Template:Vital article

Airbus A380 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result May 30, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 18, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 5, 2007 Good article nominee Listed November 7, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted November 9, 2009 Good article nominee Listed February 23, 2012 Good article reassessment Kept Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 27, 2011, April 27, 2014, April 27, 2015, April 27, 2017, April 27, 2020, and April 27, 2023. Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Aircraft GA‑class This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the aircraft project. This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal. This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should this be added to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.243.218 (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it didn't, so it isn't. BilCat (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

165.124.85.32 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The “largest passenger airliner” needs to be changed to “largest airplane”, for the Antonov an 224 has been destroyed by russian bombing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planeguy90 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Planeguy90: By what parameters? Per List of large aircraft, the Scaled Composites Stratolaunch is longer, heavier, has a much greater wingspan than the A380, and carries a much greater payload, albeit external. BilCat (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the second to last paragraph within the Testing section, there is a small tangent from 2014 about further testing of specifically the test models from 2005. I came across new information about Airbus' Flight Lab program, which is testing new rotor engines and sustainable fuels on the planes. I want to add this information, but I don't know exactly where would be best. This information seems extremely relevant to show that although the production of A380s has expired, Airbus has not stopped improving their commercial flop. Would it be ideal to add it right after the 2014 tangent, at the end of the Testing section, or maybe even add a new section?

On a semi-related note but not as relevant, I think the Airbus Flight Lab program could use its own article, since it spans across different Airbus models and is an amazing step to fight carbon emissions among commercial flight. Jadeisbetter (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To change Airbus a380 To airbus 380, the A in a380 is airbus. Planespotter37 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Airbus includes the A in its model numbers. See A220 and A350 on the Passenger aircraft page. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The statement regarding Lufthansa in the Operators section needs clarification and is currently misleading or at least a bit sparse as it can be misinterpreted as the airline bringing all A380s back to service soon which will not happen.
• Lufthansa already sold 6 of its 14 A380 back to Airbus, of the remaining 8 only 4 will be returned to service in 2023.
• See e. g. aerotelegraph.com - "Six Superjumbos: Lufthansa returns A380s to Airbus" (in German) and up to date from this week reisetopia.de - "Lufthansa reactivates overall four A380s" (in German), further sources and explaination is also found at Lufthansa fleet.

2001:A61:3A94:FC01:B442:1FCB:17EB:8AEC (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the phrase to "some of its remaining". Ruslik_Zero 19:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By summer 2024 Lufthansa plans to return the remaining four A380 into service, than operating 8 A380 out of Munich 144.64.84.39 (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In several sections, e.g., "Post-production Problems" and "Teardown and second-hand Market", there is historical content inappropriately written in the present tense although several years old, counter to Wikipedia guidelines regarding encyclopaedic style. An example: "Additionally, major airlines are seeking compensation from Airbus for revenue lost as a result of the cracks and subsequent grounding of fleets. Airbus has switched to a different type of aluminium alloy so aircraft delivered from 2014 onwards should not have this problem". Rather than simply correcting the tense, a knowledgeable contributor might also update the content to confirm whether the anticipated solution was successful. Again: "The fifth plane coming back from SIA, owned by Doric, has been leased by Hi Fly Malta with a lease period of "nearly 6 years". Hi Fly Malta became the first operator of second-hand A380 (MSN006). Norwegian Long Haul briefly leased Hi Fly Malta A380 in August 2018..." --Humboles (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

change "split scimitar winglets" to "split winglets" under the A380 Plus paragraph.

The scimitar moniker might be commonly associated with the 737-NG split winglets due to the extended curved tips, but is not an appropriate descriptor for the split winglets for the 737 MAX or the A380 Plus due to the lack of these curved tips. Timtamothy (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BilCat (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Engines section of this article says, "Sufficient braking capacity allowed for thrust reversers to be installed on only the inboard engines." The two sources provided are useless. The first is a sales brochure from the manufacturer of the brakes (Honeywell), bragging about how great their brakes are. The second source (which I've removed) says nothing about braking, only that Airbus was seeking new bids from contractors to design and manufacture engine nacelles with thrust reversers on the inboard engines and none on the outboards, so it's outdated and does not say anything about the statement. The idea that the brakes are so good that the A380 only needs 2 reversers seems to have come from the brake manufacturer. When I found another source that supported that claim, it gave a link to the Honeywell brochure as its source.

I've found 3 reliable, secondary sources that say the reason for only 2 reversers is to prevent the outboard engines from kicking up debris off the edge of the runway, which could then be ingested into the engines. One of those 3 articles provides much more detail. They point out the massive spooilers, which allow the wheel brakes to be more efficient as well as providing drag of their own, and the massive flaps, which allow the aircraft to land at much slower speeds than other heavy aircraft, about 20 kts slower than the 747, so less braking is needed. (I don't have a source at hand, but bigger flaps also slow aircraft down on the runway, more efficiently at the higher speeds when thrust reversers are also used. I see someone already reverted my edit, so I'll just add in those three sources I found. Dcs002 (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I reverted that revert, which makes me VERY nervous. (I don't want a struggle or bad juju or any of that. If that editor would like to discuss this section and what's best, I'd like that.) I only added one of the 3 sources. The best of the three was already in the article, so I used it a couple times, and the third article I decided to leave out. It was from USA Today, but it was one of those "Ask a Pilot" articles (appeal to authority). I thought the other two sources were quite solid, and there was no need to add another source that was a little weaker than what the article already has. I removed the self-serving bit where Honeywell was taking the credit for this decision because of their awesome brakes. They're good brakes, and I left that in the article because it was mentioned in at least one of the sources, but none of the neutral (non-sales) sources I found gave them credit for reducing the number of thrusters in the design from 4 to 2. Dcs002 (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well done and thanks! Don't worry much about multiple citation in places, especially if none of them support all the details in the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]