
Four million parts, 30 countries: How an Airbus A380 comes together (2018) - Tomte
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/airbus-a380-parts-together/index.html
======
code4tee
Not a huge Airbus fan in general real but the A380 was a pleasure to fly.

However Airbus was just wrong on the business side. It was the wrong plane
built with old technology at the wrong time.

It’s also not clear why Airbus didn’t focus more on a freight version. The
Boeing 747 is rarely used as a passenger plane anymore but Boeing realized
these aircraft would have a second life as freighters hence why the nose
section is as such (you can chop off the nose and put a giant door there for
cargo). The 747 will continue as a freighter for many years to come.

Sadly it’s likely that many of the currently grounded A380s will never take
off again.

~~~
agurk
One point to bear in mind is that converted 747s don't have the option of a
nose door and there are some disadvantages to converting vs buying a freighter
variant [0].

A380s also have a greater volume than a 747 but not a radically higher
carrying capacity. A 747-8I (passenger variant) has a cargo capacity of 76t vs
84t for an A380. Numbers from wikipedia, excluding the freighter variant of
the 748 as it's not comparing like with like. This means that there could be
some cases where transporting bulky low density items would be much superior
on a A380 freighter but there's not a clear cut case for it in the market.

[0] [https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/airline-leader/air-
ca...](https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/airline-leader/air-cargo-
booms-747-freighters-needed-but-conversions-unlikely-427366)

------
jzwinck
I highly recommend the Airbus factory tour in Toulouse, France:
[https://www.toulouse-visit.com/let-s-visit-
airbus/blagnac/pc...](https://www.toulouse-visit.com/let-s-visit-
airbus/blagnac/pcumid031fs00038)

They definitely don't "reveal all the secrets of the A380" (as if), but it is
interesting and the facility is staggeringly large (second largest by volume
and sixth by floor area in the world).

~~~
kilroy123
Damn I was there last summer. I wish I knew about this! But I did at least go
to the museum and got to see a Concord up close. That was cool.

------
linuxhansl
I met an Airbus test pilot once.

Among other stories he told me that the A380 is one of best balanced planes
out there, and apparently a joy to fly. He said even without engines he could
easily land it like a glider.

Now, I can't really verify what he said, but he seemed sincere.

Having travelled in the A380 as passenger, I will sure miss it.

~~~
redis_mlc
> one of best balanced planes out there

Airliner design is regulated for stability for passenger flight on IFR
approaches. So they're all pretty smooth.

(The reason for the 737 MAX MCAS system was to meet those requirements,
although they failed in that case.)

All planes can glide if the wings are attached, and any essential electricity
is available for control (if necessary.)

A corollary of "all planes glide" is that planes cannot really fall or dive
straight (vertically) down from an appreciable height with the wings attached.
A good story to tell passengers afraid of flying.

~~~
ashtonkem
All planes can glide, but not to the same degree. The glide ratio, or the
ratio between distance travelled per distance dropped, varies wildly between
planes.

A purpose built glider has a glide ratio of about 60:1, so it could travel
60mi while only losing 1mi of altitude, while a Cessna 172 has a glide ratio
of 9. Large passenger aircraft have glide ratios inbetween, with a 737 having
a ratio of 17.

On the other extreme end you have military fighter planes, which tend to more
closely resemble well propelled un-aerodynamic objects once their engines give
out. The worst I could find was the F104 Starfighter, which has a glide ratio
of 3-5 depending on its exact configuration. Dead stick landings of these
aircraft tend to be rare, as the availability of ejection seats (especially
before zero-zero seats became a thing) encourages a not-my-problem-any-more
attitude among pilots who discover themselves absent a working engine.

~~~
s1artibartfast
It is worth pointing out that many military aircraft are made to be unstable
by design. Unpowered or underpowered Commercial aircraft want to glide, with
aerodynamic resisting change of course for safety and ease of use. On the
other hand, aerodynamics of military combat aircraft operate in unstable
equilibrium to encourage greater maneuverability.

~~~
ashtonkem
For sure. Modern military aircraft are so unstable that they’re unflyable
without computers. And that’s not just because computers directly control the
control surfaces, but because humans would really struggle to stabilize the
aircraft on reaction speed alone.

------
prithvi24
This reminds me of the f-35. I find it absolutely insane that a mix of tax
incentives can lead to this inefficient mess involving custom built ships and
airplanes.

Wonder how much this supply chain dynamic ends up adding to the cost of the
a380 in aggregate

~~~
Tomis02
Maybe when it comes to flying you wouldn't want too much corner-cutting in
pursuit of the max profit. Max.. why does that sound familiar?

~~~
adrianN
Corner cutting on safety is quite different from supply chain optimizations.

------
tim333
Of course it remains to be seen if they can still to that with the UK post
brexit.

~~~
Havoc
A380 is EOL so doesn't really matter.

Knowledge loss...maybe for very large wings. UK is mainly responsible for A380
wings. But there are Airbus (smaller) wing operations in Germany too so should
be fine overall.

------
asldfhasdf2
four million parts, and one whistleblower.

Let's not forget
[https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/a380-whist...](https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/a380-whistleblower.4091/)

~~~
doctor_eval
A very complex story from 15 years ago. There haven’t been many
depressurisation incidents on the A380 and like they say in the article, why
would they cover this up? Maybe the whistleblower really is just a disgruntled
employee.

~~~
asldfhasdf2
you will never know if the lack of pressurization issues was because their
plan was fine or caused by changes thanks to his campaign. hindsight is 20/20.

the fact that they took that route is the problem.

------
kylehotchkiss
*came together. The A380 program is nearly over. The most incredible passenger plane in the sky. Comfortable for 16+ hours. I hope they can archive the blueprints for it well enough to consider building it again in the future.

~~~
kortilla
Is the comfort really any difference in an A380 vs a 777 vs an A350? Cabin
configuration is really the only differentiation between modern wide bodies
and that’s mostly on the airline.

~~~
lizknope
You listed the 777 which is an older plane. The newer 787 Dreamliner has been
in service for almost 10 years. It is more comfortable because it's composite
structure allows for higher humidity and higher air pressure. A normal flight
has an air pressure equivalent to being at 8,000 feet altitude. The 787 is
equivalent to 6,000. The humidity levels are also higher at 15% vs 4% for
other planee. Both of these make you feel less tired and more comfortable.

~~~
barking
A really informative concise post, shame it can't rise to the top.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
The A380 was a technological marvel that was built more for European pride(
see our jumbo jet is bigger than yours) than for real business reasons.
Nevertheless, it is a joy to fly in.

(Though I do think it doesn’t look as beautiful as the 747).

~~~
lightgreen
> than for real business reasons

Any explanations for that?

Large airliners was a monopoly by Boeing, Airbus obviously wanted to cut a
part of that market.

~~~
Havoc
>Any explanations for that?

A380 isn't profitable.

~~~
brnt
But not because it wasn't technically insufficient, the market has changed
priorities.

