Talk:Airbus A380/Archive 2

message: Looking at the ToC, I see that it is wide enough to accomodate the following section title: 6.1 General characteristics (800F Freighter in brown) [11]. If the ToC were less wide, the main photograph could be made larger to take advantage of all that empty space. However, when I look at this particular bit of the article, I find that it's not a straightforward section title.
Can somebody who understands how the headings are put together modify this particular one so that we keep the information about the Freighter details being in brown, but don't include that vital information in the actual ToC? --Jumbo 03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Denniss' modification - it keeps the information, but makes the heading shorter. I'll see if I can make the picture a bit bigger without breaking the formatting... — QuantumEleven | (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! It looks a lot better now! A big plane deserves a big picture. (Must check the B747 article now...) --Jumbo 12:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlong subsection title 

message: I'm extremely dubious about this source, which appears to be opinion and speculation. The facts seem to be that Thai International are buying six A380s from Airbus, while at the same time the EU is revising its seafood tarriffs. Whether the two stories, one involving commercial enterprises, the other inter-governmental relationships, are connected is not clear. No other sources for this linking can be found and it should be treated as speculative. --Jumbo 13:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't sound so strange. I believe it was either Thai or Malaysian that had a Boeing 777 order "paid for" in shrimp. In essence, Boeing had to find a customer for that nation's shrimping business, and that money was used to order the aircraft. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm fully prepared to believe it. It's just that there's only one source and it's very short on details. If this story is true, then why isn't being picked up by the US media, who would find it very tasty? At the very least, there's a lot of scope for fun with headlines. --Jumbo 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barter economy is coming back? :) Smartech 03:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drop another shrimp on the airbus 

message: As the A380 moves towards introduction into commercial service we should think about scaling back on the level of detail in the first flights section. Obviously we will never lose the maiden flight information, but some of the other stuff is going to be necessarily short-lived. I'm thinking of the high (terrain) altitude and cold weather testing sections here, which are more in the line of news rather than encyclopaedic. Interesting, but not something that's going to be in the article twenty years down the track. Not unless the pilots freeze at the controls and/or the autopilot goes ballistic, which is probably a long shot.
However, while the plane is still notching milestones in its pre-service career, readers who come seeking current information should be able to find it. --Jumbo 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First flights 

message: I know that Rolls Royce names their jet engines after British rivers, but it seems a bit odd to click on an engine name and go to an article on a river!
Has anyone been geek enough to compile articles for jet engines? Ideally the link should go to an article on the relevant engine, and from there to whatever it was named after. --Jumbo 00:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  River Trent Engines 

message: It seems like the numbers for orders of the airplane are very much out of date (June 2005). Can someone please update the numbers? It will be interesting to see how A380 stacks up agains B787. Smartech 23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can find some more recent order figures. But why would you want to compare the A380 and the 787? They address two completely different markets, it would be like comparing a ferry and a cruise liner. If you must compare, compare the orders for the 787 and the A350... — QuantumEleven | (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Orders 

message: user 195.230.58.11 who made edits to this and the Joseph_Mangan article just so happens to work for TTT Tech. Just a heads upTorturous Devastating Cudgel 21:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TTT Tech contributing to article

message: Is taking the mick to be honest - at a fairly large resolution the first screenful is just TOC.GraemeLeggett 13:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it bothers you, you can always click the little "hide" button in the TOC to, erm, hide it. A TOC is very useful if you need to find a specific article section. — QuantumEleven 06:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents 

message: Why on earth do we need to state that there is only one Antonov An-225? It wouldn't matter if there was one, none or a hundred flying, its size is a matter of record. After all, if you scroll down to that nifty size comparison diagram, you'll see Hughes' Spruce Goose shown and that production run was one aircraft which is no longer flying. --Jumbo 01:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it makes a difference that the A380 is a production aircraft rather than a one-off. (As plans exist to resuscitate the second airframe and build further An-225s, it might not be a one-off for long.) ProhibitOnions 01:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with Antonov An-225  

message: why is it so low? is it simply a case of the number of seats (which could be easilly changed) or evacuation procedures or what? Plugwash 01:43, 10 May 2006
(UTC)
:The AN-225 is a cargo plane, it was never designed to carry passengers (see the AN-225 article). They have a couple of seats for the backup crew (for long flights) and some cargo handlers and such, but the rest is given over to cargo. — QuantumEleven 06:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An-225 passenger capacity 

message: As you can see I am wondering why the A380 Aircraft infobox was removed? I think the infobox should be left.
:Infoboxes go on the right. This was removed by an anon vandal and frankly I'm surprised it wasn't noticed earlier! --Jumbo 06:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How Come Aircraft InfoBox Removed?

message: Does anyone know what level the cockpit's on. It looks as if its in the dead center. And if there are like special stairs to get to the cockpit wouldn't that make it safer from the hijacking standpoint. Just something I noticed.
:The cockpit is mid-way between the decks (you can see it quite nicely on this cutaway). I haven't been inside a fully fitted-out plane, but during assembly you get to it from the upper deck, via a couple of steps. I presume that the same will be the case in the final aircraft, but to be honest I'm not completely sure.  From a hijacking standpoint it's equivalent to any other plane, no easier or harder to get in or out. The cockpit will have a (by now standard) reinforced, locking door on it, which IMO is more than enough for the exceedingly remote possibility of a hijacking. — QuantumEleven 06:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MSN2 has a couple of steps going up from the main deck floor to the cockpit. --Xeper 15:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That cutaway diagram looks a bit dodgy - a third deck at the bottom with a restaurant and state rooms, I thought that was all separate and for cargo and stuff? And the wheels are down as '4 or 6 bogie'. Is this a prototype diagram from years ago? That's what it seems like so not sure how accurate it is. There's a cutaway diagram labelled as the A3XX here and here but again not sure how accurate they are because they'll be a few years old. Iancaddy 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the cutaway with the restaurant, duty free shop etc. apparently makes use of a lot of lower deck facilities. I don't doubt that Airbus would build such a configuration if someone orders it, but I don't believe that any airline would want that. I don't even see how this configuration can hold all the luggage... This is defintive far from the actual layouts that are being ordered/build at the moment... --Xeper 21:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if an airline orders a bar/duty free shop etc it would be on one of the two main decks - there is no space in the cargo deck for this sort of thing, the ceilings are too low. — QuantumEleven 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cockpit location 

message: Qantas has announced that the plane will have 501 seats in a three-class layout. This is a significant reduction in even Airbus's suggested layout. The LAX-MEL route is a very long one and possibly this config will allow this leg to be flown free of the tight baggage restrictions that currently apply, especially in summer. It will be interesting to see how this is applied - whether by increasing the number of "premium" seats, or by increasing the pitch in the economy cabin(s). --Jumbo 19:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really that big a reduction - Airbus standard is 555 passengers in three classes, 501 is a 10% reduction. They probably accomplish this by having a larger business class, or by increasing the pitch (distance between seats) in economy. My guess would be the former, but we'll just have to wait and see! :) — QuantumEleven 09:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qantas config 

message: With the news today (May 18th, 2006) that the Airbus 380 has successfully tested new landing and docking facilities at Heathrow airport in the UK, I am very interested in finding out what these new 2 level docking systems look like. Unfortunatly I cannot find any images anywhere on the internet. Does anyone know of any images which show what these docking gates at Heathrow airport (or indeed any other airport) look like? Thanks. Canderra 13:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heathrow (and any other airport) docking gates 

message: Are there more tests left to do for the Airbus 380?
if they are, which are they?
Minako-Chan* 02:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Tests 

message: I wonder if we should move the First Flights section off into a separate page as it is getting long. Once the plane enters full service it's not going to be of that much interest to most people so maybe a separate article linked from where it is now? Ben W Bell 06:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As said on the edit page 'This page is 43 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.' I think some of it should be moved into seperate Sections to reduce the article size. Reedy Boy 10:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Honestly, there's too much useless information in that section. We might as well add what the pilots had for breakfast that day. - Sekicho 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented on this before. It's encyclopaedic when the first flights are all that's happening, but they rapidly fade in importance. We should have information on the maiden flight and any significant tests. Given the size of the aircraft, I think the evacuation test is noteworthy. Perhaps we could have a list of first flights of individual aircraft? I'd like to know how the production line is coming along, and this would be a good indicator. --Jumbo 18:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  That's hardly encylopedic, but if someone wants to put it together (separately from the main article), why not? For now, though, I've trimmed down the first flights section and tried to make that part of the article more relevant/coherent. - Sekicho 19:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Flights Separation 

message: The following was added to the lead section: "In addition, the Airbus A380 wil be carrying 20% more fuel, but with 260,000 litres of fuel it can carry more than 100 passengers extra."
I didn't think it appropriate for the lead, but perhaps it could go elsewhere, more relevant, perhaps with a source? --Jumbo 17:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  20% more fuel 

message: What does the "Options" column in the table of airlines who've bought the plane mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crobzub (talk • contribs) 
*They're optional aircraft - the ordering airline can choose whether or not they actually want the aircraft at a later date, although that date is very often specified in the contract. --Scott Wilson 17:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Options? 

message: Some important questions the article doesn't answer yet:
* Why four engines instead of two? Aren't two engines more efficient than four? Doesn't the vast majority of proposed a380 routes fall under ETOPS anyhow?
* Why no winglets?
* Why is there a need for double-decker jetways? Why not simply board the plane at lower deck level from both sides?
137.222.40.132 12:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the four engines, I don't know for sure but I strongly suspect that it's because the four-engine design allows the use of jet engines that are from the same family line as existing designs (the A380 engines are smaller than the Boeing 777).  Something big enough to power the A380 with two engines would require an entirely new engine that would be radically bigger than anything that's flown before, and wouldn't be of much use on anything except the A380.  Designing an entirely new jet engine twice the size of existing ones would be a hugely costly undertaking, and the market for the A380 isn't that extensive.  --Robert Merkel 13:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is that, and a theoretical engine powerful enough to power the A380 with only two instead of four would be so large (in diameter) that it would drag along the the ground (assuming you want an engine with a similar sort of efficiency to existing designs) unless the wings were raised, and raising the wings creates a whole different set of problems. So the designers chose to design the A380 to fly with existing engines (which are big enough already!). — QuantumEleven 06:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As for winglets, it has them, even if some pre-production imagery didn't. Just look at the pictures.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 13:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: * Double-decker jetways aren't required for the A380 - many airports will be boarding from a single jetway - but many are building them for the simple reason that it'll allow much quicker loading and unloading. Also, note that of the three options, a jetway on each side is probably the least likely. Conventionally, aircraft are boarded from the port (left) side (possibly a holdover from mounting horses from the left), so most airports, their gates and the aircraft themselves are set up that way. It'd be an even more major modification than a double decker jetway to build a starboard jetway on, and it too would be unusable for most aircraft. Finally, the starboard is generally busy with service vehicles and the like (e.g. catering truck, baggage loading etc.) and the doors are sometimes smaller (though I don't know what the A380's are like), as they are only intended for service and emergency use. --Scott Wilson 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The doors on both sides are the same size, but Scott is right - all airports board from just the left side. The A380's preferred boarding arrangement would be three jetways, two to the lower deck (fore and aft) and one to the top deck, but it's designed so that it can be boarded with no problems with two jetways, either both to the lower deck (as currently done with the 747, so no refit necessary) or one to each deck. It's up to each individual airport to decide how quickly they need to load and offload passengers. — QuantumEleven 06:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, you can see the Airbus Triangluar winglet things (like on the A320 Series)... Wonder if they'll get changed to ones like the for the A320 series which are more like the 737NG winglets.... Reedy Boy 10:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't really matter how many jetways it has. There's going to be a bottleneck somewhere, and if you have several jetways, it just moves the bottleneck to the boarding gate. If you have a double decker jetway, then it just means that passengers will have to use stairs inside the terminal instead of inside the aircraft. As a matter of fact, the A380 should load faster than a B747, even with just a single jetway. Each of the A380's decks is as long as a B747's, but the plane only carries a hundred passengers more. Therefore, on average, there will be fewer passengers per deck (and presumably more space, such as wider aisles and longer pitch) and this will translate into faster loading, once the passengers for the two decks are separated. --Jumbo 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unanswered Questions 

message: The A380 is the largest airliner in the world. It just hasn't entered commercial service yet. It has already carried passengers on flights, albeit not on scheduled routes. The first plane for commercial delivery made its first flight last month. We can be coy and say that the B747 is the largest airliner in scheduled service, but that's about it. --Jumbo 05:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my mind it is simply a product which is complete but hasn't been delivered as yet. It's still the worlds biggest airliner even if no company is currently running it on scheduled flights. Ben W Bell talk 11:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW have any of the test/promotional flights run the plane anywhere near full yet? Plugwash 12:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually no. Singapore Airlines is planning to fly fewer than 480 on their A380s, according to their website. Both planes are large and efficient, but if the A380 has 50% more space than a B747 and only 3 rows of economy passengers to put in it, I'd say that we're looking at unprecedented standards of room per passenger, and the 748 isn't going to be filling any gaps. Qantas has announced that they are only going to fly 501/380, and I can't see Emirates packing them in like sardines either. RyanAir, maybe. --Jumbo 22:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any figures availible on what the 747-8 will hold in single classe economy? comparing 3 class figures without looking at the class mixes and the descisions on just how luxurious to make buisness/first seems rather misleading. Plugwash 12:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let us not be coy 

message: On the subject of whether or not the most common nickname is Megaliner or Superjumbo. EADS may use the term Megaliner internally, but in the wider world the most common parlance in the media is Superjumbo. Megaliner gets ~48,000 hits on Google (I hate Google hit counts but here we are) of which 10,000 are buses, some are coaches, many are cruiseliners and ships and some are the Airbus A360 with a small selection of them being for the A380.
Superjumbo gets 259,000+ hits including news stories from the worlds big name media providers like BBC, CNN etc on the first page and the vast majority of them that I can see all referencing the A380 (plus some political pamphlet that I cannot tell about). Superjumbo is most definitely the nickname for it in the eyes of the public no matter what they say inside EADS, and is used even by big name Aerospace media outlets like Space.com and Aerospace Technology. What do people think? Ben W Bell talk 17:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm biased on this, but "Superjumbo" is the name I've long heard used to describe the A3XX/A380. For the reason that the airliner is bigger than the iconic Jumbo jet. At the moment there is only one airliner larger than the Jumbo, so it is a very apt name. "Megaliner" isn't a name I've heard used to describe any airliner, and even if it was, it could describe any large airliner, such as the A340-600, B747, A380. The top hits on Google all refer to cruise liners, of which there are any number of massive ships. This is something that should be discussed before being included in the article, especially in the lead section, and I am unimpressed by sneaky attempts to insert it without consensus. --Jumbo 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Megaliner implies a cruise ship; Superjumbo can only mean aircraft (or possibly a very big elephant). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google hit counts aren't all that bad, actually, if done more specifically.  Try "superjumbo airbus a380 -boeing -747" and you get 57,100 hits.  Now try "superjumbo boeing 747 -airbus -a380" and you get 181 hits.  So in wider usage outside of enthusiast circles, the nickname is linked to the A380 rather than the 747 by a whopping 300:1 ratio.  As unscientific as this may be, it is a pretty clear indication of which way the wind blows... Ctillier 04:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Google hit counts are incredibly bad. You can be as specific as you want but the fact remains that you are only looking at a specific subset of the English users out there. There is strong evidence to suggest internet pages are biased in favour of the US over and above their relative population compared to other developed English-native countries such as the UK, NZ, Australia etc. Not only that but the internet is heftly biased against the large second-language English speakers in the developing world (India is a big one but also many parts of Africa, Pakistan, Malaysia etc). I'm not saying there is necessarily a Commonwealth English - North American English difference here or that a mistaken conclusion was made. Indeed the fact is that the A380 probably doesn't get that much attention in many parts of the developing world. But this does not negate the fact that a Google search or any attempts to use the Internet to establish the frequency of the usage of a word is usually incredibly unfair and misleading. 12:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's as may be, but "Megaliner" remains a nickname that is not in general circulation. I hang out on various aviation-related forums and it's not used at all, whereas "Superjumbo" is, albeit not often. Those who talk airliners tend to use "380" or "A380". Maybe Airbus used Megaliner in development, but it didn't translate to the wider world. --Jumbo 17:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname 

message: This paragraph is rather deceptively worded; while the United States does produce many components, it produces far fewer than the European Union, and since it lacked any source, I've removed it. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That information probably came from Airbus North America, possibly from these two articles:  and .  Airbus likes to emphasize the US content in their products (at least in US media outlets) for political reasons.  Toiyabe 18:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US contribution 

message: The time-lapse video of the plane being assembled seems to have been removed from Goggle videos.  Does anyone know another site which is hosting it? 82.26.192.80 17:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: Does anyone know if the already built gate corridors in the airports listed in the article load as a single jetway or one on top and one on the main floor? I'm particulalrly interested in LAX, SFO, SIN, and JFK. A ticketing agent in LAX told me when I was travelling to Singapore that they hadn't built the gate for the A380 yet, which is one of the reasons why SQ did not select LAX as one of the start cities for their flights. Any info's appreciated. --67.177.244.157 08:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.airbusjapan.com/pdf/a380/a380airport_compat.pdf http://www.asiatraveltips.com/news05/1310-A380.shtml Reedy Boy 09:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Airport Gates

message: What does the 4 mean in ILFC's engine selection? Andros 1337 23:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine selections 

message: Deleted with apologies by an apparently gullible --Coryma 00:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was funny. Just so long as this sort of stuff stays on the talk page (or better yet, the user page) and we don't see too much of it. Probably would have been more effective if uploaded as an image. --Jumbo 00:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A390 Nightmare!!! 

message: Well, my sincere apologies. I admit I am gullible and impatient. This teaches me not to mess with large threads. I tend not to read them. I saw the picture and assumed people were serious, so I seriously thought it might be a valuable contribution. It was not meant as vandalism, nor any sort of joke. (I failed physics, as if you can't tell that of a person that thinks the "A 390" might be airworthy). --Coryma 00:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "A 390" revisited

message: Shouldn't Orders be sorted by the DATE OF THE ORDER rather than alphabetically. At least that seems to be the standard for other aircraft like the Boeing 787. In addition, it would be more informative since it will show that there has not been any new orders for the A380 since last year. --user:mnw2000 00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orders 

message: Whalejet is the primary nicknam of the A380 used on websites like airliners.net which is run by the aviation comunity.
:A quick Google search shows that the nickname Whalejet is not commonly associated with the A380.  Searching for keywords "airbus a380 whalejet" returns 353 hits.  Searching for "airbus a380 superjumbo" returns 240000 hits.  While a Google search is rather unscientific, the large margin allows one to conclude very firmly that Whalejet is not (by a very long shot!) the most common nickname for the A380.  While the Whalejet moniker has indeed been used on airliners.net, it is controversial as many participants consider it derogatory. --Ctillier 05:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already had this discussion (see at the top of this page), and came to the conclusion that the most common nickname for the A380 is "Superjumbo". — QuantumEleven 06:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an opinion: "whalejet" is nearly unpronounceable for non-English speakers. American may laugh at this aircraft as much as they want -provided they're unable to build anything that gets close to it ::) -, but "Superjumbo" is a far more gentle nickname to non-English speaking foreigners, provided msot people already knows to pronounce "jumbo". --Bill Bones 10:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whalejet (again)

message: Based on the addition of a stub "orders by date" chart, I have gone ahead and completed the chart best I could. Please feel free to update with additional information. --user:mnw2000 19:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably nuke the old table. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...the old table shows the totals per airline, while the newer one (which I helped start) shows them by date, so both may be concurrently useful?--Huaiwei 12:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orders by Date 

message: Can we cut down just a bit on the number of photos?  Twenty is too many.  Ten sounds about right.  Which ones should we remove?  --Ctillier 04:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the computer generated one in Airbus house colours can go for a start, don't know why that re-appeared. We all know what it looks like now, and have plenty of real photos so this is just not needed. The side view of the first completed one can go as well, there are other shots of the side that aren't blocked by gantrys and supports. Also the boarding at Farnborough seems pointless, so it's a stairwell to a door, we haven't seen that before. Also the first flight one, sorry but it's just a poor photograph. I'd also leave the GP7200 engine cutaway for an article on the engine rather than the A380 article. Just my thoughts. Ben W Bell talk 06:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The information is more important than the photos. I remember an old encylopedia that I found that had NO pictures, only text and a few sketches. We have come along way, maybe too far. Is there a Wikiapedia guideline for the use of photos in articles? --user:mnw2000 14:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the boarding one as I thought it shows the double deck layout to advantage. I also moved several of the photos to the "Gallery" section as I thought they were less intrusive that way. --Guinnog 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked and Boeing 747 has 15 pics and a layout diagram, so maybe there are too many on this article now. --Guinnog 14:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our image policy has "Articles may get ugly and difficult to read if there are too many images crammed onto a page with relatively little text. They may even overlap." Clearly this is not the case here, yet. --Guinnog 14:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so I removed a few per Ben's advice above, and added what I find a striking picture of the landing gear, with a guy standing in front of it to give the scale.  I also moved the gallery under the media section-- it used to live under specifications, which didn't make much sense.  I hope those changes are reasonable.  --Ctillier 06:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Overload! 

message: I may accused of attempting to "dumb down" the project however I think the advanced materials/Advanced avionics architecture/Systems sections need to be simplified. I have more than a passing interest in aviation, however the section makes me want to fall asleep. Just me? Mark83 16:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too technical?

message: See WP:RS for why eaawatch.net (apparently Mangan's personal website) is not a reputable source.  In any case, the paragraph in dispute is redundant with the first paragraph in the Cabin Pressurization section, which already states Mangan's thesis.  Besides, the "brain damage or death" phrase is somewhat over the top.  Ctillier 05:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mangan Allegations 

message: I have recently visited the A380 facility and have the following info that could easily be added in. Obviously people may want to find references for verifications - at the moment I am not in the position to do so myself.
# 15 aircraft have been finished to date. 2 of them have already been dispatched (i.e. Singapore Airlines already have the aircraft, they just can't use them coz the certification is not due until November).
# The assembly facility consists of 3 hangars. The large one is used to assemble the actual parts - one aircraft at a time. Then it is towed to one of the other two hangars for connecting the circuitry, installing the interior, fixing in the titanium latches for the engines and the engines themselves, painting, etc. Each hangar has a capacity of 3 aircraft, worked upon simultaneously.
# The assembly facility churns out 5 aircraft a month. The total time taken to build one of these babies (i.e. including the parts) is around 19 months.
In a discussion with a colleague, I was told that on the maiden (test?) flight, the pilot was very finicky about the fact that the rear wheels / landing gear, which as per specification open down by mere gravity, stayed 5 seconds still before opening. He forced them to oil it up, add animal grease to it... they cut it down to 3 sec. The pilot then accepted to take off, though requiring that the issue be solved after the flight.
└ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 02:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Maybe the dynamics in an airstream are different to what you get in a static test on the ground? This is something you'd really want to know about before you took off! --Jumbo 23:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw a programme which featured that problem. In the event of hydraulic failure the wheels are supposed to be able to be released, push the doors open and lock. However they were sticking on the doors. The grease was a makeshift solution I think. A long term solution was a new material on the inside of the doors to reduce friction and allow the wheels to slide over them. Mark83 13:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible additions 

message: I was trying another copy edit of this section and decided that it could use a complete rewrite.    The chronology was confusing, and the section seemed to say more about the 747 than the A380.  I have attempted to rewrite it without making the article longer, and without leaving out any factual information that it used to contain.  I based some of the information on the book by Norris and Wagner cited at the bottom of the article.  Feedback and improvements welcome.  --Ctillier 05:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development History 

message: Section 2.2 of this article states that "the Engine Alliance GP7201 sales total has since surpassed the Trent 900's by a sizable margin". However, according to this press release from airbus , dated 25/08/06, there are 82 firm EA orders, out of a total of 159 firm orders. This should mean that there are 77 firm RR orders surely. I wouldn't call 5 orders a 'sizable margin'. Also why don't these figures match those shown in the table of orders near the bottom of the article? Abc30 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some airframes have not yet had their engines selected (see order tables).  But I agree with you that the margin is not really "sizable"... I would be in favor of dropping the whole sentence.  Up to you!  --Ctillier 20:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine selection figures. 

message: The trade pressure on Thailand item in the 'Technical Concerns' section is not a technical concern and doesn't really fit with the other items in that section of the article.  It seems altogether rather minor and not something one would expect to be in the article 5 years from now.  Furthermore, the Scotsman article, which appears to be the only source for this tidbit, is a shoddy piece of journalism-- the headline and lead paragraphs sensationally imply the Thais were told to buy six airplanes after the tsunami, when in fact they had already ordered them well before the tsunami.  That changes the whole tenor of the situation, doesn't it?  I move that we drop this item entirely... but I don't want to do this without discussion.  What do you all think?  --Ctillier 05:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any comments, I have removed this section... if you wish to revert, please provide the rationale in this space.  --Ctillier 02:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was very dodgy and not backed up by any other story. If there was anything in it, the U.S. press would have been all over it. --Jumbo 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drop the Tsunami Tidbit?