babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Rollout of the A380 on video

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Rollout of the A380 on video
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 16 April 2005 09:06 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have a look. Now if it flies as well as it drives, it's quite an impressive machine.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 16 April 2005 09:10 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Indeed, that is a very nice machine. I wonder how many people the more creative carriers will be able to cram into one?
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 16 April 2005 09:24 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The standard version is to seat 555, but apparently some seating configurations allow around 800. The thing I wonder, though, is whether the airlines will be able to fill those seats.

Incidentally, Airbus makes impressive claims about its fuel consumption:

quote:

In spite of its more powerful engines, the A380 will make less noise than its closest competitor, the Boeing 747. The noise dampening is thanks to new engine and wing technology, Airbus says. The company says the plane's fuel consumption will be 2.9 liters (0.76 gallon) per passenger per 100 kilometers (60 miles).


Source. If that's true, a fully loaded A380 will actually consume less fuel than if each person on board drove a Prius (4.4 L/100 km) to their destination... assuming that the seats are full.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
AppleSeed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8513

posted 16 April 2005 10:56 PM      Profile for AppleSeed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yep, it will definetly be cattle class. The economics of fuel. How much a gallon is it, anyway?
From: In Dreams | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
North Shore
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8029

posted 22 April 2005 03:16 PM      Profile for North Shore     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If that's true, a fully loaded A380 will actually consume less fuel than if each person on board drove a Prius (4.4 L/100 km) to their destination... assuming that the seats are full.

However, most people don't travel alone, they travel in pairs or bigger groups. All of a sudden our Prius turned into any other vehicle @ 8.8L/100 or a sport-ute @ 13L/100. Aeroplanes are a terribly fuel-inefficient way of travelling.

From: Victoriahhhh | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 22 April 2005 04:23 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not to mention more prone than a Prius to fall out of the sky, killing everyone on board after their last few seconds of shear terror, and requiring only sandwich bags for body part clean up.

Tommy "afraid of flying" Paine.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 22 April 2005 04:25 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The A380 looks like a flying pig on steroids.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 22 April 2005 04:35 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As a piece of Euro technology I suppose the two terror words will apply to it also:

British Engineering.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 22 April 2005 04:37 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by North Shore:
However, most people don't travel alone, they travel in pairs or bigger groups. All of a sudden our Prius turned into any other vehicle @ 8.8L/100 or a sport-ute @ 13L/100. Aeroplanes are a terribly fuel-inefficient way of travelling.

Well, fuel-efficiency for cars drops more substantially per extra passenger than it does for an aircraft, but your point is still valid.

When I can drive a minivan to Europe, I'll definitely stop flying.


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 22 April 2005 04:39 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
As a piece of Euro technology I suppose the two terror words will apply to it also:

British Engineering.



I suspect it would be much more terrifying if the in-flight catering was British.

I think the 380's wings are made in Wales...


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 22 April 2005 05:00 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by North Shore:

However, most people don't travel alone, they travel in pairs or bigger groups. All of a sudden our Prius turned into any other vehicle @ 8.8L/100 or a sport-ute @ 13L/100. Aeroplanes are a terribly fuel-inefficient way of travelling.

Well, actually it's more like this: four people in a Prius would consume 1.1 L/100 passenger kilometres, or in your SUV maybe 3.25 L/100 passenger km. So yeah, a fully loaded A380 would be less efficient than a fully loaded SUV.

Tommy_Paine is wrong, though, about the relative safety of the two modes of transportation. You're far more likely to die travelling by car than by plane. Sure, the chance of surviving a crash is greater in a car, but the chance of getting into a crash in the first place is greater still.

As regards the infamous British engineering, they seem to have done a better job with aircraft than cars... at least as regards reliability.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 22 April 2005 05:27 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by North Shore:

However, most people don't travel alone, they travel in pairs or bigger groups. All of a sudden our Prius turned into any other vehicle @ 8.8L/100 or a sport-ute @ 13L/100. Aeroplanes are a terribly fuel-inefficient way of travelling.


I don't know... I'm sure that in some places most people travel more than one to a car, but in downtown Vic, or Vancouver on the highways, most vehicles have one person in them. Whenever I'm in the HOV lanes across the straight, they are oddly half full when the other lanes are packed.

I agree about the international travel bit though- Most places I would take a plane to, you can't drive to. And, sailboats aside (because not everyone is cut out for that kind of travel) aren't boats pretty nasty for the environment too? I'm thinking specifically ocean-liner type travel, but smaller boats are probably not all that good in terms of sewage dumping and diesel use either.


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 22 April 2005 05:48 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In terms of the worst concern (CO2 production), ships ought to be better than planes, since producing lift produces drag, which must be overcome by burning more fuel. But then I did some googling. Here's some stats on the Queen Elizabeth 2:

Capacity: 1791 pax
Cruise speed: 25 - 28.5 kt = 46.3 - 52.3 km/h
Fuel consumption per hour: 18.05 tons. The website doesn't say whether they're long, short, or metric tons. I'll assume metric tons for these purposes (almost the same as long tons).
Density of diesel fuel: 0.87-1.0 g/cm3 at 20oC (source).
So, for simplicity's sake, let's assume a density of 1.0 g/cm3 and a speed of 50 km/h. That means 36.1 t/100 km, or 36,100 L/100 km. Fully loaded, that means 20.2 L/100 passenger kilometres- worse than almost any other vehicle.

Of course, a cruise ship like the QE2 probably doesn't carry nearly as many passengers as it could if the pax were packed in like those on an aircraft. But if they were, nobody'd buy a ticket.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 22 April 2005 09:25 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Tommy_Paine is wrong, though, about the relative safety of the two modes of transportation. You're far more likely to die travelling by car than by plane. Sure, the chance of surviving a crash is greater in a car, but the chance of getting into a crash in the first place is greater still."

Ya, but in a car you only die once, as opposed to dying a kajillion times during that two or three minute plung from 40,000 feet.

Yes, I am wrong about this, but my fear of flying isn't rational, so I am not bound by rational arguement in this case.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 22 April 2005 09:27 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok, fair enough. And then there's that comedian (whose name eludes me) who said, "I don't care what the odds are. I don't want to die with a bunch of tourists."
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 27 April 2005 05:21 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It flies.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 27 April 2005 05:40 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's big. Is that what they're going to call it, "The big Jet" ? No.... that's to simple....let me get my thesaurus out....let's see... another word for "big"...large....grand....huge...

Ah! here it is! "Titanic."


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
AppleSeed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8513

posted 27 April 2005 07:36 PM      Profile for AppleSeed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I predict it will not hit an Iceberg.

Everything about it's big though. Big target. Big Headlines, big, big, big.

Don't worry, Mr. Big is on his own private jet.

Me, I want a ticket on a smaller plane.


From: In Dreams | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 27 April 2005 07:50 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It *still* looks like a flying pig on steroids.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 28 April 2005 04:19 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well crap. I tried to link to an image. But it don't work.

Does anyone know of any video of the maiden flight?

[ 28 April 2005: Message edited by: verbatim ]


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 28 April 2005 06:36 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They musta been worried the thing was gonna crash 'cause the first crew was only skeletons apparently:

quote:
For Wednesday's test flight, though, only a skeleton crew of six was on board

Next time they'll use real people...


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca