Back to Squawk list
  • 51

Almost vertical takeoff from the Airbus A350

Berlin - On the occasion of the ILA Berlin 2018 (Innovation and Leadership in Aerospace) from 25 to 29 April, the Airbus A350 carried out a remarkable demonstration with an almost vertical takeoff. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Hmm, not as cool as a barrel roll in a 707.
travistx 4
Actually a Dash 80, but who's counting? :)
royr2 2
You might be confusing the Dash 8 and the "Dash 80", which was indeed Boeing's 707 prototype model designation. 707-80. Joel's video is a good explanation. They used it as a Pet Name.
Ackshirley, the Boeing Model 367-80. Developed into the 707 series, and USAF C-135.
travistx 9
I hate these stupid video titles. With a sufficiently long lens and the correct setup, nearly any jet takeoff could be viewed as "almost vertical".
Amazing what an empty airliner can do with min fuel and nothing else. Oh, wait they can all do that!
LOL. Yep, he maintained that deck angle and rate of climb for all of 14 seconds. Gear up, level off, end of show. An early 20 series Lear on a cold day and light would peg the 10,000 fpm, vsi and do it thru 15,000 feet. And in some places, ATC didn't care.
Aah, the good old days, a 20 series Lear and no ATC restrictions. Mind you, I did ferry an empty ‘63 series DC-8 and we shot direct to FL410.The skipper was a little uneasy so I asked why and he said “ never been this high before in an 8” at M.81... he sure had fun though, eyes as big as saucers.
Given the proper criteria one could say the craft in that video was "near the speed of light"...
Not unlike what Boeing did a few years ago with the 787 in Farnborough.
I'm no pilot, just a regular commercial flyer... and even I can spot the headline as clickbait.
Were we supposed to be impressed by that?
Camera angle is deceptive.
Looks like every departure from SNA I've ever been on.
Where do you see a vertical takeoff... You exagerate on the words....In fact, it's the climb which is at approximately 60 degrees far from 90 degrees which only military planes are able to achieve.

The take-off is still horizontal lol ;-) ;-) ;-)
Well not saying I would want to go on these airlines but several have some really long flight times already.

United Airlines is now flying the longest regularly scheduled route ever flown by a U.S. carrier and one that's a contender for the title of world's longest by flying time.

The Chicago-based airline officially claimed those superlatives late Friday, when it launched non-stop service on the 8,700-mile route connecting Los Angeles and Singapore.

By distance, it’s not the world’s longest – but it’s close. Qatar Airways’ Doha-Auckland route (9,032 miles) and Emirates’ Dubai-Auckland route (8,819 miles) remain the two longest as measured by the most-direct non-stop routing between the cities served.

By scheduled flying time, however, United’s LAX-Singapore is perhaps the world’s longest. Facing typically strong headwinds on the westbound route, United's flight in the direction of Singapore has a whopping scheduled flying time of 17 hours, 55 minutes.

That tops Qatar Airways’ published flying time of 17 hours, 40 minutes for its 9,032-mile flight from Auckland, New Zealand, to Doha, Qatar -- a route that's currently regarded as the world's longest by time.

United’s eastbound return to L.A. is scheduled for 15 hours, 15 minutes.
Now what the passengers do for 20 hours is by me. Many years ago I flew from San Francisco to the Philippines with one stop in between and the total flight time on that trip was 17hrs and 14 minutes. Not too sure I would want to do it now days but I know for a fact it is doable because I did it. Just not crazy about the idea of spending 18 hours in a tube with a bunch of other smelly people. After 18 hours everyone starts to reek regardless of what kind of underarm deodorant they wear. I am not going to get into what the blue water smells like in the restroom after 18 hours. Especially if they are serving cabbage and boiled eggs.
MrTommy 2
Note the bird they just missed at the 1:45 point.
HOW close to vertical? Telephoto lens can make 50 degrees seem vertical, I guess.
Camera angle can do a lot. I'll bet both the A350 and 787 climbs didn't exceed 30-40 degrees of pitch at best. Airbus has "laws" built in to it's fly-by-wire that will preclude "acrobatic" maneuvering.
If I recall from my physics class lo these many decades ago, for vertical flight thrust must exceed takeoff weight. How much do those engines produce?
For the 900, a tad less than 85,000 lbs. a side. And for sustained vertical flight, yes, thrust must exceed total weight, but for a zoom climb it can be sustained till you run out of speed.
dee9bee 4
Based on the audio in the video, they also had a hefty headwind. That never hurts!
i guess as long as it was greater than 45 degrees it's "near vertical" at least closer to vertical than horizontal.
What angle or climb rate qualifies for 'near vertical'?

jbqwik 3
That was my thought too. But still plenty impressive.
Reminds me of some high-speed stuff a BUFF did back in the '70's. I had no idea of the performance potential of that huge bird. And now a re-engining looks definite.
Sorry: My comment got a bit off-topic.
Not even close to vertical in the accepted sense of "vertical takeoff". See "Harrier" or "F-35C". This would be better called a maximum effort takeoff.
well so far 159 of them have been delivered and over 600 on order. Good luck to them!!
jrgp1 1
Sorry mate. B757 did this with one engine only. And would continue vertical. Sorry Airbus; you lost again. Get your act together.
A marketing stunt. The real test will be in service. Will the beast deliver on the technical level? Will operational costs be inline with the marketing material? What are the long term maintenance issues and when will those problems arise?
From 2018 to 2027, the aircraft has a projected year-on-year MRO growth rate of 26.3%, with line maintenance (37%) expected to account for the majority of work over a 10-year period.

As far as issues that come up this will be like any other newly developed and implemented aircraft and unless three is a crystal ball that can foresee the future then like any other aircraft we will not know, until we know, what if any issues occur.
I don't think responsible aircraft manufacturers plan for failure. They can plan around potential problems and use the best materials available and the best known engines but still there is the unknown human factor as well as potential mechanical malfunction that may occur. Personally I wish them all the best. A long range plane with up to 20 hours flight time is impressive and would be great for the long hauls.
Could a 20 hour flight time replace waterboarding?
If you had time sit in bathroom for entire flight
Vertical, schmertical. And Airbus - who's the genius that came up with the "back half held together with duct tape" paint scheme?
royr2 2
Maybe they're dropping hints it's made of carbon fiber, which is practically the same. LOL
Not really that remarkable, trading airspeed for altitude. It's called a zoom climb and is all part of energy management.
To truly "go vertical" you need better than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. Guaranteed this one doesn't have near that.
I'm more interested in what they do when all the pitots freeze up at 49,000 feet altitude, or the autopilot overrides the pilot a dozen other times.

Oh, wait ... we already know that.
(Yawn...not impressed)....Put it into a hammerhead stall and I'll consider it.


FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?