Talk:Wide-body aircraft

Opening heading

I thought a Jumbo Jet was a 747 only. Mintguy

Hard to say, Mintguy, as it's a term used by people who know so little about aircraft that they don't know the difference between a 747 and an A-330 anyway. (Never mind 777s and DC-10s and L-1011s.) Sorry to be snotty about it, but dat's da trufh. It should be Wide-body aircraft.

Wel there's an anomaly that needs to be resolved one way or the other because Jumbo jet has this info whilst Jumbo Jet redirects to the 747. Mintguy

I agree with Mintguy, Jumbo Jet is, in my not-so-humble opinion, used only for the 747. I think that if you asked the public what a jumbo jet was most would try to describe a 747 ie the one with the bulge on top. Wide body is a more general description covering the biggies but I don't think we should use jumbo jet for them. Arpingstone 19:29 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

A bit more info - the wide bodies are these:

Ilyushin IL86

Airbus A300, A310, A330 and A340

DC10 and MD11

Boeing 747, 767 and 777

Tristar

Arpingstone 20:19 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

Please not be using the term "gayness" in that manor, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Sorry - you are quite right, of course. There was an anon contributor a few days back who marked almost every edit as "removing gayness" - the lord only knows why. Lots of people complained and he stopped. (I would have complained myself, but there were plenty of others beat me to it.) This was just my little in-joke. No offence intended. Tannin

---

Are the C-17 and C-141 not also wide-body aircraft as well as the C-5? Rmhermen 17:23 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm ... Good question. I'm not sure of the cabin dimensions. The C-17, probably not: it weighs about the same as a big DC-8 or an A-310, a fraction more than a 707, much less than a 767, and uses 757 engines. The C-117 definately not: it's 707 sized and shaped, bar the high wing. Tannin

c-17 -- Cargo Compartment: height, 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 meters), width, 18 feet (5.48 meters), length, 88 feet (26.82 meters)

c-5 -- Cargo Compartment: height 13.5 feet (4.11 meters); width, 19 feet (5.79 meters); length, 143 feet, 9 in (43.8 meters)

so the c-5 has only one extra foot in height and width than the c-17 although 55 feet extra length.

c-141 -- Cargo Compartment: Height, 9 feet 1 inch (2.77 meters); length, 93 feet 4 inches (28.45 meters); width, 10 feet 3 inches (3.12 meters)

so the c-141 is in fact quite a bit smaller. Rmhermen 18:16 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

C-17 added. Tannin

767

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)

Airbus cross section picture

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)

I now believe it's an A300. Asiir 12:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

$Insertformulahere$

You're absolutely right. It's the A300 prototype. Logawi 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Appropos the Jumbo comments: Jumbo was the name of a very celebrated elephant with the PT Barnum circus. I think it became a word to describe anything huge. Which of course, made it perfect for the launch of the 747, an aircraft that Juan Trippe of Pan Am and the Boeing Company bet their shirts on. My submission is that Jumbo Jet refers only to the 747 and no other aircraft, and the fact that any wide-body is a 'jumbo' aircraft does not count in this matter. On another note, I may remember reading that the word 'cockpit' became a common way to refer to the flight deck after the 747, and it was a term jocularly used by the Yanks on the 747 design team because they were familiar with the roosters roosting (!) in the topmost part of any barn. All this is from memory, and requires checking and verification.

Alvin Saldanha alvinjamessaldanha@gmail.com

Image copyright problem with File:A350xwb.jpg

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)

Fair Use Information:

Image:XWB mockup.png|Economy class of an Airbus A350, nine-abreast (mockup). Fair Use Rationale: Purpose of use: Illustration of interior of planned aircraft Replaceable? No: aircraft is yet to be built, so no official images of interior except for Airbus-copyrighted images.

Image:Airbus A350.jpg|Interior mockup of the business class on an A350. Fair Use Rationale: Purpose of use: Illustration of interior of planned aircraft Replaceable? No: aircraft is yet to be built, so no official images of interior except for Airbus-copyrighted images.

PolarYukon (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cabin to baggage compartment: fact or fantasy?

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)

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)

Cathay and Singapore

Should CX and SQ be taken off the list of airlines exclusively operating widebodies due to Dragonair (CX) and SilkAir (SQ) operating A320s? Flight cx873 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Either remove them or remove the whole section, or add all other widebodies-only aircraft. I don't know how many there are, but VS is surely one of them

Tupolev Tu-114

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)

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)

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)

Bristol Brabazon

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)

I think it needs to be removed. The Boeing 377 flew in 1947 transatlantic, same passenger volume and had two decks. The bristol flew 1949 and never went into production. I have removed it, if a problem please discuss. Jacob805

Merge article?

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)

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)

Proposal to delete section: All wide-body airlines

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)

Proceeding to delete the section. Further discussion always welcome here. Regards, PolarYukon (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article

• 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)

• Proceeding with name change. All comments welcome. PolarYukon (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Wide-body aircraft → Widebody aircraft —

• as per the modern spelling. Rename proposal has been on article talk page for over four months with no comments so far. Thank you for your help! PolarYukon (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• "Wide-body" gets more Ghits, so I suggest submitting a formal move request. --DAJF (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Regarding the Ghits you are referring to: is that what the web-users are typing in, or is that what the web-users are clicking on? Do you have any link(s) for your source?

The way we count hits makes a difference because, if you type in either widebody or wide-body into Google, this article comes up at the 1st or 2nd article (Google images sometimes comes first). So we need an accurate way to see what web-users are really typing in.

In any case, the modern spelling of commonly-used hyphenated words drops the hyphen at a given point in time. Whether we are at the tipping point or not for widebody is open for discussion.

Regards, PolarYukon (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I assumed most people knew how Google works these days, but the number of Google hits (sometimes referred to as "Ghits") is an estimate of the number of occurrences on the World Wide Web - not what people are typing in or what people are clicking on. I see 159,000 hits for "widebody aircraft" compared to 3,760,000 hits for "wide-body aircraft". As the person proposing the move, the onus is actually on you to provide evidence that "widebody" is the commonly used spelling rather than asking others to provide evidence that this is not the case. --DAJF (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose no proof given that "widebody" is the WP:COMMONNAME. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, given lack of evidence that one spelling is more accepted and more modern. (Also, searching the adjectival "wide-bodied" aircraft vs. "widebodied" aircraft is no contest: 101000 to 21600 hits using Google (web search), 53 to 2 using Google News and 25700 to 956 using Google Books.) TheFeds 00:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support, given current usage style from reliable sources. Please consider the following search results:

widebody at airbus.com, 1,510 hits

wide-body at airbus.com, 950 hits

widebody at aviationtoday.com, 6,670 hits

wide-body at aviationtoday.com, 385 hits

widebody at boeing.com, 1,040 hits

wide-body at boeing.com, 463 hits

widebody at flightglobal.com, 9,860 hits

wide-body at flightglobal.com, 3,190 hits

widebody at pprune.org, 10,400 hits

wide-body at pprune.org, 2,680 hits

Regards, -PolarYukon (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose AFAIK this is the first time I've seen "widebody", though I certainly don't follow airline stuff. There may be an ENGVAR issue. I see Reuters was still using "wide-body" yesterday, and many papers in the US. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lufthansa A380 seat width

// copied and inserted from polarYukon talk page //

Hi. On SeatGuru [1] you can see that the seatwidth in Lufthansa's economy class is 20.5 and i think thats something that should be in the article because it´s the widest seatwidth in the Airbus A380. EWR" 17:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The information you have provided from Seat Guru appears erroneous for two reasons:

• On the page which you have cited [2], the claimed economy-class width of 20.5" is wider than the claimed business-class seat width of 19.6.
• No other airline has an economy-class width over 20".

Therefore, without any additional sources, the information appears to be erroneous. We should check with further sources to confirm this. Ideally, information directly from Lufthansa would be ideal.

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the article and removed the citation which appears erroneous:

10 across (20.5" wide) in 3-4-3 on LH

and restored the previous citation:

10 across (18.6" wide) in 3-4-3 on SQ

until we are able to verify which information is correct. Comments and feedback are appreciated!

Kind regards,

PolarYukon (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Safety

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)