Boring airliners?

Jay Honeck wrote:

Speaking of safety -- I wonder if the A380 has a composite rudder?

Certainly. And I guess you can crash the A380 like any other plane if
you really want to and act accordingly.

Stefan

In article , says...


Greg Farris wrote:

I agree. The French often get screwed up when they invent "English" names.

You seem to miss that Airbus is *not* a French company.


Expected that response. Doesn't affect my opinion on the matter.

Matt Whiting wrote:

Dylan Smith wrote:

Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).

But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.

Yes, but interesting doesn't pay the bills in the airliner business.

.... they have a lot Toulouse ...

CV

Hopefully some airlines build a smokers lounge in that tube.
It looks big enough.
Would be an improvement, a drink, a smoke and getting extremely bored
instead of just being bored and the feeling your legs are going to drop
off any minute.

-Kees

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

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

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?