Spitfire vs Airbus A380

Raymond Lin · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:18

At lady at work today got an email from her son who works on the Airbus A380, she sent me a copy...wow !

I know its big but its so big you can fit a Spitfire under the wing of the Airbus !

Adz · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:23

For anyone who thinks Spitfires are small, try one up close while you're in a Piper/Cessna

.

Munromax · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:25

Adz said:
For anyone who thinks Spitfires are small, try one up close while you're in a Piper/Cessna .

or in a ME109

Scuzi · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:26

The A380 really is a beast. It requires 10 miles wake vortex spacing meaning that anything flying within 10 miles behind it is in danger of severe turbulence or getting flipped over :eek:

It's a crazy beast.

Droolinggimp · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:26

How the hell does that Airbus fly? Its huge.. :eek:

Amazing.

Inquisitor · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:29

I still think the AN-225 Myria is more impressive

Vulcan · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:32

Droolinggimp said:
How the hell does that Airbus fly? Its huge..

Amazing.

I know people often find it hard to believe that things of that size can get lift, but you really don't know how powerful those engines are.

ardy89 · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:33

Inquisitor said:
I still think the AN-225 Myria is more impressive

reminds me of my flight simulator days, trying to get the biggest plane possible !!

Scuzi · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:35

Longbow said:
I know people often find it hard to believe that things of that size can get lift, but you really don't know how powerful those engines are.

...and the wings

MarkLP · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:37

looks massive. We need a person photoshopped there for better size guide

Scythe · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:49

Scuzi said:
The A380 really is a beast. It requires 10 miles wake vortex spacing meaning that anything flying within 10 miles behind it is in danger of severe turbulence or getting flipped over

It's a crazy beast.

Must be a PITA with your job. Making sure every plane is 10 miles away? Isn't that just asking for a accident with that much required distance?

dannyjo22 · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:51

Longbow said:
I know people often find it hard to believe that things of that size can get lift, but you really don't know how powerful those engines are.

I think I read that the engines are 85000lb rated but I can't believe thats correct. The 777-300ER has about 115,000lbs thrust.

I know the 787 will have a bleedless engine so the ratings dont need to be as high but I didnt think the 380's engines where. :confused:

cheets64 · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:54

http://www.bizbuzzmedia.com/Admin/I...dia/Guy Norris/Airbus A380 on tour W44511.jpg

dannyjo22 · 24 Oct 2007 at 23:54

Scythe said:
Must be a PITA with your job. Making sure every plane is 10 miles away? Isn't that just asking for a accident with that much required distance?

Its only 10 miles for light aircraft another heavy aircraft like a 777 or 747 only needs 6nm as apposed to the normal 4nm I think.

I doubt it will be that much of an issue. More of an issue finding terminals to take the damn think. I think its too big to be successful, in the end I think it will be a one of a kind.

MarkLP · 25 Oct 2007 at 00:02

cheets64 said:
http://www.bizbuzzmedia.com/Admin/I...dia/Guy Norris/Airbus A380 on tour W44511.jpg

thanks

That is huge!

Scuzi · 25 Oct 2007 at 00:08

dannyjo22 said:
Its only 10 miles for light aircraft another heavy aircraft like a 777 or 747 only needs 6nm as apposed to the normal 4nm I think.

I doubt it will be that much of an issue. More of an issue finding terminals to take the damn think. I think its too big to be successful, in the end I think it will be a one of a kind.

Last time it flew in it was 10 miles for everything and 2000ft vertical (or was it 1500ft within 15nm) but that was on a TOI. It may have changed but I haven't heard or read anything to say that it has.

Jonnycoupe · 25 Oct 2007 at 00:23

dannyjo22 said:
I think I read that the engines are 85000lb rated but I can't believe thats correct. The 777-300ER has about 115,000lbs thrust.

I know the 787 will have a bleedless engine so the ratings dont need to be as high but I didnt think the 380's engines where.

777 has only has 2 engines, the Trent 800. The Trent 900's on the 380 come in a variety ie RR or GE but that figure is probably about right off the top of my head.

Thing is with the large aircraft is that relatively speaking the air molecules are even smaller so the drag efficiency improves from that upsizing which offsets the increase in 'wetted' area. Its enters service tomorrow with Singapore Airline so hopefully that will help settle Airbus and allow them to get back on course with the A350 XWB.

Blinkz · 25 Oct 2007 at 00:35

dannyjo22 said:
I think I read that the engines are 85000lb rated but I can't believe thats correct. The 777-300ER has about 115,000lbs thrust.

I know the 787 will have a bleedless engine so the ratings dont need to be as high but I didnt think the 380's engines where.

bleedless engines? I thought the 787 was just using the Trents? If there bleedless then where are the other systems that need bleed air going to get it from?

Jonnycoupe · 25 Oct 2007 at 00:48

A generator specifically for anti-ice, cabin air etc.

You only put the engine under extra load as the demand for air requires it whish is good from an efficiency point of view rather than having compressor bleeds taking air away from the combustion. Im not too sure how common this will become as you still need compressor bleed for engine start, part loads and to control surge or overspeed conditions, although i guess that means you get away with simple, low pressure, low weight ducts for those. The 787 is using some bleed air for cowling anti-ice but getting rid of is gonna place a big demand on the aircraft electrical systems. Will be interesting to see how Boeing get on with the dreamliner on that front

Aod · 25 Oct 2007 at 00:52

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_900#Trent_900_Series