"... watch this ..."

Is there a video?

Alas, no. I meant to edit Dale's text slightly, but forgot to. (I now have). It was impressive to see the A380 fly though. On a short flight with a tiny fuel load and an empty aircraft the pilot was able to fly it around pretty hard. No slow roll ala the Boeing Dash 80 though, alas.

Ah, the incident over Lake Washington ;-)

Sorry to disagree (and I used to take Air Pictorial in my youth). I too have seen the monster and didn't realise it till later.
It flew over my house on it's inaugural flight, when it came to waggle it's wings at Filton in Bristol, er where the wings are indeed made.
All I thought was "shit that planes a bit low for central Bristol!!" and carried on working.
It's a big bodied, four engined, bog standard looking plane. Unlike Concorde, which was beautiful.
I still have a few really crap photos , of the last Concorde landing ever, at Filton, taken from my bedroom window, if anyone in Reuters are interested.

Good lord, it's an ugly bastard of a thing.

Looks like a passenger rated Super Guppy.

It is probably more impressive sitting on the ground than flying, true. It isn't substantially longer or dramatically wider than a 747 (although the wing is substantially bigger), so you don't see that dramatic a difference from below. Where it is different is the larger top deck and much bigger tail, neither of which you see from underneath. The front does have a Super Guppy look, yes. Much uglier than the bump at the front of the 747.

And I fear I might be the only person in the word who doesn't find the Concorde beautiful. To me it just looks like some vaguely ridiculous failed vision of the future from about 1955. Which is essentially what it is. (Okay, 1965, but you get the point).

Do I dare to make a point... I agree with Michael Jennings (sort of) Concorde isn't anywhere near as beautiful as people claim. I've seen it in the air and on the ground at Duxford and it's bloody impressive but, for me, it doesn't quite have the aching beauty it is supposed to have. The Tu-144 was better looking and the XB-70 really takes the cake. One day I might see my way clear to making a trip to Dayton, Ohio to see the only example.

All successful airplanes have been good looking, beautiful, even works of art.

The A380 is butt ugly, therefore it's doomed doomed doomed.

Not being a natural born Bristolian, as you know,
I will have to let Michael and Nick off for their eccentric views. Though among the locals I hear a posse is forming....
Mick, may I mention Howard Hughes Spruce Goose and the TSR 2. Both beautiful planes that flew twice at the most...

Sorry! meant Mike

The Messerschmit Bf 109 was the most successful fighter ever (over 22000 built I believe), but it was ugly as hell. Perhaps ugliness is a better criterion for success. ;-)

Steven,

The 109 was ugly but it only carried on in serial production because the Germans were desperate. The FW-190 wasn't exactly pretty but was a much better fighter. Exigencies meant it was produced in smaller numbers than the 109.

The 109 gets my vote as a bad fighter because it had hideous take-off and landing characteristics. It had a vicous torque swing on take-off and a very narrow track landing gear.

And the vicious characteristics were only increased as engine power was increased in the late modelsm - especially the G and K.

The best fighter of WWII was almost certainly the Mustang though the Tempest and Lightning weren't bad either. As was the La-11. Don't ever forget the Sovs - they built some great planes with bugger all in the way of resources.

By Mustang, I mean the P-51D with the bubble hood, obviously.

I think in truth, most modern wide-body twin jets are fairly ugly, or at least deeply bland. Amongst Airbuses, the A300 and A330 in particular are particular cases. However, the A300 is a very successful aircraft, and the A330 moderately so. (The A340 is prettier than either, but in market terms is a failure - its four engine layout can't compete economically with the big twins). I think the A320 is the prettiest aircraft Airbus has produced (and it is certainly successful as well). Certainly it is prettier than the 737, which (the later versions with CFM56 engines at least) has an odd, slung too low look about it. Amongst Boeing aircraft, the 767 and 777 are probably the best looking widebody twins out there, which is not perhaps saying all that much. The 747 is classically distinctive design, and the 757's "praying mantis" look is at least, well, interesting.

I think Boeing does actually win in terms of better looking aircraft, but probably not by that much. And I am not sure there is much connection between looks and success in this case.

Here's why I think the A380 is doomed: The initial successful run of the B747 back in the 70's was really due to its range, rather than its size. It was the only aircraft that could handle really long routes back then. Nowadays, both Airbus and Boeing can produce small to medium sized aircraft with extremely long range, and the giants are no longer so much in demand, as evidenced by Boeing's very slow 747 sales in recent years.

The old "hub" system, where passengers traveled long distances on a limited number of routes and then caught smaller, shorter ranged aircraft for connection flights to their actual destinations, is rapidly disappearing. Of course passengers prefer direct flights - and small or medium sized airliners with very long range make more direct flights economically feasible.

I suspect Airbus is going to get massively hosed on the A380.

Giant Plane Comparison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Giant_Plane_Comparison.png