Flyin' high.

October 29, 2007 11:15 AM

Steve Bleach reviews the Airbus A380. In case you were wondering, there is no sex on the A380.
posted by backseatpilot (44 comments total)

There is champagne in the A380!
posted by GuyZero at 11:16 AM on October 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

The cockpit is pretty badass.
posted by Skorgu at 11:20 AM on October 29, 2007

Skorgu - Can you run Flight Simulator X on that?
posted by Artw at 11:29 AM on October 29, 2007

Whoa whoa whoa--let's keep this Safe for Singapore: PILOTpit.
posted by DU at 11:31 AM on October 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

Artw - Not yet, but I look forward to your ongoing blog porting it to INTEGRITY178B.
posted by Skorgu at 11:32 AM on October 29, 2007

From the description of the takeoff, I have to wonder if the jet is underpowered. I bet it has a terrible climb rate.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:33 AM on October 29, 2007

Takeoff: it just shouldn’t. It doesn’t seem credible that something this size should get into the air at all. Our takeoff weight today was 468 tonnes, which is the equivalent of 12 very surprised sperm whales.

Heh.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 11:35 AM on October 29, 2007

Guy Zero- now I have a song in my head I can't sing aloud at work!
posted by pointystick at 11:40 AM on October 29, 2007

These new mega airplanes are really interesting from a socio-economic point of view. I mean, flying is increasingly about flying cheaper and cheaper and cutting back on just about everything from meals to seats. So how popular will these new airplanes be? Who will afford flying in them?

And oh, you know that there will be a lot of sexing in those bed rooms. It's just a matter of time before celebrity inflight sex tapes start popping up.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 11:49 AM on October 29, 2007

Apparently the partitions on the Singapore Airlines planes only go up to about eye level, so I think you'd have to be pretty daring to get in on in those compartments.
posted by backseatpilot at 12:07 PM on October 29, 2007

From the description of the takeoff, I have to wonder if the jet is underpowered. I bet it has a terrible climb rate.

goddamn lefty european military-industrial complex can't engineer for shit
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:07 PM on October 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

I’ve always been pretty middle of the road, politically speaking. But whenever Gordon Brown deigns to call the next election, I’m voting Socialist Worker’s Party. Eight hours on a plane has turned me into a Marxist.
... it’s also the best advert for Bolshevism since the tsar said, “Stuff that Lenin chap, let’s build another palace.”

This is a bit silly. The Russians loved giant planes, giant space ships, etc. They always built their stuff bigger then us. In fact, the A380 is really a sort of government project, Airbus is in deep with the EU governments and they greatly subsidized it's production. It's as much a jobs program as it is an investment (like our space shuttle).

Now, certain air carriers are choosing to deck it out in luxury, but remember people are going to be stuck on this thing for intercontinental flights for like 20 hours and so on. If you want too, you can cram 800 some coach seats on the thing, very proletariat.

(I'm not saying socialism is bad, I like giant planes as much as the next guy, but I don't think you can really blame this plane on an excess of capitalism)
posted by delmoi at 12:09 PM on October 29, 2007

Holy crap! The wife is the hiphopopotamus in drag!
posted by bpm140 at 12:39 PM on October 29, 2007

When we were shown the first A380 back in 2003, we were promised the following: boutiques, self-service restaurants, duty-free shops, children’s play areas, casinos, pubs, libraries, gyms (with treadmills to prevent DVT), showers, 18-hole golf courses. (Okay, I made the last one up, but it was going that way.) So why am I sitting here, unexercised, unshowered and unshopped, with the nearest pub in the outback five miles down? Why do we only have a slightly better version of what every long-haul holidaymaker knows and loathes – rank upon rank of sardine-tin seats, with no room to circulate or socialise? Only one conclusion: they were having us on.

Oh, I remember when Airbus was rhapsodizing about the amazing new luxuries to be found upon the A380, the wine bars, the spas. And I also remember thinking, "Yeah right. They'll use all that extra room to pack even more seats in there. Airlines are gonna be paying these babies off for 30 years. Who are they kidding?" I get a little comfort from hearing that I was right. Usually I'm the optimistic type of sucker who would have fallen for the hype.
posted by contessa at 12:53 PM on October 29, 2007

some hi res photos
posted by vronsky at 12:59 PM on October 29, 2007

better link
posted by vronsky at 1:04 PM on October 29, 2007

How the space inside the plane is used is up to the airline, not Airbus. As the article says, Virgin still intends to have a casino on board.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:14 PM on October 29, 2007

From the description of the takeoff, I have to wonder if the jet is underpowered. I bet it has a terrible climb rate.

What, you want the takeoff to give you whiplash?
posted by casarkos at 1:20 PM on October 29, 2007

He couldn't sleep in economy? Poor baby. Who's economy can he sleep on? It's economy, if it was fun, it wouldn't be economy.
posted by Keith Talent at 1:26 PM on October 29, 2007

delmoi: This is a bit silly. The Russians loved giant planes, giant space ships, etc.

Oh, don't be a spoil-sport.

Anyway, they may have built big, but they didn't build 1920s-visionary sky-liners like the showcase A380 model.

And anyway, all this is just good fun. The real future of this plane is in hauling lots and lots of air freight.
posted by lodurr at 1:47 PM on October 29, 2007

Was there anyone who thought that the airlines would do anything with these other than wedge as many seats as possible in them?
posted by octothorpe at 1:58 PM on October 29, 2007

What, you want the takeoff to give you whiplash?

A rail gun perhaps?
posted by fluffycreature at 2:12 PM on October 29, 2007

What the LCDs are for.
posted by armoured-ant at 2:58 PM on October 29, 2007 [8 favorites]

First you stuff a Cessna into a DC-10, take the DC-10, stuff it into a 747, then you take the 747, and stuff it into the A380.

Bake at 4 million degrees for 72 hours.

Remove from heat. Let sit for 60 minutes.

Serve cold.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:10 PM on October 29, 2007 [4 favorites]

“From the description of the takeoff, I have to wonder if the jet is underpowered. I bet it has a terrible climb rate.”

You mean Airbus failed to consult with you when they designed the thing? I'm amazed.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:15 PM on October 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah!
posted by asok at 3:26 PM on October 29, 2007

armoured-ant, that's awesome.

Now when the pilot is mad that his LOLcat got deleted, he can ask his co-pilot to take it to MeTa.

Is there a third screen in the cockpit for...

AirlineFilter: How do I fly this damn thing? [more inside]
post by Your Pilot to travel & transportation at 6:42 PM - 0 answers +
posted by ALongDecember at 3:52 PM on October 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

I bet it has a terrible climb rate.

1) No profit in climb rate for passenger aircraft.

2) Big A/C climb slower than smaller ones

3) Four engined passenger A/C climb slower than two engine A/C. Why? Spare rule. A passenger A/C needs to be able to handle engine-out at takeoff and fly back safely. This means that Twinjets carry twice the power they need to take off. Quadjets don't need that much reserve, so they don't carry it.

4) No sense climbing fast if ATC has you capped in speed and altitude. Most busy airports will hold departing aircraft to 3-5000' above ground until they can get clear of the inbound traffic.

5) Climbing faster than you have to wastes money.
posted by eriko at 4:05 PM on October 29, 2007

@ALongDecember:
I can definitely see that thread happening in Virgin's A380. Except it wouldn't be posted to MetaFilter, it would be the pilot asking for flying instructions via the in-flight internal IM network.
posted by junesix at 4:08 PM on October 29, 2007

If this is really the most luxurious plane ever built, why am I still shoehorned into a 32in seat?

I think that statement says it all. The A380 is making the headlines as a wonder of the world, but when you come right down to it, us chumps in economy will simply be in a bigger sardine can.
posted by zek at 4:18 PM on October 29, 2007

I agree. The first thing that came to my mind when I thought of a bigger plane is those stereotypical commercials with the goat next to the man and the baby.
posted by ooklala at 4:26 PM on October 29, 2007

I'll stand for 8 hours if it makes the flight cheaper..
posted by romanb at 5:30 PM on October 29, 2007

Huh. Anyone else remember when 747s had piano lounges? The "bump" was the First Class lounge, but even Economy had a big ol' piano in the back (well padded around all the edges to protect lounge lizards during turbulence). A380 luxury liners will last about as long as those flying pianos.
posted by Quietgal at 6:58 PM on October 29, 2007

From the description of the takeoff, I have to wonder if the jet is underpowered. I bet it has a terrible climb rate.

Blah blah! Designed by commie Europeans!

Anyway, this is how we'll be flying in the damn things.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:16 PM on October 29, 2007

30 years on and we still can't get a Braniff!
posted by tellurian at 10:27 PM on October 29, 2007

1) No profit in climb rate for passenger aircraft.

No loss, either. The two are not related.

2) Big A/C climb slower than smaller ones

False. Rate of climb has nothing to do with size of aircraft. It has to do with thrust overcoming drag and lift overcoming gravity. Different aircraft have various specifications for Vx and Vy (best angle of climb airspeed, and best rate of climb airspeed.) Size has nothing to do with it.

3) Four engined passenger A/C climb slower than two engine A/C. Why? Spare rule. A passenger A/C needs to be able to handle engine-out at takeoff and fly back safely. This means that Twinjets carry twice the power they need to take off. Quadjets don't need that much reserve, so they don't carry it.

Also false. Utterly.

4) No sense climbing fast if ATC has you capped in speed and altitude. Most busy airports will hold departing aircraft to 3-5000' above ground until they can get clear of the inbound traffic.

No. Departures and Approaches are published ahead of time within the domain of airspace rules. In the US, most busy airports are in Class B airspace. It is the shape of the airspace and the "shelf" within it that determine appropriate altitudes and speeds.
posted by TeamBilly at 11:29 PM on October 29, 2007

TeamBilly, you're wrong in your refutations of his points #1 and #2.

“Size has nothing to do with it.”

Of course it does. It takes more energy to climb more quickly; the bigger the plane, the greater the mass. That energy comes in the form of engine thrust. Bigger planes need bigger engines and bigger planes need bigger engines to climb more rapidly. An airfoil design that maximizes climb rate is going to require more engine. TANSTAAFL.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:03 AM on October 30, 2007

I wonder if that couple from Perth is pissed off about all the journalists getting in the way of their expensive mile-high-club plan?
posted by jacalata at 5:11 AM on October 30, 2007

Wonderful links there Vronksy. That's about as close as I'm ever gonna get to sitting in these first class cabins.
posted by brautigan at 5:11 AM on October 30, 2007

TeamBilly, you're wrong in your refutations of his points #1 and #2.
“Size has nothing to do with it.”

No, I'm not.

Of course it does. It takes more energy to climb more quickly; the bigger the plane, the greater the mass. That energy comes in the form of engine thrust. Bigger planes need bigger engines and bigger planes need bigger engines to climb more rapidly. An airfoil design that maximizes climb rate is going to require more engine. TANSTAAFL.

Nope. His implication was that the rate of climb was lower because it was a larger aircraft. This is patently false. The number of engines and the rate of climb have NOTHING to do with the size of the aircraft. The amount of thrust produced DOES.

If the amount of thrust provided by two engines vs. four is adequate, then two engines it is. Thus, we have the Boeing 777. The A380 needs 4, but it has fuck all to do with rate of climb.

By the way - the airfoil does not maximize climb rate. The attitude of the aircraft does. Look up "pitch for airspeed, power for altitude." ANY aircraft, I don't care if it's a Cessna 152 or a B747 or an A380 has a specific attitude and power setting which result in Vx and Vy. This is aerodynamics 101.
posted by TeamBilly at 7:05 PM on October 30, 2007

I don't know where you took aerodynamics 101, but it was a crappy school. Unless you've never taken an aerodynamics class and you're just making shit up because you are a pilot or have some flight training. Of course the airfoil has everything to do with climb rate—saying that it doesn't is like saying that the airfoil has nothing to do with flight. What, you think that planes climb because of magic? Maybe you think it's the long, tubular structure that determines climb?

Quit mentioning Vx and Vy as if it means something to you.

In airplane aerodynamics, rate of climb is a function of excess power. Please read that again. And again. That means that rate of climb is directly related to the engines. If you are confused on this matter, here is something that may supplement your understanding of aerodynamics 101.

The heavier an object is, the more energy is required to lift it x number of feet into the air. The more quickly you lift an object x number of feet into the air, the more energy is required. For some energy expenditure over time y, lifting an object x feet, the rate of that lift, also called climb in this discussion, varies directly in an inverse relationship with the weight of the object, up until the energy expenditure is insufficient to lift the object at all.

Secondly, in aerodynamics, the design of the airfoil determines the lift at a given airspeed as well as the lift as the angle of attack varies during a climb.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:21 PM on October 30, 2007

TeamBilly: Seriously, WTF? This is junior high physics.
posted by lodurr at 6:22 AM on October 31, 2007

eb, lodurr - no need for hostility.

the physics you cite in the second paragraph are also correct of course - and I don't think anyone - myself included, would dispute that.

in retrospect, what I should have said, was "number of engines" rather than "engines have nothing to do with it." fair enough - mea culpa. but if someone says "more engines=greater rate of climb" it's not really a clear explanation of the issue. maybe I should have been less assertive in that regard. lesson learned.

as for my assertion on the airfoil's role in 'rate of climb' I made an assumption (perhaps unwisely) that he's talking about time to get to a specific altitude. and on a specific aircraft, the attitude used is going to determine how long that gets there.

relax, please, and forgive me for offending your sensibilities.

forgive me for offending your sensibilities, please.
posted by TeamBilly at 1:02 PM on November 3, 2007

'WTF' was meant to express incredulity, TeamBilly. I believe it was warranted. You've shown plenty of evidence in the past that you ought to be able to get the points, but you weren't getting them.

And at a design level, you're still not precisely correct about airfoils. If we take your response at face value, then there's no real climb-rate related reason for changes in airfoil design, and that's just not true.

Furthermore, the "more engines = greater rate of climb" followed an explanation in terms of cost-effectiveness why that was true for civilian airliners. It was quite clear in context that it wasn't intended as a statement about physics. It was a statement about design requirements for safety and cost effectiveness and how they were likely to affect rate of climb for a large airliner taking off from a commercial airfield. That was clear. Your response just had no bearing in that context.

Hence: WTF.
posted by lodurr at 6:15 AM on November 4, 2007