Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380-F  
User currently offlinePlanekrazy777 From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 57 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3290 times:

I was just wondering how many pallets of cargo would a A380 hold compare to a 747 400F. I think the 747 holds 30 pallets main deck and 9 pallets plus 2 ake's (baggage can). or will the 380 hold cargo on the top deck. probably not but it would be cool. they could use some sort of a elevator lift from main deck to upper.

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMaddy From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3232 times:

According to Airbus homepage:

"The A380 Freighter will carry a 330,000 lbs/150 tonnes over 5,600nm/10,400km on its three decks with the capability to carry 150 tonnes of payload on standard pallets, on all three decks, over more than 5,600 nm/10,400 km"

Containers: Upper deck 17-25

Main deck 29-33

Lower deck 13

And obviously the A380F will use it´s upper deck:

http://www.airbus.com/product/a380f_cabin_layouts.asp





[Edited 2004-09-05 12:56:55]

User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3086 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3125 times:

Anyone else see the awesome potential for a combi........PAX on top and freight downstairs or vis versa..

But then there would be no room for the spa and bowling alley.

Greasespot



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8483 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3079 times:

Depending on the performance of the 380 and it's success on various routes the some airlines might decide to use it as a combi. In a way I'm surprised that Airbus has not been selling it as one from the start. Wonder how much it would cost to convert the pax version to a combi?

User currently offlineAdriaticus From Mexico, joined May 2004, 1140 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2989 times:

<< they could use some sort of a elevator lift from main deck to upper. >>

No need for that. The upper main deck will be loaded using standard loaders through a left door forward the wings, while the lower main deck (I love how this sounds  Smile/happy/getting dizzy) will be loaded through another left door aft the wings. At the same time, the bellies will be unloaded from fwd and aft doors on the right side of the plane, using standard loaders.

FedEx has calculated the standard unloading time of the A380-300F shouldn't take more than three or four more minutes than unloading an MD-11F - which stands at 17 minutes nowadays.

__Ad.



A300/18/19/20/21 B721/2 B732/3/G/8 B741/2/4 B752 B762/3/4 B772/3 DC8/9/10 MD11 TU134/154 IL62/86 An24 SA340/2000 E45/90
User currently offlineRdu777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 221 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2940 times:

Funny you should bring up this topic. In my CAD class I'm in the process of designing a fictional cargo loader for the top deck as my semester long project. I've checked a lot with Airbus and Fedex's websites, along with others, and have found that the A380 should hold around 66 pallets. This is double the MD-11, 33 pallets, which is why A380s will be flying to destinations where two MD-11s typically fly to each day.


Go Wolfpack!!
User currently offlineOftwftwoab From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2908 times:

Rdu777

Perhaps you can answer my posted question on the A380 pax/freight mix:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1728187/


User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2702 times:

The main problem the A380F has is that it cannot take outsized cargo. Why you ask? It does not have a nose door option. This is one of the main reasons the freight version is not selling as well as it could be


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17180 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2565 times:

The main problem the A380F has is that it cannot take outsized cargo. Why you ask? It does not have a nose door option. This is one of the main reasons the freight version is not selling as well as it could be

The market for aircraft that can take outsize cargo is not that large, and engineering and building such an option for the 380 would probaly cost more than the potential sales increase.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

Then why does the 747F sell so well?


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8466 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2069 times:

747 was designed with cargo in mind, while the A380 as been designed for passenger use and adapted for freight hauling.

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17180 posts, RR: 66
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1731 times:

Exactly. For the same reason that Boeing has chosen not to compete with the 380 directly, so Airbus has chosen not to compete with the 744F directly. The market is crowded enough.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1709 times:

Just as a comparison, the 744 will haul 120 tonnes the same distance as a 380F. In addition, no outsized cargo. So, for FedEx it might make sense. Generally, the 380F will not be gross weight limited, but more likely volume limited.

Interesting side note, the 380 engine (fan section) will not be able to be transported on a 380F. It will only fit into a 744F via the nose door.



User currently offlineMaddy From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1691 times:

"Interesting side note, the 380 engine (fan section) will not be able to be transported on a 380F. It will only fit into a 744F via the nose door."

I don´t understand why an engine should be transported in the A380??
You also can carry it on the outside:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Don Boyd



User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17180 posts, RR: 66
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1689 times:

IIRC the 380 will not be able to carry a spare engine on the wing.

But then again, neither can the 777.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1672 times:

My post had two points.

The first being for a 30 tonne increase in payload, the price tag on a 380F is very substantial. I question if it's worth it.

The second point was I think it's very ironic for a "freighter" not to be able to carry a engine internally that is used on the same aircraft. I, personally, think the 380F will not make a very good freighter due to it's inability to carry outsize freight. I am making a specific difference between a small package carrier and a freight operator.

Finally, the 380/F has no provisions for a "5th pod".


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17180 posts, RR: 66
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1655 times:

The first being for a 30 tonne increase in payload, the price tag on a 380F is very substantial. I question if it's worth it.

Good point, but that's only the nominal price tag. What about operational costs?


I, personally, think the 380F will not make a very good freighter due to it's inability to carry outsize freight

The vast majority of freighters out there have no provision for outsize freight, including a large number of 747 freighter conversions. Most freight is palletized anyway. There is rarely a need to carry huge loads by air. Very few loads need a huge nose door or tail ramp. Even cars are not a problem for this DC-8:




The second point was I think it's very ironic for a "freighter" not to be able to carry a engine internally that is used on the same aircraft.

I can see the irony, but can the 727F, the 757F, the DC-8F, the ATR42F?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1643 times:

I can see the irony, but can the 727F, the 757F, the DC-8F, the ATR42F?

There is substantial global support for these aircraft, as there are hundreds and even thousands of examples in service. In 2010, there might be 50 A380s worldwide, with relativly few maintenance bases...

And ASIAK, only the Trent 900 can fit inside a 747F. The GP7000 must be disassembled first


User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

I don't know about the ATR, but the rest of the aircraft can carry their own engines.

By outsize cargo, I don't mean palletized cargo that's large. I am talking about things like oil drilling equipment, large vehicles, large helicopters. Those will not fit in the side door of a SF. I have flown SFs and have watched the loadmasters try to load things that should have fit through the side door. Believe me, it's not a pretty sight!

My point was FedEx has a different requirement for their "freighter". If you look at CX, SQ and NW the majority of their freighters are pure freighters (in the case of SQ 100%). From a marketing point of view you have many more markets available. One of my last trips through SHJ from BRU we had large military vehicles onboard. They would only fit through the nose door.


User currently offlineDABZF From Germany, joined Mar 2004, 1202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1632 times:

Just a short comment about the nose door issue...
Less than 1% of the total freight flying today on scheduled services (not counting charters) will actually need to be loaded through a nose door!



I like driving backwards in the fog cause it doesn't remind me of anything - Chris Cornell
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17180 posts, RR: 66
Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1630 times:

By outsize cargo, I don't mean palletized cargo that's large. I am talking about things like oil drilling equipment, large vehicles, large helicopters. Those will not fit in the side door of a SF. I have flown SFs and have watched the loadmasters try to load things that should have fit through the side door. Believe me, it's not a pretty sight!

I agree that outsize is "very large", but I simply don't see these capabilities being used as often as you do. But then again that's just a vaguely informed opinion  Big grin

Still, if outsize cargo were that common, a 747 freighter conversion would maybe include the option to fit a nose door. AFAIK, this has never happened.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

Iirc, it has been looked at, but considered too expensive for SF freighter conversion.

I remember looking at the waybills on that flight and the shipping costs were out of this world. For each vehicle to be shipped from JFK-SHJ the shipping costs were over US$33000/vehicle.

I am currently in ANC and flew a 744F in and we had just about 120 tonnes of cargo. Again, there was plenty of "outsized" cargo on board.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17180 posts, RR: 66
Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1594 times:

Of course there was plenty of outsized cargo on board. There are few options for that cargo. But this doesn't mean that you can look at the typical load of an An-124 or a 744F and extrapolate from that the average mix of outsize cargo and non for the total volume of world cargo.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1580 times:

IMO, the A380 makes a lot more sense and has more market potential as a "package freighter" rather than as an ultra-high capacity passenger transport. The jury is still out on the "plane as a cruiseship" concept contemplated by VS and SQ. It's not entirely unlikely that over time the ratio between pure passenger and pure cargo, cargo/pax combi (potential) versions of the A380 in the worldwide fleet will begin to invert. Industry observers often forget that approximately 60, or 10% of the 744 fleet are configured as combis.

[Edited 2004-09-06 18:43:33]

User currently offlinePatroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1513 times:

Interesting side note, the 380 engine (fan section) will not be able to be transported on a 380F. It will only fit into a 744F via the nose door.

Definitely not via the nose door. The 747-200/300/400 F can take pallets up to 2.40m through the nose door and up to 3m through the side cargo door. The reason is the upper deck which lowers the ceiling of the forward part of the main deck.

So the nose door is good for long shipments such as oil drilling equipment, masts, etc, but big aircraft engines such as the RR Trent are always loaded via the SCD.

The A380 however will only be able to take 2.40m high pallets, so regardless which door you try, an engine won't fit in.

I also don't believe that a standard loader will be able to reach the A380 upper deck.

Cheers,
Tom


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 25, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1471 times:

Just as a comparison, the 744 will haul 120 tonnes the same distance as a 380F

600nm shorter distance, actually. The A380 can haul 155 tons 5600 nm vs 112 tons 4970 nm for the 747-400ERF.

Package/palletized freight is the #1 growth freight market. The A380 is optimized for that space, and is willing to let the 747-400ER take the outsize market.

N


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380 As Airbus' New Supertransporter? posted Wed Dec 20 2006 14:29:38 by RootsAir
A380 Exempt From US Fuel Tank Safety II posted Wed Dec 20 2006 13:11:34 by ANCFlyer
Singapore Seating Plan For The A380 posted Tue Dec 19 2006 20:37:46 by Gh123
TG Considers Doubling A380 Order. posted Tue Dec 19 2006 17:23:22 by Manni
Airbus Almost Shut Down A380 posted Mon Dec 18 2006 05:24:29 by Dvautier
A380 Interior posted Sat Dec 16 2006 06:32:47 by ORDRyan28
Quick Help For The A380 ... (not Really Serious) posted Fri Dec 15 2006 11:12:00 by 764
Rumour Control: New A380 Tour? posted Thu Dec 14 2006 16:53:46 by Phantomphixer
A380: Separation Rules Relaxed posted Thu Dec 14 2006 15:34:29 by RedFlyer
Link To A380 Type Certificate Data Sheet posted Tue Dec 12 2006 22:56:44 by Dougloid