Simviation Forum - A380 will save the planet

Jun 19^th, 2007 at 11:16am

dcunning30 Offline
Colonel
This is me......really!!!!
The Land of Nod

Gender:
Posts: 1612

That's comforting! Cheesy

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1981306620070619?feedType=RS...

BTW, I'm really enjoying my Abacus A380 addon.

But anyway it's a step in the right direction. I remember seeing 707's and 727's just belching out smoke from their exhaust.

TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE 34 RR THE WORLD WONDERS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Jun 19^th, 2007 at 1:20pm

Tweek Ex Member

dcunning30 wrote on Jun 19^th, 2007 at 11:16am:

I remember seeing 707's and 727's just belching out smoke from their exhaust.

Much nicer. Cool

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Jun 19^th, 2007 at 5:14pm

elite marksman Offline
Colonel
Please upload all images
to Simv!

Gender:
Posts: 855

Gotta love it when people compare a 707 to an A380... Thats like comparing a Sherman and an Abrams, or a Studebaker and a Maserati...

On a side note... how does Firefox's spell check get commiserative, commiseration, commiserating, or asseveration from maserati?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Jun 19^th, 2007 at 5:31pm

Heathaze Ex Member

The very reason the A380 is a boring aircraft. All green and friendly, the old aircraft were dirty but they had loads of character with it. Cool

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Jun 19^th, 2007 at 5:33pm

dcunning30 Offline
Colonel
This is me......really!!!!
The Land of Nod

Gender:
Posts: 1612

elite marksman wrote on Jun 19^th, 2007 at 5:14pm:

Gotta love it when people compare a 707 to an A380... Thats like comparing a Sherman and an Abrams, or a Studebaker and a Maserati...

Is an Abrams better(more advanced) than a Sherman? Is a Maserati better(more advanced) than a Studebaker? ....of course. Therein lies my point! Roll Eyes

TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE 34 RR THE WORLD WONDERS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Jun 19^th, 2007 at 10:59pm

An-225 Ex Member

Thank you. It finally has some recognition.

As for smoky aircraft, we have quite a few still running in Aus - I will usually watch the various aircraft take off and land. Whenever an Airbus A340 or Boeing 747-400 is at 13- pitch up, there is nothing belching out from its engines...however, we have OzJet 737-200s and DHL 727-200 (NC) visit regularly at YSSY - and man, is there SMOKE!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Jun 20^th, 2007 at 11:00am

dcunning30 Offline
Colonel
This is me......really!!!!
The Land of Nod

Gender:
Posts: 1612

Quote:

Thank you. It finally has some recognition.

But stating the A380 will save the planet? We would all enjoy a chuckle IF the Airbus folks were engaging in hyperbole. But it appears that either the Airbus folks made that statement in all seriousness, or they gagued their audience and determined the audience would absorb that statement in all seriousness.

The point is, they're stating the A380 is a clean aircraft, and that's good. But saying it will save the planet? Roll Eyes

« Last Edit: Jun 21^st, 2007 at 10:53am by dcunning30 »

TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE 34 RR THE WORLD WONDERS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Jun 20^th, 2007 at 4:00pm

elite marksman Offline
Colonel
Please upload all images
to Simv!

Gender:
Posts: 855

Until they start making commercial airliners that burn hydrogen, there will always be hydrocarbon emissions.

That said, I don't think that global warming is entirely man's fault. We did just have an ice age ~10,000 years ago and we are still below the estimated average temperature (talking tens of thousands of years, not a few hundred) it makes sense that the Earth would be getting warmer...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Jul 11^th, 2007 at 2:26pm

NigelMac Offline
Colonel
CYQM CYTN

Gender:
Posts: 14

It seems that if a person is a Boeing fan, they have to not be appreciative of what Airbus is actually doing. They're making us have a world to actually fly in. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Jul 11^th, 2007 at 4:48pm

dcunning30 Offline
Colonel
This is me......really!!!!
The Land of Nod

Gender:
Posts: 1612

NigelMac wrote on Jul 11^th, 2007 at 2:26pm:

It seems that if a person is a Boeing fan, they have to not be appreciative of what Airbus is actually doing. They're making us have a world to actually fly in. Grin

...you're not serious, are you?

LOL!!!! Grin

TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE 34 RR THE WORLD WONDERS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Jul 13^th, 2007 at 1:37am

ZeroTime Ex Member

Quote:

On its Website Airbus says the A380 burns 17 per cent less fuel per seat than rival large aircraft and produces only 75g of CO2 per passenger/kilometer, which it says is almost half of the target set by the European Union for cars manufactured in 2008.

Impressive.

I do not understand why they are showing how ecofriendly the plane is. One. All newer aircraft are this or more fuel efficiant than the A380. Two. 160 planes is marginally going to lower emissions.

If a replacement to the 737 and A320 came out powered by Geared turbofans, made by composites and 30% more fuel efficiant than the 737 with 1000 orders before first flight... then THAT is something to say that helps save the environment.

Quote:

They're making us have a world to actually fly in.

I don't get it. Embarrassed

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Jul 25^th, 2007 at 7:43pm

Spartan03 Offline
Colonel
Future First Officer

Gender:
Posts: 36

but with those A380s comes the expenses the airports have to pay to be able to service it. i dont remember the specifics, but i read in a newspaper that JFK and La Guardia would have to make changes to their runways and gates to be able to service it.

lol, what about nuclear power? Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Jul 31^st, 2007 at 9:58am

Celtman Offline
Colonel
Where has all the Marmalade
gone?
Warrington

Gender:
Posts: 645

Spartan03 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2007 at 7:43pm:

lol, what about nuclear power? Wink

Already been tried Wink

Quote:

In December 1958, Aviation Week claimed that:

"a nuclear-powered bomber is being flight tested in the Soviet Union. Completed about six months ago, this aircraft has been flying in the Moscow area for at least two months. It has been observed both in flight and on the ground by a wide variety of foreign observers from Communist and non-Communist countries." The article further claimed that the aircraft was "not a flying test bed in the sense that earlier US Air Force and Navy programs had called for installing a nuclear powerplant in a conventional airframe such as the B-36...solely for test purposes. The Soviet aircraft is a prototype of a design to perform a military mission as a continuous airborne alert warning system and missile launching platform..."

Taken from here:http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c03anp.htm

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Jul 31^st, 2007 at 3:31pm

elite marksman Offline
Colonel
Please upload all images
to Simv!

Gender:
Posts: 855

You think it's bad when an airliner crashes? Try to imagine what would happen if an airliner with a nuclear reactor on board crashed. This is why we send spent nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, not the Sun.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Jul 31^st, 2007 at 3:47pm

Spartan03 Offline
Colonel
Future First Officer

Gender:
Posts: 36

though if the plane used similar technology that we use in our aircraft carriers and submarines it would be fine, because the reactor would be sheltered in a crash, though the impact would be a whole lot diffrent than a nuclear reactor in a carrier or sub would ever experience.

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: