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
The discussion highlights the impressive size of modern aircraft, particularly the Airbus A380, which is compared to an eight-lane roadway and noted for its massive engines. There is a debate on the future of air travel, with some arguing that large aircraft will dominate due to their efficiency in long-haul flights, while others believe smaller commuter airlines will thrive, as evidenced by the success of EasyJet and Ryanair. Comparisons are made to historical aircraft like the Spruce Goose, emphasizing the engineering achievements of both past and present. The conversation also touches on the infrastructure investments airports are making to accommodate these large planes. Overall, the future of aviation seems to hinge on balancing the demand for large jets with the potential growth of smaller carriers.
  • #31
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #33
Doc Brown said:
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.
 
  • #34
Dawguard said:
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.
 
  • #35
brewnog said:
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.
 
  • #36
Dawguard said:
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.

heh yeah, ok. I don't think you have a clue what your talking about buddy.
 
  • #37
FredGarvin said:
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.

They mill the wing skins, it's incredible. They're done in 20 sections, the largest of which is 35 metres long and varies in thickness between 6 and 28mm. This machining ultimately controls the profile, but the sections are then creep formed for 24 hours at 250C in a huge autoclave.

Will try and dig out some pictures of the mill, it's pretty impressive.
 
  • #38
^ that autoclave is impressive.

I went to a seminar by one of their guys before the launch. At the time, was impressed by the amount of transport links they built to connect the different manufacturing centres.
 
  • #39
FredGarvin said:
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.
I thought it was an F-18. (That was dumb, F-18 has round intakes, not raked) But it's certainly not an F-15!


I confess, I could detect no PhotoShopping either. Nothing where the front gear should be, and nothing where the rear gear should be.

Easy enough to 'shop the tarmac, sure - but if you crank up the gain to show detail in the shadowed underwing area where the rear gear should be, it has detail that should not be there if someone had 'shopped it. And there is no artifacting whatsoever.

Additionally, the plane is not level - it has a slight roll to port, which it could not have if on the tarmac.

My initial assertion that this is 'shopped is way shakier now.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
DaveC426913 said:
I thought it was an F-18. (That was dumb, F-18 has round intakes, not raked)
The Super Hornets have squared off, larger intakes now.
 
  • #41
I honestly don't see how one could possibly confuse the two...
 
  • #42
And from a slightly forward of center camera angle, it isn't hard to mistake a noticeably positive angle of attack (necessary for 200kt flight) for a roll to port...

I think it is real too.
 
  • #43
She is flown by Russian Gromov Flight Research Institute`s senior test pilot, Kvochur, only 2 meters above ground,without extending landing gears!
I remember reading in one of Chuck Yeager's books about how he felt the "ground effect" as he got ready to land his X-1. He said something like he thought he could probably even land in the lake bed if he was blindfolded. Probably a bit of an exaggeration, but that Russian pilot is probably using the ground effect to help him know how close he is to the tarmac. Gutsy pass for sure!
 
  • #44
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/view?&h=67&w=120&type=asf&rurl=www.ifilm.com%2Fifilmdetail%2F2684873%3Frefsite%3D7063%26ns%3D1&vurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifilm.com%2Fplayer%3FifilmId%3D2684873%26refsite%3D7063&back=p%3Dlow%2Bairplane%26ei%3DUTF-8%26cv%3Dg%26fr%3Dslv1-%26b%3D21&turl=re2.mm-da.yimg.com%2Fimage%2F1644856177&name=Low+Flying+747&no=31&tt=79&p=low+airplane&oid=4e643f98b7bb5d7e&dur=16&src=p&pld=780x515

If you want to see the 747 landing at St. Maarten.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
Please people, enough with the conspiracy theories.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6547793592971674062&q=tomcat&pl=true

...I guess they must have photoshopped this video too huh?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
cyrusabdollahi said:
I honestly don't see how one could possibly confuse the two...
Which two? A Sukhoi and a Hornet? The two are much more alike than either is to a 14, 15 or 16, wouldn't you say?

I didn't confuse them so much as only give it a cursory glance. F18 is a very well-known plane, and it never occurred to me to check more carefully.
 
  • #47
russ_watters said:
And from a slightly forward of center camera angle, it isn't hard to mistake a noticeably positive angle of attack (necessary for 200kt flight) for a roll to port...

I think it is real too.
What mistake?? I am not confusing the angle of attack (pitch) with a roll! :mad:

The camera has a vantage point well above the tarmac, and is looking down at a several degree angle (which is why the horizon is way off the top of the pic). Yet even looking down upon the craft, the port wing - including its red trailing wingtip - are completely eclipsed behind the fuselage.

Draw a point anywhere that you think the port wingtiop trailing edge might be hiding, draw a line from the trailing edge of each wingtip. No matter how you draw it, it is going to intesect the tarmack somewhere in the background. The two wingtips are not level. Try any other two corresponding points on the craft. None are parallel to the ground.

Besides, why are we disagreeing? My assertion that the craft is in a slight roll is evidence in favour of the case that it is in flight and not on the ground.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
To me, apples and oranges. I guess you don't love airplanes like Fred and I.

Did you just watch the video? It's not the same plane, but it proves the point.
 
  • #49
cyrusabdollahi said:
To me, apples and oranges. I guess you don't love airplanes like Fred and I.
Well ouch.

I'm pretty good, but not up on late model foreign types.

Actually, I feel pretty foolish for leaping before looking. I should never have mistaken that for an F-18, what with those obviously F15-esque intake ports and F15-esque rudders. I did question the monster "tailbone", but put it down to model variation.


cyrusabdollahi said:
It's not the same plane, but it proves the point.
I've pretty much recanted my suspicion after examining the evidence in the photo.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
I think I misread your post - I thought you were saying it looked like a bad cut-and-paste. Sorry.
 
  • #51
Enjoy that F-14 video while you can. Almost all of the squadrons are retiring them. I believe there is only one active squadron left. Bummer.
 
  • #52
FredGarvin said:
Enjoy that F-14 video while you can. Almost all of the squadrons are retiring them. I believe there is only one active squadron left. Bummer.


Can you hear this outside your window that far way fred?

NOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OO!
! :mad:
 
Last edited:
  • #54
The nice thing about my school is that it's on the flight path to Andrews AFB. So every day if you look up you can see Marine One doing circles around campus.. Or you can see the blue Hueys that VIP condy, Rummy or Cheney doing circles. I don't know why they have to sit there and do circle after circle around campus, I guess its because they are trying to look down girls shirts from up there. Or every once in a while you can see KC-135 tankers on their approach. Oh yeah, and then there's the new's choppers, and the Maryland state police helicopter too. That place is literally buzzing with helicopters all the time. Saw a Chinook the other day too, and a few black hawks. Oh, and there is a small airpark right next door too, so you can hear the cessnas and bonanza's taking off on full power as they climb out on departure.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
cyrusabdollahi said:
That place is literally buzzing with helicopters all the time.
Pure heaven!

cyrusabdollahi said:
Saw a Chinook the other day too...
The only true aircraft worth even mentioning. One must make sure he genuflects when you say that holiest of names.
 
  • #56
I get Chinook's going over work quite often, they're bloody awesome machines. Not quite as scary as the time I was rock climbing in the French Alps one summer evening, and an Apache ascended in front of the sunset, silhouetting its arsenal, and pointing straight at me! Possibly one of the most menacing shapes mankind has ever designed!
 
  • #57
I actually had quite a few opportunities to fly with a bunch of the British chaps from the 18th squadron when I was stationed in Germany. Those guys knew how to have a good time after an airshow. The last time I saw any of them was the Air Tatoo in Middle Wallop in 1990. Good times.

BTW...For all of you aircraft junkies...I got to stand next to, under and near the only existing XB-70 in existence today (amongst other historic aircraft). Talk about a great day.
 
  • #58
FredGarvin said:
I actually had quite a few opportunities to fly with a bunch of the British chaps from the 18th squadron when I was stationed in Germany. Those guys knew how to have a good time after an airshow. The last time I saw any of them was the Air Tatoo in Middle Wallop in 1990. Good times.

BTW...For all of you aircraft junkies...I got to stand next to, under and near the only existing XB-70 in existence today (amongst other historic aircraft). Talk about a great day.
Cool! :cool:

Also, for those who want to follow a particular flight (US I think) - http://flightaware.com/

They were tracking Continental Flight 3161, an ERJ that blew two tires on the left landing gear during takeoff in Houston today. The plane landed safely at 06:22PM CDT (1922 EDT).
 
  • #59
FredGarvin said:
BTW...For all of you aircraft junkies...I got to stand next to, under and near the only existing XB-70 in existence today (amongst other historic aircraft). Talk about a great day.
Sweet.

When I was in Elvira NY, I had the chance to go for a flight in a B-17. They were just going through their pre-flight, and they had an extra seat. I couldn't justify the $350 to the wife though.:cry:
 
  • #60
DaveC426913 said:
Sweet.

When I was in Elvira NY, I had the chance to go for a flight in a B-17. They were just going through their pre-flight, and they had an extra seat. I couldn't justify the $350 to the wife though.:cry:
Ouch! Yeah, wives are funny about things like that. :rolleyes:
 

Similar threads

Photo Contest - Night Light (8/11-8/17)
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Photo Contest - Going Up (9/16-9/22)
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Photo Contest - How Heavy Are You? (8/18-8/24)
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Photo Contest - Up Close And Personal (7/28-8/3)
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Photo Contest - Blue (12/8-12/14)
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Photo Contest - Cake By The Ocean (8/19-8/25)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Photo Contest - She Blinded Me With Science (8/12-8/18)
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Photo Contest - Song and Image (9/2-9/8)
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Photo Contest - Long, Winding Road (8/13-8/19)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Photo Contest - Holidays At Night (12/2-12/8)
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K