Simple question will the A380 with so many pax. only have baggage containers in its belly holds or will there be space left for freight pellets or freight containers?

Sander

I´m no engineer, but I would say definitely yes.

I can't find the stats on the AB sight but most most assuredly their will be. Airlines would demand it. Now the amount could be weight restricted dependent on departure airport, temps, and loads which it normal with any craft.

I no bugger all about this sort of stuff - but where else would you put it if there were passengers on the upper two levels?

Yet it can. Up to 32 tons of cargo besides 555 passengers. (maximum payload @ 6600nm range)

SailorOrion

What I mean is, with so many pax there are probably considerably more baggage containers needed and therefore there will be less or non space at all for cargo in the belly holds which doesn't seem to be bigger than the belly holds of a 747. True?

Sander

The cargo hold is about 5m³ larger than the one of the 747-400, and about 17m³ larger then the hold of the -400ER. Considering that 5m³ are somewhere around 50 bags, it should work out.

Celestar

Aviationfreak,

Your question does make sense. I believe this was one of the reasons why
Boeing made the 747 with a single level (remember, the original didn't
have the top cabin), despite the fact that they did study two-level designs.

Tony

Your question does make sense. I believe this was one of the reasons why
Boeing made the 747 with a single level (remember, the original didn't
have the top cabin), despite the fact that they did study two-level designs.


The 747 was designed with the upper deck so that the main deck would be unobstructed when used for cargo. Everyone thought that SSTs would take over within 10 years so the 747 was designed as a cargo plane. This has nothing to do with lower deck cargo.

As has been stated, the cargo capacity of the 388 is almost exactly the same as that of the 744, at least according to the manufacturer websites.

On some pictures you can see the A380 has actually 3 decks.



I guess there is a lot of space on the lowest floor.

pelican

I guess there is a lot of space on the lowest floor.

There is, but remember that the space is also occupied by the wing box, landing gear, belly tanks and sundry equipment bays.

You are right. The space is - off course - not empty. But it seems to me the space is huge.

pelican

Not knocking you. It IS huge. but the 380 is not primarily designed to carry a lot of cargo in the belly. The 744 can carry just as much.

As working in the freight business I asked myself several times this questions. I don't think the A380 can carry a lot of cargo.

At the moment I would say that the A380 can't carry a lot of cargo as the space is need for the luggage. But we will see what the future brings.

Someone named Tassio - don't know if he is a member, probably not, he would have posted if he was - e-mailed me and provided me with a very satisfying answer:

Say 500 passengers will have 750 bags. Each container LD3 holds
35 bags. So the A380 will need 22 LD3s for bags only, maybe a few
more if the airline segregates bags by class, deck level and destination.
Airbus data says it can carry 38 LD3s, so there are 16 positions left
for freight.
Freight will play a much smaller role in the economics of the A-380.
Here at AA a full 777 may carry 8 LD3s with bags and occupy
the 24 positions left with freight.
A full A380 will carry 1/3 less freight than a full 777.
Tassio

Thanx everyone for the answers especially Tassio! Hope you don't mind I quoted you.

Sander

Tassio says 500 passengers' bags on an A380 occupy 22 LD3s, while 300 passengers' bags on a 777 need only 8? Something's wrong with this picture.

What about the bulk hold? I mean is it bigger or samaller than the 747?

The bigger the bulk hold is the less bags need to be packed into units.

I am positive airlines would demand decent cargo capacity as that makes up a fair percentage of revenue, it would be very silly to turn your back on any revenue at this point in time.

This makes me wonder if there will be a mixed version (pax/cargo) just like the 747 ?
I really doubt it but why not ... in 20 years...

Unless you can't stack and/or handicapped, you can fit more than 35 bags into an LD3. If you fill it up to the top, on average, you can stick between 40 and 60 bags into an LD3. As for original question... I am sure Airbus did not design this huge plane without cargo revenue for airlines in mind.

Alex.

how about combi version - one deck for pax, one for cargo?

Starlionblue,

The 747 was designed with the upper deck so that the main deck would be unobstructed when used for cargo. Everyone thought that SSTs would take over within 10 years so the 747 was designed as a cargo plane. This has nothing to do with lower deck cargo.

This is absolutely correct and I didn't claim the opposite.

What I did claim was that Boeing did study a two-level, a la A380, design.
One of the reasons they didn't go with it, but instead went with a single level
design, was because the latter gives you less passangers per plane "slice",
if you want, hence more opportunity to add cargo in the belly.

Other reasons included what you mentioned and also coordination of
the evacuation slides.

I had seen a documentary sometime ago with one of the ex-747 designers
talking about all this... and, no, it was not on the History Channel!  

Tony

This makes me wonder if there will be a mixed version (pax/cargo) just like the 747 ?

how about combi version - one deck for pax, one for cargo?

The main sticking point with this possibility is the FAA's refusal to certify any new combi aircraft without a solid (permanent) divider and, if I recall correctly, cargo fire protection. The first provision would deny any new combi the flexibility of its "convertible" aspect.

Assuming that the FAA is the only agency to ban any new-build combis as we know them, there would of course be nothing stopping Airbus from offering an A380M, but its market prospects would be bleak at best if it was unable to fly into the USA.

Rich

This makes me wonder if there will be a mixed version (pax/cargo) just like the 747 ?

how about combi version - one deck for pax, one for cargo?

The main sticking point with this possibility is the FAA's refusal to certify any new combi aircraft without a solid (permanent) divider and, if I recall correctly, cargo fire protection. The first provision would deny any new combi the flexibility of its "convertible" aspect.

As RedDragon says. The FAA will not certify traditional combis which carry cargo on the same deck. However the 380 could conceivably carry cargo on the main and lower decks and pax on the upper deck. Sort of like sticking a giant trailer on a 340  



What I did claim was that Boeing did study a two-level, a la A380, design.
One of the reasons they didn't go with it, but instead went with a single level
design, was because the latter gives you less passangers per plane "slice",
if you want, hence more opportunity to add cargo in the belly.

Sorry SNATH, I didn't mean to knock you down  

As you say, Boeing in fact studied several double-decker designs with both 6 abreast and 7 abreast seating (the upper deck of the latter was revived for the 767). There was also a single-deck "anteater" design, which has a Beluga style lowered cockpit. This was just another way of moving the cockpit away from the plane of the main deck.

Another factor that made the 747 a large single decker with a hump was the low wing. For various reasons due to engine mounting and evacution, Borger from Pan Am wanted a low wing. This worked better with a single deck.

Starlionblue,

Sorry SNATH, I didn't mean to knock you down

No worries!

As you say, Boeing in fact studied several double-decker designs with both 6 abreast and 7 abreast seating

Didn't they in fact study a concept with two 707 fuselages, one on top
of the other?

(the upper deck of the latter was revived for the 767). There was also a single-deck "anteater" design, which has a Beluga style lowered cockpit.

Yeah, I've seen models of this! It looks weird!

Another factor that made the 747 a large single decker with a hump was the low wing. For various reasons due to engine mounting and evacution, Borger from Pan Am wanted a low wing. This worked better with a single deck.

I was not aware of this... thanks for sharing.

Tony

Here are models of the double-decker (as you say SNATH based on the 707):



and of the anteater:





And then, much later, Boeing thought briefly about this thing. Yech...

I wonder if they had powerful engines at that time, late 60´s, for the Boeing double-decker??

I think the first one looks really great, but the other two.....ewwwww!!

Micke 

I wonder if they had powerful engines at that time, late 60´s, for the Boeing double-decker??

Well, you have to remember that the double decker was at most 7 abreast, with most proposals making it 6 abreast (707 cross section on both decks), so it wasn't that much larger than the eventual 747. Max seating was about 440 pax. Boeing felt at the time if you weren't talking over 600 pax or so a single decker was much more efficient, and of course it could load seagoing containers.



Just a note. The 747-300 pictured above was a much later proposal, well after entry into service.

The first one looks like the A380 , the second one looks like the 777  with the Begula's nose shape , and the third one... well... it kinda looks like a 747 and a L1011 had a child! 

The first one looks like the A380

Indeed it does. The major differences are the mid wing (I really would not have wanted to sit next to the engine...) and the fuse width. Pan Am nixed that in any case. IIRC there was also a low winged double decker.

Starlionblue,

Thanks for posting the pictures! I actually think the anteater looks really cute!

Tony

At some stage there was talk about the A380 was going to carry over 800 pax now the argument for the baggage .?
Maybe they will restrict the amount of bags and weight for each person.
And no carry on luggage.  

At some stage there was talk about the A380 was going to carry over 800 pax now the argument for the baggage .?

While a single-class all-economy A388 could easily carry 800 passengers, the A380 will only be certified to carry 550-600 for now.

The 800 passenger version would be a stretched A380, called the A380-900, that would feature plugs ahead and behind the wing. It would therefore have more underfloor volume and not have any problems loading passenger bags.

Just imagine, 3 jampacked A380-900 arrives at the same time at JFK or LHR!!!!

Whatta mayham! Jeeeee.........all mighty 

Micke//SE

Just imagine, 3 jampacked A380-900 arrives at the same time at JFK or LHR!!!!

Whatta mayham! Jeeeee.........all mighty

Micke//SE

Well it's gonna be pretty gross when all that jam pours out onto the ramp  


Anyway that one goes in the "Gates of Hell" category. The line at immigrations will be lovely...