That's comforting!   

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.

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?

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


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

Quote:


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?  

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.  

Quote:

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:

I don't get it.  

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



Already been tried

Quote:


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

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.

Very, very impressive!!!!!   

But one wonders what will the ticket cost be on the A380 compared to the 747 for a comparable route?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/news/a380-super-jumbo-simply-the-best/2007/07/27/1...

Im still wondering what the hell are we gonna travel on when we dont have any more plane fuel! xD
Anyway, I dont think the A380 will stop world hunger, wars, and everything out there to actually save the world, but it'll be nice to see it fly



On a totally unrelated note, i hate this so popular way of writing the journalists have, specially north american, of putting the phrase first and then "someone says". Pisses me off. Police says, judge says, chairman says... What about "Airbus states their superjumbo will save the world", whats wrong with that?

mpicco wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2007 at 10:59pm:


i woke up this morning and thought the same thing.

Aye, we aren't going to run out of gas any time soon. Even when we do run out of oil to refine in AvGas and jet fuel, we still won't be out of fuel. Either some chemist will create a fuel that mimics AvGas, or some engineer will invent an engine that runs on some other fuel. As for the jets... well they can run on any liquid that burns, so no problem finding fuel there, it would just need to be refined and cleaned.

Quote:


Do some research.  As part of my "real job" I ended up looking into the emissions from the engines of a 747 for a national level presentation I did out in Portland, OR about a year and a half ago.  (I used it for a comparison to some other pollution osurces).  Visible smoke is not the only nor the best measure of pollutants.   There are tons of things that are pollutiong that are not "smoke", per se.  

Seeing smoke certainly tells you there is plenty of particulate at the least ... and of a large particle size.  And can be a "marker" for the generation of other pollutants that are formed during incomplete / quenched combustion reactions.  But remember that stuff like the particulates covered in the US PM 2.5 standard...can't even be seen.  2.5 microns in size and down.  Bad stuff.... goes into the lungs and never comes out.

Much as we all love aviation....... it consumes a bunch of fossil (there's that word!   ) fuel and produces a lot of crap in the air.

Even most of our simulated aircraft do this if you think about it.  Most of our computers are powered by coal, gas, oil or wood  fired power plants.  

best,

..................john

PS:  Myself, I've been commited to renewable energy for 30+ years....long before it was sort of a "fad" to say you are "green".  30 year old solar panels on the roof of the house, solar air heater on one south wall, attached solar greenhouse, two wood stoves, and I fire my main pottery kiln (my job) with wood (been doing that since 1969).

Aye, "someone says," "at the present time," (and variations thereof) and "allegedly" get really, really annoying. (yes I know they include "allegedly" for legal protection, though winning a lawsuit for damages/defamation of character by the media happens with about the same frequency that we discover new planets in our solar system.)