It is comong, A380 in Chicago

Its too far for me, obviously. Someone take pictures!
 
Sounds like a smack at Boeing- aren't they based in Chicago now?
 
Give it time. The French will retreat on this invasion, too! :)
 
smigaldi said:
Yes, Chicago is now home to Boeing. No manufacturing here though
Click to expand...

No 500 jobs they promised either, but they still get to not have to pay taxes - even state income taxes for the bosses - for another 15 years.
 
Ahh, I thought they were based in Seattle, my bad.
 
I watched it coming inbound (on radar, of course). Extra miles in trail required for wake turbulence.
 
I saw the video of one 380 landing in LA. It looked pretty dicey. There were a couple of yawing sways that made me wonder if it was going to ground loop .
As far as it being "too" big, I initially considered that to be an over-simplification. In hindsight, maybe that is the reality. It is just too big to be supported by the main gear.
Structurally, there is no way for the behemoth to remain stable after touchdown. The gear would have to be made of a much different (and heavier) material to be able to be trimmed in size to remain stable after landing.
Of course, I have no idea what I am talking about. :goofy:
ApacheBob
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
How many extra in trail miles as compared say to a 747-400 or an AN121?
Click to expand...
10 miles. Of course, you have to protect 12 miles around me in the IFR system, but that is because of flatulence.:)
ApacheBob
 
I knew that would surface here. Thanks for that. I love the way the wings sag when it touches down.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Has anybody other than Lufthansa even ordered one of those things yet?
Click to expand...
Singapore Airlines has the first order. Due in October with commercial operation by the end of 2007.
 
It did create a traffic jam on Irving Park rd.Heard on Freq: "United XXX cleared for take off 9L" "Tower, can we wait for the big stupid airbus ? Oh, allright!"
Those choppers ( 6 of 'em) were at least 3 miles away. That camera on that thing (news chopper 5) is amazing.
 

Attachments

  • 100_0287.JPG
    100_0287.JPG
    747.8 KB · Views: 33
mikea said:
"It will need 3000 feet to land...." :hairraise:
Click to expand...
Didn't he say 3000 meters? Now I need to go back and watch it again!
Confirmed, 3000 meters, not feet. But don't forget, it's huge!
 
Last edited:
Man I would not want to be piloting that aircraft.
 
ApacheBob said:
I saw the video of one 380 landing in LA. It looked pretty dicey. There were a couple of yawing sways that made me wonder if it was going to ground loop .
As far as it being "too" big, I initially considered that to be an over-simplification. In hindsight, maybe that is the reality. It is just too big to be supported by the main gear.
Structurally, there is no way for the behemoth to remain stable after touchdown. The gear would have to be made of a much different (and heavier) material to be able to be trimmed in size to remain stable after landing.
Of course, I have no idea what I am talking about. :goofy:
ApacheBob
Click to expand...

http://video.nbc5.com/player/?id=83529

Looked pretty stable to me there.
 
ApacheBob said:
I saw the video of one 380 landing in LA. It looked pretty dicey. There were a couple of yawing sways that made me wonder if it was going to ground loop .
Click to expand...

Give me a break. :mad:

As far as it being "too" big, I initially considered that to be an over-simplification. In hindsight, maybe that is the reality. It is just too big to be supported by the main gear.
Click to expand...

Huh???

Structurally, there is no way for the behemoth to remain stable after touchdown. The gear would have to be made of a much different (and heavier) material to be able to be trimmed in size to remain stable after landing.
Click to expand...

What the heck are you talking about?

Of course, I have no idea what I am talking about. :goofy:
ApacheBob
Click to expand...

You are probably right.
 
smigaldi said:
That vid is of the Chicago landing, Bob was talking about the LA one.
Click to expand...

I know. But I had a video of the Chicago one right there which made it very clear that the gear work fine. His post made it sound like the Airbus engineers were absolutely idiots and built a plane that is going to ground loop on landing.
 
jesse said:
I know. But I had a video of the Chicago one right there which made it very clear that the gear work fine. His post made it sound like the Airbus engineers were absolutely idiots and built a plane that is going to ground loop on landing.
Click to expand...

Okie Dokie, Bob owns stock in Boeing I think ;)
 
I'm listening to JFK tower as I usually in the afternoon. I just heard the following exchange at about 1652 EDT.

Aircraft: Is that new Airbus anywhere near us?

Tower: Yeah, it's right off to your right, there.

Aircraft: It must be stealth!

It's so huge, ya gotta be blind to miss it. :D
 
The LA Landing wasn't pretty, but it wasn't ghastly either. As far as "nearing groundloop"?
:rofl:

BTW - the Chicago landing was just as "bad" as the LA one, just from a different angle (watch closely, it does the same gyrations, but you're looking at it from the side). There is nothing that appears unsafe about that plane though.

edit: ya know, except the fly by wire stuff. :D
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
I bet a whole lot of money that your steering is still direct linkage though.
Click to expand...
Hey, I may fly an airplane where I can't see jack outside the cockpit but I'm no fool! I'm still gonna have nosewheel steering! :D
 
I sincerely hope that it never ground loops. All those gyrations weren't imagination. But I gladly defer to your PhD in Structural Engineering.
ApacheBob
 
Is it even possible to ground loop an airplane with 20+ main wheels and a couple of nosewheels?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top