Boring airliners?

P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

It's an impressive bird. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH someday...

What else can be said?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:14:37 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

It's an impressive bird. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH someday...

What else can be said?

Not sure it can land there. I read that it's so heavy, only a few
airports in the US can take it.

Corky Scott

It's an impressive bird. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH
someday...

What else can be said?

Not sure it can land there. I read that it's so heavy, only a few
airports in the US can take it.

Interesting. I read somewhere that it's actually rather "light on its feet"
because it has so many wheels...

Of course, that doesn't change the overall weight -- but it should allow it
to operate out of Wittman. (Heck, a C-5 Galaxy had no trouble -- nor did
that even bigger Soviet Antonov...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article TM6ce.30985$NU4.10589@attbi_s22, says...



Interesting. I read somewhere that it's actually rather "light on its feet"
because it has so many wheels...



Apparently so. Runways in france have recently required extensive
reinforcement to accommodate the B777-300 - works which were apparently not
mandated for the A380.

G Faris

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article TM6ce.30985$NU4.10589@attbi_s22,
says...



Interesting. I read somewhere that it's actually rather "light on its
feet"
because it has so many wheels...



Apparently so. Runways in france have recently required extensive
reinforcement to accommodate the B777-300 - works which were apparently
not
mandated for the A380.

G Faris


The Max Takeoff weight of the 777-300 is 660,000#s the A380 is 1,235,000.

Maybe the reason the work was not mandated for the A380 is that there is
only one flying

In article akbce.54$332.39@okepread02, wr.giacona@coxDOTnet says...



"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article TM6ce.30985$NU4.10589@attbi_s22,
says...



Interesting. I read somewhere that it's actually rather "light on its
feet"
because it has so many wheels...



Apparently so. Runways in france have recently required extensive
reinforcement to accommodate the B777-300 - works which were apparently
not
mandated for the A380.

G Faris


The Max Takeoff weight of the 777-300 is 660,000#s the A380 is 1,235,000.

Maybe the reason the work was not mandated for the A380 is that there is
only one flying



No - As cited above, it's the number of wheels.

I thought it was the width compared to narrow taxiways/gate areas that
limited the operations, rather than the weight.

I'm sure they could fly it in empty if weight were the problem.

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:14:37 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

It's an impressive bird. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH
someday...

What else can be said?

Not sure it can land there. I read that it's so heavy, only a few
airports in the US can take it.

Corky Scott

I'm sure they could fly it in empty if weight were the problem.

And who's going to pay for that?

I'm sure they could fly it in empty if weight were the problem.

And who's going to pay for that?

Why, the French taxpayers, I'm sure!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
P.S. Not a lot of comments from the US about the A380 now it flies.

It's an impressive bird. I'm looking forward to seeing it at OSH someday...
What else can be said?

Aw, come on Jay!
You already saw the Beluga last year.
The only difference is the A380 has seats inside.