JA 37 Viggen wrote on Jun 9^th, 2007 at 9:49am:


The reason Fedex and UPS have cancelled their A380 orders is not cost, but the delays to the aircraft that would put them in service past when they needed them.  Sure their are initial costs and conversions for the pilots, but that is standard whenever an airline puts a new type into service.  You have to spend money to make money.

An-225, the length of the runway is not necessarily the limiting factor. If an aircraft were to become much larger than the 225, the wingspan may prohibit it from being used at many airports, especially those in the middle of already overcrowded cities (where, interestingly, most long-runway airports exist). The wingspan would present a problem because there may not be sufficient clearance between the runway and taxiway, or between parallel taxiways, causing the airport to reroute traffic temporarily while the aircraft is on the ground. Also, there may not be enough space on the cargo ramp to accommodate such a large aircraft while still having enough space for all the other carriers that need to use the space. In both situations, normal operation of the airport is likely disrupted, which will most definitely not make the regular customers happy.

Again, we return to the conclusion that such an aircraft is possible, but impractical.

bok269 wrote on Jun 14^th, 2007 at 11:38pm:


Haha, thats great. No wonder I haven't been sleeping the past few nights - 225 wasn't airborne. 

rootbeer wrote on Jun 15^th, 2007 at 9:39am:



Good call.

Although I guess you could then argue that the 225 is the largest continually operated aircraft.

trojan rabbit wrote on Jun 18^th, 2007 at 6:46pm:


No, the Hughes H-4 Spruce Goose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4

That is not a plane eh?

But it's not a plane, therefore, cannot hold the title for the largest plane ever flown...

It can, however, hold the title for largest dirigible or aircraft ever flown.