A380s, Storm Petrels & Super Sonic Cars

Update June 2014 – Tim Clark (Emirates) not interested in 747-8.    A380 – Future updated.

Update May 2014 – Rumours of “A380 Neo”

Update February 2014 – Amedeo’s order for 20 high density fitout A380 affirms  A380 role.  A330 “light”.

Update January 2014 – Airbus ‘Mega-Twin’ Concept and research into very large twin jets the size of the Boeing 747.

Updated July 2014 – added Congested Airports and Routes

 

A380s, Storm Petrels & Super Sonic Cars

The aviation industry continues to  evolve.   The changing political, economic, cultural, technological and communication landscape is forcing continued consolidation of airlines, routes and aircraft types.

It’s a case of  “less is more”.  

Pilots Delight (Photo:  Richard de Crespigny)

Start of a new day from the Pilots’ desk  – perhaps for the airlines as well!  (Photo: Richard de Crespigny)

The A380 is a key player in this consolidation, transporting the rapidly increasing number of passengers between congested Asian and European international hubs.   (Asia is now the largest (and fastest growing) aviation transport market with 948 million passengers flown last year, followed by North America (808 million) and then Europe (781 million)  (IATA – 2013))

I am confident that:

  • the A380-900 (stretch version) will be produced, and
  • the A380 will fly up until the 2060s, and
  • that airline ticket prices will continue to reduce as the seat counts increase on newer aircraft.

Furthermore, I think:

  • the A380 will be the last large four (quad) engine commercial passenger aircraft to be built, and
  • the industry will eventually build jet engines capable of 150,000 pounds of thrust.

In this blog I’ll share a few of my thoughts about aircraft “sweet spots” and why airlines ultimately invest in one brand of a spread of aircraft to bracket their operational needs. Finally, I’ll discuss why a super sonic car might influence future super aircraft designs.

Sweet Spot

Every airline’s challenge is to deploy the best aircraft type for its route structure.   Indeed the selection of size and weight in aviation follows the same pattern already cast by nature.

Jonathan Livingston Seagull  (Photo: iStockphoto)

Jonathan Livingston Seagull (Photo: iStockphoto)

The operational environment determines insect’s and bird’s cruising speeds that in turn determines its weight.    Small birds are suited for slow cruise sectors whilst international maritime flight is reserved for the fastest cruising (heaviest) birds such as the Pelican and Albatross.

Migrating birds that migrate beyond their “sweet spot” range risk perishing at sea.    Migrating birds drown if their long range cruising speed is insufficient to make headway into head winds.   Reports of mass bird deaths at sea show “natural selection” at work, extinguishing the birds that cannot accurately forecast maritime weather.

The Storm Petrel understands this weight-cruising speed-wind relationship.  Its name was derived by early mariners who observed the bird return to take refuge ashore before storms approached, conveniently broadcasting their foul weather forecast.

Using similar logic, we suggest that the Pteranodon, the largest flying reptile (despite its low wing loading) had such high takeoff, cruising and landing  speeds that flight was restricted to souring above the cliffs along the shore.

Pelican (Photo Sophia de Crespigny)

Pelican (Photo Sophia de Crespigny)

Aircraft manufacturers apply Biomimicry into their designs.   So the theories for birds also applies to aircraft – that the route length and cruise speed determines the ideal aircraft weight.   Everything else is a compromise; passenger count, fuselage size & type, wings and engines.

Aircraft selection also skews towards larger seat-counts for operations into congested airports (in Asia and Europe).

The consequences for Airbus and Boeing are clear.   Aircraft manufacturers must understand the demography and travelling habits of travelers and provide aircraft that are tuned to the same “sweet spot” speed and range that suits the market.

The  Great Flight Diagram shows a remarkable relationship between weight and cruising speed.   This graph also shows outliers.   The Concorde was hopelessly over-winged for cruise flight.  Compared with all other flying things, the Boeing 777s and 787s appear to be under-winged (faster) and the Airbus A350s appears to be over-winged (slower).    The A380 also appears to be over-winged, but for reasons outside the scope of this review.

The risk of poor aircraft selection is just as critical for the airlines as it is for bird species.  Putting the wrong airframe onto a route can have dire consequences.   The airline’s challenge is to apply the right aircraft for the required range.  For companies that fly long and short haul routes, its imperative to limit the number of aircraft vendors and aircraft  types to minimise the costs of manpower, training and maintenance.

I have gathered aircraft performance data over the past decade,    This data reveals the sweet spot ranges for many aircraft types.

I calculate that the current A380 has a sweet spot (maximum efficiency) range of between 5,700 and 6,700 air nautical miles (anm):

  • 5,700 anm (Example: 12 hours flight time, London – Singapore)
  • 6,700 anm (Example:  14.5 hours flight time, Los Angeles – Sydney)

I calculate the A330-300’s sweet spot is currently between 3,000 and 3,800 anm (although the heavier weight versions will increase the optimum reach):

  • 3,000 anm (Example:  6.1 hours flight time, London – Dubai (2,870 anm))
  • 3,800 anm (Example: 9 hours flight time, Sydney – Hong Kong (3900 anm)

I’ll publish sweet spots for other aircraft in my Big Jets book.

Understanding sweet spots make it easier to understand why Cathay Pacific needs more Boeing 777s, Airbus A330s and A350s than B747s and A380s.  Cathay’s Hong Kong home base is located within 5 hours flying range from half the world’s population.

Having introduced the ideal concept of the Sweet Spot, lets now look at compromises and divergences from this rule.  For sometimes the  the practice is sometimes different to the theory.

Clearly the A380 is currently tuned for the longer haul and efficiency drops if the heavy airframe is flown outside this sweet spot over shorter or longer routes.  In these cases the passenger count and freight load must be maximised to protect profits.

Yet the  world’s A380s have flown an average sector length of only eight hours over their first six years of operation.

The A380 is the optimum choice for airlines operating from congested airports or on congested routes.  Despite a sweet spot time of 12 to 14 hours flight time, the A380 early adopter airlines have chosen to optimise the A380 for greater seat counts on shorter routes between congested ports.  This trend (preferencing higher seat count before the sweet spot range) will continue particularly in markets where more passengers travel into national hubs that have become (politically) land-locked and undersized such as London Heathrow and Hong Kong.

  • Heathrow has operated close to its capacity since the start of the decade.  In 2013 it processed 3.4% more passengers, mostly because the airlines squeezed 2.8 percent more seats into (the same number of but)  bigger aircraft such as the A380.  I think that this trend should be adopted by Hong Kong.

I think Hong Kong’s airport is saturated.   There will be no relief unless larger aircraft substitute the smaller aircraft:

  • February 2014:     Operations during the two sectors  were delayed:  (holding), compressed traffic separation on approach, extensive push-back, taxi and takeoff delays – all indicating that the airport was task saturated at these times.
  • 26 July 2014, QF128 flight HKG-SYD.   Whilst waiting to push back from the terminal at Hong Kong airport last night I heard the crew of another aircraft ask ATC for pushback clearance for their flight from Hong Kong to Shanghai.   ATC informed that crew that their flight was number 5 in the queue to fly to Shanghai, but due to congestion on that route, that ATC had negotiated a later takeoff slot time for the flight – that was now delayed by 5 hours!

Aircraft manufacturers and some airlines realise that Big Jets are in greater demand for short sectors:

  • Emirates operates predominantly B777 and A380 big jets out of the (saturated airports and airspace surrounding) United Arab Emirates.
  • Airbus, realising that the Asian “airpark” is full,  is considering a variant of the A300 airframe with a shorter “sweet spot” range.  This “trimmed” A330 could have a smaller fuel tank capacity which would lighten the wing structure, wing box and airframe weight.  The resulting shorter “sweet spot” range will be better suited to the short intra-asian routes.

Very Large Aircraft (VLA)

Consider the B747 and A380 VLA aircraft deployments.   The top five B747 and  A380 airports (respectively)  for 2013 are: (anna.aero)

  1. London \ Dubai
  2. Taipei \ Singpore
  3. Frankfurt \ London
  4. Hong Kong \ Paris
  5. Bangkok \ Frankfurt

These lists suggest that the VLA market is primarily used to resolve major hub congestions.      Notice that Australian and USA airports fail to appear in the these lists despite the A380 having a “sweet spot” that is ideal for USA-Australia routes.  From my own recent observations, the long  lines of A380s transiting at the congested Dubai and Heathrow airports reaffirms my conclusion that the seat count currently takes higher priority than the “sweet spot” range.

Transaero and Amedeo are two airlines extending this concept even further ….

Nancy Bird Walton (A380-OQA) (Photo: Richard de Crespigny)

Nancy Bird Walton (A380-OQA) (Photo: Richard de Crespigny)

Super Carriers: Transaero and Amedeo

Airbus is trying to convince airlines to adopt the 525-seat A380 configuration.

Most A380 airlines offer between 407 seats (Korean) to ~ about 540 seats (Air France, Lufthansa).    Qantas’ A380s are configured for 484 passengers (14 First, 64 Business, 35 Premium Economy & 371 Economy).  Emirates plan to introduce two-class A380s with 617-seats.

Refuelling the A380 under a London (Heathrow) moon.  (Photo Richard de Crespigny)

Refuelling the A380 under a London (Heathrow) moon. (Photo Richard de Crespigny)

My data analysis shows that that an A380 filled to the brim with 853 passengers (315/538 on the upper/lower decks respectively) provides fuel efficiencies that surpass all other aircraft types, including another darling of the skies, the A330-300.

“When we put the proper seat count on the [A380] plane, the economics are unbeatable and will remain unbeatable”    (Doric Chief Executive Officer Marc Lapidus)

Two Airbus customers are listening and responding to improve the A380’s efficiency.

Amedeo (formerly Doric), an aircraft leasing company is lifting the A380’s seat count to 630.   Amedeo ordered twenty A380s to most likely fill a strategic capability for airlines that wish to provide the most competitive  (low cost high density) service between congested hubs.

The Russians will supercharge low cost  air travel even more when Transaero takes delivery of its first of four A380s in 2015.   Transaero’s A380s will seat 652 passengers in three classes (12 Imperial (first), 24 business and 616 economy) making it the first airline to fill the aircraft closer to its certified passenger limit (of 853).

“Toulouse – we have a problem!”

Transaero’s and Amedeo’s challenge is to select a lighter cabin design.    They will have a limited freight capacity (with a full passenger load) if they install heavy seats in a heavy cabin.

Currently the A380’s limiting freight related weights include:    (see QF32 page 345 for more info)

242t – Manufacturers Empty Weight (MEW) (approx)

300t – Dry Operating Weight (DOW) (45 tonne cabin fit-out plus crew plus catering)

369t – Maximum Zero Fuel Weight (MZFW)

Airbus designed the A380 to be as light as possible.   Airbus engineers planned (and hoped) that airlines would also fit the lightest cabin layouts, ideally weighing no more than I think about 35 tonnes.

Some airlines have installed cabin designs weighing up to 45 tonnes (heavy seats, showers, bars and two lane stairs).   These “obese” cabins  leave just  69 tonnes for passengers and freight (369t MZFW minus the 300t DOW).    If Doric installs a heavy (45 tonne) cabin, then 652 passengers and luggage would weigh about 65 tonnes leaving just four tonnes for freight.  The freight capacity can be increased if:

Transaero and Doric install the next generation of lighter seats and cabin interiors (lighter than 45 tonnes), and/or

Airbus further increases the maximum Zero Fuel, Takeoff and Landing weights.   (I think Airbus cannot reduce the MEW).

Westminster on the Thames  (Photo Richard de Crespigny)

Westminster on Thames.   London is one of the A380’s key hubs.   (Photo Richard de Crespigny)

A380 – Future

… the A380 is the future. And we don’t like anyone talking about it not being around.”  (Tim Clark, President, Emirates, announced Nov 2013)

(Image:  Airbus)

A380’s Forward, Mid and Aft fuselages. A380-900 has an additional 5 frames in the forward fuselage (+ 3.2m) and 5 frames in the aft fuselage (+ 3.2m) (Image: Airbus)

I forecast that the A380 will be the largest operating passenger aircraft for decades to come (or until energy costs reduce to a small fraction of operating costs).

Airbus announced (October 2013) that the A380 program should break even (financially) in 2015  (based upon 30 sales/deliveries per year)

Evolutionary changes by Airbus, airlines and the engine manufacturers will all contribute to improve the A380’s efficiency by I think another 8% to 15% over the next 15 years :

  • Airbus is investigating fitting massive winglets for a potential 3% increase in fuel efficiency (curiously based upon the A320).   (The wings delivered after January  2013 were re-twisted to  provide an improved cruise fuel flow.)
  • Rolls Royce has announced plans to improve their engine’s Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC).   A 5% Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC) improvement could be achieved by updating the engine’s compressors, high pressure turbine blades and reducing the turbine clearances.   Keeping and laminar air flow around the nacelles will also improve the SFC.
  • Airlines will be forced to fit better engineered cabins and more condensed seating.   Immediate savings can be achieved by removing the unnecessarily wide stairs, unnecessarily heavy seats and obese cabin fitouts. 

Tim Clark, CEO of Emirates recently described the A380 as “A Magnet“.      If the A380 operation can be improved by another 15%, then its future can be assured for the next 40 years, taking us up to 2050 when demand for world air travel will have tripled.  In this case I imagine the A380 being the only heavy lifting aircraft that can provide an equatorial air conveyor between the handful of clusters of the worlds largest mega cities.

A380-800

The A380-800 is 73 metres long.

The A380’s published sales price is US$400m.   This is higher than the “back of the envelope” figure of US$1m per ton of basic weight (without fuel and freight) although deals have been negotiated at bargain prices (Doric purchased  A380 (MSN 136) for US$245m)

The A380 continues to sell.    A total of 309 A380s have been ordered (end November 2013), 140 by Emirates (50 at the Dubai Airshow in Nov 2013).

A380-900

I hope Airbus decides to produce the next version of the A380, the A380-900.   The A380-900 will be the aircraft of choice for long range intercontinental travel.

The A380-900 is an A380-800 stretched by another six metres to make it fill a “box” 80 metres long by 80 metres wide.   The latest “Code F”  airports are designed to cater for aircraft having up to an 80 metre wingspan and 16 metre wheel track.

I guess that the certified seat count might increase by 80 to about 933 passengers extending the aircraft further into it’s own super league.

I think the A380 was always designed to be 80 metres long.   The cruising speed, wing, fuel tank capacity, and limiting weights all point to this aircraft needing to have a higher wing loading and thus, more passengers and more weight (refer back to the Sweet Spot and Great Flight Diagram).

Airbus Chief Executive Fabrice Bregier recently announced that he thought the A380-900  will be available, maybe in in 2023-2028.  I hope

Last of the Four Engines

I think that the A380 marks the last four engine passenger aircraft that will grace the skies.

Embedded image permalink

Four engine (quad) aircraft traditionally provided benefits over the twins:

  • better engine optimisation (for the cruise)
  • reduced wing bending moments (lighter wing box and wing)
  • improved range, payload and high altitude performance
  • freedom to work outside the Extended range Twin Operations (ETOPs) limitations

But these relative advantages of the quad have reduced with time.

Economics now favours the twin over the quad:

  • Simpler and lighter structures,    Twins gain weight reductions and drag benefits from lightening the structures and optimising the flows over the rest of the wing where the third and fourth engines were removed.
  • The integrated aerodynamic flows, wing aero-elastics, manufacturing purchase price, running and maintenance costs
  • Cheaper to buy two big engines than four small.

Aerodynamicists prefer to design simpler  “semi clean” twins rather than the more complex “dirty” quads:

  •  An aircraft i s now designed as a compete integrated unit, merging the fuselage, wing and engines into one complex structure.  Gone are the days of treating them as many separate entities.
  • Quad aero-elastics is more complicated than twin aero-elastics.   This is a very complex subject.  However for a simple analogy,  please view my later blog: “Bio-Mimicry of shaking Dogs”.    Whilst viewing the video, imagine the dogs’ ears being aircraft wings. Now consider being the engineer given the responsibility to design the ears, responsible for the shape, structures, aerodynamics and aero-elastics.  Now imagine designing how to mount two engines onto the ears.  Now imagine mounting four engines onto the ears…

Despite these improvements that now favour twins rather than quads, many limitations remain that prevent engine manufacturers from making engines that could power a twin engine version of the A380.

Flying over Europe at  37,000 feet (Photo Richard de Crespigny)

Flying over Europe at 37,000 feet (Photo Richard de Crespigny)

“The engines canna take anymore, Cap’n!”

 ( Scotty (Character) – Star Trek)

The magnificent 84,000 lb thrust, 32,000 part, 6 ton, USD$18m Rolls-Royce Trent 900 (Photo: Richard de Crespigny)

The magnificent 84,0098 lb thrust, 32,000 parts, 6.4 ton, 8.5 to 8.7 Bypass Ratio, USD$18m Rolls-Royce Trent 900.   The dorsal fin at the top left? That’s a discussion for another time!   (Photo: Richard de Crespigny)

No engine currently exists that could power a twin engine A380.  The A380 “twin” would probably need engines capable of producing up to 150,000 pounds of thrust, well beyond that current generation of engines that top out at about 115,000 pounds of thrust.    Many factors currently limit the capability to build super-engines, including:

  • physical diameter of the engine (compromising the air frame by raising the fuselage higher off the ground), and
  • the capability to build fan and turbine disks that are able to withstand the incredible forces without exploding (going BANG!), and
  • the maximum temperature that the High Pressure Turbine blades can withstand.

The good news is that although I think the A380’s tail fin is over-sized for the A380-800, it’s probably the perfect size for the A380-900 or even the A380 twin (I’m a little cheeky).

Interestingly:

Preventing things going BANG! …

Andy Green and I know a little bit about this.

Rolls-Royce Trent 900 4th generation fan blade (1.07 metres, pure tanium, “honeycomb” hollow wide chord, supersonic swept,  diffusion bonded/superplastically formed (DBSPF)  Cost > US$35,000   (Photo Richard de Crespigny)

Rolls-Royce Trent 900 4th generation fan blade – the most complicated aerodynamic structure on the A380. (1.07 metres long, 14 kg, pure titanium, “honeycomb” hollow wide chord, supersonic swept, diffusion bonded/superplastically formed (DBSPF) Cost > US$35,000 (Photo Richard de Crespigny)

First, we need to understand that jet engine turbine disks operate very close to their temperature and rpm limits.

Aviation turbine disks are certified to survive rpm over-speeds of just 20%  (44% more strain) over the maximum rated rpm.  To put the centripetal forces into perspective, each fan blade on the front of the Rolls-Royce XWB jet engine (powering the new Airbus A350) experiences 100 tons of force during takeoff – equivalent to a freight train hanging off each blade.

The high pressure turbine blades (I think the most technically complex components on the entire A380) operate in even more threatening environments.   At high power the blades sit within (and are impacted-powered by) exhaust air that is 400 degrees Celsius hotter than the blades melting point!

QF32

Part of the Intermediate Turbine disk recovered after the QF32 event  (Image:  ATSB)

Part of the 1 metre diameter, 160kg, 8,300 rpm   Intermediate Turbine disk recovered after the QF32 event (Image: ATSB)

In the case of QF32, the number 2 engine on my aircraft failed when the intermediate pressure turbine disk exploded under conditions of high temperature and RPM.

Andy Green (and his Super Sonic Cars (SSCs))

Andy Green, Sydney - 2013  (Photo Richard de Crespigny)

Andy Green, Sydney – 2013 (Photo Richard de Crespigny)

Wing Commander Andy Green is the Royal Air Force fighter pilot who in 1997 set the world land speed record of Mach 1.02 (1,228 kph, 763 mph) in the twin Rolls-Royce Spey 202 powered “Thrust SSC”  (Super Sonic Car)  jet car.

Click here to see the video of the record breaking run.  The car’s bodywork was exposed to air pressures of up to 10 tonnes per square metre.  Notice the shock waves churning-plowing the hard desert surface into dust.   Interestingly, Thrust SSC experienced an unexpected massive increase in drag at Mach 1.   The increase was attributed to the shock waves slamming against the desert floor, shattering the hard surface into an air-rock “plasma” – absorbing critical energy in the process.

After setting the land speed record, Andy’s next challenge is to build his Bloodhound SSC car that in 2015 will exceed his previous record by 31%, exceeding 1,000 mph (Mach 1.4, 1600 kmph or 447 metres per second!).

Bloodhound SSC will be powered by a single Rolls-Royce EJ2000 jet engine (from the Typhoon Eurofighter), and a rocket motor (that incorporates an oxidiser “fuel” pump powered by a 750 hp Cosworth Formula 1 engine).   The jet engine and rocket will combine to produce about 133,000 thrust horsepower, the equivalent to 180 Formula 1 cars.  (click here to view the cockpit)

You might ask: “Why do we need 130,000 horsepower to travel just 16 times our road speed limit?”   The answer comes courtesy of the drag and power equations.  Drag is proportional to speed squared.   Power is proportional to drag times speed – so power is proportional to speed CUBED!   So we need 16 cubed (= 4,096) times as much horsepower to go 1,600 kmph than we do to travel just 100 kmph (although this equation does not account for losses from (shock) wave drag).    You will appreciate the Bloodhound’s high finesse (smoothness) when you divide 133,000 by 4,096 to calculate the horsepower the Bloodhound needs to travel at 100 kmph.

What has Andy’s Bloodhound got to do with the Airbus A380 and larger engines?   Andy told me that the Rolls-Royce and Bloodhound engineers face similar challenges:

Bloodhound SCC (image: Siemens NX)

Bloodhound SCC (image: Siemens NX)

  • One of Andy’s limiting challenges for the Bloodhound SSC car is to create the fastest wheels in history that will not explode under radial loads of 50,000 G at high speed.    Bloodhound’s 90cm diameter wheels will rotate at 10,200 rpm, faster than most disks in your PC’s hard drive and three percent faster than certified 120% over-speed rpm limit for the the turbine disk that exploded on flight QF32.
  • Rolls Royce also need to create larger and faster turning turbine disks that can power the next generation of commercial jet engines.  Their challenge is to continually extend the size and thrust limits whilst protecting reliability.

Although Andy’s wheels will be operating in cool air in the Hakskeen Pan in Northern Cape, South Africa, the research and development for Bloodhounds SSC’s  wheels will probably feed back to help Rolls-Royce design bigger more powerful turbine disks that will form the bedrock inside the next generation of larger Rolls-Royce jet engines.  Maybe with Andy’s help we will see super-engines capable of powering a future two engine A380!

Conclusion

This blog has covered some theory of flight from the Pteranodon, through the Storm Petrel, Albatross, Concorde and A330 to the A380 quad and A380 twin.  It also presents some of the challenges the engine manufacturers will face when building the next generation of turbo fan engines.

I doubt that we will ever see an A380 twin, but history shows that aviators have continually invented and improvised to make the impossible, possible.

Counter to some industry reports, I think the A380 (particularly the A380-900) will fill fly for decades, and remain the best of breed for long distance (A380-900) and also for high seat density (A380-800) travel.   Tim Clark (Emirates) thinks similarly, stating:

  • “[the A380]  it’s a really good aircraft.”  (November 2013)
  • “Our customers love it and it is one of the most efficient aircraft to operate in terms of fuel burn per passenger.”  (December 2013)
  • “There is nothing out there that resembles what the A380 can do.”  (June 2014)

 

I love the aviation industry!  It’s the most thrilling, extraordinary and exciting profession.  But never become overconfident and never forget Neil Armstrong’s mantra:

“Expect the unexpected”

I hope you enjoyed this brief tour.    The complete analysis will be included in my Big Jets book.

Good luck Andy.   Good luck Rolls-Royce.  Good luck Airbus.  Good luck Boeing.

Andy Green discussing his 1997  ThrustSSC world record.  (Photo Richard de Crespigny)

Andy Green discussing his 1997 ThrustSSC world record in Sydney – 2013. (Photo Richard de Crespigny)

Rolls-Royce is a key sponsor for Andy’s Bloodhound SSC project.  Coincidentally, Andy Green is also a Cresta (skeleton bob sled) rider who recently mentored my son Alexander at the Cresta Run in St Moritz.

20 comments

  1. Matthew Squair · · Reply

    Good to see you’ve been reading your Stephen Jay John Gould :)

    To extend the ecology analogy companies generally incrementally evolve their designs, this leads to the ‘Panda’s Thumb‘ effect where an existing air-frame is tinkered with to fit it to another mission profile, e.g. lightening an A330 because a new start design would be more efficient but too costly in evolutionary terms, a classic local optimisation effect, this leads to long periods of stasis where a few designs dominate and incrementally evolve punctuated by abrupt changes where a new dominant design or environment triggers a period of rapid change.

    As a side note the 737 is a great example of a design with great evolutionary ‘legs’, I like to think of it as the trilobite of the aviation industry, one basic form that has been added to and modified to fit varying ecological niches. :)

  2. Great article! It’s amazing to see how far aviation has come and where it is going. It’s definitely an industry that will continue to evolve, especially with all the changes occurring throughout the world. Thanks for sharing the analysis breakdown!

  3. Werner Schmikl · · Reply

    Thank you for an most enjoyable and fascinating article which all non flying people should be able to comprehend.

    Even while now retired from airline operations, flying will always remain in the blood, hence the enjoyment of still flying the North American T6 at the Harvard Club in South Africa.

    Keep well and enjoy your flying. Looking forward to reading more of your articles.

  4. James D. Rush · · Reply

    I just recommended this site to the “Double Decker” A380 web-site as well. It is a very large community of A380 fans that have been with the program a long time – http://www.doubledecker.boards.net/thread/588/airbus-year-sales-forecast-boeings?page=5

  5. James D. Rush · · Reply

    With all due respect, this is the best publication I have read in over a decade – while following the unique niche market of the A380 – or more broadly the Very Large Aircraft Market (VLA).

    You have a gift in concise; and incisive; and objective; and I believe predictive web-journalism!!

    Let the A380 good-times roll!

  6. CARCAILLET Richard · · Reply

    From Richard C

    Thanks for an enjoyable, wide-ranging post mixing hands-on experience and clear theoretical reflections.

    Of course the A380-900 will happen; it is in the logic of this concentrated, constrained industry and it is a basic fact that there will always be major cities and many people who want to fly between them.

    There are no “prairie hubs” and that may explain the views of other industry participants about “point to point” vs “hub to hub” concepts. Think of the A380 as also, and significantly, providing point to point transport; between big points, that is its!

    Keep the thought-provoking posts coming, Rich!

  7. paul mcdonald · · Reply

    Morning Richard,

    I follow your reports with interest and enjoy all that is written.

    I did however get great joy from seeing your reference to Jonathan Livingston Seagull – the most inspiring book i ever read.

    Knowing i share that with you has made my day.

    Cheers

    Pmac

    1. Hi Paul, We think alike.

      I discuss Jonathan when motivating children. You might enjoy re-reading my previous blog “GIVING BACK – CANBERRA GRAMMAR “CODE CADETS”.

      Best Regards Rich

  8. Hi Richard,

    My only comment on this excellent article relates to what (to me) seems like a potential problem of how do you glue/nail on a 150,000 lb thrust engine to the wing & have it stay stuck on?

    I imagine Boeing covered a lot of this ground with the 707 engine pods instead of the Comet wing-root design, but I’m more concerned with loading the wing in one area than with building a pylon which will support & transfer the thrust successfully.

    Around 400,000lbs thrust through 4 pylons is no mean feat in itself, but 300,000lbs+ through 2 seems like it might be a stretch?

    What do you think?

    1. Hi Dan,

      Good question.

      I am not a powerplant engineer, but I don’t think that we will see “Comet” style fuselage mounted engines again (for reasons of airframe resilience and intake airflow stability).

      I am not a structural engineer, but I do think that the current metals and composites in the latest structures could support the increased weight and thrust.

      Perhaps the engines could be cantered to vector thrust to counter their weight. Perhaps mount the engines on the horizontal stabiliser to bring the weight and thrust vectors inboard (though wing mounted engines are forward mounted to improve stability and perhaps flutter).

      Perhaps with a few tweeks, the current A380 wing is strong enough to even carry a 10 ton (150k pound) super engine. (I am not suggesting this be done as there are ground clearance and other many other problems that would prohibit this).

      Don’t underestimate the strength of the A380’s leading edge thick super-critical wing. The A380’s wing broke between the engine pods during the ultimate test, proving the wing roots to be extraordinarily strong. In fact the newer 2013 series A380 wings have even had the washout increased (reduce the incidence over the outer wing) by over one degree to load the wing roots even more!

      Please don’t get the wrong impression from my earlier comments about the over-sized A380 wing. The A380’s production wing is big, but it was one of at least three fundamental wing designs considered, taking into account parts cost, building cost, maintenance costs, fuel capacity, performance, range and particularly, future growth.

      I think that the current A380 wing is the RIGHT sized wing for the A380-900. In fact I think the A380 wing is ingenious when dressed with the best-of-breed fly-by-wire flight controls that are managed by smart computer logic (though this discussion is way outside the scope of this article).

    2. Dan Dair · · Reply

      Dan 1: Richard, I was thinking about the idea that you’d be putting two 10 tonne engines on an airframe instead of four 6 tonne ones (obviously saving 4 tonnes of (engine) weight).

      Richard 1: Yes. so was I.

      Dan 2: BUT, if you then need to significantly ‘beef-up’ the wings by increasing the bracings to spread the considerably increased load of a single engine per wing, you may lose the greater part of that weight-saving. If this was the case, it would all seem to be a bit of false economy?

      Rich 2: Perhaps. Aircraft design was never easy. Aerodynamicists now design aircraft as a competed integrated unit merging the fuselage, wing and engines into one shape. Gone are the days of treating them as separate entities. So Aerodynamicists would much prefer to design aerodynamically “cleaner” twins rather than “dirty” quad aircraft. You also gain weight and drag from improving the structural weight and flows over the rest of the wing where the third and fourth engines were removed. In summary, the integrated aerodynamic flows, wing aeroelastics, manufacturing purchase price, running and maintenance costs favour the twin over the quad, winning over the quads only benefits of (wing bending moments,) range and payload.

      The aero elastics of quads are much more complicated than twins. It was too complex to involve this statement in my latest blog “Bio-Mimicry of Shaking Dogs” however since you asked; please revisit the video and now imagine the dogs’ ears being aircraft wings. Now consider designing the structures, aerodynamics and aeroelastics of dogs’ ears now mounted with twin versus four engines – get my point now?

  9. I agree with you that the A380 would be the last quad engine airliner ever built.

    With the advent of twin engine airliners like the 777, A330 as well as the newer A350XWB and 787, I really think that those 4-engined machines are fast becoming obsolete. Orders for the 747 are at an unprecedented low, and the A340 is already out of production.

    As for the A380, it is much bigger, modern and fuel efficient than other quads, so many airlines would probably benefit from this and possibly take more orders(Emirates has ordered 90 A380s). Still, with engine technology constantly improving, I really think that in the future, airplanes the size of the A380 would be powered by only 2 engines.

  10. Mandy Squair · · Reply

    Hi Richard,

    Thank you very much for a very interesting read. It is fascinating watching as aviation evolves!

    The Boeing Dreamliner is the newest big plane in Australia! I love travelling on the A380 and A330 but then I get in a Qantaslink Dash 8 between Canberra and Melbourne, and I remember what flying used to be like, when TAA flew Viscounts and it was very special to fly at a slower rate of pace, less pax and more personal! Thankyou again, Mandy

    1. Hi Mandy,

      We think alike. Having flown helicopters, piston, small and big jet aircraft, the machines that I enjoyed the most were the slowest passenger aircraft – Caribou and Iroquois. The Caribou did not even sport an auto pilot, so we regularly had passengers up front in one of the seats flying the aircraft on long sectors.

      I walk the A380 on every sector possible to keep the communications and link with the passengers alive.

      It is still great fun!

      Rich

      1. Mandy Squair · ·

        Hi again Rich,

        In Canberra, I belong to a group called the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) who meet on the 2nd Tuesday of the month at 6 pm at the Australian Defence Force Academy. I was wondering how you would feel about being a guest speaker for this group. We would love to have you.

        With best wishes, Mandy

      2. Hi Mandy, I’d be pleased to talk at the aviation professionals at the RAeS. In fact I am presenting at the RAeS in Cambridge (UK) on the 27th November. Best Regards Rich (FRAeS)

  11. Stewart Bisset · · Reply

    Most interesting analysis Richard, thanks

  12. Tony Michiels · · Reply

    Hi Richard,
    I do understand the reasoning with respect to the A380, but I have some doubts as to the future of this aircraft (even the stretched version -900):

    – Correct : 4 engine aircrafts will not be built anymore (fuel cost will not reduce)
    o 747-8 is not a “big seller” and monthly production rate is reduced
    o A340 : not produced anymore
    – Airbus is having problems to get the actual A380-800 sold (no new orders in 2013)
    – Major reason in my opinion : modern engines on 787 and A350 are less fuel-thirsty by +/- 20% compared to actual A380 engines, which are outdated already today (cfr 787) and in 2015 (A350) and 777x (2020?)
    – Recently, I saw a comparison between the use of 1 A380 compared to 2 787 : it was more profitable to use 2 x 787 io 1 A380
    And finally, as it stands today, most of the A380 in use are not fitted with max seating capacity for this aircraft, and more effort is put into more comfort, rather than capacity. And then again : this goes also against “profitability per seat”.

    I’m not trying to argue, or to say that that the A380 lost “the battle” on profitability, but as it stand nowadays, I believe it will be difficult for the “4 engine is better than 2” approach, to resist the “2 engines is cheaper” approach. Especially if ETOPS 330 certification is granted to these aircrafts.
    Tony

    1. Tony thank you for your excellent comments.

      We agree in many areas, so I won’t elaborate more in these areas.

      I’ll comment briefly on areas where we disagree:

      TM – Airbus is having problems to get the actual A380-800 sold (no new orders in 2013).
      RD – perhaps, but the industry is only slowly coming out of it’s doldrums (up from 0.5% Return on Capital to 1.8%) and so I think there is optimism for orders next year. Rumors are of Emirate purchasing another 30. Bottom line – we’ll see. If there are A380 orders, expect the seat count configurations to be at least 550 – the showers might even go!.

      TM – Modern engines on 787 and A350 are less fuel-thirsty by +/- 20% compared to actual A380 engines, which are outdated already today (cfr 787) and in 2015 (A350) and 777x (2020?)
      RD – Not sure if I agree here as it’s easy to spread FDU (fear, doubt and uncertainty about what the future holds in store – Microsoft made an art of that). The bypass ratios are increasing (747-400 4 to 1, A380 8 to 1, A350 11 to 1), so perhaps the A380 engines are JUST THIS YEAR with the 787 released, one rung under the super bypass ratio engiens that we see on the newest B787s and A350s. That’s not too bad! I think Rolls-Royce is also planning to retrofit the Trent 900s with active turbine clearance controls to bring the turbine blade tip clearance down to under one millimeter, so this should improve the engine’s SFC. We will have to wait and see.

      TM – Recently, I saw a comparison between the use of 1 A380 compared to 2 787 : it was more profitable to use 2 x 787 to 1 A380.
      RD – Interesting but that figure probably needs qualification. I agree with you for small seat-count point-to-point flights inside the USA. Outside the USA, you might be correct but only on fuel usage. Consider that 2 x 787 still entails maintaining 4 engines, the same as the A380. Pilot, engineering and other costs would still seem high. But most importantly, you cannot put even ONE more airframe into congested hubs like Heathrow or (soon) Dubai or even into some of the western European skies, so the 2 x 787 for 1 x A380 just does not enter contention, and so in this case, size wins. (For more on this read Ben Sandilands latest blog)

      TM – Most of the A380 in use are not fitted with max seating capacity for this aircraft, and more effort is put into more comfort, rather than capacity.
      RD – True, in fact I cannot imagine how one A380 brand that is configured for just 407 seats could ever break even. So expect the seat counts to increase as the passengers’ primary preference transitions from comfort to (low) cost. It’s fortunate that the A380 has effectively unlimited scope to increase the seat count (currently limited to 853). Indeed, why not simplify the ornate forward dual lane stair case on the A380 to enable fitting at least another 8 business seats! (The stairs are not needed structurally nor for certification). Heck, if it really gets tough, take out the lounges and showers!

      TM – it will be difficult for the “4 engine is better than 2” approach, to resist the “2 engines is cheaper” approach. Especially if ETOPS 330 certification is granted to these aircraft.
      RD – I agree with you except for operations between congested hubs where the metrics change. You can’t buy additional slots into London. In 27 years I have never been ordered to hold in a holding pattern flying into Los Angeles – I am ordered to hold for about 50% of the approaches into Dubai and London (During my current trip SYD-DXB-LHR, I had to hold for fifteen minutes and 45 minutes prior to approaching to Dubai and London Heathrow respectively). I mentioned that I’d love to see a twin A380 though I’ve explained why this will not occur. I think the A350 & 777s will be big enough and efficient enough to support the volume travelling market outside the congested hubs. Having a team of similar gauge A350s and A380 would make a convincing team in Asia and Europe. Remember, Asia is now the largest market and represents 60% of the world’s (steady) 15% p.a. growth.

      RD – I’ll throw another curve ball into the centre and raise the topic of the USA becoming an energy exporter in the next decade. Gas To Liquid conversion (Fischer–Tropsch) of USA fracked gas (North America has the biggest hydrocarbon reserves in the World) will reinvigorate the USA reserves, factories, industry and productivity. There is 250 years of gas on the planet (very much delaying “peak oil”) so expect more processed fuels similar to Sasol which should steady fuel costs. Review Shell’s Pearl GTL project in Qatar (150b barrels of oil) for more info. The balance of price vs comfort might change back the other ways when fuel costs stabilise and we claw ourselves out of the GFC.

      I have never contended that the A380 “fits all” markets because it does not. I think that to save costs, airlines will attempt to use one vendor’s “toolbox” of aircraft to bracket their markets. Like the 747-8, the A380 is just the largest adjustable wrench from the Airbus shelf.

      I hope that Airbus builds the A380-900, a design that optimises the a larger (proper) sized fuselage for the large wing to produce a fantastic machine with higher limit weights and unequaled performance.

      Again Tony, thanks for your comments which are informed, topical and deserve greater scrutiny.

      Rich

      1. Tony Michiels · ·

        Richard,
        Thank you for your reply. Your arguments and “experience from the flight deck” (cfr congestion and holding patterns at approach and landing) will further complete my insigth in these various topics.
        Great to be able to discuss on “A380″ with you.
        Thanks again for that .
        Tony

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,753 other followers

%d bloggers like this: