Talk:Airbus Beluga/Archive 1

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)

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.

They don't "stand around" all 5 are in heavy rotation ferrying parts between the various Airbus Works in Europe. Other transports are squeezed into the normal scedule.

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)

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)

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)

Secondhand A300s were bought secondhand and modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.69.106.196 (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Move
I would like to suggest that this be moved to A300-600ST. &mdash;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)


 * Move. Wikipedia's Aircraft Naming Conventions suggest that it should be entitled Airbus A300-600ST --GW_Simulations 14:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dont Move' - The naming convention say that best practice is manufacturer followed name or number whichever is the more common. Airbus A300-600ST redirects here so it should not be a problem. MilborneOne 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

infobox
I think we need an aircraft infobox - JJ

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

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)

Contradiction
The articlecontradict itself by saying that the diameter of the cargo bay is 7.7m but the height of the cargo bay door is 17m. The latter is clearly untrue, as the height of the whole plane is only 17.24m but the pictures make it clear that the cargo bay doors are much less tall than the whole plane. Dricherby (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the offending statement. — INTRIGUE B LUE (talk|contribs) 04:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft registration numbers
The 5 300-600s have registration nos F-GSTA, F-GSTB, F-GSTC, F-GSTD and F-GSTF, does anyone know why there is no F-GSTE instead of the F?-- PremKudva    Talk   05:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really relevant to the article but when they came to register the fifth aircraft in 2001 (a few years after the first four) F-GSTE had been issued to a Hot Air Balloon so they took the next available which was F-GSTF. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info Milborne.-- PremKudva    Talk   10:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I had added the reg nos since the Boeing Dreamlifter page had the reg nos of the aircraft.-- PremKudva    Talk   10:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You can use plane registration numbers to track their flights on various plane tracker websites which gives an indication of their regular flight patterns. Therefore it is interesting to have the registrations to refer to if you're interested in the planes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.11.229 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/stbeluga/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)