Airbus A380
 

im wondering if this big boy... the A380 needs a longer runway than usual to take off and land...

or maybe its engines are powerful enough for a normal length take off

heh

no
i just have an interest for it since i was little

im planning on going into electric engineering
and from there, options will be plenty

even aerial development too

i like to know these things because i know they will effect our lifes in the future
how we travel and commute

things will be very different

well it is always changing
it has been and it is now and it still will be

i really wonder when the technology we invented will destroy us...

also have you guys heard of Ballard Fuel Cells?

for those u know, the byproduct is water
what if every car in the world 10 or 5 years from now all has fuel cells
and human uses it for 5 years

how much excess water would that be?

lol there isnt much we can do if we are like in matrix
energy being sucked by computers...

even if we are, what is exactly is reality?

NO it's not
 

I happen to be one of the people who built Air Force One.

I am a Avionics installer/Aircrraft Modification Elctrictian. I do eng. and customer changes, experimental aircraft and secret aircraft eletrical/electronics and avionics work.

No. Absoulty not. Air Force one does not need to be upgraded. And no way will it ever be Airbus junk.

lol

have you even seen the A380 before?
no
because it isnt built yet

it was just a suggestion
the main topic is the plane itself
before we start argueing about "airbus junk"

lets just talk about the outlook of future aircrafts

Hmm how did you become unemployed after 911. Seems like the war effort would lead to you being hired, not fired.

first of all Air Force One does not need to be changed. Before we had the 747, Air Force One was a 707. We also don't buy planes from otehr countries for our President.
Second, I do believe that the A380 does need a longer runway and other airport upgrades.
For some airlines it does justify spending that money on A380s, more passengers on a flight the more money they get.

and more passengers on a plane means they save more fuel comparing flying two planes...

iirc the A380 was at farnbourough airshow this year.. the runway didn't seem paticularly large

u must have mistaken something else for it

A380 isnt built yet

or is it???

airport compatibility ------> http://www.airbus.com/pdf/a380/a380airport_compat.pdf

very true. Also you would only need one pilot for that plane. Although you would need more stewards or flight attendants.

http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_economics.asp <----- cheap for airlines...

it still need 2 pilots to fly it
no commercial jets takes off with only one pilot
because so many things could happen and even though auto-pilot does most of the stuff, you still need a backup

And you get to send an hour or more during boarding, at one big airport, and another hour or so at the other end unloading. then you get on the smaller aircraft that actually fits on the runway where you want to go :shake: Time saved = 0 Fuel saved = 0

well of course, a pilot and a co-pilot. But it doesn't need two pilots and two co-pilots.

lol which plane needs 2 pilots and 2 co-pilots

What about making that cargo plane a slight amount smaller and using the lessened amount of wait for passenger compartments? 1000 passenger flights would really be an economic revolution.

who knows...
the Beluga looks like it can take on a 3 deck design...

but it is not long enuf to carry 1000 though

It's pretty wide and with 3 decks, or better yet with 4 if they can fit and still have room for luggage, they could fit a substantial amount on there. Plus, since it can carry the cargo it can, the weight of the passenger decks should be no problem for it. Also, the bigger the plane, the smoother the ride can potentially be.

actualy i dont know about this Beluga

aerodynamicaly speaking, it isnt going to give you a smooth ride
airplane's fuselage is suppose to be round to achieve the real aerodynamic
but beluga isnt really round
its got a big hump on its back which is modded and added from a A320

That could always be modified. Just get out the Beluga Dremel. Or get out the engineers, which will probably end up happening either way. Is the Beluga the biggest airplane (in terms of cubic capacity)?

civilian, yes

Beluga is already a modded plane
originated from A300

thats why its called the A300-600T

check this page out
http://www.airbustransport.com/examples.html

I meant that you have one plane(A380) instead of having two planes with that many passengers in them to flying to the same place. So you would only need a co-pilot and pilot instead of 2 of each in two planes.

oh i get what u mean now
lol

sorry i didnt understand at first


but yeah, less crew
less maintainance fee and easier to schedule flight plans

In volume (cargo capacity)yes, the AN 225 is the largest aircraft. (total volume and total payload weight ,I think)
And I agree for the airlines there is some advanage to mega planes, for the consumer I believe it's less desirable, (but so is 27.5 seat pitch on a cross country flight)

i fly long distance almost every year

from Vancouver to Taiwan and back

each trip take about 10 to 11 hours of flying time

so 20 hours for round trip

i desire a new plane which is safer and more comfortable
especialy bigger leg room

this could be the plane for you, but is it safer than the planes that are flying right now. I think it is about the same, safety wise.

well when you take a flying machine of such sophistication into the high air

alot of things could go wrong
and that goes to every plane

less accidents means more maintenance
so i guess it depends on the airlines whether they want healthy planes or just cross fingers and play cards with the devil

And so (at least for a while) a new plane has the advanage that nothing is worn out yet.
But, there is no track record to catch design/manufactering errors.
Also the cost of the new plane requires that it be airborne as many hours as possible and the bigger the plane the more revenue lost per hour of downtime (now the cost of mechinics and maintaince facilities is minor compared with one lost flight day), and the more pressure to let it fly even with "minor " defects. Certainly a large plane makes sense for long (transcontinental)flights. Just wondering if there is a large enough market to make this design profitable (to Airbus), if you subtract the subsidies. I know that Boeing decided that the sales volume would not justify the development cost after studying it for 6+ years. They decided to work on longer range (less stops) and greater speed instead.

But the thing, like many new vehicles, there might be some kinks in them that you won't find out until it is on the market.

umm, they spend a year or more testing it before it goes into the market
figuring out all the bugs there is

unlike microsoft... :mad:

Microsoft makes money from all those updates that they send out.
Airbus and its suppliers make some money when something breaks. That goes for Boeing too.
They can test all they want but you can still find something.
I think they test planes for about 2 years before it goes to market or something like that.