A380 Chile Fidae 2008 radical takeoff

[ferangel2000]

w.t.f.........................­.....

[puchourbina]

full power od 4 engines and almost empty plane was WOW!!

[pipemv]

The Airbus Power!

[Angel77300]

OMG If iwas inside i would be dead -_-'

[puchourbina]

just a little power LOL!!

[jamieleeoates95]

Thats got sum power.. wow



[ersnsmsk]

crazy pilot:D

[plasticspastic201]

it seems to leep forward at 24 second mark.

[sam9524]

first its empty , second its a test , cant you see the livery , its airbus testing livery...plus , the pilot is not crazy , thats what he have been told , to test a steep turn , thats all , amazing how the pilot know when to turn , with enough speed so there wont be a stall when he did that steep

[TheAirplane747]

OMG, THAT PILOT IS CRAZY!!!!! WERE THEIR ANY PASSENGERS ON BOARD? I HOPE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TheAirplane747]

OMG, THAT PILOT IS CRAZY!!!!! WERE THEIR ANY PASSENGERS ON BOARD? I HOPE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TheAirplane747]

OMG, THAT PILOT IS CRAZY!!!!!

[taltezy]

ScareBus

[Linternauter]

@taltezy Got that right buddy!!!

This is incredible yet utterly magnificent at the same time. Amazing piece of engineering that thing is.

I'd expect the pilot at the helm testing that thing to've been a former fighter jet pilot, they are used to that sorta steep turns at least

[Argentvs]

No, i say stol wich means short take of and landing. Stall is loosing control, when the aircraft is falling and turning around.

Sorry my BAD english, i hope you will understand what i tried to say.

[1975Aspen]

It's empty -- that's how. Higher power to weight ratio.

[fordlandau]

Great clip. Lucky the Trent engine didn't explode on that manoeuvre as it did on a QANTAS Flight a few months back !!

[theenigmajeffhardy1]

amazing graphics

[Sting3733]

@theenigmajeffhardy1

There aren't any graphics how can they be amazing?

[theenigmajeffhardy1]

@Sting3733 No i mean it was so clear :)

[bcooper606]

amazing that he didn't stall!

[lockstocknl]

@bcooper606

Airbus`s are almost impossible to stall with the envelope protection. And believe me, in this case they didnt even come close to the limits. Almost empty, almost no fuel...but still f-ing impressive!!

[GarGPS]

Is this real, I know fuck all about planes/flying but that looked to steep to be real, I mean it looks as though it will stall and then banks really far to the left. Scary shit

[Argentvs]

a la mierda, como subió parecía que se quedaba sin sustentación y se caía. jajaja, que buen despege, casi STOL!.

[laredo981]

@Argentvs STALL....

[foshizmaniz21]

fucking good pilot

[jwan4757549]

soo scary noh ?!!

[dreambox85]

this is 100% a Militirian retired pilot.

[eevun]

WOW! I didn't know that this beast can do that! I bet it felt great for the passengers :)

Nice video!

Cheers

[superfestiva]

bank angle? who cares!

[MowgliX]

You can really see the raw power of the A380's Rolls-Royce Trent engines. Very dusty runway by the way!

[hellokittyisfat]

That's what you call an A380. YEAH! GO AIRBUS!

[qwerty12373]

SO CRAZY

[robagl]

OMG..that was CRAZY!!! I thought for sure it was gonna stall!!!!

[DoughnutRing]

Is this airplane a bird?

[Damienm7]

no way can a boeing aircraft do that :)

[bigblockpwr]

@Damienm7 try the c-17. it can do that with alot less runway

[makreis]

@Damienm7 A Boeing 757 probably could :)

[MrCrazyfucker123]

@Damienm7 757 would put this ugly turd to shame

[SuperMole666]

amazing

this is build number 009 (F-WWEA)

so no rr jet engines here

will became emirates a6-edi may 2010

so

[AmericanAirlinesRule]

Boeing is better.

[jil2stras]

To be as patriotic as you(or maybe as dumb),and without explanation as you,airbus is better.

[igneousrocklad]

Boeing is always and forever will always be better.

Like it says "A" comes before "B" but we always save the best for last. haha

[crapper1]

long live the airbus whalejet

[WwTKVwW]

I agree! Cant wait for the 747-800 eh?!

[hellokittyisfat]

@WwTKVwW yep. LOLZ! :D

[amayami]

God that looks like its so, SO close to stalling...

[lockstocknl]

@amayami

trust me, it isnt ;) flight envelope protection hard at work

[JivinIvan94]

Why didnt he just take off from the other end?

[viceroytennis]

Obviously its a show stunt - and it looks very impressive. A combination of wing design, high power/light weight RR engines combined with fly by wire (computers defining the limit) enable the 380 to pull this off - no problem.

[KimmurielBaenre]

@viceroytennis I think this aircraft was fitted with EA GP7200's, not RR...could be wrong though, hard to read the cowling from this particular vid

[sarkizmutafyan]

yeeehaaa!! :D

[guilhermechasiva]

what is happening with those pilots... i've seen many videos like this one here on youtube and the pilots are doing the same thing in take off of aircrafts. they are unlearning o fly or something???

[imitchellg5]

It's an airshow dude.

[lockstocknl]

@guilhermechasiva

Maybe you should invest a few minutes in learning to read the title of description.

This is an AIRSHOW.

[pilotanthony]

its called an air show you should try and Google it

[OmsoiTekken]

Is there people on that plane?

Still, It's amazing

[USPilotNV]

Wow I would never expect such huge bird to go that steep.

[PatagonianWarrior]

@USPilotNV European technologies make it true... Airbus carbon planes make it possible, Boeing misses train, the gap increases...

[numatixtv]

really cool take off, but ... I would die in there

[squadman33]

It 's a fly by wire plane. No computer, no flight. The computer will not allow a joystick move that will make the plane stall.

[squadman33]

The A 380 computers will not let the pilots fly outside of a given safety envelope, that is why he could do that. NIce.

[VMFA115Starloric]

Unless the pilot turned off the flight computers.

[uUltr19A05slaNn]

How is it possible to do a steep turn like that for such a big big plane! amazing 5*

[soshowcanihelp]

em i just pooped my pants

[njaversa]

wow....

[ECioffi4]

incredible!

[MastaPfromWoW]

wow woulda shit bricks if i was on that plane

[trevonvivens123]

@MastaPfromWoW i woulda shat the whole damn brick house

[TheGreatFlyer]

What is a radical takeoff?

[STOKEKNOB]

WOW!!!!!!!

[raikanan]

I was there that evening in Santiago Chile and it was very impressive take off, empty plane, no problem, lot's of power, nice............

[pafalee]

This guy doesn't like his life..

[TheGreatFlyer]

WOW!!!!!!!

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

An amazing aircraft!

[browntuka]

was this an airshow? Cause that was mean!!!!

[LordFerrand]

That was a HAIRY bank....

[heribert37]

i was like wtf. no stall....fuckin great turbines

[blademaker22]

Holy bank-angle Batman! I bet the FAA would classify that as aerobatics. That's pretty impressive for an airliner.

[11Airshow11]

AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fiinniinnii]

damn this plane is large xxl lol

[diliosthegreek1]

Holy sweet shit on a popsicle stick!! I would have soiled my pants if I had been on that plane when it made that turn!! In the immortal words of Shaggy, "Zoinks!"

[masterdebo1]

lol i like seeing planes landing they look like there going slow as freak lol

[Blaedin]

i loved it i love planes try and get one with a 737 and a 747 and a 727 if you can

[Flybyhacker]

this plane if got Afterburner

Flight angle got increase for takeoff

may can go to mach 1 (note ++AFburner not cost effective>MONEY BURNER)

[italianluvah83]

Wow. And yet some people still criticize this aircraft. Absolutely beautiful.

[christopherwarsh]

Well, it will be the largest single aircraft accident in history.

[italianluvah83]

oh give me a break. This is a beautiful aircraft and im sure airbus as well as the airlines have put into place all safety procedures. I seriously wonder if people were this pessimistic with the b747 or the b777 or any other large aircraft. But because it has "airbus" in front of it, forget it. Yet this is considered to be the state of the art and most technological.

[Flybyhacker]

woldbe in one DAY

[oneworldguy]

Well, christopherwash has a point... IF (and only if) this aircraft ever crashes with a heavy load, it would be the biggest catastrophe in aviation history.

[Oni0nNews]

Oneworldguy, the biggerst catastrophe already occured, two 747s colliding with each other near Tenerife (KLM and Pan Am),

Furthermore Airbus have incorporated so many fail safe systems, and there are so many rules in terms of flight safety; aviation is the safest mode of transport now

[oneworldguy]

First, no need to convince me that aviation is the safest mode of transportation. I am a flight attendant for American and have been a union chairman in the industry since 2001.

Secondly, those two 747's were not full and nor did everyone on both planes die.

Third, the worst SINGLE AIRCRAFT disaster was American 191 which crashed just after take-off from O'Hare in 1979. If a full Airbus 380 goes down, it will by far surpass AA 191.

Lastly, I have little confidence in Airbus products.

[juiced2death]

why?

[oneworldguy]

I find it very disturbing that in both AA587 and AF447 crashes, the tails were pulled out of the water perfectly intact. The rudder is one part of the aircraft that is never to come off for any reason whatsoever. Both of these rudders were pulled out of the water and ripped at the joints.

AA587 was an Airbus 300. AF447 was an Airbus 330. Two different aircraft by the same manufacturer with detached tails in great shape. Not good for Airbus.

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

This is complete and utter rubbish. For a start no one knows what happened to flight AF447 and furthermore the little insight the investigators have point at something completely different.

The plane hit the water intact according to the investigators, hitting the water so fast is going to rip the wings, tail and horizontal stabilisers off as well as cause substantial damage to the fuselage.

Comments like this annoy me so much - without all the facts how can you make such a statement?

[oneworldguy]

The investigators' claim that the aircraft hit the water intact is still a theory. Since they couldn't find the blackboxes (Air Frane's and Airbus' early Christmas present), they can't prove anything.

[oneworldguy]

Let's imagine for a moment that they COULD prove this as factual. Why is the tail COMPLETELY INTACT and ripped off at the joints? This is a major design flaw because this part of any aircraft has NO REASON to be coming off at all (especially not as a "clean break" as this rudder has). Had a Boeing crashed in this fashion intact, the tail would have been SERIOUSLY destroyed because they are affixed to the aircraft MUCH stronger than Airbus apparently cares to attach them!

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

That is complete stupidity. If there was a serious design flaw tails would be breaking off all the time. You're not telling me that only a couple of Airbus aircraft have encountered very bad weather. You want to be careful what you say in these comments as you are making libellous statements.

And of course the tail can break away cleanly. The A330/A340 series is now over the 1000 delivered mark and this is the only one where the tail has come off. You are very uninformed.

[oneworldguy]

First, the A330 and A340 are two separate aircraft. I love how people just compile those two and then say, "Oh! We're over the 1000 benchmark!" Why not add the Boeing 757 and 767 together and count where they were before Boeing stopped production of the 757 since it was obsoleted by the 737-900? After all, those two aircraft are also identical for the purposes of pilot certification.

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

The A330 and A340 are one of the same aircraft. The following is taken from the Airbus Website:

The A330/A340 Family concept is unique: one basic airframe is available in six different configurations, powered by two or four engines. The twin-engine A330 is optimised for highest revenue generation and the lowest operating costs from regional segments to extended range routes, while the four-engine A340 provides versatility on the most demanding long-range and ultra-long-range flights.

[oneworldguy]

That's an advertising strategy. The A330/340 are no different from each other than the B757/767. The Airbus products have the same airframe with with four engines. The Boeing products have different airframes with two engines.

What on Earth is your point?

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

My point is that out of over 1,000 aircraft only one has lost its tail. If there was something wrong with the design this would happen more often. The A330/A340 combination is not a marketing strategy it is fact that both airframes are almost identical except for the engines, central landing gear and few other slight adjustments to the wing. The 757 is a narrowbody and the 767 is a widebody which is a pretty big difference they are aimed at completely different markets.

[diliosthegreek1]

No, I believe the worst single aircraft disaster in aviation history, in terms of loss of life, was Japan Airlines Flight 123, which crashed on August 12, 1985. I believe 520 people died on that flight, and there were only 4 survivors. It was a 747.

[oneworldguy]

That's what I ALSO believe is the deadliest incident which has already taken place. How many does the A380 seat? THAT is what I am getting at.

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

Why do you have so little faith in Airbus products? - Let me guess American and a Boeing Fan. You make me sick.

There is absolutely no reason what so ever to have little confidence in Airbus products. If there was anything wrong with them they would not be allowed to fly and they wouldn't have made Airbus the number 1 aircraft manufacturer.

I think it is disturbing that people are talking about IF a disaster occurs. If a disaster occurs it occurs, we can't not fly something on that basis.

[oneworldguy]

American? Why not try Brasilian? I moved to the United States from Sorocaba (Sao Paulo) when I was already a teenager.

[oneworldguy]

Just so that we're clear, you're not talking to a total ignorant here. I've been an industry insider for 10 years now. My screen name should be quite indicative of that if you know much about commercial aviation.

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

Whatever, oneworldguy does not indicate anything. I'm sorry but I don't believe you. Why? Because you jump to hastily to conclusions without the full facts. Every expert who has given any insight in to this has not jumped to such conclusions - you're being completely ridiculous.

As I have said before. If there was any doubt the aircraft would be grounded and as far as I know at time of writing no such order has been made.

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

I have heard of the oneworld alliance as well as the star alliance and sky team alliance. Again, having oneworld in your screen name does not prove you are an expert in anything.

The french pilots where concerned about the pitot probe system as Air France where using pitot probes from Thales when Airbus fit its aircraft with Goodrich probes. Airbus recommended all carriers to replace the probes and EASA and the FAA have issued directives to make this mandatory.

The probes where icing up.

[oneworldguy]

Hmmm. You apparently know your technology as well.

Still doesn't explain an aircraft rudder being detached perfectly intact. (Same thing happened to AA587 and AF447 - both Airbus products. Until it can be explained with facts and not theory, I'm assuming the two are related. That's all there is to it.)

[oneworldguy]

If we want to talk safety, my personal preferences falls for Boeing, Embraer and Bombardier.

You really think that American Airlines removed the Airbus 300 from its fleet because it was an old aircraft? Most of our Boeing 767 are older and American has absolutely no plan to retire them anywhere in the forseeable future.  In fact, they are spending massive money to upgrade all of their interiors!

Fact: The Airbus 300 flew its last flight for AA two weeks ago from JFK to MIA.

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

The A300 was removed from the American fleet for several reasons. I suspect the incident in 2001 had a small part to play but American have publicly stated that the A300 no longer fitted into their strategy, it was older and they also operate an all Boeing fleet except for the A300 that is why it was retired.

I see you have also removed one of your comments - wonder why that was?

[oneworldguy]

First, I removed that comment because AA prohibits its employees from making declaratory statements that could be perceived as an official statement of the company which it was not. It was my own personal opinion and I was just pointing out where I work within the company to show my standing as far as aircraft technology is concerned. The two are not connected.

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

Ok then - I wonder what Airbus will think about those other libellous comments?

[oneworldguy]

LOL! You're funny, dude. Look all over this website. Airbus (and Boeing) would have to sue thousands and thousands of users for what YOU perceive to be libellious. FYI about American law, presenting one's opinion as such is protected by the First Amendment of our constitution and does NOT constitute libel. I haven't provided ANYTHING as fact. Just as coincidental facts that present a theory (again, an opinion).

[oneworldguy]

The Airbus 300 was American's best cargo carrier up to the day it retired. Why do you think we operated that aircraft so heavily to the Carribean when it could have easily crossed oceans? Our passengers to the Carribean are luggage nightmares let alone the amount of commericial goods the aircraft carrier. When it was "determined" that the cause of the crash was piloting error, that is when American had enough of the aircraft and announced that it would be removed.

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

Please don't make me laugh - every additional comment you add proves to me that you know nothing...

If American was very concerned about the A300 it would have been retired immediately. The American Pilots would have made sure of that. It wouldn't have taken almost 8 years. The American Pilots have a considerable input into the company - the 787 is only tentatively ordered until their pilots approve the pay rates for example or else American will cancel the order.

I'm tired of talking to you.

[oneworldguy]

I'm glad it proves to YOU that I know nothing. That's such a major cop-out. By the way, if you know anything about American (and American Eagle's) history, you know that the airline would simply just transfer the orders to another airline if Allied Pilots Association didn't agree to a rate WHICH BY THE WAY WILL NOT HAPPEN!

At the end of the day, APA will fly the aircraft. They're on the verge of losing either their pensions or the scope clause which restricts flying done by American Eagle.

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

That's nice! Again, I'm tired of talking to you. I've made my point so we'll see what other people think when they read these comments.

Sorry to puchourbina for filling your comments page up so much.

[oneworldguy]

As powerful as the Allied Pilots Association has been in the past, American still has several very powerful tools in its hands. It still has not entered Chapter 11 even ONCE since September 11th occured (unlike every other US carrier) and the Scope Clause I mentioned could be taken out in the process (which protects pilot job security.)

Believe me, the pilots are very fearful of job security right now and are not going to let American cancel the order.

[oneworldguy]

Don't you also find it funny that Richard Branson, after telling the press that he believes the A380 will amount to financial ruin for Airbus since he sees NO possible way that they will sell 450 of them (necessary to recover development costs and break even), then went ahead and ordered the Boing 787 instead of the Airbus 350?

As much as I dislike that guy, he knows money.

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

Virgin Atlantic is in fact considering an order for 50 Airbus aircraft which includes the A350XWB as he is unhappy with Boeing over the Dreamliner debacle. They also recently ordered A330's. Richard Branson said nothing about the A380 causing Airbus financial ruin. He questioned whether it was the right plane at the right time following the recession which makes perfect sense to me. Also, Virgin still have the A380 on order!

[oneworldguy]

Are you SURE Branson never said that the A380 will probably lead Airbus to financial ruin? Why not have a little look at this article right out of Europe? (Just remove the spaces before and after the periods and backslashes.)

news . independent . co . uk / business / news / article2481069 . ece

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

I concede I was wrong there, and I also concede that the A380 may be a financial issue for Airbus - I have never said otherwise. However, the same was said about the 747 when that was launched and that was a success. Only time will tell. The fact remains that passenger numbers are set to increase and airlines are going to need fuel efficient aircraft. The A380 can handle a lot more passengers than any other plane so it is ideally suited for such conditions.

It may flop it may not!

[oneworldguy]

I also concede that everything I have said is merely an opinion. It might not be a design flaw, and it might be. Just like when Boeing had issues with rudder hardovers which were causing 737 accidents, I would have stopped riding them until they corrected the problem. This tail-snapping cleanly off of the airframe thing is worth taking a very hard look at. The photos of AA587's tail and AF447's tail both being fished out of water is quite scary, you have to admit.

[oneworldguy]

Especially since they were both in otherwise excellent shape. Boeing has had water crashes before, too. The tails were always just as destroyed as the rest of the aircraft which indicates to me that they remained attached during and (for the most part) at the end of impact.

[oneworldguy]

Now granted that the article IS a little more than two years old, it (a) proves that he DID, in fact, say that and (b) nothing changes the fact that they need to sell 450 of these aircraft to break even and start profiting.

I actually have to report to work in about 50 minutes and traffic will be a bitch today because of Labor Day festivities. Nice talking to you all. :-)

[puiear]

That's actually incorrect - mcpcshowcaseHD is right on this one.

[oneworldguy]

Opinions are just that - opinions. Yours is no different.

[oneworldguy]

By the way, are you aware that the A300 has had NUMEROUS incidents within American's fleet, including its inaugural flight which nearly crashed? AA587 is not the only safety reason the airline has had to remove the aircraft from its fleet. These frequency rates do not occur with our other aircraft types.

[puiear]

You know, I have been reading yours and mcpcshowcaseHD's comments and I can't help but feel that your talking through the seat of your pants. You seem to have no knowledgeable insight into the industry whatsoever. I don't even believe you work for American Airlines as anyone can say that. For example I work for British Airways. Where is the proof?

I have a lot of respect for mcpcshowcaseHD having followed the channel for a long time.

[oneworldguy]

Why not send me your email address and you shall receive pictures which lay all your doubts to rest.

[puiear]

Now i'm not saying your theory on the tail is incorrect, but there is no shred of evidence which indicates that such a design flaw exists and I think it is very dangerous to draw such conclusions.

If you are so concerned why don't you do something about it? It obviously bothers you so much!

[mcpcshowcaseHD]

So I guess if it was up to you we would still be living in caves right now?

[roadragecafe]

i was a bit surprised to be able to do that watching the video and xplane at the same time ... the plane still feels like a slug though

[foucdeg]

the plane feels less of a slug than a 747, according to me (on X-plane too). It's got bigger control surfaces.

[puchourbina]

yes no passanger on board, only the pilot and a little fuel to make a show Xd!!

[11martini]

WOOOOO. That was quite a climb, no passengers I assume?

[HydroPT619]

holy fuck :|. that looks too dangerous lol... I bet he was close to a stall position lol

[PilotOfNorway91]

The A380 has an impressive performance. It takes off with passengers and fuel way before your suggested time. When I start my stop clock on an A340-300 going from LFPG-FIMP, I always time between 32 and 36 seconds. The A380 however, at low weights, The plane is almost impossible to stall because of it's wing. It has a low wingload factor, and can subsequently take off more weight, in shorter distances, why do you think the wing is so big? ;)

[HydroPT619]

Well I'm not a pilot, so that's why I said it was near stall position, at least it looks like that.

I have a payware version of the A380-800 (and various other versions) and though the plane can take-off easily, while I was on the air, climbing to 26000 feet, with the engines near 100%, I was using the autopilot to a vertical speed of 2500, and suddenly the plane stalled. I had to disengage the auto pilot and bring that thing down for about 3000 feet to recover. That's why lol.

[PilotOfNorway91]

No problem. I understand. When the air gets thinner, you need to reduce the rate of ascending. (Going upwards for non pilots) Giving 100% can be normal, as fully loaded 747-400s use around 95-100% of certified thrust, exceeding can cause problems/fines. But back to the plane going 2500 VS/min at 26000ft (or going to) is still a bit to much. But it sounds to be that you used a freeware version, as I have the Wilco, and I don't have a problem with it. I recommend 600-900 ft VS/min above 26k.

[revaholic]

Wow!