Hi,I know that this is totally off topic but I thought that if I'll find an answer to this question than in this forum. After a recent trip with an A380 from SIN to SYD and back I started reading a bit about the superjumbo. I read in an offical Airbus document that only slat #4 (on each side) is deiced by the Anti-Ice-System. I cannot think of any reason why only the #4 slats are deiced and not all the others. Can anyone come up with a solution???Thanks in advanceFrederik

In the Emirates training college a lot of questions regarding some strange Airbus decisions were answered beginning with: "If you want to know, you can write to www.airbus.com.....[followed by the answer]" I'm not being arrogant, and I'm not kidding by the way. There is a lot of French logic behind the Airbus and some of it is hm.. strange.Anyway, I presume the slats 1,2 and 3 are in the area of the wing which is really thick and the airflow can not disrupted so easily, while slat #4 is in the area of the wing with thinner profile that would require de-ice to keep the things smooth.Just my 2 cents though..

I'm not being arrogant, and I'm not kidding by the way. There is a lot of French logic behind the Airbus and some of it is hm.. strange.

,Relax, Martin. Luckily for you, there is also some good German, British, and Spannish logic behind the Airbus...At least that's what we tell ...some guys, so that they calm down a bit...:( Bruno

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going! :(

Frankly the Airbus A380 shoudln't have existed. With $20,000,000,000+ (yep that's $20 BILLION) of Illegal subsidies by the French and British governments, the A380 was created into this world with intent to purely out-do Boeing's 747, and by there it will take 260 to break even, with only 244 ordered they'll never make money as costs go up. The Airbus A380 is too big for the current market, and still for 20 years. If it hadn't been for the government, the A330 would just be starting and their A320 would be their only product. See, if they had the funding of Boeing, they wouldn't have ever been able to build the future A350, bigger than the 777-300ER right after a money-losing super-jumbo. See, Airbus has never taken risk, they have been backed by the governments, but Boeing on the upperhand they took risks, making the first 727 before they had any customers on board, smae with the original 747, fully funded and risk taken by the company. In 1997, McDonnel-Douglas had their MD-12 concept, a double-decker slightly smaller than the A380, and it took no interest by the airlines. What bugs me is this big ugly thing that looks like an inflated globfish (look it up) has taken 244 orders from the more-effecient, airport friendly, 'greener' and more intituve and blended 747-8 which, in one day can a pilot transition from the 747-400, and fit into almost ALL current infrastructure of big International Airports. And ill-concevied design, with bad engineering in comparison to the 747-8.

oops, edited to remove copy post.

Along the lines of the above post, but a little more balanced in terms of a look at the competition:http://www.amazon.com/Boeing-Versus-Airbus-International-Competition/dp/1400043360It's a decent read. Not for the faint of heart (not in a gross sense, but if you don't like dry, it's not your cup of tea).

Along the lines of the above post, but a little more balanced in terms of a look at the competition:http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/1400043360It's a decent read. Not for the faint of heart (not in a gross sense, but if you don't like dry, it's not your cup of tea).

Excellent book. But then again, I'm the type of person who enjoys international politics and economics and compulsively reads the BBC, Washington Post and LA Times.

Anyone with an ANSWER???Frederik

Frankly the Airbus A380 shoudln't have existed. With $20,000,000,000+ (yep that's $20 BILLION) of Illegal subsidies by the French and British governments, the A380 was created into this world with intent to purely out-do Boeing's 747, and by there it will take 260 to break even, with only 244 ordered they'll never make money as costs go up. The Airbus A380 is too big for the current market, and still for 20 years. If it hadn't been for the government, the A330 would just be starting and their A320 would be their only product. See, if they had the funding of Boeing, they wouldn't have ever been able to build the future A350, bigger than the 777-300ER right after a money-losing super-jumbo. See, Airbus has never taken risk, they have been backed by the governments, but Boeing on the upperhand they took risks, making the first 727 before they had any customers on board, smae with the original 747, fully funded and risk taken by the company. In 1997, McDonnel-Douglas had their MD-12 concept, a double-decker slightly smaller than the A380, and it took no interest by the airlines. What bugs me is this big ugly thing that looks like an inflated globfish (look it up) has taken 244 orders from the more-effecient, airport friendly, 'greener' and more intituve and blended 747-8 which, in one day can a pilot transition from the 747-400, and fit into almost ALL current infrastructure of big International Airports. And ill-concevied design, with bad engineering in comparison to the 747-8.

Surely you can't be serious? If yes, thanks for the laugh!

Along the lines of the above post, but a little more balanced in terms of a look at the competition:http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/1400043360It's a decent read. Not for the faint of heart (not in a gross sense, but if you don't like dry, it's not your cup of tea).

Hi Kyle,Definitely more balanced (but that's not difficult). An interesting read indeed.For those who like (and can take) a balanced view, see also the World Trade Organization findings blaming both Airbus and Boeing for illegal subsidies.Bruno PS : Frederik, sorry you didn't get your answer. I know an A380 mech and could ask him when I see him but I'm not sure he will have the answer since this was obviously decided by the design team.

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going! :(

Thank you for that informed and considered opinion. I am mildly curious though, just how much extra are you willing to pay in terms of ticket price, journey time or connections in order to find route you can complete on just Boeing aircraft? And just so we have have a point of comparision, can I ask roughly how many flights you make a year and to how many different destinations?

Thank you for that informed and considered opinion. I am mildly curious though, just how much extra are you willing to pay in terms of ticket price, journey time or connections in order to find route you can complete on just Boeing aircraft? And just so we have have a point of comparision, can I ask roughly how many flights you make a year and to how many different destinations?

:( regards Jim

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going! :(

You should also add :If it ain't freedom fries, I ain't eating! :PBen

Hi,I know that this is totally off topic but I thought that if I'll find an answer to this question than in this forum. After a recent trip with an A380 from SIN to SYD and back I started reading a bit about the superjumbo. I read in an offical Airbus document that only slat #4 (on each side) is deiced by the Anti-Ice-System. I cannot think of any reason why only the #4 slats are deiced and not all the others. Can anyone come up with a solution???Thanks in advanceFrederik

Hi Frederik,This isn't my area but I can answer your question to a point.Slat 4 was identified as being the most critical area of icing on the wing. The criticality is a measure of susceptibility to icing and also the impact of icing on the overall handling qualities (HQ) of the aircraft and in some cases the functionality of a part. An analysis is performed during the design and then the prototype aircraft is fitted with ice shapes and a series of HQ flights are performed. This will verify (or help refine) the design decisions. Once these tests are complete the aircraft carries out a natural icing flight test campaign (usually involves flying into storms if this happens to coincide with summer). This campaign will show how ice naturally forms over the wing and so the verification cycle would be more or less complete.In an ideal world the manufacturer would rather not de-ice the wing (it's all additional weight) so when anti-ice systems are found to be required they are only fitted where it is necessary for safe handling of the aircraft. Given the temperature of bleed air it is a safety risk in itself and to protect against that you end up adding even more weight.Martin, The design team for the anti-ice system is German (and part UK), so you can blame them if you think it's "bizzare logic", safe to say with 40+ years of a/c design experience they might have some idea of what they're doing!AndyP.S. to the anti-Airbus posters, it's kinda sad don't you think? Try to be a little more open-minded - my 2 euro cents.