Read the forum code of contact
By: - 20th January 2005 at 09:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Let's start again shall we !
By: - 20th January 2005 at 10:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Let's start again shall we !
Oh goody, is this going to be the five minute arguement, or the full day?.......why not have a 'yawn' Smilie?
By: - 20th January 2005 at 11:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I take the point that Distiller is making as I have had an interest in engine power but the technical aspects take a very secondary place to my general love of aircraft. That is why I buy magazines like Airliner World and not Flight International. Also I applied to join the Fleet Air Arm as a pilot but was turned down because of my eyesight and it was a bitter disapointment. But looking back on it I think if I had a job in Aviation all my life would I love aviation/aircraft as much as I do now? Although I know we have pilots etc on the forum, but I am speaking entirely for myself and this post is not intended to "Diss" anyone at all but just how I wonder what I would have felt about aircraft if I had been working with them for 36 years (again I stress I am only sppeaking for myself). :D
By: - 20th January 2005 at 12:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Photograhers will love it!!!!, always thought the 747 looks slow on landings due to its mass, sounds like the A380 will just "Hang there" !!!!
By: - 20th January 2005 at 13:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Photograhers will love it!!!!, always thought the 747 looks slow on landings due to its mass, sounds like the A380 will just "Hang there" !!!!
Not sure about that..I read it is meant to be faster on approach.
Manila Airport have banned the A380 for regular use as it will require a category E approach procedure... currently there is no E.
The A380 will new 50 seconds more seperation due to the speed that will be required over the threshold.
Manila airport report this would constitute to a loss of 9000 movements a year.
Searching for link to article now.
Edit1:
Ok, I have found this... but its not about the ban.
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/jun/25/yehey/metro/20040625met8.html
I swear I read somewhere it was banned for the time being.
Edit2: Ok.. .I think I must have dreamt that.
Everything I'm reading says the A380 will take off and land in less distance than a 747 (yeah right). Which would indicate a slower approach speed perhaps?
By: - 20th January 2005 at 14:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure about that..I read it is meant to be faster on approach.Manila Airport have banned the A380 for regular use as it will require a category E approach procedure... currently there is no E.
The A380 will new 50 seconds more seperation due to the speed that will be required over the threshold.Manila airport report this would constitute to a loss of 9000 movements a year.
Searching for link to article now.
Edit1:
Ok, I have found this... but its not about the ban.
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/jun/25/yehey/metro/20040625met8.htmlI swear I read somewhere it was banned for the time being.
Edit2: Ok.. .I think I must have dreamt that.
Everything I'm reading says the A380 will take off and land in less distance than a 747 (yeah right). Which would indicate a slower approach speed perhaps?
Yes there is an E category, several american military types come under it so I believe.
Landing distance is controlled by more things than approach speed (number of braked wheels, brake type, weight, etc, etc).
A346 goes up very well thank you.
By: - 20th January 2005 at 14:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes there is an E category, several american military types come under it so I believe.Landing distance is controlled by more things than approach speed (number of braked wheels, brake type, weight, etc, etc).
A346 goes up very well thank you.
there was no mention of the A346 here?!
By: - 20th January 2005 at 15:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, here's one Boeing being left standing by an A330...we were doing M0.80, I would guess he was doing about M0.84-0.85 by the speed he pulled ahead of us.
ahh, but he's also higher than you ;) No fair.
By: - 20th January 2005 at 15:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nice photo Moondance
By: - 20th January 2005 at 16:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ahh, but he's also higher than you ;) No fair.
RVSM=2000 ft. vertical separation i.e. FL360 v FL380, next to nothing!
By: - 20th January 2005 at 17:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you on the 737, Moondance?
By: - 21st January 2005 at 00:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
there was no mention of the A346 here?!
A340 performance as discussed in the original post.
By: - 21st January 2005 at 00:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes there is an E category, several american military types come under it so I believe.
Approach Category E is for aircraft who have an approach speed greater than 166 knots. I would say that the SR-71 fell into that group but that's only a guess.
I would venture to think that the biggest ATC seperation requirement for the A380 wouldn't be due to it's approach speeds but for wake turbulance avoidance. That monster is going to kick up some serious vortices.
By: - 21st January 2005 at 01:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would think that the A380 would be in the same categorie as the C-5, or the Tu-225 or something. I'm just speculating.
By: - 21st January 2005 at 04:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've never heard of Tu-225 George, do you mean the An-225????????
By: - 21st January 2005 at 07:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A340 performance as discussed in the original post.
Was used as reference I beleive.
But it is true... the A346 might perform fine for VS and yourself but its not like what Airbus promised and still promises. Iberia have noted this, CX have noted this, SAA have noted this.
Why don't Airbus just review the figures they advertise so that they match the actual performance?
By: - 21st January 2005 at 10:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A bit off-topic, so apologies. In Moondance's photo there appears to be three vapour trails coming from the aircraft. Obviously the two outer ones are from the engines, but does anyone know what causes the one that appears to be coming from the fuselage? Maybe they fired up the APU to give it that little extra kick!!!
By: - 21st January 2005 at 10:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The APU provides no thrust what so ever.
By: - 21st January 2005 at 11:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was meant to be a joke, I have just not figured out how to use the emoticons yet. (I thought it was kinda humorous anyway).
By: - 21st January 2005 at 11:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I see
Posts: 4,674
By: Distiller - 20th January 2005 at 08:38
In tradition with their rather underpowered A340 Airbus designed the A380-800 with 4x 330kN engines. The MTOW is 570 to 590 metric tons, which results in a weight/power ratio of 4.0/4.2 to 1. That will result in rather slow climbouts. Why didn't they use decent power e.g. 4x 400kN? Are they afraid to miss their fuel consumption targets? With that power/weight ratio I think we'll hear the old story about Airbuses holding up Boeings that could go faster.