It's a computer simulation. "Scare"bus only recently started construction on the prototype.
Posted on 12/07/2003 8:46:28 PM PST by blam
Only until the 777-200LR comes out in early 2005.
BTW, one of those goes down to a shoulder fired missile and it's going to kill a LOT of people.
If one goes down, and it will happen, for any reason it will kill a lot of people.
Airbus will do fine even if they don't sell enough A380's to break even. The E.U. is always happy to use some tax money to cover Airbus' losses. In fact Airbus, the commercial division of EADS, has NEVER made a profit in its history. The E.U. regularly covers Airbus' large loses that result from selling aircraft between 40% and 50% below cost in order to gain market share from Boeing. As an example, when Qantas ordered the A380-800, they were basically given 15-20 A330-300's for almost nothing. This knocked Boeing out of the running for selling 777's to Qantas.
A shoulder fired missile couldn't bring down that 2 engine DHL plane in Baghdad a couple of weeks ago. This A380 has 4 enormous engines. Shoulder fired missiles are actually more for use against helicopters than planes, especially jumbo jets.
The SA-7 and Stinger missiles' ranges are about 3km-5km, making it very difficult (but remotely possible) that one of these could have taken it down.
It's a computer simulation. "Scare"bus only recently started construction on the prototype.
What can I say...I'm a Trek-Head! Besides, you have to admit that it's a GREAT Photoshop...scary thing is it might just be to scale (The Boeing logo excepted, of course!)
I wonder if someone can make it look really good with the name being USS Free Republic?
Nah....I think FR is more a "Nebula" class vessel than "Miranda" class....Perhaps an experimental sub-class with the Code NX-1996(date FR was started)...and we can create a dedication plaque with JimRob as the head/Admiral (Like what is found here, just click on the plaque)!
ROTFLMAO!!! Just to funny!
I know it's hard enough to believe that existing jumbo jests pass this test. I wonder how this new plane will be able to meet the standard.
The smaller airplane looks like an Airbus A319 or A320, the A319 being a shorter version of the A320. The A320 family (A318 (much shorter), A319 (short), A320 (normal), and A321 (longer)) competes with the Boeing 737 family.
This article points out that the Japanese are concerned about the weight of the 7E7, as their airport landing fees are based on airplane weight.
"Tsuchiya noted that airport-landing fees in Japan are based on weight. The base 7E7 would be more than 40 percent heavier than the Boeing 767-300. Consequently, JAL had been concerned that higher landing fees for the 7E7 as originally planned would wipe out much of the anticipated fuel-cost savings."
Looks like a Boeing 737-300.
Are there some routes that are that able to fill such a large jet?
Yes, there are a few routes that could fill an A-380. LHR-ORD is one example.
I know it's hard enough to believe that existing jumbo jests pass this test. I wonder how this new plane will be able to meet the standard.
It has not been widely reported but Airbus had has a real hard time getting the evacuation down to the required 90 seconds. Since they do not have a completed aircraft or a full scale mockup, they’re doing it all on computer. They are trying to convince the FAA and Europe’s JAA (Joint Aviation Authority) to allow the computer simulations to be enough to prove the plane can be evacuated in 90 seconds. The FAA has not been very warm to the idea but naturally it has been well received by the JAA.
Actually, NW still flies the 747-200, which is a dinosaur, they have been adding A330's to their fleet lately. NW still flies DC-9's, very jurrasic airliners...
Ah yes, the good old Jurassic Jets. As long as an aircraft is maintained, it can safely fly for decades. Look @ the B-52’s. Also, age is not the primary factor in deciding when to retire an aircraft. The number of cycles (A cycle=1 takeoff, 1 landing) is what determines when an aircraft is ready for retirement. Northwest plans to operate their DC-9’s until 100,000 cycles which is just about the end of their life unless NW wants to spend a heck of a lot more money on the aircraft. The 747-200’s are not as old as many of the DC-9’s but they’re getting up there as well. Just remember, the last 747-200’s were built in the mid to late 1980’s so that really isn’t that old. (Two of the last 747-200’s built are the two VC-25’s aka Air Force One).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.