|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Feb 15, 2019 19:32:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Peter Liddell - HJG Admin on Feb 15, 2019 22:54:28 GMT
Well I for one am surprised the 380 lasted as long as it did. It basically was an airplane supported by one airline... Emirates. I mean with so few sold in Europe (Virgin backing out probably hurt alot... Then transaero collapse...), No US airline sales... And shockingly poor sales in East Asia(Korean and Singapore seem to be the only ones happy with them... Malaysian and China Southern have both tried to sell theirs)... So no... The VLA passenger market just doesn't exist the way Airbus needed it to... And rumor is they are going to be in a 1 to 2 billion loss on the program.
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Feb 16, 2019 4:52:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Herman on Feb 16, 2019 14:05:42 GMT
Very nice images of the "Beast" ( that is what I call it) and the Airlines that use it. . The panel looks good too. Herman
|
|
|
Post by canuck on Feb 16, 2019 20:37:14 GMT
It's a bit of a kicker for those airports which were forced into building expansion capability for the thing.
On the other hand, perhaps Boeing will be pleased and it gives new life to the 747 800 which imo is a prettier looking aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Feb 17, 2019 4:05:43 GMT
Added a few more pictures with my above tribute today .... after I got back home.
Might add a few more over coming days too .... just see what happens/if time permits.
In regard to my own panel selection (as imaged above) .... I forgot to mention this panel also comes with a full suite of A380 interior flight deck views .... as well as an AIRBUS type GPWS providing altitude call outs from 2,500 FT down to 10FT .... and with the classic AIRBUS type "RETARD/RETARD" call out too.
Not a bad panel really .... and one which is nicely featured .... as well as being quite easy to use too.
Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by simtech on Feb 17, 2019 4:18:26 GMT
Mark, beautiful postings... great looking aircraft. Now that manufacturing will soon cease on this engineering marvel, is it too far fetched to suggest HJG undertake a project involving the A380? Appreciating the quality that HJG puts into their models, I suppose if the team started sometime this year, it MIGHT be complete after manufacturing has ceased. Therein symbolizing the team's moniker: Historic Jetliner.
Seriously, I tend to agree that unfortunately the A380 situation is probably much akin to the L1011. Both aviation miracles that got tripped up by economics, but furthered aviation science beyond expectations. It shall live in aviators' hearts for a very long time.
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Feb 17, 2019 7:20:42 GMT
Thanks Terry As I mentioned above I may add a bit more yet, but, that depends upon what happens to me next week .... in respect of R/W affairs I often get about as much warning as a cruise missile at the moment Some would say the A380 represents far too recently based technology for HJG to bother with .... BUT .... my answer to that is what does the "H" in HJG stand for .... "HISTORIC" of course. When making reference to "history" or "historic" though the obvious question that arises (in my mind at least) is .... "What do we mean by the term "HISTORIC" ? Is it reference to classic (meaning old/historic) aviation ? .... or .... Is it reference to examples of aviation that represent major/historic turning points in respect of technology ? .... or .... Is it reference to examples of aviation that realised such limited production to the point of even being commercial disasters (such as the CV-880, CV-990, CONCORDE, and MERCURE 100) whilst also still becoming historic rarities too ? Lots of ways to interpret this and as a result it's not difficult to get into disagreement with some people over such trivialities. I regard the A380 as being "historic" by virtue of it's size and the engineering/technology which brought it into existence. It's production .... anticipated by 2021 to be over 300 airframes .... exceeds that of the L-1011 by a very good margin BTW. However .... in respect of it's applicability to HJG's virtual flight line .... I think the following points each need to be considered .... 1. "Anything" can be applicable, but, there's no way HJG could easily tackle its very own A380 project .... let alone projects relating to other aircraft types outside the bounderies of what we've already planned and started. 2. The A380 I've represented above is produced by PROJECT AIRBUS and is a superb 3D model .... which one would be very hard-pressed to beat, so, why bother trying at all .... just to reinvent the wheel so to speak. 3. "IF" .... the A380 were ever to come and roost here at HJG .... then .... the only way that could ever happen is if a group like PA was about to go "tits up/disappear" and we threw them a life line (similar to what I/we did in regard to the AFG CARAVELLE project) .... and which could then "possibly" result in its comming here/to HJG. The PA A380 models more than adequately meet HJG's standard .... but I must emphasize .... I very much doubt PA will disappear soon and there's certainly been no suggestion of this .... that I'm aware of at least. 4. We have to consider what we're doing now/at the moment in terms of developing new projects .... and upgrades of existing projects too (all of which are "pretty time consuming") without even thinking about bringing in other projects or even how we could accomodate any such new additions .... even if these were ever offered to us. It's one thing to accomodate any new project .... BUT .... it's somehing else entirely to be able to provide competent support for it .... prior to any new product first being properly learned and which takes "time" (it's panel options this latter remark is in regard to because one can't bring in new models without panels and sounds to support them). 5. I think we also need to start thinking .... How much longer is FS2004 (upon which HJG's primarily founded) going to be a practical FS platform given newer PC OS's in the future .... and the very definite preference and move by many now to P3D and X-PLANE ? .... and by implication also .... How much longer is HJG going to be practical/sustainable as well ? I think these 2 questions (here) .... more than either of the above 4 points are the priority and is what what will ultimately determine everything else in the future As a direct answer to your suggestion though Terry .... I'd say "YES" if were practical (in respect of an inherited ready-made project only) and up to me .... but there again .... it's not exclusively my own decision to make Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Ford - HJG on Feb 17, 2019 9:12:22 GMT
We have also canceled our last eight (which where the original Virgin Atlantic order) which we had on back order as well.
Still looking at either the 777-X or A350 for the next order when we can get enough payload/range out of them.
Nathan
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Feb 17, 2019 10:53:57 GMT
I've heard an advanced technology argument used against the L-1011, but, I don't think there's much, if any, foundation to that. It was certainly more technologically advanced that the B747-100/-200 and DC-10's when it entered service but crews adapted to, and apparently liked it, a lot, so far as I'm aware. More specifically I think it was probably the RR debacle which disadvantaged the program during the very early 70's .... then delays associated with launching heavier and longer ranging versions of the L-1011 (the first L-1011's were high density and medium haul aircraft) until after the B747-100/-200 and DC-10-30/-40 had already catering for this particular market for a while.
I don't think the A380 has ever really delivered what AIRBUS wanted to achieve/offer. Remembering also how B747's (and even DC-10's) offered greater capacity than the market was able to provide when they first entered service during the very early 70's .... with excess capacity being given over to lounges and bars until demand for extra capacity grew .... I sometimes wonder if the A380 might also have been similarly ahead of its time .... "in terms of capacity" .... since I don't think there's a single operator of the type that have exploited the aircraft for its maximum potential capacity-wise. Even so .... one can't keep an aircraft in production if there's insufficient orders to sustain it .... and especially with the apparent move toward smaller, but more efficient aircraft types, and which AIRBUS is itself, offering too in the form of the A350 .... and look what the latest version of the A321 can apparently do now too.
Just my "thoughts" .... only I could be wrong too.
Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Feb 18, 2019 21:13:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Feb 19, 2019 15:50:26 GMT
The blog article rips off several other blogs and stories and conflicts with itself several times (saying that it would bulk out before weight out and then contend that it didn't carry much more weight than the 747 for example).
The reality is that Airbus doomed the A380 by making a bet that no matter what ended up being the resulting aircraft, operators and airports would find the money to accommodate it. Unfortunately, they were told time and again it wouldn't happen for most of the world. The only place that it would happen is when it was new construction and new airports and few other airports would be willing to make major modifications to their facilities just for the A380. This was the same thing they were warned about with the stretch A340s and ignored as well.
Airbus was told that the airplane needed to fit within the existing parking "envelope"; they didn't. They were told that the wake turbulence couldn't be worse than the existing maximum limits; they exceeded it by almost 20%. They were told that the airplane needed to be able to load outsized cargo; they refused to put a larger door or nose access on the freighter and strengthen the floor to handle non-containerized cargo on the main or upper decks. You put enough strikes against it, and it was a surprise to most analysts that it sold as well as it did, but then again, most of its sales went to Middle East countries whose massive growth spurt wasn't forseen by many until it was already underway.
The A380 would have sold as a freighter had Airbus listened to its customers. They didn't have room in their hubs to accommodate an aircraft with a wingspan of 79m+. Bulking out wasn't a major consideration for the "target customer" of the A380 either. Their target was package operators UPS, FedEx, and DHL. They bulk out well before they mass out 90% of the time. But they also have their hubs at locations which are pretty well built-out and mainly older airports which have little capability to make major modifications to handle such a large aircraft. When Airbus blew through their restrictions, every single Freighter order and letter of intent disappeared. The freight companies could much more cheaply buy 2 more planes for the same route than they can afford to completely rebuild their hubs and major facilities to handle the A380 and that's what they did.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Madge - HJG on Feb 19, 2019 16:37:54 GMT
Nice pictures Mark, although the panel looks Boeing I have seen close up the huge size of this aircraft and in fact flew on the top deck a couple of years ago on a BA flight Heathrow to Miami. My personal view is that it was the quietest aircraft I have ever been on, very comfortable and easy to access and leave the aircraft. If your a nervous flyer then this plane is the one for you, hardly feel any movement (that included cutting through the backend of a hurricane on the way home), but if you like to feel your flying then no this ones no good for you The concept was a good one promising a lot but costs and recession came just as it was being launched, Virgin pulled out and no US carriers, Asia was it's big market and moving lots of folk long distances is its big selling point. However things have moved on and we are in two engine mode it now seems, anything bigger is not selling. The US is a funny market, I am led to believe the 747 is not flown by any US carrier any more for passenger use, what a shame as the 747 is a great plane for "pond" jumping I regularly use Virgin and find the 747 superb and easily my favourite aircraft. The demise of the 380 is just plain economics, nothing wrong with the aircraft at all just cheaper to run the new generation twins I guess. I would suggest that a one airline only statement is a bit way off, yes Emirates are the biggest operator but this list shows it is in use by many airlines round the world. I think sometimes there is a tendency to say if it is not American it is no good, we saw that attitude when Concorde took on Boeing SST and beat it but then was knocked back by US regulations that appeared.... I am not a lover of Airbus and prefer Boeing but I don't think they are a bad aircraft make. www.planespotters.net/operators/Airbus/A380
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Feb 19, 2019 19:22:08 GMT
Not a lot of options available really .... at least not for FS2004 or that can be used easily with the PA simulation or that appealed .... "to me". The PA simulation (2 of their model options .... since they offer both VC and non-VC/WV versions of both A380 engine configurations) does feature a VC, but, I ran into a couple of issues with these .... which I've simply not had the time to delve properly in order to be resolve since there's just too much else going on behind the scenes here/at HJG. Originally using an A340 panel simply didn't cut the mustard .... so .... searching I found William HUDETZ offering, which is quite well featured .... as described above/earlier ..... and which is also quite user friendly too if ones time (like mine) is restricted. I think it's the best of the few "freeware" 2D panel options currently available "for the PA A380 models" .... and I'm happy t recommending it to anyone else PLEASE NOTE: This panel, as supplied at FS.COM. is available as 2 separate files (see below) .... one being the principle panel file .... and the other being "a minor" fix .... so .... one must dowbload and install both files .... the panel "first" .... and then the fix. 1. FS2004 (ACOF) - FS2004 Panels FS2004 Airbus A380 Wide-Screen Panel Name: a380wspnl.zip Size: 23,463,760 Date: 09-04-2012
FS2004 Airbus A380 Wide-Screen Panel. Features many reworked and updated gauges. Also includes reworked VC textures from Pablo Dyaz for the Overland A380 to fit the colors of the 2D panel. It is strongly recommended to use the OV380FIX.ZIP for the SMS A380. Thanks to all gauge authors; most gauges from Ken Mitchell. By Wilhelm Hudetz. (See also A380WSUPD01.ZIP)
2. (the fix) FS2004 (ACOF) - FS2004 Panels FS2004 Airbus A380 Wide-Screen Panel Update Name: a380wsupd01.zip Size: 1,774,982 Date: 09-06-2012
FS2004 Airbus A380 Wide-Screen Panel Update, for use with A380WSPNL.ZIP. This update corrects a problem with the HDG selector on the Paibus wingview model. By Wilhelm Hudetz / Ken Mitchell. Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|