The A380 is such an ugly plane.

>>1043937
I'm really just wondering when they'll announce that they're stopping production. I think the gap at current production rates is coming before the end of the decade and cutting production could undercut the program's operating income.

The 747-8 isn't really in a better position. They only thing is has going for it is a recent large order from UPS and the possibility of a rebounding cargo aircraft market. But it's ultimately screwed as well.

File: A350.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1043937
it is an visually ugly plane, i agree with you, and goddamn im not an airbus guy either. but im not glad its not selling. its still a majestic thing and that alone makes it beautiful.

im "working" at one of the biggest airports nearly every day, and watching an A380 take of is a glorious sight everytime.

>>1043937
It's ugly I guess if you prefer speedy fast looking jets, but it's like watching a giant flying cruise ship when it takes off. It's pretty fucking impressive, and the fact that it looks so fucking heavy and massive and ugly makes it all the more incredible watching it lift it's bulk off the runway.

>>1044006
I am guessing that A380-1000 would have look better in that respect

File: 797 patent.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1043937

On a related note, the Boeing 797 is apparently going to look like this. Note the mid mounted wing to accommodate ground clearance for the two massive engines. Consequently, some rows on the bottom deck will not have window seats.

>>1044169
>797

I wonder who is building engines that big.

>>1044169
Calling bullshit on that.

>>1044169
Patent drawing != going to be built. It's just an idea.

Boeing's current roadmap lays out a replacement for 737 series in the 2030 timeframe. Any 747/777 replacement that's not just an upgrade of the existing airframe designs would be after that, likely in the 2040-2050 timeframe - so any currently available drawings of what "it" will look like are wishful thinking.

>>1044169
Next Boeing new design will be in between 787-7 and 737 MAX 9.

>>1044169
this is bullshit. engines with a diameter that big are unefficient.

and holy shit, the A380 looks like a beauty queen compared to that monstrosity

>>1044169
>>1044202
It's a patent drawing.

>>1044169
797 will either be MoM or NSA

File: its_beautiful.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1043937

For a big jet, she is beautiful.

>>1044213
what the hell is a patent drawing?

>>1044169

Funny how flight sim enthusiasts came up with a better design than that abomination.

IMO double-decker twinjets aren't a bad idea and can probably mop the floor with the A380 over operating costs.

File: Boeing_700_Concept.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1044871

Forgot pic.

>>1044871
thats because you dont know shit about engines

File: GE9X on a truck.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1044202
>engines with a diameter that big are unefficient.
Current trends as well as momentum theory both suggest otherwise.

>>1045069
current trends arent trends, they just put it to the maximum. there is a point where a bigger fan/engine becomes less efficient than two, a little less huge engines.

>>1044246
A drawing used to illustrate some new patent concept when filing those patent.

>>1045102
thanks

how the fuck is this worthy of a patent?
>look, we drew an A380 with 2 engines. pls patent dis.

>>1045111
That is not what being patented http://www.seattlepi.com/mount-rainier/article/Boeing-patents-design-for-double-decker-mid-wing-3720456.php

>>1045121
thats actually smart but, goddamn, i dont think its patentworthy either.

>>1045123
Reminder that even swipe to unlock is patentable

>>1045124
cmon nigga
>we put our wings higher up, give us patent now

>>1045101
4 meters

Next jumbo should be BwB.

First class gets the few actual window seats.

Business gets edges where there are no windowsurprises.

Coach gets seats in the middle and rear.

>>1044202
Larger engines are more efficient, fact.

Also economies of scale makes two large engines cheaper than four smaller ones.

>>1045234
>Larger engines are more efficient, fact.
as i said before, that works until youre at a certain point, and then it doesnt work anymore.

>>1045101
>current trends arent trends
Yes, they are.
>there is a point where a bigger fan/engine becomes less efficient than two, a little less huge engines.
First of all, no. And second of all, that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the continued growth of bypass ratios.

I'm not saying that there is NO optimum like what you're referring to, where the costs of increasing bypass ratio and decreasing specific thrust (particularly weight, mechanical complexity and various forms of parasite drag) begin to outpace the benefits (mainly, less kinetic losses from exhaust velocity). But what I'm saying is that we're not there yet, or IF we are, it's only because of limitations of modern engineering, and gradual advances are progressively allowing larger, higher-bypass, more-efficient engines.
>>1045121
>>1045111
>>1044169
Why wouldn't they use a high-wing like cargo lifters do?

>>1045234
Economies of scale make making less items cheaper?
Wut.
I mean what you said is probably true but it's not because of economies of scale.

>>1045668
Economies of scale meaning that for two engines you don't need as much auxiliary equipment or material as four.

>>1045676
That's not what economies of scales means. Don't use terms you don't understand.

>>1045660
>First of all, no.
yes.
>I was referring to the continued growth of bypass ratios.
you can force a turbine to power a huge fan, but just as the size of the einges itself, it has its boundaries. the max we have atm is what, like 10:1? at some point, you have to make the high pressure core bigger as well or it wont be able to power the fan efficiently. and at some point you will have supersonic fanblades, which is shit, and not efficient at all.

>>1045384
The point where larger engines arnt efficient anymore is >10m diameter

File: united-states-of-america.jpg (485KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 1024x768px

>>1043937
I concur. Its greatest flaw is being European.
It would be great if it was Boeing.

>>1044872

Aside from engine ground clearance, that's not a bad idea.

>>1045727
good pedants tell misusers how to use correctly, anon

>>1045660
>Why wouldn't they use a high-wing like cargo lifters do?
1) Wingbox intrudes into the passenger compartment, instead of the cargo compartment. Of course, this is a problem with midwing designs like >>1044169 as well. With a double-decker aircraft that have so many passengers you're going to have multiple jetways anyway, it may be an acceptable compromise.

2) Engine noise - this is the big one. There's no wing between the engines and the fuselage. Military cargo lifters are LOUD inside, and it's not just because they've declined to insulate the fuselage as much.

Oh, and the turbine discs go through the fuselage if you blow an engine and the engine housing fails to contain the parts.

The high wing design is good for so many reasons - lower fuselage is easier to load and unload cargo, engines are higher up and less prone to ingesting runway debris, shorter landing gear is stronger, lighter, and easier to retract... The only structural downside is you need a tall T-tail to keep the horizontal stabilizer out of the wing's wake at high AOA. If it were possible to build commercial airliners that way, companies would do it. But passengers would HATE flying on them due to the noise.

>>1048267
Economy of scale means that the unit cost goes down as the rate of production goes up.

It does not fucking mean that the larger the object being built, the cheaper it is or that the larger the object, the more efficiently it works.

5 seconds of Googling the term would have informed you of that you miserable fucking cunt.

>>1048275
>When more units of a good or a service can be produced on a larger scale, yet with (on average) less input costs,economies of scale(ES) are said to be achieved.
Yes, with larger plane, ASM would go up and CASM could go down.

As an engineer, the A380 is impressive as to what you can actually fling up into the air. Watching it take off is a spectacle.

As a pilot/passenger, this thing is a disaster. Nothing makes me feel less welcome than sitting in a giant airplane configured like a tuna can. It can't fit anywhere either, so you'd better hope nothing goes wrong at the wrong time.

I just hate what this thing represents: mass soulless transport.

>>1048364
you can say that when airlines start installing 800+ seats into it

>>1048364
>As an engineer
>As a pilot/passenger

>>1048407
Some of us do indeed get out of the house anon. If it's any consolation to you I'm a fucking furry though

>>1048428
>do indeed get out of the house
as a passenger

>>1048364
>as a pilot
i dont think you fly an A380. the plane is so god-dang quiet in the cockpit, its afaik the only plane in which pilots arent needed (by procedures/law) to wear hearing protection. also, its not the planes fault if youre cramped up inside, wtf? the airline chooses what layout of seating it puts inside the A380. if you fly the cheapest seats, its nothing surprising that youre cramped up. doesnt matter what plane.

>>1048499
I most certainly do not fly the A380. I probably worded that wrong, but I meant as a pilot in general. Of course my Caravan isn't really comparable, but I meant more as a """professional""" in the industry

>>1048361
Holy nigger fucking christ, you're actually retarded.

>>1048588
You certainly worded it exactly as you intented, trying to sound like a pro.
As an A380 owner I just saw through your bullshit right away.

It is called A380 because when you see it you make a 380 degree turn and walk away

>>1048644
why did this make me laugh

>>1048642
topkek

>>1048644
But then you would only be 20 deg off your original course.

>>1050453
>being this new