking it looks like a fat penguin?

CaldRail · Post by **CaldRail** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:23 pm

A fat penguin? Now all we need is an RAF aircraft shaped like a leopard seal. Actually that sort of efficiency is definitely going to loom larger on the horizon. A jumbo burns 35 tons of oxygen crossing the atlantic apparently.

I don't believe the big airbus is the way to go. An extraordinary aeroplane for sure but is it wise putting all your eggs in one basket? Imagine a mid-air between two of them.

Making any of the futuristic departures from normality is fraught with development problems. Most won't get backing, fewer will get started, fewer still will get finished, and very few of them will ever get close to success in the marketplace. But then thats always been true and if we don't try then we gain nothing either.

dkightley · Post by **dkightley** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:50 pm

...and those that do get to the marketplace are scorned on and only need the slightest excuse for those in power to "get rid"!

Sound familiar?

decapod · Post by **decapod** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:19 am

CaldRail wrote:I don't believe the big airbus is the way to go. An extraordinary aeroplane for sure but is it wise putting all your eggs in one basket? Imagine a mid-air between two of them.

Just imagine the queues at check-in and heathrow immigration in the morning when 5 of them land at once

Post by **martinhodgson** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:19 pm

A mid air is highly unlikely between these a/c, as they will almost certainly be equipped with 'Mode S' transponders, which means that whenever they risk conflict in the air, the transponders will 'communicate' and send one aircraft to a higher altitude, and the other to a lower altitude - the TCAS system. The system is also prevented from them both going the same way, and ALWAYS takes priority over ATC instructions - so there should be no repeats of the Switzerland accident of a few years ago, at least not in modern aircraft with this version of TCAS.

Matt744 · Post by **Matt744** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:32 pm

You only need a normal Mode C readout for TCAS, midairs still can occur through bad luck and equipment failiure (as in Brazil recently) but the chances of 2 A380's hitting are so remote as to be not even worth thinking about. Remember it took 12 years before the first 747-400 accident and theres still been no crashes on A340's.

The swiss crash only happened because the Russians manouvered in the opposite direction to the TCAS warning which is the only human error it cant cope with well. If 1 aircraft does nothing its still fine (if not especially helpful!) but going the other way is a no no.

As for size, its a pretty incremental growth, when the first Wide Bodies came on the scene they were more than doubling the size of current aircraft. The A380 is only around 1/3 bigger than the 744. In fact with the bigger flat beds that are around now most A380's will have only around 40-50 extra seats than the onld 747-100's did when they were introduced.

Post by **martinhodgson** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:53 pm

Oh, I appreciate Mode C works for TCAS, but Mode S is the mode that allows automatic avoidance - eliminating the whole 'human error' issue.

sp762 · Post by **sp762** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:29 am

decapod wrote:
CaldRail wrote:I don't believe the big airbus is the way to go. An extraordinary aeroplane for sure but is it wise putting all your eggs in one basket? Imagine a mid-air between two of them.
Just imagine the queues at check-in and heathrow immigration in the morning when 5 of them land at once

This is a serious problem for us (Aus Immigration) and it's why we're investing so heavily in smart passports etc. So we can automate more of the passport control process - target time is less than 10 seconds...

Matt744 · Post by **Matt744** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:50 pm

but Mode S is the mode that allows automatic avoidance

Is that the plan! Problem is, autopilots are pretty slow to respond in pitch for passenger comfort and I am not aware of one that can move quickly enough to follow a Reverse or Increase TCAS RA. The 74 couldnt even manage a normal RA. Whilst not a violent manouvre it is fairly vigourous. Well it woke the Cabin Crew up in the bunks anyway!

Glad that JAA/CAA are finally in the correct century. They were still teaching DECCA and LORAN 9 years ago and the Jet engine was an afterthought.

monarchgold · Post by **monarchgold** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:03 pm

It looks like Some aircraft compnay has taken up the concept designs of an FS Builder. Look at the first aircraft on this page

http://www.simviation.com/fs_concept1.htm

Looks awfully like the one posted up top. Hmm now lets see - who's copying who here?

E

monarchgold · Post by **monarchgold** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:07 pm

Plus that may also be unsafe when evacuating. If you take for example the design they first came up with for the A380-800, they took two A340 fuselages, placed them next to each other and joined up the curved gap. This itself was deemed unsafe because it would of had 4, 5 or even 6 aisles. Lots of seats to scramble over. Now If the SAX-40 is built and seats built into the wings, it will not be able to fly. But if the seats are just in the central belly of the aircraft then it may fly. Unless they have 4 aisle with very small seats, I can't see this going into the world of aviation.

Ewan

(Sorry for being long-winded but you really do have to prove a point in detail...)

Post by **martinhodgson** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:19 pm

Matt744 wrote:

Glad that JAA/CAA are finally in the correct century. They were still teaching DECCA and LORAN 9 years ago and the Jet engine was an afterthought.

I think they are about 10 years behind, still!

They still think Concorde flies, and that the INS is still a nifty technology (though they do accept it has been superceded by IRS).

Matt744 · Post by **Matt744** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:45 pm

Ah yes, lengthy details about old fashioned gyros, followed by a bit at the bottom saying "oh and theres these laser ring thingys the chaps have invented, dashed clever" And that was all we needed to know on the technology that had been used since the 70's. Loved it.

We've only just finished equiping the 744's with GPS but the IRSs were still more accurate than my flying.

And as for raw data NDBs to minima in large airliners... well you'll never land off one except by luck, pointless examining them, tho does give good Go Around practice

Matt744 · Post by **Matt744** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:49 pm

Now If the SAX-40 is built and seats built into the wings, it will not be able to fly

No reason not to have escape routes out of the bottom/back. The rows (except in central fuselage) wouldnt be that long so a row of slides at the fore/aft of the wing should work.