A380 will save the planet

[dcunning30]

That's comforting!  

http://www.reuters.com/article/environm ... RSS&rpc=22

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.

[Tweek]

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

Much nicer. 8-)

[elite marksman]

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?

[F3Hadlow]

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. 8-)

[dcunning30]

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!  

[an-225]

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!

[dcunning30]

Thank you. It finally has some recognition.

But stating the A380 will save the planet?

[elite marksman]

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...

[NigelMac]

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.

[dcunning30]

[quote]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.

[DizZa]

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.

[Spartan03]

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?

[Celtman]

lol, what about nuclear power?

Already been tried

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

[elite marksman]

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.

[Spartan03]

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.