FAO Flightman Re:A-380
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JackClark
It is a messy subject that I'm discussing elsewhere, your comments help, cheers.
I was taught that once off the ground there's no such thing as wind, only turbulence. For the aircraft to get of the floor it needs an air speed of 160 knots and will continue to climb no matter the wind speed felt on the ground... ahhhhgh I'm confusing myself again.
I was taught that once off the ground there's no such thing as wind, only turbulence. For the aircraft to get of the floor it needs an air speed of 160 knots and will continue to climb no matter the wind speed felt on the ground... ahhhhgh I'm confusing myself again.
There is no official speed at which any aircraft transitions from being a land vehicle to flight as there are any number of determining factors such as OAT which will effect air density, airfield elevation (the same), MTOW as determined by the actual fuel/pax load, RWY condition (if it's wet, wet, wet) for example as well as the head/cross wind component. In terms of climb performance other factors come into play such as local noise abatement procedures or more obviously the SID (Standard Instrument Departure) plus all of the aforementioned factors.
Flightman - the imminent arrival of the A-380 is most certainly about the aircraft's certification process, of which the infrastructure testing is part of. I suggest you speak to the CAA and look at how the CofA process works.
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flatcapdriver
Jack, the wind component is an essential part of the navigation element of route planning. Although wind generally 'veers' once you are clear of interruptions from the surface it is still wind, nonetheless. Once you get into the jet streams above say, FL30, then you are still subject to the wind element. Turbulence is generally a factor at lower altitudes (CAT excepting) due to the proximity of the earth and it's effect on the wind as it encounters the land and 'backs'.
There is no official speed at which any aircraft transitions from being a land vehicle to flight as there are any number of determining factors such as OAT which will effect air density, airfield elevation (the same), MTOW as determined by the actual fuel/pax load, RWY condition (if it's wet, wet, wet) for example as well as the head/cross wind component. In terms of climb performance other factors come into play such as local noise abatement procedures or more obviously the SID (Standard Instrument Departure) plus all of the aforementioned factors.
Flightman - the imminent arrival of the A-380 is most certainly about the aircraft's certification process, of which the infrastructure testing is part of. I suggest you speak to the CAA and look at how the CofA process works.
There is no official speed at which any aircraft transitions from being a land vehicle to flight as there are any number of determining factors such as OAT which will effect air density, airfield elevation (the same), MTOW as determined by the actual fuel/pax load, RWY condition (if it's wet, wet, wet) for example as well as the head/cross wind component. In terms of climb performance other factors come into play such as local noise abatement procedures or more obviously the SID (Standard Instrument Departure) plus all of the aforementioned factors.
Flightman - the imminent arrival of the A-380 is most certainly about the aircraft's certification process, of which the infrastructure testing is part of. I suggest you speak to the CAA and look at how the CofA process works.
The world's largest commercial airliner, the 555 seat Airbus A380, will make its British debut when it flies into London's Heathrow Airport on 18th May 2006, to carry out airport compatibility checks in conjunction with airport operator British Airports Authority (BAA). London Heathrow is likely to be the A380's first European destination when it enters scheduled service.
The aircraft, powered by four Rolls Royce Trent 900 engines, will be parking at Heathrow's new Pier 6 at Terminal 3. The 280 metre long, three-storey high pier, has aircraft stands to accommodate up to four A380s at a time and four gate-rooms which together seat 2,200 passengers. The facilities are designed to handle both very large aircraft and smaller aircraft types.
So, its coming in to test airport compatability. To you thats part of the certification process. To me, its testing the airports infrastructure. Probably different sides of the same point, wouldn't you say?
#33
Scooby Senior
Originally Posted by Flatcapdriver
Jack, the wind component is an essential part of the navigation element of route planning.
Thanks for the extra info though, I'd say that from the discussion here and elsewhere that wind direction does not increase your climb rate. It's a difficult one to get your head around as we're land based in the main.
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JackClark
Absolutely, I fly a very slow aircraft, the wind component today would mean I go with the wind or fly backwards and that's not a bundle of laughs.
Thanks for the extra info though, I'd say that from the discussion here and elsewhere that wind direction does not increase your climb rate. It's a difficult one to get your head around as we're land based in the main.
Thanks for the extra info though, I'd say that from the discussion here and elsewhere that wind direction does not increase your climb rate. It's a difficult one to get your head around as we're land based in the main.
Are you referring to angle of climb or rate of climb because you need to get your head round those first?
#35
Scooby Senior
Originally Posted by Flatcapdriver
Jack, what are you flying - a Harvard or Cub? I've flown backwards in a Cub, which was a hoot!
#39
Scooby Senior
Originally Posted by Flatcapdriver
Now I remember. We had a convo about Air Law some months ago. What it the TAS on that? Wind speed looks as if it could be critical!
I like to fly in zero wind, but you have to run like buggery to get off the ground.
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: No longer Japan !
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlightMan
Not sure. AFAIK LHR is the only UK airport with taxi-ways strong enough to take it.
That equates to 9415 ft. So by my quick calcs, the following airports could handle a maximum weight takeoff in hot conditions:-
London Heathrow
London Gatwick
London Stanstead
Manchester
East Midlands
Preswick
Campletown !
Boscombe Down & Brize Norton could also handle an aircraft of that size.
Don't forget that the centre undercarriage has 6 wheel bogies so even though it's a bigger, heavier aircraft, the load per tyre may not be much different, if anything, to a fully loaded 747-400.
#41
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Passing ...............
Posts: 13,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brit_in_Japan
"The take-off length is 2,900m at maximum weight at sea level, ISA +15° conditions."
That equates to 9415 ft. So by my quick calcs, the following airports could handle a maximum weight takeoff in hot conditions:-
London Heathrow
London Gatwick
London Stanstead
Manchester
East Midlands
Preswick
Campletown !
Boscombe Down & Brize Norton could also handle an aircraft of that size.
Don't forget that the centre undercarriage has 6 wheel bogies so even though it's a bigger, heavier aircraft, the load per tyre may not be much different, if anything, to a fully loaded 747-400.
That equates to 9415 ft. So by my quick calcs, the following airports could handle a maximum weight takeoff in hot conditions:-
London Heathrow
London Gatwick
London Stanstead
Manchester
East Midlands
Preswick
Campletown !
Boscombe Down & Brize Norton could also handle an aircraft of that size.
Don't forget that the centre undercarriage has 6 wheel bogies so even though it's a bigger, heavier aircraft, the load per tyre may not be much different, if anything, to a fully loaded 747-400.
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brit_in_Japan
"The take-off length is 2,900m at maximum weight at sea level, ISA +15° conditions."
That equates to 9415 ft. So by my quick calcs, the following airports could handle a maximum weight takeoff in hot conditions:-
London Heathrow
London Gatwick
London Stanstead
Manchester
East Midlands
Preswick
Campletown !
Boscombe Down & Brize Norton could also handle an aircraft of that size.
Don't forget that the centre undercarriage has 6 wheel bogies so even though it's a bigger, heavier aircraft, the load per tyre may not be much different, if anything, to a fully loaded 747-400.
That equates to 9415 ft. So by my quick calcs, the following airports could handle a maximum weight takeoff in hot conditions:-
London Heathrow
London Gatwick
London Stanstead
Manchester
East Midlands
Preswick
Campletown !
Boscombe Down & Brize Norton could also handle an aircraft of that size.
Don't forget that the centre undercarriage has 6 wheel bogies so even though it's a bigger, heavier aircraft, the load per tyre may not be much different, if anything, to a fully loaded 747-400.
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brit_in_Japan
"The take-off length is 2,900m at maximum weight at sea level, ISA +15° conditions."
That equates to 9415 ft. So by my quick calcs, the following airports could handle a maximum weight takeoff in hot conditions:-
London Heathrow
London Gatwick
London Stanstead
Manchester
East Midlands
Preswick
Campletown !
Boscombe Down & Brize Norton could also handle an aircraft of that size.
Don't forget that the centre undercarriage has 6 wheel bogies so even though it's a bigger, heavier aircraft, the load per tyre may not be much different, if anything, to a fully loaded 747-400.
That equates to 9415 ft. So by my quick calcs, the following airports could handle a maximum weight takeoff in hot conditions:-
London Heathrow
London Gatwick
London Stanstead
Manchester
East Midlands
Preswick
Campletown !
Boscombe Down & Brize Norton could also handle an aircraft of that size.
Don't forget that the centre undercarriage has 6 wheel bogies so even though it's a bigger, heavier aircraft, the load per tyre may not be much different, if anything, to a fully loaded 747-400.
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flatcapdriver
I wouldn't call ISA hot condtions as they are only a benchmark, especially given the pressure at 1013mb at sea level to some extent are irrelevant here. As Flightman says, the issue is not of RWY length but more importantly the taxiways which not only have to have sufficient strength to take this aircraft but also have larger radius turns (increased length) and width. As far as I know, the only other UK airport that will take this aircraft in the plans is LGW with STN probably still the 'official' airfield for hijackings, especially as it takes those Antonovs on a regular basis.
Not heard anything official about STN tho.
#45
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
I thought it didn't really matter with planes of that size.
Wasn't Doncaster opened already able to take it?
Last edited by ^Qwerty^; 30 April 2006 at 08:10 PM.
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: No longer Japan !
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flatcapdriver
I wouldn't call ISA hot condtions as they are only a benchmark, especially given the pressure at 1013mb at sea level to some extent are irrelevant here. As Flightman says, the issue is not of RWY length but more importantly the taxiways which not only have to have sufficient strength to take this aircraft but also have larger radius turns (increased length) and width. As far as I know, the only other UK airport that will take this aircraft in the plans is LGW with STN probably still the 'official' airfield for hijackings, especially as it takes those Antonovs on a regular basis.
The A380 has steerable bogies, so maybe manouvrability on the ground is not such a big issue? Given the larger footprint of the undercarriage, will the pressure on the taxi ways be any different to a fully loaded 747 or Antonov? Probably not. As for full up weight, do you have any info on A380 vs 747-400 vs Antonov ?
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Settle, Cheshire, Istanbul
Posts: 1,429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hells bells.... just watching some of those cross wind landings
It's the 3rd landing on this http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...swind_edit.wmv one which amazes me. Looks like it's coming straight for the spectators !
It's the 3rd landing on this http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...swind_edit.wmv one which amazes me. Looks like it's coming straight for the spectators !
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlightMan
Spot on mate. LGW is the official divert airfield. Although no pier facilities have been built there yet, so its a "long ladder" job!
Not heard anything official about STN tho.
Not heard anything official about STN tho.
You also have to bear in mind, that airport infrastructure is not just about the RWY/TXWY's ability to take the weight of the aircraft or the width. There is also various bits of architecture to worry about in terms of wing tip clearance, flight lines would also have to be altered to take into account the length and apron space is also at a premium.
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brit_in_Japan
ISA + 15°C = 30°C, which is towards the upper end of temperatures usually seen in the UK. For a transatlantic hop they wouldn't need to brim it with fuel, so wouldn't need to be anywhere near max take off weight. For longer flights then they'll be needing all the fuel they can and will be using all the runway they can !
The A380 has steerable bogies, so maybe manouvrability on the ground is not such a big issue? Given the larger footprint of the undercarriage, will the pressure on the taxi ways be any different to a fully loaded 747 or Antonov? Probably not. As for full up weight, do you have any info on A380 vs 747-400 vs Antonov ?
The A380 has steerable bogies, so maybe manouvrability on the ground is not such a big issue? Given the larger footprint of the undercarriage, will the pressure on the taxi ways be any different to a fully loaded 747 or Antonov? Probably not. As for full up weight, do you have any info on A380 vs 747-400 vs Antonov ?
A380 versus Boeing 747
A 380- 800 Boeing B 747- 400 Overall length 73,0 m 70,7 m Overall height 24,1 m 19,4 m Wingspan 79,8 m 64,4 m Max. take off weight 560 t 397 t Range 14.800 km 13.450 km Passenger Load 555 390
#52
Scooby Regular
It's Stansted, not Stanstead. They land at Stanstead, slight problem as it's a small village about 20 miles away
Not seen an AN222 or IL76 at STN for a while now.
Not seen an AN222 or IL76 at STN for a while now.
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: No longer Japan !
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, I see what you mean, wingspan and max take off weight are definitely a step up from the 747. I look forward to seeing it at Filton in a few weeks.
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave T-S
It's Stansted, not Stanstead. They land at Stanstead, slight problem as it's a small village about 20 miles away
Not seen an AN222 or IL76 at STN for a while now.
Not seen an AN222 or IL76 at STN for a while now.
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flatcapdriver
You're right. I'm more used to ICAO codes. There was a fooking big Antonov coming out of EGSS a few weeks months ago that scared the hell out of me. Looked like wake turbulence could be an issue from ten miles away.
#56
Scooby Regular
AN222 is a scary lumbering old bus, or anything previous Russian federation for that matter! I remember flying in to EGSS in the jump seat of a Go 737 (when it was still allowed) several years back and as we were approaching 23L threshhold there was an IL76 inching its way on the taxiway towards the end of the runway. I think all three of us were thinking the same thing - stop and stay where you are you bugger!
Given that there will be, in relative terms, not that many superheavies such as the A380 in service horizontal separation in the context of airway use shouldn't be that much of an issue.
Given that there will be, in relative terms, not that many superheavies such as the A380 in service horizontal separation in the context of airway use shouldn't be that much of an issue.
#57
Pontificating
Thread Starter
B-707 Inverted
Originally Posted by Blackscooby
Hells bells.... just watching some of those cross wind landings
It's the 3rd landing on this http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...swind_edit.wmv one which amazes me. Looks like it's coming straight for the spectators !
It's the 3rd landing on this http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...swind_edit.wmv one which amazes me. Looks like it's coming straight for the spectators !
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/707_roll_video.htm
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Funkii Munkii
This has always impressed me, I kniow there is also footage taken from inside the a/c itself but I cant find it, saw it on TV years ago and it has always stuck with me as a most impressive piece of flying.
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/707_roll_video.htm
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/707_roll_video.htm
#59
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4987862.stm
The best place is going to be from the Mall ,cribbs causeway ,walk across the dual carrigeway opp wh smith/M+S end....A38 will be jam packed with no- where to park ,saw concord's last return from there with thousands of more of us bristol folk
The best place is going to be from the Mall ,cribbs causeway ,walk across the dual carrigeway opp wh smith/M+S end....A38 will be jam packed with no- where to park ,saw concord's last return from there with thousands of more of us bristol folk