Discussion
Just to set the scene, pre-comment...
I love planes and aircraft me...but apart from having fixed-wing experience with me old man and some of his Captain mates flying around in silly things like Cessnas when I was young...plus a couple of my own introductory pleasure flights...and some well-jammy hours as a pax in ropey old Bell 206's...basically my flying and aircraft experience is definitely that of 'enthusiastic but stupid' amateur
Most fixed-wing stuff still gives me 'the awe', whether military or commercial. Air shows give me 'the feels' too - in fact, if anything, seeing large commercial stuff do things that you wouldn't normally see are definitely more exciting than watching military craft do stuff that you would expect - know what I mean?
I understand the basic 'laws and science' of aviation, love flying whatever aircraft I am lucky enough to get into - and am a general all-round enthusiast.
I've spent time (but not so much as to be a 'nerd') at airports watching stuff come in / go out.
They're all great to watch: but I think there's something that's impressive a few notches above everything else to see, and that is a 747.
Whether as a 'heavy' taking off using loads of runway somewhere - seeing the huge wings flex as they take up the lift to get the thing airbourne; or when one is coming in to land, with all the gear out looking like huge birds' claws waiting for the ground - with full slats and flaps out too giving the aircraft an appearance of something totally amazing..? All happening at a speed that appears (from the ground) to be waaay too slow for such a huge thing to be doing that!
But anyway, sorry for the soft-focus tangent"! The point of the thread is - that usually, for the most part, aircraft that are designed right and fly right, also 'look right' if you know what I mean? Even 747's with all their slats and flaps extended somehow 'look right' in that configuration, despite being so big?
So why is it that every time I see an A380, I just cannot rationalise the look of the thing? Yes, they've been flying without incident since introduction (ok, apart from the blown Trent 1000) and I was watching a programme about the Emirates aircraft where the chief pilot said they are a dream to fly....despite ALL that, to me, they just look...totally wrong in every way, every proportion, every angle?
A truly ugly, ungainly, horrendous looking aircraft - in my opinion of course. But just doesn't look like it's got any right to fly, let alone fly in a graceful and complimentary manner.
Do ya know what I mean?
Yeah I know, cool story bro - but just wondered if others thought the same way, or if I am just being a tit?
I love planes and aircraft me...but apart from having fixed-wing experience with me old man and some of his Captain mates flying around in silly things like Cessnas when I was young...plus a couple of my own introductory pleasure flights...and some well-jammy hours as a pax in ropey old Bell 206's...basically my flying and aircraft experience is definitely that of 'enthusiastic but stupid' amateur
Most fixed-wing stuff still gives me 'the awe', whether military or commercial. Air shows give me 'the feels' too - in fact, if anything, seeing large commercial stuff do things that you wouldn't normally see are definitely more exciting than watching military craft do stuff that you would expect - know what I mean?
I understand the basic 'laws and science' of aviation, love flying whatever aircraft I am lucky enough to get into - and am a general all-round enthusiast.
I've spent time (but not so much as to be a 'nerd') at airports watching stuff come in / go out.
They're all great to watch: but I think there's something that's impressive a few notches above everything else to see, and that is a 747.
Whether as a 'heavy' taking off using loads of runway somewhere - seeing the huge wings flex as they take up the lift to get the thing airbourne; or when one is coming in to land, with all the gear out looking like huge birds' claws waiting for the ground - with full slats and flaps out too giving the aircraft an appearance of something totally amazing..? All happening at a speed that appears (from the ground) to be waaay too slow for such a huge thing to be doing that!
But anyway, sorry for the soft-focus tangent"! The point of the thread is - that usually, for the most part, aircraft that are designed right and fly right, also 'look right' if you know what I mean? Even 747's with all their slats and flaps extended somehow 'look right' in that configuration, despite being so big?
So why is it that every time I see an A380, I just cannot rationalise the look of the thing? Yes, they've been flying without incident since introduction (ok, apart from the blown Trent 1000) and I was watching a programme about the Emirates aircraft where the chief pilot said they are a dream to fly....despite ALL that, to me, they just look...totally wrong in every way, every proportion, every angle?
A truly ugly, ungainly, horrendous looking aircraft - in my opinion of course. But just doesn't look like it's got any right to fly, let alone fly in a graceful and complimentary manner.
Do ya know what I mean?
Yeah I know, cool story bro - but just wondered if others thought the same way, or if I am just being a tit?
Not with you with this one I'm afraid, watching the enormous things take off is fantastic. They make it look very graceful.
My girlfriend didn't appreciate me excitedly pointing out the numerous flaps on the wings operating independent of one another when we were landing in one last year for some reason, possibly didn't appreciate the engineering that had gone into it.
My girlfriend didn't appreciate me excitedly pointing out the numerous flaps on the wings operating independent of one another when we were landing in one last year for some reason, possibly didn't appreciate the engineering that had gone into it.
I agree that the A380s proportions are odd. It is significantly shorter than a 777-300, but has much larger wings, so the body seems too short in relation to the wingspan and wing area.
The reason for this is that when the A380 was designed, it was anticipated that there would be demand for even bigger 'stretch' versions, so the wings were designed to accommodate this. That demand didn't materialise, so the stretch versions were never built, and there are no current plans to build them.
The current A380-800 version therefore has more wing than it really needs, which produces huge amounts of lift, but means that the aircraft is somewhat overweight.
Takeoff performance :
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U7F0JD84hmI&deskt...
The reason for this is that when the A380 was designed, it was anticipated that there would be demand for even bigger 'stretch' versions, so the wings were designed to accommodate this. That demand didn't materialise, so the stretch versions were never built, and there are no current plans to build them.
The current A380-800 version therefore has more wing than it really needs, which produces huge amounts of lift, but means that the aircraft is somewhat overweight.
Takeoff performance :
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U7F0JD84hmI&deskt...
Bradgate said:
I agree that the A380s proportions are odd. It is significantly shorter than a 777-300, but has much larger wings, so the body seems too short in relation to the wingspan and wing area.
The reason for this is that when the A380 was designed, it was anticipated that there would be demand for even bigger 'stretch' versions, so the wings were designed to accommodate this. That demand didn't materialise, so the stretch versions were never built, and there are no current plans to build them.
The current A380-800 version therefore has more wing than it really needs, which produces huge amounts of lift, but means that the aircraft is somewhat overweight.
Takeoff performance :
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U7F0JD84hmI&deskt...
Similar thing with the 747-100 really. It looks...odd.The reason for this is that when the A380 was designed, it was anticipated that there would be demand for even bigger 'stretch' versions, so the wings were designed to accommodate this. That demand didn't materialise, so the stretch versions were never built, and there are no current plans to build them.
The current A380-800 version therefore has more wing than it really needs, which produces huge amounts of lift, but means that the aircraft is somewhat overweight.
Takeoff performance :
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U7F0JD84hmI&deskt...
Cyder said:
I'm intrigued by this so called soul people mention, as an engineer it means nothing to me when I hear it in relation to cars or aircraft. Can someone elaborate on what exactly they mean by soul?
It's a certain je ne sais quoi.Are you totally emotionless when seeing a classic Ferrari or Spitfire aircraft?
It looks the way it does because of physics. It handles like a dream because the people who programmed the fly by wire did a good job, very little to do with the shape i suspect.
I take the point about the wing being intended for up to a 650 ton MTOW but the shorter version was always going to have the same wing. Being over winged make the take off rather unexciting(at least on a near empty one it does) it just seems to float off the ground.
Having done long haul in cattle class on all the western long haul types i can confidently say it is the pick of the bunch in terms of comfort.
I take the point about the wing being intended for up to a 650 ton MTOW but the shorter version was always going to have the same wing. Being over winged make the take off rather unexciting(at least on a near empty one it does) it just seems to float off the ground.
Having done long haul in cattle class on all the western long haul types i can confidently say it is the pick of the bunch in terms of comfort.
thehawk said:
Cyder said:
I'm intrigued by this so called soul people mention, as an engineer it means nothing to me when I hear it in relation to cars or aircraft. Can someone elaborate on what exactly they mean by soul?
It's a certain je ne sais quoi.Are you totally emotionless when seeing a classic Ferrari or Spitfire aircraft?
I should point out that I think the A380 looks pretty good head on or from behind, but side on I'm not keen on the proportions.
Cyder said:
No, I fully appreciate styling lines and proportions. But soul is a strange way of wording it.
I should point out that I think the A380 looks pretty good head on or from behind, but side on I'm not keen on the proportions.
Not sure what other word to use, I mean Jeremy Clarkson describes things as having soul in one of his books - Concorde etc. I think it means something that transcends just functionality, maybe through design or performance. A Toyota Corolla is a miracle of modern engineering, made in the millions and will virtually never break down - but completely soul-less.I should point out that I think the A380 looks pretty good head on or from behind, but side on I'm not keen on the proportions.
The A380 just seems like a functional double-decker bus of an aircraft designed by a committee. There is no beauty or flair to it, even though it too is an engineering marvel. I think an A340-600 or A330 looks nicer.
The other aspect of course is history, The 747 has an iconic shape and has been around 40 years, it's associated with intercontinental travel with nearly all on the big carriers who used to, until recently, had it as their flagship model - BA, Lufthansa, JAL, Qantas, Air NZ, PanAm, TWA, United, Air France, Singapore Air, Thai, Cathay Pacific etc.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff