A380 painted and with full 4 engines

[Boss_BlueAngels]

Dang, that is ginormous!  I love how much the wings droop, that'll rock to see that thing lift off, and watch those huge wings bend up!  Wohoo!  The one time I wish I could go to France. lol

[beefhole]

Anyone have an idea what the minimum runway length for takeoff is?  14,000 ft, rotating at 225 kts?  :D

[GWSimulations]

It wouldn't surprise me, new aircraft time to bring in a new era for airbus. The rumors have been floating around they would try a new logo/paint scheme.

I think I preferred the old colours.

[C]

[quote]Anyone have an idea what the minimum runway length for takeoff is?

[Craig.]

It was designed with the 747's takeoff length requirements in mind.

[Mr. Bones]

It was designed with the 747's takeoff length requirements in mind.

but didn't it turn out heavier than expected?

[Craig.]

its 1% overweight now. It was alot more than that when the engines were redesigned but they sorted it out. Now how much of that is true, and how much of it is Airbus PR.

[C]

its 1% overweight now. It was alot more than that when the engines were redesigned but they sorted it out. Now how much of that is true, and how much of it is Airbus PR.

If it was PR it wouldn't be flying, and on an airliner which is going to have a (theorectical) 800 seat fit/150tonne payload, 1% proportionately small...

Anyway, nothing can be as overweight as the JSF/JCA F-35...

[Hagar]

Now you come to mention it I was wondering how much weight a coat of paint adds to an aircraft of this size.

[C]

Quite a lot I would imagine. Possibly a few tonnes on something this big...

[C]

Quite a lot I would imagine. Possibly a few tonnes on something this big...

Ok, I was a bit out, but apparently on a 767 it is around 400lbs, so I reckon you could get a little under 1000lbs on a beast this big...

Charlie

[Craig.]

1200lbs for a 747 so go from that.
As for the JSF, it isnt over weight, the requirements were that it could take off in a specific distance. It did so, as is customary with the MOD, they forgot to include in the wording fully loaded in combat configuration.
The A380 was a long way over weight only a few months ago and then Airbus were saying it wasnt a problem, recently they have said the same thing so i still am unsure as to if they are being truthful, one of their A340 series was overweight and it failed to meet the performance it was boasted as having, they didnt realise this till test flights, by then it was too late.

[C]

1200lbs for a 747 so go from that.
As for the JSF, it isnt over weight, the requirements were that it could take off in a specific distance. It did so, as is customary with the MOD, they forgot to include in the wording fully loaded in combat configuration.

The JSF weight problem has nothing to do with the MOD at all. Its to do with the V/STOL version in any form, being US or UK...

What it has essentially lead to is a decrease in the size of the internal weapons bay, meaning if 2000lb class weapons were to be carried, they would have to be externally carried, which for the RAF is not a problem...

Charlie

[Craig.]

Its not helped by the complicated system required for supersonic flight while keeping V/STOL

[C]

Its not helped by the complicated system required for supersonic flight while keeping V/STOL

Don't worry, the control system for the JSF/JCA is probably going to be more unique than that of the Harrier. Particularly the one the UK is developing...