New airbus a330 or 300 or whichever

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Airbus A380, focusing on its commercial flight status, design features, and implications for airport infrastructure. Participants express curiosity about the aircraft's capabilities and share opinions on its size and operational challenges.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the status of commercial flights for the Airbus A380, with one noting that flights are expected to start in 2006.
  • There are discussions about the design of the cockpit and the number of passengers the aircraft can carry, with some expressing concern over the aircraft's size.
  • Participants mention the need for airport modifications to accommodate the A380, including changes to runways, jetways, and passenger areas.
  • One participant references the Kansai International Airport as an example of a successful airport built on water, while others express skepticism about similar projects in the U.S.
  • Concerns are raised about the A380's weight and its impact on airport infrastructure, including runway strength and wake turbulence compared to smaller aircraft.
  • Some participants speculate on the future of air travel, suggesting a trend towards smaller and more efficient aircraft, contrasting with the A380's design.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of curiosity and skepticism regarding the A380's operational capabilities and the challenges it presents to existing airport infrastructure. There is no clear consensus on the feasibility of building airports on water or the future direction of air travel.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various technical and logistical challenges related to the A380, including runway requirements, airport modifications, and regulatory approvals, without resolving these issues.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
New airbus a330 or 300 or whichever :)

Does anyone know if any commercial flights have actually been done with that new airbus superjumbo? I want to know if its as drool-tastic as modern marvels made it seem!
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
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.
 
1.You... dont.. have it bookmarked?

2. Commercial flights don't start till 2006.
 
Bookmarking it will only make it harder to find for me :-/
 
I never bookmark any wikipages, I just type em in.
 
Bookmark the main page, I meant.
 
lol modern marvels is such a great show
 
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
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
You mean the life vests?

Why does that trouble you, they're under the passenger seats.
 
  • #12
Well I suppose if the sign read 'parachutes' it would be more troublesome.
 
  • #13
how about ejection seats for pilot and the other guy ?
 
  • #14
I like the office, nice latout, and note the lack of a gazillion swiches and dials.
 
  • #15
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
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 doesn't have to dock at an airport.
 
  • #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
wolram said:
Im not sure but i think wing design is the limiting factor, the russian cargo
plane is bigger, but it doesn'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 accommodate them.
 
  • #19
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 accommodate them.

LAX is remodeling to allow for the use of the A380 isn't it?
 
  • #20
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
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
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
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
Yah, only the japanese can do insane things like that and get it to work.
 
  • #25
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
Naa, you guys won't figure out how to do it either :P
 
  • #27
Pengwuino said:
Naa, you guys won't 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
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 I am going to go build an international airport on my roof :D
 
  • #29
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.
:smile: now that's cool. It's safer than real land!
 
  • #30
Narita is more coolest than Kansai.
 

Similar threads

Any Good (HEPA) Air Purifiers of Small Size & w/o Pre-Filters?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
AT&T 5G cellular home internet - first impressions
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Anyone sick and tired of all the fancy techy stuffs?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Did Amazon stop trying once they chose E Ink?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Airbus Fly By Wire System and Backups
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
25K
Need advice on a computer monitor that goes dark
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
RAID5 SSD: Pros & Cons of Replacing Failed HDD w/SSD
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
App for taking voice notes and To-Do list items?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
High School What would happen if there were no inertia?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
I cannot install Photoshop 6.0 onto my new laptop with Win11
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K