It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

On a lighter note.....

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Airbus has begun development of an ugly A330 replacement for the ugliest plane flying, the A300-600ST Beluga. The Beluga is used to transport sections of aircraft from their place of manufacture to Toulouse. Like the current aircraft, the replacement will lower the cockpit, to allow for larger sections to be inserted into the cargo area from above. When not being used to transport parts for new aircraft, it's also used to transport oversized cargo, such as helicopters.

The A300 fleet was built between 1994 and 2001. The first of the new aircraft should enter service in 2019, while the last A300 will be retired in 2025.

www.flightglobal.com...

upload.wikimedia.org...
www.aviastar.org...
a1.att.hudong.com...
cache.desktopnexus.com...
edit on 11/17/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Those things make Boeing's Dreamlifter look like a flying super model in comparison. They should paint them to look like the hunchback of Notre-Dame.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Always more elegant than a Super Guppy:



That's a shape only a mother could love.

A really much blind mother.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

STOP with the personal attacks on the The Beluga, it`s beautiful !

****Don`t respond to this post !****




posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Totally thought your story was gonna be about a super light weight aircraft, or something... You know, a play on words. Prolly not, since it's a heavy lifter, as far as I can tell from the general overview.

Your story is pretty fly.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Function defines form.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

Of course it does. But that still doesn't make it pretty.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58 Interesting, I didn't see any mention of whether it will be based on the passenger variant or on the A-330 freighter. I would think the freighter as it has a nose gear extension that negates the characteristic nose down attitude of the passenger version. Plus this would allow them more room to lower the cockpit for a Beluga variant. Either way though they will probably have to move the main avionics bay to give them even more room. I wonder if they plan on incorporating the A-330 NEO variants technology in them? It would certainly keep them relevant and easier to maintain for longer which is part of the problem I suspect with the current A-300 based Beluga's. It would be interesting to see what the dimension differences will be too. I suspect that Airbus also looked at basing replacement outsized freighters on other aircraft such as a ballooned out A-380, but the running costs alone would probably make it a uneconomical. Unless of course they could widen the fuselage enough to fit 2 A350 fuselage assemblies side by side. Of course it would need to be unpressurised in the cargo area just to deal with all that increased structure. Anyway, I'm just going off on a hypothetical tangent again. It will be interesting to see some images and specs for this new transporter.

LEE.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I think the Beluga is very impressive and much prett....better looking....than Boeing giant flying coffin, IMHO

edit on 17-11-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: japhrimu

Wanna get your mind blown on super light weight aircrafts? Google vacuum baloon aircraft... 1600's they had the idea and they are implementing it in various ways now. I personally believe it will revolutionize satellite technology.

CiTrus that guppy looks like a cartoon bomb lol.


As for the op.. If you were to show drawings of these planes to the wright brothers I bet you would of gotten some funny looks lol.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

SEE? Even YOU can't say it's pretty!


Both of them are amazing aircraft, that do things that are impressive as hell. And they're both ugly as sin.



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Im sure the Cartels would gladly buy the old fleet off.......
Then theyd all be in the everglades and we could start a museum of crashed belugas....



posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Here's two of them in flight together. Majestic




posted on Nov, 17 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Were they named after these guys? 'Cause I can see the resemblance. [ Although I don't consider the whales ugly, but the plane...sheesh ]


edit on 17-11-2014 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

But:

"If it looks good, it will fly good."




posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Yep,,,.....one would freak out if ya ever saw one coming in low over your head.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I'm sure i saw one of these in a James Bond Movie...or was it The Spy Who Shagged me..





posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: constant_thought
Pffffft...Thems just your bog standard Bottle Nosed Dolphins, The Beluga is much uglier. looks like a dolphin with water on the brain and i'm pretty sure they are White in colour.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

B*llsh*t! Google F7U Cutlass.



posted on Nov, 18 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

The Cutlass was fine aerodynamically. Had pretty enviable performance for the time, actually. Among other things, it wasn't susceptible to Mach tuck. It was also rated to 9 G (though not sustained turn capability). On the other hand the J46 engine was garbage and extremely prone to compressor stalls -- hard to believe, but it was better than the Allison it replaced. Most of the losses (and the loss rate was quite high, even for the time) were due to the extreme unreliability of the powerplants and the poor visibility resulting from high AoA necessary for a carrier landing. Later they derated the engine to improve the service life, and it was pretty underpowered (hence the "Gutlass" nickname).
edit on 18-11-2014 by _Del_ because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join