Will we get an A380neo?

[Retro]

Most people like the iconic 4-engined Airbus A380 and every time I see one in the sky, I still stop to look at it and may even point it out to disinterested friends, family and work colleagues, sigh. It looks noticeably different to all the other planes, not just for the engines, but its gigantic size, aspect ratio and that huge tail.

In particular, I appreciate the inherent safety advantages that 4 engines brings. Unfortunately, it got canned years ago as uneconomic to run so when the remaining aircraft reach their end of life, that will be it for the A380 and it will disappear from the skies. However, that's not the case for Emirates which has 100 of these in service which are actually profitable and wants Airbus to design and build more of them. These would be a new version, regardless of the $20b it would cost Airbus to do so.

For all its modern automation and luxury, it was launched over 20 years ago and there are newer planes out there now built with more modern technology that compete well with it, so its due an update. Enter the A380neo, an enhanced version using new technology that would make it 25-30% more efficient which would be a gamechanger for the economics of running it, but is still on the drawing board and this is what would cost $20b to design and build. Check out the video which explains all this in detail.

I can't wait to see the A380neo in the skies!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Geffers]

It's not only running costs, it is maintenance too. Plus age of aircraft design is misleading as newer versions obviously get the new technology. The 747 has been flying longer than Airbus has existed. Appreciate of course that Airbus is an amalgamation of numerous older and established aircraft companies.

I know a few years back a BA 747 flying from US to UK developed engine trouble just by US coastline, they were advised (or maybe directed) to dump fuel and land at US airport, crew declined and carried on to UK on three engines. Don't think it affected schedule at all.

 

[Retro]

It's not only running costs, it is maintenance too. Plus age of aircraft design is misleading as newer versions obviously get the new technology.

The running costs include the maintenance, as the video explains, it's not just about the fuel. The A380neo would be reduced in cost enough for Emirates to be interested in it as even the current one is profitable for them. Amazing how they think that $20b to design and build it can be recouped in any reasonable timeframe though.

I know a few years back a BA 747 flying from US to UK developed engine trouble just by US coastline, they were advised (or maybe directed) to dump fuel and land at US airport, crew declined and carried on to UK on three engines. Don't think it affected schedule at all.

While it's a great testament to the 747's redundancy ability, it's a shocking decision to make and I hope they were disciplined or even sacked afterwards for it. Just think, what if that single engine had then gone down in the middle of the Atlantic? They would then have had to fly on just two engines on one side. The yaw force and rudder drag would be terrific and it would have been hard to keep the plane flying at a stable and steady altitude and certainly not at cruising altitude. Note that it's certified to fly on 2 engines, but only just. You don't put a full load of passengers and crew at risk of that scenario if it can be avoided, which it could here.

Do you know which incident it was? I'd love to see an article on it.

 

[Geffers]

Whilst it was a decision made on monetary grounds crew complied with all required procedures so no issues surrounding the cockpit actions, obviously questions were asked as explained in the video.

During Air Worthiness Certification the 747 is tested flying on just one engine so the yaw force you mention is manageable and probably merely comparable to a modern twin jet losing one engine.

What I did find a wee bit odd is that it was a 6000 mile flight from LA to Heathrow but crew decided to land at Manchester as, apparently, fuel was low. How low was it if they decide to knock 200 miles off of a 6000 mile flight

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Geffers