Talk:Airbus Beluga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Airbus Beluga is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal


Contents

[edit] Importance

The importance of this aircraft is presently rated as high - no offence intended, but I wonder whether this is actually a fair assessment - comparisons of types in the high rating can be seen by clicking on the catergory link at the bottom of this page. Winstonwolfe 04:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link

Regarding the link to Dragon Models {http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodsearch.asp?txtSearch=a300&btnSearch=Search&tbn=1/} , is it acceptable to link directly to a commercial site like this? The link goes to a search page with several results, many only marginally relevant. 70.27.59.200 03:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


This aircraft bears a disturbing resemblance to Beavis. Are they by any chance related? Nevilley 01:47 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)


Nice article. The details of the cargo -- space station components, etc. -- are illuminating. It would be interesting to know what large artworks, exactly, are being referenced in the article.

Could use a paragraph about why this aircraft isn't used for ordinary cargo freight while it's not chartered for something special.

Also interesting would be a direct comparison with the Super Guppy on things like volume and maximum load. Tempshill 18:21, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From looking at the article and comparing its MTOW to the plane its based on its designed to carry big/awkward cargo not heavy cargo. SO if you tried to carry normal cargo in it you'd probablly end up with something that had lots of emtpty space inside and was bloody expensive to run. Plugwash 18:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The components it carries aren't particularly heavy, such as what you'd get with some of those big Russian aircraft and the Galaxy. They are mainly airplane components, such as wings and fuselage sections, which are mostly empty space surrounded by light alloys. --Jumbo 06:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Exactly which is why i would expect it to be shit for normal cargo. I presume that normal cargo planes are designed so that they will be physically full and filled to something approaching thier MTOW at the same time. This plane on the other hand is obviously designed for moving stuff thats large and awkward but not particularlly heavy. Plugwash 18:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph

I'm making the photograph bigger, because it looks so ridiculously tiny. A pity that there is an obstruction near the nose, hiding most of the cockpit. Otherwise a good example of a unique colour scheme. --Jumbo 06:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] clarification

it says in the article "The starting point was a standard wide-body twin-engined Airbus A300:". Does it mean they started with an existing A300 and modified it or did they build the belugas from scratch just copying most of the design of the A300? Plugwash 16:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

They used the A300 as development base to have at least basic structures, just as they did with A350 and A330. --Denniss 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I would like to suggest that this be moved to A300-600ST. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why ? It may not be the correct name but this plane is commonly known as the Beluga. It's enough to mention the original model name in the article. --Denniss 14:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] infobox

I think we need an aircraft infobox - JJ

Done --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 14:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The need-to-be-updated tag

I have reviewed this article and do not quite see what piece of information is out-of-date ? Does someone on this discussion know ? It looks to me that this tag should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.64.44.43 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

No cant see anything wrong (apart from the statement that talks about the image above -there does not appear to be a related image !) - Unless somebody comes along and says otherwise I would support removing the tag.MilborneOne 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)