Re: Accommodating the A380

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Not to point out the obvious, but the An-124s and C-5As just taxi to
the north field and park. While the new terminal could handle a
"super-jumbo", I wonder if the additional necessary changes to the
field were part of the now-dead plans to rework the airfield itself.

On Dec 1, 2003, at 23:38, Michael C. Berch wrote:

> Well, I've seen both C-5s and Antonov An-124s there, so I don't see why
> not.   The A380 is only a few feet longer than a 747-400, and the
> wingspan is about 60 ft wider.   The MTOW is 1,285,000 lbs. vs. 875,000
> lbs.   The only thing that is slightly problematic is the wingspan
> while taxiing, which can be dealt with by ground control.   The runway
> length (28R/10L) is 11,870 ft. which should not pose a problem.

--
| Kenton A. Hoover / Private Citizen / San Francisco, California USA |

[Index of Archives]         [NTSB]     [NASA KSC]     [Yosemite]     [Steve's Art]     [Deep Creek Hot Springs]     [NTSB]     [STB]     [Share Photos]     [Yosemite Campsites]