How Big Is the Airplane That Matches the Width of an 8-Lane Roadway?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Airplane
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers around the size comparison of the Airbus A380 to an 8-lane roadway, highlighting its massive dimensions and the implications for airport infrastructure. Participants note that while the A380 is a significant advancement in aviation, smaller commuter airlines like EasyJet and Ryanair are proving to be more profitable without relying on large aircraft. The conversation also references historical comparisons, such as the Spruce Goose, emphasizing the engineering feats of both past and present aircraft. Ultimately, there is a consensus that while large aircraft serve a purpose in long-haul travel, the future may lean towards smaller, more efficient models.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of aircraft dimensions and specifications, particularly the Airbus A380 and Boeing 747.
  • Familiarity with airport infrastructure requirements for large aircraft.
  • Knowledge of the airline industry's business models, especially regarding large versus small aircraft.
  • Awareness of historical aircraft, including the Spruce Goose and its significance in aviation history.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the engineering specifications and design challenges of the Airbus A380.
  • Explore the economic models of low-cost airlines like EasyJet and Ryanair.
  • Investigate the historical impact of the Spruce Goose on modern aviation design.
  • Learn about airport infrastructure adaptations for accommodating large aircraft.
USEFUL FOR

Aviation enthusiasts, airline industry professionals, airport planners, and anyone interested in the future of air travel and aircraft design.

Cyrus
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
17
Putting size into context. It's as big as an 8 lane roadway, sheesh. Those engines could swallow up cars.
http://photos.airliners.net/photos/photos/9/8/1/0957189.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Here is a 777 for comparison:

http://photos.airliners.net/photos/middle/1/4/3/1006341.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And Props go out to Air bus for creating a plane that will have limited airports it can fly to because it is so honking big and heavy. Great business sense.
 
There are a lot of airports in the world that are putting big money into their infrastructures to accommodate these aircraft. There is a major camp in the airline business that thinks that massive aircraft are going to be the only way the companys are going to survive. Of course, I think they are dead wrong. The smaller commuter lines are going to be the wave of the future (at least in the US anyways). We shall see.

Didn't someone a while ago post a comparisson between the A380 and the Spruce Goose? It was still smaller than the Spruce Goose which should give you a bit of insight into what Howard Hughes really accomplished.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1szvzv8u1ry2g?method=4&dsname=Wikipedia+Images&dekey=Giant+Plane+Comparison.jpg&sbid=lc01a&linktext=
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The A380 looks like a 747 on steroids. :smile:
 
I have been designing some airport underground structures for this heavy ass plane. Dimensions and weights:

http://www.content.airbusworld.com/SITES/Technical_Data/docs/AC/DATA_CONSULT/AC_A380.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FredGarvin said:
There is a major camp in the airline business that thinks that massive aircraft are going to be the only way the companys are going to survive. Of course, I think they are dead wrong. The smaller commuter lines are going to be the wave of the future (at least in the US anyways). We shall see.

Easyjet and Ryanair (both small airlines) here in the UK prove your point rather well. They're making very good profit without the need of investing on massive airliners. I have come to believe however that airliners are rather pivotal for the demands of our society. Jumbo jets nowadays exist to satisfy the apparent urge and need of getting on one plane only to get to your desired destination (longhaul flights of course). Moreover airliners such as the 744 and A380 have been manufactured to stay, unlike the concorde.
 
DM said:
Easyjet and Ryanair (both small airlines) here in the UK prove your point rather well. They're making very good profit without the need of investing on massive airliners. I have come to believe however that airliners are rather pivotal for the demands of our society. Jumbo jets nowadays exist to satisfy the apparent urge and need of getting on one plane only to get to your desired destination (longhaul flights of course). Moreover airliners such as the 744 and A380 have been manufactured to stay, unlike the concorde.
I agree that the long flights, trans oceantic etc... are always going to be the realm of the big ships. I guess the business models will have to take into account what they think the future international travel will be like. I agree that they will never go away, but I think they're required numbers are very limited.
 
haynewp said:
I have been designing some airport underground structures for this heavy ass plane. Dimensions and weights:

http://www.content.airbusworld.com/SITES/Technical_Data/docs/AC/DATA_CONSULT/AC_A380.pdf
That is really cool to see some actual engineering requirements. Thanks for sharing that! I'd be interested to hear of any happenings/hurdles you encounter because of the beast.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
How come half the cars in the A380 picture have drifted out of their lanes? :smile:
 
  • #11
Astronuc said:
The A380 looks like a 747 on steroids. :smile:
It is a 747 on steroids.
 
  • #12
As long as we're posting plane pictures

http://home.comcast.net/~cubz2008/plane.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
BobG said:
How come half the cars in the A380 picture have drifted out of their lanes? :smile:

Yah what's with these drivers, are they just in utter shock at how big it is that they get into crashes? :smile: :smile:
 
  • #14
No, the engines are sucking the cars into it. Notice only the cars forward of the engines are drifting :smile:
 
  • #15
Another big bird (bigger than the A380, actually),

[URL][PLAIN]http://photos.airliners.net/photos/middle/7/6/3/1032367.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
That Airliners Net is a pretty cool site. I love this picture! :smile:
 
  • #18
I like this one, you can feel the G forces

http://photos.airliners.net/photos/middle/3/8/6/0297683.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
I love this shot too, it's good for a wall paper

http://photos.airliners.net/photos/photos/8/2/6/0028628.jpg




I know about bird strike, but people strike?

http://photos.airliners.net/photos/photos/9/1/2/0686219.jpg

Balls of steel my friend, balls of steel...

http://photos.airliners.net/photos/photos/5/0/6/1025605.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Wow. Nice site, great pictures!
 
  • #21
Meh, it's big, sure

- but Hughes did it even better - made of wood, and a half century earlier!


sprucegoose.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #22
And if Hughes only had access to high bypass turbofan jet engines, or even turbo props, then the Spruce Goose might have flown. As it was, it barely flew without a load.

Note that the fuselages of the 747 and A380 are slightly larger, but the wings are smaller, and they actually fly fully loaded.
 
  • #23
Airbus ROCK! :cool:

I think they'll make all their money from the A380F - freight version.
 
  • #24
Argentum Vulpes said:
And Props go out to Air bus for creating a plane that will have limited airports it can fly to because it is so honking big and heavy. Great business sense.

Well their business sense seems to be paying off judging by the amount of workshop equipment I sell to the factory in Deeside where they make the A380 wings, they've got a huge amount of orders for these planes - business is good!

I can tell you that standing next to one of these wings is something else... You can actually stand up inside it at the widest end.
 
  • #25
cyrusabdollahi said:
Balls of steel my friend, balls of steel...

http://photos.airliners.net/photos/photos/5/0/6/1025605.jpg
[/URL]

I'm not fallin' for it.

I'm sayin' this bird was on the tarmack, wheels down, and it's been PhotoShopped.

Either that, or the camera has a shutter speed of about 1/brazillionth of a second and a infrared beam across the runway for tripping the shutter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
cyrusabdollahi said:
Another big bird (bigger than the A380, actually),

[PLAIN]http://photos.airliners.net/photos/middle/7/6/3/1032367.jpg[/QUOTE]

I think that's the Antonov 225, the soviets built it to carry their space shuttle. I think they only built one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Astronuc said:
And if Hughes only had access to high bypass turbofan jet engines, or even turbo props, then the Spruce Goose might have flown. As it was, it barely flew without a load.

Note that the fuselages of the 747 and A380 are slightly larger, but the wings are smaller, and they actually fly fully loaded.


How so? He only took it 3 feet off the ground, quite illegally, because it was never certified to fly. How do you know it was not able to fly higher? The engines of the day were powerful, very powerful.
 
  • #28
DaveC426913 said:
I'm not fallin' for it.

I'm sayin' this bird was on the tarmack, wheels down, and it's been PhotoShopped.

Either that, or the camera has a shutter speed of about 1/brazillionth of a second and a infrared beam across the runway for tripping the shutter.
I agree. No way the pictuer would be that clear at the speed the place would have to be flying, and how close it is. Second, look at the airs behind the engines: there's nothing there. If it was flying at all, or even if the trubo was running, you would see it.
 
  • #29
Why would it not be clear? Use a telephoto lense from a distance. The engine blast would not happen until a few feet behind the engine. It does look like there is a vapor trail out the back of that tail boom.
 
  • #30
Dawguard said:
I agree. No way the pictuer would be that clear at the speed the place would have to be flying, and how close it is. Second, look at the airs behind the engines: there's nothing there. If it was flying at all, or even if the trubo was running, you would see it.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...b_vq QRFP&photo_nr=1&prev_id=&next_id=1025605

She is flown by Russian Gromov Flight Research Institute`s senior test pilot, Kvochur, only 2 meters above ground,without extending landing gears!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K