It seems that Airbus will launch a new Beluga based on A330-200 in few months:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/124171922/New-Beluga

Very interesting news. The A330 is a great choice, one does have to wonder though why not the A340? I would imagine they have a couple A340s either sitting around or easily picked up. Perhaps weight wise it is best to stick with the A330.
Blue

Oh, I thought the A380 WAS the design for the next generation "Beluga"......  

Reminds me of this again:

Quote: one does have to wonder though why not the A340?

Good question. One would think a second-hand A340 is much cheaper than an A330.

[Edited 2013-02-06 13:40:56]

Question is... what'll happen to the old machines? I imagine there could be a market for them.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1): one does have to wonder though why not the A340? I would imagine they have a couple A340s

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3): Good question. One would think a second-hand A340 is much cheaper than an A330.

The linked article states that the A340 would not meet wet landing requirements at Broughton.

Fred

Why would they stop using the old ones? I imagine part of the desire for more beluga's would be to support a planned production ramp up.

The old ones will retire in 2025.

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 4): Question is... what'll happen to the old machines? I imagine there could be a market for them.

Retired probably. According to the linked powerpoint presentation they're scheduled to leave service in 2025, at which point they'll have been in service for 31 years. The mx costs are also set to rise from 2020, so they pretty much have to start thinking about their replacement soon.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 5): The linked article states that the A340 would not meet wet landing requirements at Broughton.

I see. Looking at Google Maps it seems impossible to extend the runway at the Broughton plant.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3): Reminds me of this again:

Bah. Go big or go home. 

Airbus A340-600ST Super Transporter Concept

I'm curious if they will stick with the lowered cockpit/front end load design or go with a swing tail like the Dreamlifter.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10): I noticed that Page 5 states this new plane would be for the European network only and would not need to be able to reach the A320 FAL in Mobile, Alabama. I seem to recall the plan now is to ship the assembles to Mobile by sea?

I noticed it too. Toulouse - Alabama is about 4000nm (source) and the Beluga XL should have a range of about 4800nm. So why can't it reach Alabama?

I heard a rumor about Airbus designing a new Beluga sometime soon, based on A330/A350. There is the potential to extend the runway at Broughton, only at the south end I believe. A road runs at the end of the runway, but that could be re-routed. At the other end is a railway line, so that end will not change. Can someone explain more about the wet landing requirements for the runway at Broughton????

I believe the current A300 Beluga suffers from quite a bit of tech problems (what these are I dont know, everynow and then you will see a Beluga parked up out of service at Broughton), as the oldest frame is now nearly 18 years old. Also, if they didnt design a new Beluga, there would be alot of flights just for the A350 seeing as it can currently only carry 1 wing diagonally at present. So for a ramp up of 10 per month, you would need double the flights.

Will be interesting to see how this develops.

Why don't they make an A380 Beluga so they can have a plane big enough to ship the A380 parts?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 12): I noticed it too. Toulouse - Alabama is about 4000nm (source) and the Beluga XL should have a range of about 4800nm. So why can't it reach Alabama?

it can but it was not a mandatory requirement for the new Beluga since the plan is to ship the assembles to Mobile by sea.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 14): Why don't they make an A380 Beluga so they can have a plane big enough to ship the A380 parts?

because they can't remove the second floor structural beams. The A330 deck height and length is (with A300) the only aircraft compatible with FLY10000 Facilities



[Edited 2013-02-06 16:00:28]

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 14): A380 Beluga

The new Beluga needs to be able to land at Broughton.

And-setting pride aside - wouldn't Dreamlifter converted 747 be cheaper, since engineering and at least part of certification are already paid for?

Quoting kalvado (Reply 17): And-setting pride aside - wouldn't Dreamlifter converted 747 be cheaper, since engineering and at least part of certification are already paid for?

Please, read the document. 747 LCF fuselage (6.83 x 6.36 m) is too small for two A350 wing boxes (mandatory requirement). A330 XL fuse = 8.08 x 7.84 m

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 3):

A rather simple design study. If you look at the last A346 rendering you will notice that for starters a larger vertical stabilizer is needed.
But that's all useless speculation, as the A340 is ruled out per the article.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 5): The linked article states that the A340 would not meet wet landing requirements at Broughton.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 9): I see. Looking at Google Maps it seems impossible to extend the runway at the Broughton plant.

And even if it were possible. Look at all the political struggle nowadays with runway extension or build-up in Europe. Why go through all the hassle which may well take 10+ years of planning, lawsuit, building etc when you can design and build a plane that you're going to need anyways in due time.

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 4): Question is... what'll happen to the old machines? I imagine there could be a market for them.

Like previous posters already mentioned, they will have to leave in about 10 years, but until then they remain a massive workhorse for Airbus.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 11): I'm curious if they will stick with the lowered cockpit/front end load design or go with a swing tail like the Dreamlifter.

Most probably. The renderings on the linked articles all show lower cockpits. First of all they already have the infrastructure and know-how to build and utilize it this way, and second, adapting a design that your main rival has thought of, knowing that you have a design which perfectly suits the mission, is rather pointless on a PR level.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 11): I'm curious if they will stick with the lowered cockpit/front end load design or go with a swing tail like the Dreamlifter.

The will stick with the forehead door. In addition to what Semaex mentioned, the 747LCF needs special vehicles on ground to operate the tail door, while the Beluga is self-sufficient. The front door also don't carry any flight loads, making the structure much lighter than a swing tail.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 9): Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 5): The linked article states that the A340 would not meet wet landing requirements at Broughton. I see. Looking at Google Maps it seems impossible to extend the runway at the Broughton plant.

It has to be taken into consideration how important Broughton is to the local and national economy, around 6000 workers making it the UK's largest industrial site. If Airbus issued a statement saying "we need an extra 2000 feet of runway or the site closes and the work heads to Germany/France" the railway would be soon be in a tunnel.

Looking at the diagrams, one things leaps out at me, the proposed fuselage diameter is 7.84 metres, an increase not much more than 0.5 metres would take it to the stage that A380 fuselage sections could be tranported.

The other thing is that as the Beluga grows, it potentially becomes less efficient at its main job, transporting A320 sections. as the extra diameter serves no benefit.

Quoting queb (Reply 18): Please, read the document. 747 LCF fuselage (6.83 x 6.36 m) is too small for two A350 wing boxes (mandatory requirement). A330 XL fuse = 8.08 x 7.84 m

Makes you wonder how much of the A350 design was due to the dimensions of the Beluga.

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 21): The other thing is that as the Beluga grows, it potentially becomes less efficient at its main job, transporting A320 sections. as the extra diameter serves no benefit.

But Airbus plans to manufacture 10 to 12 A350 per month. Actually, the A300 Beluga can only carry one A350 wing, the new Beluga can carry two.

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 21): Looking at the diagrams, one things leaps out at me, the proposed fuselage diameter is 7.84 metres, an increase not much more than 0.5 metres would take it to the stage that A380 fuselage sections could be tranported.

Impossible. A380 outside fuselage height is 8.41 m. The cross section requirement is to carry A350-1000 Section 15/21. Don't forget that sections are loaded on a jig.

Finally, this has been on the cards for years - I'd be surprised if the Belugas have enough in them to last until 2025.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 5): The linked article states that the A340 would not meet wet landing requirements at Broughton.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 9): I see. Looking at Google Maps it seems impossible to extend the runway at the Broughton plant.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 19): And even if it were possible. Look at all the political struggle nowadays with runway extension or build-up in Europe. Why go through all the hassle which may well take 10+ years of planning, lawsuit, building etc when you can design and build a plane that you're going to need anyways in due time.

It's only an issue with the current runway, which is in an atrocious state and has very poor friction qualities - IIRC last year it was given a maximum of three years useful life left after a short term resurfacing.

Essentially when the last Beluga replacement plans were shelved the rational for upgrading the runway at Hawarden also disappeared, as the noises coming from Airbus at the time was that overland shipping would be used instead - later backed up by the decision to end Beluga services to Filton, now closed.

With Airbus now appearing to be committed to a new Beluga then it makes commercial sense to invest the many millions to strengthen, resurface and then groove the runway. The performance charts show that this upgraded and grooved runway would provide a suitable LDA in the wet. It may also be possible to increase the LDA slightly if, as I suspect, it's limited by physical obstacles in the approach and departure surfaces - by removing them, without actually increasing the runway length.


Dan  

Total runway length at Hawarden Airfield (Broughton plant) is 2500 meters. Yet, the LDA is 1650m? Could they not extend the LDA??

Another thing to point out, Airbus also use the China Wing Transport trailers to ship a set of wings to the FAL sometimes. That could create less burden for transporting A320 wings. How many of those trailers could fit inside the current/new gen Beluga??

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 25): Total runway length at Hawarden Airfield (Broughton plant) is 2500 meters. Yet, the LDA is 1650m?

It's 2,043m x 45m.

LDA for 04 is 1,663m.
LDA for 22 is 1,743m.

To allow regular operations it is the shorter of the distances which general calculations need to be based on.

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 25): Could they not extend the LDA??

Yes, if you remove the obstacles which dictate its length. Depending on what they are that can be feasible or very expensive. The best option is to increase the friction qualities of the runway.


Dan  

[Edited 2013-02-07 07:29:28]

From the linked powerpoint, it seems that the decision to build a new Beluga is a done deal and will become a necessity in some years (aging frames), and Airbus are currently in the concept phase. Interesting...

Quoting discovery1 (Reply 6): Why would they stop using the old ones?

Because... as the name says, they will be getting old in a few years   Specially now that they will be flying twice as many hours and ranking up more cycles.

Quoting discovery1 (Reply 6): I imagine part of the desire for more beluga's would be to support a planned production ramp up.

The A320 and A350 ramp-up will be supported by doubling the flight hours on the existing Belugas...up to 2020. After that a replacement starts to become necessary. The ppt does not specify if it would be a one-for-one replacement or a fleet increase. I would assume an increase though.

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 21): It has to be taken into consideration how important Broughton is to the local and national economy, around 6000 workers making it the UK's largest industrial site. If Airbus issued a statement saying "we need an extra 2000 feet of runway or the site closes and the work heads to Germany/France"

But that did not stop the shutdown of FZO...although it seems that Airbus and GKN will remain...for now?

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 24): decision to end Beluga services to Filton, now closed.

AFAIK Airbus did not decide this. Rather, BAE (unilaterally?) shut down the airfield, and Airbus has had to adapt I guess. How do they transport the wing components from FZO now?

Quoting LH422 (Reply 22): Makes you wonder how much of the A350 design was due to the dimensions of the Beluga.

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 25): Total runway length at Hawarden Airfield (Broughton plant) is 2500 meters. Yet, the LDA is 1650m? Could they not extend the LDA??

I guess so. If you look at the satellite image, the two thresholds are significantly displaced with respect to the total runway "concrete length". I don't know what the reason for it is though.

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 13): There is the potential to extend the runway at Broughton

From a technical point of view, it seems a piece of cake. There is plenty of room both north and south. From a political/administrative point of view however...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10): this new plane would be for the European network only and would not need to be able to reach the A320 FAL in Mobile, Alabama. I seem to recall the plan now is to ship the assembles to Mobile by sea?

Yes, and I'm sure Mobile's location at a shipping port was a major factor in the decision. Also, even if a new Beluga could make it range-wise, crossing the Atlantic would have the plane away for a long period of time, necessitating a larger fleet to maintain the same amount of flight frequencies.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 27):

Thats dry. And in the document the issue was with runway LDA in wet which is another factor of 15% (if my memory serves me right). So the runway would invariably have to be extended if there were to be a new Beluga. There's a stonking big runway in Manston, Kent but I guess the transport from there would be difficult..

Reinforcing of the current extended thresholds on both end would likely be enough though. Doesn't look like theres too many obstacles on either end..

Quoting r2rho (Reply 28): But that did not stop the shutdown of FZO...although it seems that Airbus and GKN will remain...for now?

Quoting r2rho (Reply 28): AFAIK Airbus did not decide this. Rather, BAE (unilaterally?) shut down the airfield, and Airbus has had to adapt I guess. How do they transport the wing components from FZO now?

In the case of Filton it was Airbus's wind down and virtual cessation of services, followed by the closure of the independent spray shop which lead to BAe's decision to sadly sell the site off.


Dan  

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 14): Why don't they make an A380 Beluga so they can have a plane big enough to ship the A380 parts?

Any airplane built to fly A380 wings and fuselage sections would have to be a clean sheet design. The plane would be so large that it would make the AN-225 look small. Nobody is going to spend billions on building such an aircraft.

Quoting kalvado (Reply 17): And-setting pride aside - wouldn't Dreamlifter converted 747 be cheaper, since engineering and at least part of certification are already paid for?

The A350 will be larger than a 787. I'm not too sure that the A350 wings and fuselage sections would fit in a 747LCF. Also the ground support infrastructure is not compatible between the Beluga and 747LCF.

Not trying to stir the pot but I don't think anyone at Airbus wants to see their parts delivered on a Boeing.  

Airbus used to use Aero Spacelines Guppies, which were modifications of a Boeing Stratocruiser until they built the A300 Beluga.  

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 4):

The old machines (current Beluga) will remain in service until 2025. I noticed someone had mentioned that transporting Single Aisle wings in the larger Beluga would be in-efficient, which is correct, however Airbus will probably use the current Beluga primarily for Single Aisle wings, and the stretch for A330 and A350 wings out of Broughton. There is no chance what so ever the A380 wings can go by air, they're too big for any aircraft in operation.

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 13):

I wasn't aware, not that I'm aware of everything  , the Beluga went tech at Broughton often? It sometimes makes an overnight stay but that is due to runway operating times and pilot's been restricted to x amount of hours per day. I don't think I've ever seen it been worked on here....I may be wrong?

Just curious. Is there business case for this? Could these parts not be made to fit into a C-17 for example?

Quoting kalvado (Reply 17): And-setting pride aside - wouldn't Dreamlifter converted 747 be cheaper, since engineering and at least part of certification are already paid for?

Yes, but the Engineering and certification was paid by Boeing. I don't think Airbus can get the design mod from Boeing free of cost . . . maybe at a bout 10 X profit margin? 

Quoting bohica (Reply 31): Not trying to stir the pot but I don't think anyone at Airbus wants to see their parts delivered on a Boeing.

LOL. Boeing and Airbus have parts flown on each other's aircrafts all the time. Only that the parts are much smaller and you don't get the big PR hit 

Quoting bohica (Reply 31): Airbus used to use Aero Spacelines Guppies, which were modifications of a Boeing Stratocruiser until they built the A300 Beluga.

My question is: Who own the mod design for the guppies? Besides, once built Boeing has no say on how those planes are used.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 12): I noticed it too. Toulouse - Alabama is about 4000nm (source) and the Beluga XL should have a range of about 4800nm. So why can't it reach Alabama?

Not a range issue as they can always do fuel stop. It's just economics. Boeing chose to ship the 737 fuselage by train as opposed to air . . .

bt

Quoting rwood89 (Reply 32): I don't think I've ever seen it been worked on here....I may be wrong?

Granted, it does not happen very often. But has been seen to happen more in the last few years. Last time a Beluga went tech was due to a lightning strike on approach.

On another note, Maybe Airbus are going to spend money on the runway at Broughton. I believe a new building is being constructed that the Beluga will park its nose in for loading/unloading. If that is true, then a NEW taxiway/apron will be developed/adapted to support this function.

Hmmm, maybe they can subcontract the An-225 to ship A380 parts? Is it big enough? And maybe they can get Antonov to complete the second An-225  

Quoting ytz (Reply 33): Could these parts not be made to fit into a C-17 for example?

No, the cost of a C-17 is a lot more than a used modified A330 and the fuselage (neither C-5M or AN-124) is much too small for A350 wings and fuselage

Quoting TriniA340 (Reply 36): Hmmm, maybe they can subcontract the An-225 to ship A380 parts?

too small, same cross section than An-124

Purple line: A330 Beluga
Red line: A300 Beluga




[Edited 2013-02-07 12:54:38]

Quoting TriniA340 (Reply 36): Hmmm, maybe they can subcontract the An-225 to ship A380 parts?

Or design a new breed of airship   

bt

It looks almost big enough to fit an A380 fuselage. Why not make it slightly bigger to do so?

Also, Boeing C-5 Galaxy??????

Quoting TriniA340 (Reply 36): Hmmm, maybe they can subcontract the An-225 to ship A380 parts?

Haha that would be kinda nice to see.
But in all honesty.... if they are using 5 Belugas today which aren't enough to provide sufficient transport in the coming years then I doubt a single Mriya can do the job. Plus, it would likely be in Airbus' hands half of the time, which I'm sure is a bit too much rent for such a unique aircraft with unique capabilites all over the world...

No B777 P2F option being considered - I wonder why?

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 42): No B777 P2F option being considered - I wonder why?

Why would Airbus buy B777 when then can build their own aircraft?

Yes, I understood your question, but it doesn't have anything to do with Airbus.

B777 P2F has been considered and wasn't it planned for the near future?

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 30): In the case of Filton it was Airbus's wind down and virtual cessation of services, followed by the closure of the independent spray shop which lead to BAe's decision to sadly sell the site off.

Is there a plan on how the A350 and A400M large wing parts that are made at FZO are going to get to the rest of the Airbus network - road to BRS or Avonmouth docks perhaps?

The link was removed.
Could anybody post the document again?
Thanks in advance.

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 44): Is there a plan on how the A350 and A400M large wing parts that are made at FZO are going to get to the rest of the Airbus network - road to BRS or Avonmouth docks perhaps?

Both, depending on the component and destination.


Dan  

If the runway at Hawarden (Broughton) becomes a problem again then EADS will have to resort to pervious strategies.
IE roading up M56 30 miles to Manchester Airport

The alternative is investing in developing a suitable harbour facility on the River Dee estuary and shipping to Hamburg or Bordeaux.

As for the Bristol operation parts are roaded to Avonmounth its all motorway and not very far.

Quoting breiz (Reply 45): The link was removed. Could anybody post the document again? Thanks in advance.

I downloaded it before it was removed

https://mega.co.nz/#!voAHmLhS!RniXwTrZbMLSj6DnvdCzWyOxYssOdRbN_Btwo-jQPz4

Quoting Pugman211 (Reply 13): At the other end is a railway line, so that end will not change.

A bit O/T, but I remember seeing pictures from an airport in the former DDR where there was a gap in the overhead line for the railway due to the proximity to the end of the runway, meaning trains must coast past the airport and that the track is closed when planes are landing or taking off. Can't remember the which airport.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 42): No B777 P2F option being considered - I wonder why?

Airbus could have purchased new-builds 777 freighters if it met the requirements...

...which it doesn't.

This is a bit of a no brainer - Airbus already have the engineering in place to convert an A300, of which the A330 is essentially a longer - fuselage version, and it is a fully in-house exercise. There would need to be a very compelling case to do anything else.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 40):

It's wide enough for the A380, but would have to be made a lot taller - in order to retain the best structural shape, any increase to accomodate the taller fuselage would mean it would have to be correspondingly wider, as there would be no cross stiffness to support an oval shape.

By accommodating the A380, you end up with a lot of wasted space - and as the A380s business economics are based on the current shipping methods, there's no real reason to go to the effort, especially as it creates inefficiencies in the Belugas other roles.

Well it may be a great plane but OMG its ugly especially with the lowered cockpit which i know didn't happen, fortunalty

Quoting queb (Reply 48): I downloaded it before it was removed

Many thanks    .
It sure helps following the discussion.

FG reports Airbus are considering a 332 based Beluga, which corroborates something I'd read being discussed a while ago (on this forum?)

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...00-to-replace-beluga-fleet-382215/