FRENCH AIRBUS @ LAX ? maybe .....
Login  | |
|
FRENCH AIRBUS @ LAX ? maybe ..... - 3/19/2007 11:50:28 AM
|
|
|
Stealth
Posts: 3060
Joined: 2/18/2007
Status: offline
|
comment? only that today it is cloudy and foggy, and a thought came up ..
wouldnt it be funny if the A380 was diverted to another airport due to weather?
=============================================
Spectators arriving to greet Airbus at LAX
By Jennifer Oldham and Ashley Surdin,
Times Staff Writers
March 19, 2007
Chris Lucak, 49, of Cypress, and Dave Glaubach, 58, of Santa Monica ,
camped out in their cars by the In 'N' Out restaurant near the airport's
northern boundary.
The two friends -- both with strong connections to Airbus' main rival, Boeing --
had called each other Sunday night and made plans to park at the same spot,
where the bellies of airplanes coming for landings are easily seen.
They brought digital cameras and wide-angle lenses.
"We want to see what this big pile of aluminum looks like," said Glaubach,
a retired Boeing employee, his arms crossed over his blue sweatshirt to
ward off the chill. "I hope the sun comes out."
Lucak, who took the day off from his job as a Boeing assembly mechanic,
was prepared for the more than four-hour wait. He said he took a 30 minute
"power nap" in the back seat of his brown Oldsmobile, in which he carried a
portable foldout chair, sandwiches and granola and a thermos of hot coffee.
"I was here 30 years ago, when the [supersonic jet] Concorde made its visit,
" he said, thumbing through an album of 50 airplane photos he had snapped over
the years. "I want to be here when the largest plane in the world flies in."
"It's a brand new plane, and it's gonna be bigger than a 747," ..........
The city's airport agency has spent about half of the $121 million it has budgeted to
improve LAX to handle the A380 ..............
The super jumbo jet that lands in New York will have 550 passengers aboard-many
of them Lufthansa's best customers ............
.
Thumbnail Image
 Attachment (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: FRENCH AIRBUS @ LAX ? maybe ..... - 3/19/2007 3:32:36 PM
|
|
|
G.A.R.Y.
Posts: 1653
Joined: 2/18/2007
Status: offline
|
The runway will be utilized, Us airlines are waiting for the new boeing, it's quite an airplane. Maybe Stealth will post it for us again.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: FRENCH AIRBUS @ LAX ? maybe ..... - 3/19/2007 3:56:21 PM
|
|
|
Stealth
Posts: 3060
Joined: 2/18/2007
Status: offline
|
is not the runway. the A380 uses the standard runways.
it is the terminals, the gate, the cargo offloading,
the tug cars, etc .. LAX has spent $121M as of date.
as a side note, i have flown the Northwest 747 double deckers
to Tokkio and they carried around 800 passengers. boarding was
through THREE gates in 10 minutes - ORNGANIZED people.
i counted the passengers. there is nothing else to do except
eat seafood and watch movies for 12 hrs.
the gourgeous flight attendants spoke little if any English.
maybe 10 or 20 Americans in the filghts were mostly were
drunk or sleeping. the rest? Asian / Japanese wearing dust filters/masks
even when eating. very interesting crowd.
was it the -8? i doubt it, the -8 is due in about a year.
the configurationt everyone speaks off, for the airbus, is with all the
ammenities, playrooms, wet bars, chair/beds. be sure they will
somehow get stripped town the line so they can stuff 1,200 passengers
on the island to island commuters in Japan.
remember, you read it here 1st ...
lets see .. Boeing ? maybe zinzin can interpret. the A380 cargo has been around since 2005?
"The 747-8 family provides new revenue opportunities that will allow airlines to maximize profits. For example, the passenger airplane has 51 additional seats to accommodate 467 passengers in a typical three-class configuration and also offers 28 percent more cargo volume"
"The 747-8 is the only large airplane that fits today's airport infrastructure, giving airlines the flexibility to fly to more destinations. The 747-8 will build on the current 747's capability to fly into most airports worldwide, using the same pilot type ratings, services and most ground support equipment."
"The 747-8 Freighter's empty weight is 82 tonnes (90 tons) lighter than the A380 freighter. This results in a 24 percent lower fuel burn per ton, which translates into 20 percent lower trip costs and 23 percent lower ton-mile costs than the A380F."
then we got this:
FREDERICKSON, Wash.,
March 14, 2007 --
Today Boeing [NYSE: BA] celebrated roll out of the first vertical fin for the company's all-new commercial airplane, the 787 Dreamliner. Manufactured and assembled at the Composite Manufacturing Center in Frederickson, Wash., the vertical fin is the largest primary structure of the 787 airframe built by an internal Boeing supplier. The delivery meets a key program milestone as the airplane begins final assembly in Everett, Wash., in preparation for its initial roll out in July.
Seating:
250 to 290 passengers
Range:
8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles (14,800 to 15,750 kilometers)
Configuration:
Twin aisle
Cross Section:
226 inches (574 centimeters)
Wing Span:
203 feet (62 meters)
Length:
206 feet (63 meters)
Height:
56 feet (17 meters)
Cruise Speed:
Mach 0.85
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
540,000 lbs (244,940 kg)
Total Cargo Volume:
5,400 cubic feet
Program milestones:
Entry into service in late 2010
< Message edited by Stealth -- 3/19/2007 4:16:04 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: FRENCH AIRBUS @ LAX ? maybe ..... - 3/19/2007 5:43:14 PM
|
|
|
G.A.R.Y.
Posts: 1653
Joined: 2/18/2007
Status: offline
|
This is what I meant, and I actually just found out it was myth...................................But ya gotta admit it's a pretty cool picture.
BECOME A TruthOrFiction.com SUBSCRIBER!
Be among the first to know about new eRumors, viruses, Internet hoaxes...and more.
CLICK HERE for details
View Stories By Subject
Search
Anatomy of a Rumor
Contact Us
About Us
New or Updated
Animals
Attack On America
Aviation-Space
Celebrities
Education
eRumors in the News
Food-Drink
Government
Household
Humorous Stories
Hurricane Katrina
Insects-Reptiles
Inspirational
Internet-Computers
Medical
Military
Miscellaneous
Missing Persons
Museum of Red Faces
Pleas for Help
Politics-Politicians
Prayer Requests
Promises
Religious-Spiritual
Tsunami
Viruses
Warnings
War in Iraq
New Boeing 797 Giant "Blended Wing" Passenger Airliner-Fiction!
Summary of the eRumor:
The story says that the Boeing Company is developing a radical new passenger jetliner that will carry 1,000 passengers. It's designated the 797 and is a "blended wing" design looking a lot like the old flying wing experiments of the 50's. The Truth:
TruthOrFiction.com went straight to the source, the Boeing Company. A spokesperson said that it is not true that Boeing is developing a commercial blended wing aircraft. He asked that we help stop the perpetuation of the story.
What is true, according to Boeing, is that Boeing Phantom Works, the company's advanced research and development organization, is doing research on the blended wing body design as a potential military aircraft. Boeing has built a scale model to test its low-speed flying characteristics in a wind tunnel. There are also plans (as of 7/13/07) to flight test a scale model.
Updated 7/14/06 A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:
Subject:: Boeing 797
Boeing to take on Airbus with (1000 seat) giant 797 Blended Wing plane
Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years.The radical Blended Wing design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Centre.The mammoth plane will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the 747's 211 feet, and is designed to fit within the newly created terminals used for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus A380 which has racked up 159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers.Boeing decide to kill its 747X stretched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher 797 for years at its Phantom Works
research facility in Long Beach, Calif.
The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style tubular aircraft for decades to come.There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an
estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbus's $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky.
High body rigidity is another key factor in blended wing aircraft, It reduces turbu lence and creates less stress on the air frame which adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile
range with its 1000 passengers flying comfortably at mach .88 or 654 mph (+-1046km/h) cruising speed another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380's 570 mph (912 km/h) The exact date for
introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: FRENCH AIRBUS @ LAX ? maybe ..... - 3/19/2007 6:07:48 PM
|
|
|
hyperion
Posts: 381
Joined: 2/18/2007
Status: offline
|
The argument here is not if size is better. The argument here is whether the taxpayer wants to pay for inability of engineers to design something that can use the facilities now fairly well established around the world. When the 707's introduced jet service world wide they could operate out of the worlds major airports with runway length being the limiting factor for full gross weight takeoffs. The 707 was therefore limited to the major cities of the worlds airports. Next came the desire to furnish jet service to the majority of other cities that had the problem of less lengthy runways without the ability to expand them. Chicago Midway is a prime example.
So along comes the Boeing 727's that could easily now operate out of the five and six thousand foot runways throughout the rest of the world.
In the size world, next in line from Boeing, the 747. Still designed to operate out of the now standard 10,000 foot runways. There were some design changes at the airports they were flown out of. Mainly the extending of the ramp areas where aircraft were parked opposite the terminals. These had to be pushed back some but the 747 was designed to use the same terminal facilities as were presently being used by the 707. In this line of progression came the DC 10's and the L188's. All designed to operate out of the same fields and terminals as the "727," giving cities the size of Albany New York the advent of wide body jet service out of the same airport that handled DC 3's and DC6's. That's aeronautical engineering.
Now we have the "BUS". If you like "big" and you want it, the taxpayer is going to have to pay for it because it wasn't designed to meet the present facilities around the rest of the world. It landed at Kennedy today but could not operate out of Logan. LAX but not Phoenix. I'll bet it will fit in Hong Kong. My guess, it was designed by the same group that designed the ships used by the "Princess Lines." (My "nasty.")
Should we spend the taxpayers money to encompass this "one" airplane? Boeing is building nothing that would require any modifications to any present airport.. However if you can stick another couple bodies in one will the cost be less? I doubt it but then again, you just might be able to get another bag of peanuts.
There had been two "downpayments" for the Freighter version of the 380 by two U.S. companies, "UPS and Fed Express" but they both cancelled when they determined the utility of increased gross weight loads would not be worth the lack of airports available to handle it. I guess the people of Memphis said "one hundred million dollars,? NO WAY."
I don't think poor engineering and design should be subsidized by the taxpayer who in a lifetime will never have the opportunity to ride on one of these things.
Personally, I find it an obsenity! There is very little enticing to air travel today and so the airplane I would be interested in would be the one that flys 300 MPH faster, and not one that gives me 600 more people looking for their bags with me!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: FRENCH AIRBUS @ LAX ? maybe ..... - 3/19/2007 6:22:28 PM
|
|
|
G.A.R.Y.
Posts: 1653
Joined: 2/18/2007
Status: offline
|
Actually the L-1011's and dc 10's and 747's could not use the same jetways as the 707 and 727. They couldn't go high enough and did not have the versatility of a set of wheels underneath to manuver back and forth. Most airlines paid for new jetways to accomodate these aircraft at the end of concourses.
nya nya
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: FRENCH AIRBUS @ LAX ? maybe ..... - 3/20/2007 1:17:10 AM
|
|
|
Stealth
Posts: 3060
Joined: 2/18/2007
Status: offline
|
is that what that is called ...
the things one learns here ....
quote:
ORIGINAL: hyperion
But when the jet bridges were converted they were adaptable to all aircraft and not just the wide bodies. Most will now accept all aircraft from the wide bodies to 727, 737's , DC9's, Air Bus, 757 and 767 aircraft. If it were not for this fact airport ramps would be "nightmares."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: FRENCH AIRBUS @ LAX ? maybe ..... - 3/20/2007 9:13:42 AM
|
|
|
Stealth
Posts: 3060
Joined: 2/18/2007
Status: offline
|
is that really an argument?
does the taxpayer really have a choice?
is the taxpayer smarter than the "leaders"?
it seems that the "leaders" in NY and LA are not waiting for an answer
and are moving ahead not wanting to be 2nd or to not be in the landing
flight of a new commercial airplane, regardless of practicality.
someone, these "leaders" interpret such decissions as either "new jobs" or
"keeping jobs". i suppose that if LA spent $121M, new jobs surely were
created - didnt a President do that back in the depression days of the 30's?
dont mis-read what i said. your premise is really valid. but read my three
questions and where are we when it comes to the decission makers?
lastly, someone will come around and justify the decissions by stating that
we also bailed out the aircraft industry in the 70's and then the airline in the
80's and 90's and will make the claim that "Herbert Hoover was a laissez
faire president and that FDR brought us out of the depression"
zinzin, the taxpayer is NOT in control and may never again be in control.
quote:
ORIGINAL: hyperion
The argument here is not if size is better. The argument here is whether the taxpayer wants to pay for inability of engineers to design something that can use the facilities now fairly well established around the world. When the 707's introduced jet service world wide they could operate out of the worlds major airports with runway length being the limiting factor for full gross weight takeoffs. The 707 was therefore limited to the major cities of the worlds airports. Next came the desire to furnish jet service to the majority of other cities that had the problem of less lengthy runways without the ability to expand them. Chicago Midway is a prime example.
So along comes the Boeing 727's that could easily now operate out of the five and six thousand foot runways throughout the rest of the world.
In the size world, next in line from Boeing, the 747. Still designed to operate out of the now standard 10,000 foot runways. There were some design changes at the airports they were flown out of. Mainly the extending of the ramp areas where aircraft were parked opposite the terminals. These had to be pushed back some but the 747 was designed to use the same terminal facilities as were presently being used by the 707. In this line of progression came the DC 10's and the L188's. All designed to operate out of the same fields and terminals as the "727," giving cities the size of Albany New York the advent of wide body jet service out of the same airport that handled DC 3's and DC6's. That's aeronautical engineering.
Now we have the "BUS". If you like "big" and you want it, the taxpayer is going to have to pay for it because it wasn't designed to meet the present facilities around the rest of the world. It landed at Kennedy today but could not operate out of Logan. LAX but not Phoenix. I'll bet it will fit in Hong Kong. My guess, it was designed by the same group that designed the ships used by the "Princess Lines." (My "nasty.")
Should we spend the taxpayers money to encompass this "one" airplane? Boeing is building nothing that would require any modifications to any present airport.. However if you can stick another couple bodies in one will the cost be less? I doubt it but then again, you just might be able to get another bag of peanuts.
There had been two "downpayments" for the Freighter version of the 380 by two U.S. companies, "UPS and Fed Express" but they both cancelled when they determined the utility of increased gross weight loads would not be worth the lack of airports available to handle it. I guess the people of Memphis said "one hundred million dollars,? NO WAY."
I don't think poor engineering and design should be subsidized by the taxpayer who in a lifetime will never have the opportunity to ride on one of these things.
Personally, I find it an obsenity! There is very little enticing to air travel today and so the airplane I would be interested in would be the one that flys 300 MPH faster, and not one that gives me 600 more people looking for their bags with me!
|
|
|
|
 Today's Posts
Most Active Topics
Make A Donation
Forum Rules & FAQ
RSS Feeds
Cadillac Prices
Advertising Info
|
Contact Us |
Advertising |
CadillacForum.com Partners |
Archive |
About Us |
Link To Us |
Cadillac Links |
Legal |
Privacy Policy |
© Cadillac Forum.com
Cadillac Forum .com is not affiliated with or endorsed by General Motors Corporation.
|
Printable Version
