New airbus a330 or 300 or whichever

  • Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date
  • #1
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
New airbus a330 or 300 or whichever :)

Does anyone know if any commercial flights have actually been done with that new airbus superjumbo? I wanna know if its as drool-tastic as modern marvels made it seem!
 

Answers and Replies

  • #3
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
I can never figure out what wikipedia's website name is :-/. I usually have to google it haha. Plus i was hoping if it did have commercial flights already, someone here might have been on one.
 
  • #4
Smurf
396
3
1.You... dont.. have it bookmarked?

2. Commercial flights don't start till 2006.
 
  • #5
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Bookmarking it will only make it harder to find for me :-/
 
  • #6
Mk
2,037
4
I never bookmark any wikipages, I just type em in.
 
  • #7
Smurf
396
3
Bookmark the main page, I meant.
 
  • #8
Kakarot
60
0
lol modern marvels is such a great show
 
  • #9
FredGarvin
Science Advisor
5,088
10
They just completed the first flight a couple of months ago. They have a long way to go to type certification.

BTW...it's the A380.
 
  • #10
cronxeh
Gold Member
1,004
10
What troubles me, aside from the idiotically enormous amount of passengers per plane, is this behind the pilot seats:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/A380.flightdeck.750pix.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,739
7
You mean the life vests?

Why does that trouble you, they're under the passenger seats.
 
  • #12
cronxeh
Gold Member
1,004
10
Well I suppose if the sign read 'parachutes' it would be more troublesome.
 
  • #13
stoned
82
0
how about ejection seats for pilot and the other guy ?
 
  • #14
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,397
559
I like the office, nice latout, and note the lack of a gazillion swiches and dials.
 
  • #15
motai
358
2
Its surprising how that behemoth is able to lift off the ground. It looks like two planes in one. Who knows... they might be able to make a larger plane. Instead of Airbus it (as it stands now) is really Airdoubledeckerbus, and perhaps in the next few years they will design an Airtripledeckerbus.

It'll be like flying an oil tanker. :smile:
 
  • #16
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,397
559
motai said:
Its surprising how that behemoth is able to lift off the ground. It looks like two planes in one. Who knows... they might be able to make a larger plane. Instead of Airbus it (as it stands now) is really Airdoubledeckerbus, and perhaps in the next few years they will design an Airtripledeckerbus.

It'll be like flying an oil tanker. :smile:

Im not sure but i think wing design is the limiting factor, the russian cargo
plane is bigger, but it dosen't have to dock at an airport.
 
  • #17
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
motai said:
Its surprising how that behemoth is able to lift off the ground. It looks like two planes in one. Who knows... they might be able to make a larger plane. Instead of Airbus it (as it stands now) is really Airdoubledeckerbus, and perhaps in the next few years they will design an Airtripledeckerbus.

It'll be like flying an oil tanker. :smile:

haha yah, instead of going to tokyo, you can fly the population of tokyo to you.
 
  • #18
FredGarvin
Science Advisor
5,088
10
wolram said:
Im not sure but i think wing design is the limiting factor, the russian cargo
plane is bigger, but it dosen't have to dock at an airport.
Pretty much any kind of ground interface is the limiting factor right now. Jetways, allowable turning radius, runway size, passenger waiting area capacity, hangar space, etc...There is a very long list of things that require retooling for the A380 and a lot of airports are either starting to or are in the process of making changes to try to accomodate them.
 
  • #19
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
FredGarvin said:
Pretty much any kind of ground interface is the limiting factor right now. Jetways, allowable turning radius, runway size, passenger waiting area capacity, hangar space, etc...There is a very long list of things that require retooling for the A380 and a lot of airports are either starting to or are in the process of making changes to try to accomodate them.

LAX is remodeling to allow for the use of the A380 isnt it?
 
  • #20
FredGarvin
Science Advisor
5,088
10
Yup. It's a major hub that the airlines that are buying that plane use. I don't think LAX had any choice in the matter. One place I see having a hell of a time adapting will be JFK on Long Island. It's already cramped for space and it's not like they can build on the water. Stories like this IMO will start gradually popping up.
 
  • #21
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
hmm... if i didnt have a genetic disposition towards throwing up at the thought of going into LA, i might have considered going there for a flight.
 
  • #22
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,739
7
FredGarvin said:
Yup. It's a major hub that the airlines that are buying that plane use. I don't think LAX had any choice in the matter. One place I see having a hell of a time adapting will be JFK on Long Island. It's already cramped for space and it's not like they can build on the water. Stories like this IMO will start gradually popping up.


I might be showing my ignorance here, but why can they not build on the water at JFK?
 
  • #23
FredGarvin
Science Advisor
5,088
10
Two words: Kansai International.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport

They say they have the sinking under control, but who knows....BTW, I think it has to be one of the coolest airports in the world. If the US tried to build something like that it would be a total flop.
 
  • #24
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Yah, only the japanese can do insane things like that and get it to work.
 
  • #25
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,739
7
Pengwuino said:
Yah, only the japanese can do insane things like that and get it to work.



And the Brits!

The [feasibility study] is likely to confirm the preferred option of extending the Runway End Safety Area, on the Isle of Man, on the main runway out to sea by about 220 metres.

http://www.iomguide.com/news/general-news.php?story=502

:smile:
 
  • #26
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Naa, you guys wont figure out how to do it either :P
 
  • #27
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,739
7
Pengwuino said:
Naa, you guys wont figure out how to do it either :P


How hard can it be?!

Just some massive polystyrene floats, some girders, balsa wood, tarmac, a few light bulbs, some cable, and a couple of thousand rolls of gaffer tape!
 
  • #28
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
brewnog said:
How hard can it be?!

Just some massive polystyrene floats, some girders, balsa wood, tarmac, a few light bulbs, some cable, and a couple of thousand rolls of gaffer tape!

hmm... your right... hell im gonna go build an international airport on my roof :D
 
  • #29
Smurf
396
3
In 1995, Kansai Airport was struck by the Kobe earthquake, which was centered just 20 km away and killed 6,433 people on the mainland. The airport, however, emerged unscathed, mostly due to the use of sliding joints in its construction. Even the glass in the windows stayed intact. Later, in 1998, the airport survived a typhoon with wind speeds of up to 200 km/h.
:rofl: now that's cool. It's safer than real land!
 
  • #30
Fryerpan
4
0
Narita is more coolest than Kansai.
 
  • #32
The biggest problem most carriers will have with using the A380 is the massive weight of the airplane. Most airports will have to rebuild there runways and any tunnels or roadways that pass under them. Also the A380 has a much larger wake disturbance pattern and dispersal time compared to a 747. This can create possible jams and delays in larger more congested hubs. Also Airbuss will have to make some changes to the flight control systems to get FAA approval. So if you want to ride on a A380 you will need to goto Europe or Asia. I think the future of air travel is in the smaller, faster, lighter, and cheaper to fly airplanes that is in the direction Boeing is going.
 
  • #33
Fryerpan
4
0
give me a hit to Chitose :wink:
 
  • #34
Fryerpan
4
0
Argentum Vulpes said:
The biggest problem most carriers will have with using the A380 is the massive weight of the airplane. Most airports will have to rebuild there runways and any tunnels or roadways that pass under them. Also the A380 has a much larger wake disturbance pattern and dispersal time compared to a 747. This can create possible jams and delays in larger more congested hubs. Also Airbuss will have to make some changes to the flight control systems to get FAA approval. So if you want to ride on a A380 you will need to goto Europe or Asia. I think the future of air travel is in the smaller, faster, lighter, and cheaper to fly airplanes that is in the direction Boeing is going.
u need to turn on that kidn of panel anytime u need it as advertisement or thereaint gonna be meaningfull flights, i guess.

advice for u, if u need to fly fast, effieciently, u must get boeing tickets.

good luck if u have any journey to go...
 
  • #35
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Argentum Vulpes said:
I think the future of air travel is in the smaller, faster, lighter, and cheaper to fly airplanes that is in the direction Boeing is going.

Yah, at some point some environmentalist is going to say this new airplane "Is the flying SUV! Its evil! It takes up so much gas!" and whether or not its true, it'll be a disaster for airbus (especially if it happens sooner or later).

I've always wondered how people are going to make aircraft "environmentally friendly". People wont rest until gas is no longer used but it seems like the only things we possess that keep huge masses in the air at 550mph is gas (at least the only closely economical thing we have)
 

Suggested for: New airbus a330 or 300 or whichever

  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
Replies
76
Views
6K
Replies
26
Views
21K
Top