Talk:Wide-body aircraft

message: The article states that widebodies have a cross-section of over 5m. The cross-section of the Boeing 767 is 4,7 m. Is it really a widebody?--Arado 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  767 

message: I've added a picture of the Airbus fuselage cross-section, but I cannot quite remember which model it is. I think it's an A300, but can anyone confirm this? The picture is from the Deutsches Museum in Munich, Germany, if that helps. Thanks. Asiir 14:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I now believe it's an A300. Asiir 12:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right. It's the A300 prototype. Logawi 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Airbus cross section picture

message: The image :File:A350xwb.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:File:XWB mockup.png
*:File:Boeing 787-3.jpg
*:      File:Airbus A350.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:A350xwb.jpg

message: This may be a very peripheral topic, but could someone describe whether there is any reality to the Hollywood movie idea where people go back and forth from the passenger cabin to the baggage compartment in flight using a hatch, dumbwaiter, ventilation shaft, spiral staircase... Wnt (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The DC-10 had sliding doors that could be opened at the rear of the lower galley, which then gave access to the forward lower deck baggage container compartment.  Access to the lower galley was via an elevator that could hold two persons at a time. 66.81.215.30 (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabin to baggage compartment: fact or fantasy? 

message: Visually the Tupolev Tu-114 does not look like a widebody.  However, I have a book that says the Tu-114 was occasionally set up with seven-abreast seating.  Was this four seats one one side of a single aisle, and three on the other?  Or did it actually have two aisles in this configuration?  If the latter is the case then wouldn't the airplane qualify as a widebody? -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that it would count in that latter case, considering the first sentence of the article defines a wide-body aircraft as having two aisles. Any chance you can nail down whether it has two aisles in the 7 seat config? (2-3-2 probably) SidewinderX (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's as specific as the source got, 7 abreast. (My source was Propeller Airliners, Bill Gunston, ed.). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This image suggests it was 4 seats on one side, 3 on the other side of a single aisle, i.e. not a wide-body (dual aisle). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tupolev Tu-114 

message: Does the Bristol Brabazon warrant mention in this article?  That article mentions a 25-foot diameter fuselage, and a book review I read this morning calls it the first wide-body. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bristol Brabazon 

message: I would offer that the jumbo jet article remain separate from wide-body aircraft.  Jumbo jet is a special term with its own meaning.  We need to find some accurate source(s), but the term jumbo jet really only refers to the Boeing 747, when used in commercial aviation.  It is not used to generically refer to wide-body aircraft, as the current version of the article states.
Thank you for your consideration.
PolarYukon (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A wide body aircraft is a different thing to a jumbo jet.  90.208.151.250 (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I'd like to respectfully disagree. I've been doing some research on Eastern Air Lines Flight 401, which was the crash of a Lockheed L-1011 TriStar, and so far the newspaper articles have been refering to it as both a "wide-body aircraft" and and "jumbo jet," some even within the same article. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 12:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge article? 

message: What are your thoughts on this section of the article?  There are no citations in this section, and it is questionable what value this section brings to the article as a whole.
* I propose we delete this section of the article.
If someone finds the information useful, we can create a new category to contain the listed airlines.
Cheers, PolarYukon (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Proceeding to delete the section. Further discussion always welcome here. Regards, PolarYukon (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to delete section: All wide-body airlines 

message: *Modern usage of the word widebody seems to have eliminated the use of the hyphenated version, wide-body; please see [Wiktionary/widebody].
** Propose we rename the article to Widebody aircraft.
** Propose we update the spelling in article text from wide-body to widebody.
*:All comments welcome.  Regards, PolarYukon (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename article 

message: There should be a mention about how for the first two years after the introduction of wide-body aircraft into commercial aviation the planes were considered to be the safest aircraft to fly on because they didn't crash. It wasn't until Eastern Flight 401 crashed in December 1972 that this myth disappeared. And it wasn't until 1973 when the airplanes started being linked to wake turbulence and the crashes of smaller aircraft. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 23:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety 

message: I am wondering if the table of Specification of wide body aircraft is misplaced. Each basic type is made in a range of specifications to meed differing customer requirements, and compiling all the variations that have been used just for the sake of it is not really encyclopedic. I would suggest that only the fuselage outside diameter is significant, and that could be entered in the Description column of the standard List of wide-body aircraft.
So - is there anything in this table that should not be either merged into the List of wide-body aircraft or deleted? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that outside diameter as a fair approximation of useful width is a reasonable assumption. (But it is a combination of useful internal length and width that is relevant to maximum capacity). This table I think was given to show what could be fitted inside. I suggest stripping this table down to some "examples" with only Model year of introduction Ext diameter maximum no of seats across as the columns. For the main list give maximum capacity insofar as known. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to a point. Some of the biggest types are reaching a point where enough passengers could be physically jammed in to overload the thing, so that wing area and engine power dictate the maximum capacity. For example there may be space to fit in say twelve economy seats abreast, but in practice only eleven are fitted so that the thing can actually take off. The Boeing 747 had to await uprated engines before the upper deck could be filled with extra passengers, long before it was ever stretched. As for the max. no. of seats across, ISTR that the A380 has a policy of wider seats than the narrowest historical 747 seating, so it is not really possible to compare like with like. What can be fitted inside is too complex a question to answer in a simple table like this. That leaves this a table without a mission. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then just delete the table. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking to steal the fuselage diameters first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications of wide-body aircraft 

message: The section on future development states "Airbus and Boeing are racing to market with two new widebody designs, currently in development".  The citation is broken and it is unclear which aircraft this sentence refers to.  Propose revising to state specific aircraft or remove since I believe there are no widebody airframes that are in development (A350 first delivery is made, all other "in development" airframe are iterative).  Also, the follow-on sentence refers to B787 and A380 competition.  Both aircraft are no longer in development.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.153.36 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Development 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wide-body aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081120212039/http://www.etihadairways.com/sites/etihad/SiteCollectionDocuments/global/Documents/Call%20Centre/October07/A340-600%20FAM%20.pdf to http://www.etihadairways.com/sites/etihad/SiteCollectionDocuments/global/Documents/Call%20Centre/October07/A340-600%20FAM%20.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090905114743/http://www.faa.gov:80/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0703.html to http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0703.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The usage of "" is under discussion, see talk:jumbo jet (disambiguation) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jumbo jet" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Wide-body aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007143215/http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Boeing_747/Aero21.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Boeing_747/Aero21.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120212039/http://www.etihadairways.com/sites/etihad/SiteCollectionDocuments/global/Documents/Call%20Centre/October07/A340-600%20FAM%20.pdf to http://www.etihadairways.com/sites/etihad/SiteCollectionDocuments/global/Documents/Call%20Centre/October07/A340-600%20FAM%20.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have just removed (in two edits  and ) the section headed Development, which until recently was titled Future Development (see message from 2015 above). The Section largely discussed the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 as aircraft still in development, with some unreferenced assertions about comparative fuselage widths and some text about military airlifters such as the C-5 Galaxy and the Antonov An-124. There may well be a place for a Section called Development, but what was in the article was not it. YSSYguy (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Development'' section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Wide-body aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614055018/http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/ge90/ge90-115b.html to http://geae.com/engines/commercial/ge90/ge90-115b.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111109053821/http://www.vaustralia.com.au/in-flight-services/international-business/index.htm to http://www.vaustralia.com.au/in-flight-services/international-business/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Wide-body aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/61DJG6jkt?url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/1280866 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/1280866.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525143924/http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/EEC_News_2008_3_RECAT.html to http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/EEC_News_2008_3_RECAT.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110201053235/http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a340family/a340-600/specifications/ to http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a340family/a340-600/specifications/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140329175643/http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a350xwbfamily/a350-900/specifications/ to http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a350xwbfamily/a350-900/specifications/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214220327/http://www.seatplans.com/airlines/Thomson-Airways/seatplans/B767-300ER-(328) to http://www.seatplans.com/airlines/Thomson-Airways/seatplans/B767-300ER-%28328%29/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Why are seat widths calculated rather than sourced. What assumptions are being made in the calculation, are they justified? If the seat width can't be sourced then they ought to be removed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Seat width are not always explicitly given, but if it's not stated every ACAP gives a cross section with a bench width. The assumption (as noted in the table) is a 2" armrest, an industry habit. I think a ref can be easily found. This simple calculation could fall within Routine calculations do not count as original research. Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The calculation of seat width has five parameters: Internal fuselage width, number of seats, number of aisles, width of aisle, seat gap. That makes it a bit more complex than area of a rectangle or power/weight calculations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's often a bench width, with a simple calculation to determine seat width.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculation of seat widths