Aviationfreak From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1166 posts, RR: 45 Posted (8 years 6 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6218 times:
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 love both Airbus and Boeing as much as I love aviation!
M404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2214 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6173 times:
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.
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
Aviationfreak From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1166 posts, RR: 45 Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6126 times:
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
I love both Airbus and Boeing as much as I love aviation!
SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6098 times:
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.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6058 times:
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
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15871 posts, RR: 66 Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 4 days ago) and read 5956 times:
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.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Aviationfreak From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1166 posts, RR: 45 Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5495 times:
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
I love both Airbus and Boeing as much as I love aviation!
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1357 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5478 times:
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.
Gecko From Singapore, joined Sep 2004, 68 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5467 times:
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.
An-225 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 3950 posts, RR: 45 Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5408 times:
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.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4412 times:
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
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
RedDragon From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1135 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4204 times:
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.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15871 posts, RR: 66 Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4101 times:
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.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4005 times:
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
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15871 posts, RR: 66 Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3869 times:
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...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
25 Solnabo: 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
26 Starlionblue: 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 a
27 NWADC9: 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
28 Starlionblue: 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...)
29 SNATH: Starlionblue, Thanks for posting the pictures! I actually think the anteater looks really cute! Tony
30 JumboJim747: 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
31 DfwRevolution: 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
32 Solnabo: Just imagine, 3 jampacked A380-900 arrives at the same time at JFK or LHR!!!! Whatta mayham! Jeeeee.........all mighty Micke//SE
33 Starlionblue: 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 pr
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1166 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2004, 581 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2214 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 2566 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15871 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jul 2003, 437 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Sep 2004, 68 posts, 
From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 789 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
