Shipbucket

The A-380 isn't really working.
There are 244 ordered at the moment. The original break-even order number was 270, but the financial situation of the world has driven that to 420 units. That's not working... that's loosing a lot of money for your company.

It's not physical engineering issues, it is more the economics of the aircraft. Large planes require lots of passengers moving back and forth between city pairs. This limits the number of routes that it is cost effective to fly such a high capacity aircraft on.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Ouch. Yeah fair enough, I haven't really been keeping up with developments. I guess that kinda isn't working then

Now a days it`s fuel economy that matters. That`s the reason why the 787 and the A350 are doing so great even though none of them are in service.

Yep. If it was an issue of physical engineering, the A380 never would have made it into service in the first place.

Here is the reason...

The 4-engine aircraft are on the "sunset boulevard", just think that Airbus is cutting the production of the A340 for the A330 and Boeing leave the 4 engines something like 20 years ago with the 757/767 and 777.

The next-gen aircraft are looking the fuel efficiency, the 787 is 20% cheaper (in terms of fuel) of the 767, and is quite at 900 orders with just the first delivered to the ANA, and also Airbus is looking to this new class of planes for extra-long haul (>9000Nm) with the A350 (is really looking like a copy of the 787...) and with a max PAX than doesn't exceed 450 seats...

_________________
Welcome to my Kingdom!!!
( http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=8293 )

But at least I like it!!!

Is a valid alternative to the A380.

PS i think that this planes in the future will be used for something like the cruises of the ships, or for some ULTRAEXTRA luxury airlines (as EMIRATES)...

_________________
Welcome to my Kingdom!!!
( http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=8293 )

Because the A-380 is a clean-sheet aircraft designed to carry ~500 people from the onset while this is stick-on kludge-engineering onto an airframe that can't possibly do the job.

Note that all of the stretching of the 747 frame from the -100 on has for the most part been fore and aft the wing spar, including (actually, especially the upper deck. You're stretching that deck to encompass the whole length - that's spoiling aerodynamics, that's adding a lot of structural weight in places not stressed for it (I'd be willing to bet it'd quickly break its back) and adding a lot of complicated engineering onto a frame the designers had never, ever intended it for. Even if you stress the pressure hull to take that, for example, you've just added a bunch of weight that now makes it questionable if the aircraft can even get off the ground. And the cross-section of that upper deck is very small, about that of a 737 or less, while the A380's the equivalent of two jumbos stacked on top of each other - so you're still not going to match the capacity of an A380 and it's questionable if the extra load would justify such massive changes.

It's relatively easy to add frames in between something, but this is far more complicated.
Well, in this case, it is.

How can you tell what the cross-section is from a 2D image?

...because I am very familiar with the 747 design?