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
AI Thread 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.
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:
Physics 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!
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
 

Similar threads

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

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top