My first 100 Bus hours- reflections on the A-320

Capt.Doug wrote:

4 days. I popped into the A-330/340 simulator next door and it looked almost
exactly the same inside. To change from the -330 to the -340, the sim tech
pulls the 2 lever 'throttle' quandrant, plugs in a 4 lever quadrant, and
reboots. Airbus people tell me that the A-380 will be similar.


Some minor changes in the A-380 flight deck layout, from the pics I've
seen. The pitch trim wheel wouldn't flank the throttle and would
instead be a pickle-switch in the joystick. There's also a gray,
soap-like mouse wheel just below the FMGS console. I suspect that the
FMGS itself would also be a whole new animal inside familiar exteriors.

I saw the A-380 here in Dubai the other day and couldn't help feeling
that with its dihedral, it'd be quite a task trying to roll it with any
alacrity if used as a cargo aircraft. Or would that not be a problem?

Ramapriya

"Ramapriya" wrote

I saw the A-380 here in Dubai the other day and couldn't help feeling
that with its dihedral, it'd be quite a task trying to roll it with any
alacrity if used as a cargo aircraft. Or would that not be a problem?

And you would want to roll it, why?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Ramapriya" wrote

I saw the A-380 here in Dubai the other day and couldn't help feeling
that with its dihedral, it'd be quite a task trying to roll it with any
alacrity if used as a cargo aircraft. Or would that not be a problem?

And you would want to roll it, why?
--
Jim in NC


er... to change directions in the air, Jim.
I hope it isn't another insinuation :\

Ramapriya

"Ramapriya" wrote

er... to change directions in the air, Jim.
I hope it isn't another insinuation :\

No, No, No. Why does everyone think I am insinuating things. I'm really a
nice guy, to people who are nice to me. You have not been put in any other
category, by me.

My question is why would the cargo use make the roll being different than a
passenger use? Also, I always thought excessive dihedral would just require
more rudder, and that it would return to level flight more easily. What is
your concern? I don't get it.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Ramapriya" wrote

er... to change directions in the air, Jim.
I hope it isn't another insinuation :\

No, No, No. Why does everyone think I am insinuating things. I'm really a
nice guy, to people who are nice to me. You have not been put in any other
category, by me.


Thanks, mate )


My question is why would the cargo use make the roll being different than a
passenger use? Also, I always thought excessive dihedral would just require
more rudder, and that it would return to level flight more easily.


But I've heard that it's the dihedral that causes difficulties in
banking heavy cargo airplanes, and that was how the anhedral concept
was thought up. I could be wrong )

Ramapriya

"Ramapriya" wrote
But I've heard that it's the dihedral that causes difficulties in
banking heavy cargo airplanes, and that was how the anhedral concept
was thought up. I could be wrong )

Ah....I bet that discussion dealt with "high" wing cargo planes where
all of the load is below the wing such as in the C-5 with its anhedral.
The same situation doesn't hold true for a "low" wing cargo plane where
most of the load is carried above the wing. :-) Long distance
communications is difficult....Eh?

Bob Moore

Bob Moore wrote:

Ah....I bet that discussion dealt with "high" wing cargo planes where
all of the load is below the wing such as in the C-5 with its anhedral.
The same situation doesn't hold true for a "low" wing cargo plane where
most of the load is carried above the wing. :-) Long distance
communications is difficult....Eh?

Bob Moore

Yep

Some difficulties with Skype installation here, Bob; apparently there's
a firewall against it by my ISP

I'm having an IT chap help me out with some 'port tunneling', whatever
that is...

Ramapriya

"Ramapriya" wrote
I saw the A-380 here in Dubai the other day and couldn't help feeling
that with its dihedral, it'd be quite a task trying to roll it with
any alacrity if used as a cargo aircraft. Or would that not be a
problem?

I'm betting that all of the A-380s wind-up in all cargo service. :-)

Bob Moore

"Bob Moore" wrote in message

I'm betting that all of the A-380s wind-up in all cargo service. :-)

Bob Moore

I've had the same thought from time to time. A pax craft that size will
have niche applications, to be sure, but any broadbased passenger usage will
require extensive reworking of ground facilities. Not so to any great
extent for cargo. Just remote park, gross 'er out, and go!

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Bob Moore" wrote in message

I'm betting that all of the A-380s wind-up in all cargo service. :-)

Bob Moore

I've had the same thought from time to time. A pax craft that size will
have niche applications, to be sure, but any broadbased passenger usage
will require extensive reworking of ground facilities. Not so to any
great extent for cargo. Just remote park, gross 'er out, and go!

That's already been happening. Terminal three a London Heathrow has already
been upgraded to take the A380 with double deck docking stations and extra
strong taxiway and parking. Many of the airports on the routes to Asia from
Europe are or are nearly are A380 ready.

It would be a bit problem flying into the US. Its bad enough a 777 load of
passengers trying to get through immigration. By the time a load of A380
passengers got through the vacation would be over and its time to go home:-)