Damn, that's one big airplane.

[Cyrus]

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

 

[Cyrus]

Here is a 777 for comparison:

http://photos.airliners.net/photos/middle/1/4/3/1006341.jpg

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

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.

 

[FredGarvin]

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=

 

[Astronuc]

The A380 looks like a 747 on steroids. :rofl:

 

[haynewp]

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

 

[DM]

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.

 

[FredGarvin]

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.

 

[FredGarvin]

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.

 

[BobG]

How come half the cars in the A380 picture have drifted out of their lanes? :rofl:

 

[scott1]

The A380 looks like a 747 on steroids. :rofl:

It is a 747 on steroids.

 

[dav2008]

As long as we're posting plane pictures

http://home.comcast.net/~cubz2008/plane.jpg

 

[Pengwuino]

How come half the cars in the A380 picture have drifted out of their lanes? :rofl:

Yah what's with these drivers, are they just in utter shock at how big it is that they get into crashes? :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Cyrus]

No, the engines are sucking the cars into it. Notice only the cars forward of the engines are drifting :rofl:

 

[Cyrus]

Another big bird (bigger than the A380, actually),

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

 

[BobG]

That Airliners Net is a pretty cool site. I love this picture! :rofl:

 

[FredGarvin]

I do like that site. They get some great pics there...like this one:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...nr=9&prev_id=0797439&next_id=0696104&tbl=COOL

Two Spitfires and a Typhoon. Heaven.

 

[Cyrus]

I like this one, you can feel the G forces

http://photos.airliners.net/photos/middle/3/8/6/0297683.jpg

 

[Cyrus]

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

 

[pallidin]

Wow. Nice site, great pictures!

 

[DaveC426913]

Meh, it's big, sure

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

 

[Astronuc]

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.

 

[J77]

Airbus ROCK!

I think they'll make all their money from the A380F - freight version.

 

[Doc Brown]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[jasc15]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[Dawguard]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[J77]

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!

 

[Dawguard]

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.

I can't back it up factually, but I doubt that any capure could capture an object moving that fast, that clearly. If they aren't landing, the F-15 would probably be going at least four hundred mph. That would require a ridicualously high framerate, and even then I don't think it coudl be clear enough to read to small paint on the side. Also, the photo has perfectly focused on the plane. I also don't buy the fact that there would be no engine blast visible. If the framerate was that good it should have captured the hot air behind it, and that has no distance on it.

 

[J77]

More Russian brilliance: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=597&distinct_entry=true

 

[brewnog]

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!

The thing I like about that factory is that the wings aren't just made by riviting aluminium sheet to stringers; the surfaces are machined.



That plane/beach photo is real by the way, it's in Central America somewhere. Can't remember the story but the runway is just off the beach. Apparently there was a problem on this particular island with dog overpopulation. To reduce numbers, owners were found to be taking their dogs down to the beach, and throwing them up behind the landing planes; the backwash blew the pooches right out to sea.

 

[FredGarvin]

I can't back it up factually, but I doubt that any capure could capture an object moving that fast, that clearly. If they aren't landing, the F-15 would probably be going at least four hundred mph. That would require a ridicualously high framerate, and even then I don't think it coudl be clear enough to read to small paint on the side. Also, the photo has perfectly focused on the plane. I also don't buy the fact that there would be no engine blast visible. If the framerate was that good it should have captured the hot air behind it, and that has no distance on it.

400 mph is not required to go in straight and level flight. It's probably doing half that speed, which is about as fast as an Indy car. If it is photoshopped, then my hat's off to who did it. That is a masterpiece of work there. I can usually spot the doctored pics pretty easlily.

It's a Sukhoi, not an F-15.

 

[FredGarvin]

The thing I like about that factory is that the wings aren't just made by riviting aluminium sheet to stringers; the surfaces are machined.

What do they machine? Do they control the entire profile of the wing or just in sections? I have never heard of them doing that.