Airbus A380, World's Largest Passenger Aircraft

mathogre · mathogre #1 (**permalink**)

03-24-2007, 09:01 AM

Takeoff weight is 1.3 million pounds, versus 800+ thousand pounds for the Boeing 747-400. Check out the video; it's pretty amazing.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4213543.html

RiDE · RiDE #2 (**permalink**)

03-24-2007, 09:21 AM

That is very cool Mathogre.... Although it does have a ring of "unsinkable" to it.

Nagger Pumper · Nagger Pumper #3 (**permalink**)

03-24-2007, 09:44 AM

that thing is huge !

Screwball6986 · Screwball6986 #4 (**permalink**)

03-24-2007, 10:04 AM

too bad it will never make $

mac57 · mac57 #5 (**permalink**)

03-24-2007, 01:52 PM

Amazing, just amazing. The bit about approach speed was really neat, although I notice they didn't tell us what it is!

The "unsinkable" comment rings true. I hate to think what happens when 500-700 passengers get taken out in a crash. Are we ready for that sort of mass destruction?

mathogre · mathogre #6 (**permalink**)

03-24-2007, 03:36 PM

A few months ago there was a plane that landed at Newark (EWR), a 757 as I recall, not a large plane but no slouch on size either. It was supposed to be landing on a westbound runway, but instead landed on the parallel taxiway just to its north.

Ah ha! Found some links...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contine...nding_incident
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10312006...emy_olshan.htm

If you Google Map it w/ the satellite images (or Google Earth), you'll see a most interesting taxiway. It's a bit narrow, curves toward the runway, parallels it, and then curves away. It would have been an exciting ride in the cockpit for sure.

Newark, while not the busiest airport in the US, *is* busy and is very crowded physically. It's well modernized, and the 757 is a very capable and modern aircraft. Imagine an A380 landing on a taxiway like that.

Oh, and on approach speed, it's probably something like 120 knots (~180km/hr or thereabouts).

Mattlike · Mattlike #7 (**permalink**)

03-24-2007, 04:28 PM

One just landed at LAX the other day.

kilo15 · kilo15 #8 (**permalink**)

03-24-2007, 04:32 PM

I hate planes

Dillinger-63 · Dillinger-63 #9 (**permalink**)

03-24-2007, 10:10 PM

No thanks!

fleurya · fleurya #10 (**permalink**)

03-25-2007, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIDE

That is very cool Mathogre.... Although it does have a ring of "unsinkable" to it.

I would imagine that similar comments were made about the 747/757 when they began flying. Besides, it's not even the world's largest/heaviest flying plane.

johntalin · johntalin #11 (**permalink**)

04-06-2007, 02:56 AM

I have to admit that I would appreciate the leg room when I travel 11 hours straight.

Stretch · Stretch #12 (**permalink**)

04-06-2007, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johntalin

I have to admit that I would appreciate the leg room when I travel 11 hours straight.

you and me both

slashjunior · slashjunior #13 (**permalink**)

04-06-2007, 06:16 AM

I wish they would bring back the Concorde. That was a great step forward for mankind, one accident and people overreact. My fathers friend used to fly regularly by Concorde out to Australia and places like that. I really wish I could have had the opportunity.

While impressive there doesn't seem much point in the overall size of the aircraft. It might be a good option for long-haul flights but not so much so for short-haul flights.

eric · eric #14 (**permalink**)

04-06-2007, 06:33 AM

i'm still waiting for them to bring back zeppelins.

mac57 · mac57 #15 (**permalink**)

04-06-2007, 10:46 AM

The real problem with the Concorde was its age. Those planes were all built in the early 70's - they were simply at the end of their serviceable life time. The accident just sealed their fate.

The REAL problem with the Concorde of course is that it was only marginally profitable if at all. It cost too much to run for what they could charge.

I agree though, real shame. I always wanted to ride in one and never did. My wife and I frequently daydreamed about a vacation where we would take the QE2 across the Atlantic to England for the first leg of the trip, and then the Concorde back. Sigh.. never happened, and now never will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slashjunior

I wish they would bring back the Concorde. That was a great step forward for mankind, one accident and people overreact. My fathers friend used to fly regularly by Concorde out to Australia and places like that. I really wish I could have had the opportunity.

While impressive there doesn't seem much point in the overall size of the aircraft. It might be a good option for long-haul flights but not so much so for short-haul flights.

mathogre #1 (permalink)
Member Since: Jan 20, 2007 Location: Oakton, VA USA Posts: 3,269 Mac Specs: White MacBook Intel C2D 2.2GHz, 2G, 250G, SD, Leopard.	03-24-2007, 09:01 AM Takeoff weight is 1.3 million pounds, versus 800+ thousand pounds for the Boeing 747-400. Check out the video; it's pretty amazing. http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4213543.html Evil Math Ogre Kgh-Ra Integrate me. Differentiate me. You can't hurt me. I'm e^x. Ha ha ha! Homepage \| Gallery I was on the M-F honor roll for July 2007.
	QUOTE Thanks

Screwball6986 #4 (permalink)
Member Since: Dec 21, 2004 Posts: 100	03-24-2007, 10:04 AM too bad it will never make $ 1.5 ghz 15" Powerbook G4 10.4 Tiger MacBook White 2.0Ghz C2D 1Gig 10.4 Tiger MacMini 1.25Ghz G4 1GB 40GB
	QUOTE Thanks

mac57 #5 (permalink)
Member Since: Apr 29, 2006 Location: St. Somewhere Posts: 4,547 Mac Specs: PowerMac G5 Quad, 2.5 GHz, 4 Core, 120 GB SSD, 500 GB HDD	03-24-2007, 01:52 PM Amazing, just amazing. The bit about approach speed was really neat, although I notice they didn't tell us what it is! The "unsinkable" comment rings true. I hate to think what happens when 500-700 passengers get taken out in a crash. Are we ready for that sort of mass destruction? My Macs: PowerMac G5 Quad, 2.5 GHz, 4 Core, Mac Pro, 3.2 GHz 8 Core, Power Macintosh 7500/100 My iStuff: 32 GB iPhone 4, 30 GB iPod Video, 16 GB iPod Touch My OS': Mac OS X Tiger, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Mac OS X Leopard, Mac OS 8.6, openSUSE 10.3, Win XP I was on the Mac-Forums honor roll for September 2007
	QUOTE Thanks

mathogre #6 (permalink)
Member Since: Jan 20, 2007 Location: Oakton, VA USA Posts: 3,269 Mac Specs: White MacBook Intel C2D 2.2GHz, 2G, 250G, SD, Leopard.	03-24-2007, 03:36 PM A few months ago there was a plane that landed at Newark (EWR), a 757 as I recall, not a large plane but no slouch on size either. It was supposed to be landing on a westbound runway, but instead landed on the parallel taxiway just to its north. Ah ha! Found some links... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contine...nding_incident http://www.nypost.com/seven/10312006...emy_olshan.htm If you Google Map it w/ the satellite images (or Google Earth), you'll see a most interesting taxiway. It's a bit narrow, curves toward the runway, parallels it, and then curves away. It would have been an exciting ride in the cockpit for sure. Newark, while not the busiest airport in the US, is busy and is very crowded physically. It's well modernized, and the 757 is a very capable and modern aircraft. Imagine an A380 landing on a taxiway like that. Oh, and on approach speed, it's probably something like 120 knots (~180km/hr or thereabouts). Evil Math Ogre Kgh-Ra Integrate me. Differentiate me. You can't hurt me. I'm e^x. Ha ha ha! Homepage \| Gallery I was on the M-F honor roll for July 2007.
	QUOTE Thanks

Dillinger-63 #9 (permalink)
Member Since: Feb 25, 2006 Location: Streator, Illinois Posts: 643 Mac Specs: MacBook Pro 13 Inch, 2 Mac Mini's 1.66 & 1.83, 2- iMac Intel i3 iPhone 4 & iPad 2 32 gig.	03-24-2007, 10:10 PM No thanks! My Avatar is in memory of my beloved K-9, Dillinger who was killed in the line of duty.
	QUOTE Thanks

Airbus A380, World's Largest Passenger Aircraft

Internet Services

Web Development

Digital Marketing

Consumer Tech

RiDE #2 (permalink)
Member Since: Sep 13, 2006 Location: Deep in the heart of Texas! Posts: 3,556 Mac Specs: Mac's	03-24-2007, 09:21 AM That is very cool Mathogre.... Although it does have a ring of "unsinkable" to it.
	QUOTE Thanks

Mattlike #7 (permalink)
Member Since: Mar 30, 2006 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,653 Mac Specs: Unibody MBP 2.4 GHz C2D/27" Core i7 iMac	03-24-2007, 04:28 PM One just landed at LAX the other day.
	QUOTE Thanks

kilo15 #8 (permalink)
Member Since: Jan 06, 2007 Posts: 470	03-24-2007, 04:32 PM I hate planes
	QUOTE Thanks

johntalin #11 (permalink)
Member Since: Dec 29, 2006 Location: California, the golden state Posts: 1,177 Mac Specs: G4 AGP 400 MHz 1.34gb RAM	04-06-2007, 02:56 AM I have to admit that I would appreciate the leg room when I travel 11 hours straight. "Do all the good you can... In all the ways you can... In all the places you can... At all the times you can... To all the people you can... As long as you ever can..." ~ Rules of Conduct
	QUOTE Thanks

slashjunior #13 (permalink)
Member Since: Dec 08, 2006 Location: UK Posts: 205 Mac Specs: MacBook 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1 GB RAM, 80GB Hard Drive, 80GB Video iPod (Black)	04-06-2007, 06:16 AM I wish they would bring back the Concorde. That was a great step forward for mankind, one accident and people overreact. My fathers friend used to fly regularly by Concorde out to Australia and places like that. I really wish I could have had the opportunity. While impressive there doesn't seem much point in the overall size of the aircraft. It might be a good option for long-haul flights but not so much so for short-haul flights.
	QUOTE Thanks

eric #14 (permalink)
Member Since: Nov 04, 2006 Location: twin cities, mn, usa Posts: 8,800	04-06-2007, 06:33 AM i'm still waiting for them to bring back zeppelins. Please participate in our Member of the Month polls. Every vote counts! And remember to use the user reputation system! ["Dear Homer, I. O. U. one emergency donut. Signed, Homer." - Note by Homer Simpson]
	QUOTE Thanks

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)