Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will The A380 Be Able To Have Cargo In The Belly  
User currently offlineAviationfreak From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1166 posts, RR: 40
Posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8834 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!
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHirnie From Germany, joined May 2004, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8798 times:

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

User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2226 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8789 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offline7LBAC111 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 2566 posts, RR: 35
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8764 times:

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?


Debate is what you put on de hook when you want to catch de fish.
User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8752 times:

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

SailorOrion


User currently offlineAviationfreak From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1166 posts, RR: 40
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8742 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!
User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8714 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.

Celestar


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8674 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.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17033 posts, RR: 67
Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8572 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."
User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8559 times:

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


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17033 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8541 times:

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.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8528 times:

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

pelican


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17033 posts, RR: 67
Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8515 times:

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.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFlySwiss From Switzerland, joined Jul 2003, 443 posts, RR: 43
Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8440 times:

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.



Simle at the world and the world smiles back :)
User currently offlineAviationfreak From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1166 posts, RR: 40
Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8111 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!
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8094 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.


User currently offlineGecko From Singapore, joined Sep 2004, 68 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8083 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.


User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8040 times:

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...



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineAn-225 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 3950 posts, RR: 40
Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8024 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.
User currently offlineSFO2SVO From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7062 times:

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


318-19-20-21 332 343 717 727 737-234578 743-4 752 763 772 D9/10 M11/8x/90 F70 RJ85 ATR72 SF340 E120 TU34/54 IL18/62/86/9
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7028 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!  Big grin

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineRedDragon From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1135 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6820 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.

Rich


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17033 posts, RR: 67
Reply 22, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6717 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  Big grin



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  Sad

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."
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6621 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.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17033 posts, RR: 67
Reply 24, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6485 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."
25 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images Solnabo : Just imagine, 3 jampacked A380-900 arrives at the same time at JFK or LHR!!!! Whatta mayham! Jeeeee.........all mighty Micke//SE
33 Post contains images 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
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...
Argentina Govt' Will Be Able To Have 20% Of AR posted Thu Jun 22 2006 05:05:05 by EZEIZA
Would AA Be Able To Have A Profitable SFO-LHR 763? posted Mon Aug 8 2005 06:59:16 by Jacobin777
Will Etihad's Plans Be A Blow To The A380? posted Sun Jul 4 2004 16:59:21 by OD720
Will The A380 Be Visiting BFI? posted Wed May 4 2005 16:23:50 by Qxeguy
Will The A380 Be Like The Concord posted Sun Jun 13 2004 22:41:25 by Calpilot17
Will The A380 Be A Flying Hotel? posted Mon Oct 21 2002 22:23:20 by Bragi
Will The A380 Be A Modern Day Titanic? posted Mon Jun 18 2001 17:59:33 by BA FOREVER
Will Y1 Be Able To Sway Anyone? posted Fri Jun 2 2006 20:51:53 by Glom
FYI Employees Will Still Be Able To J/S On Jetblue posted Thu Jan 5 2006 03:51:44 by Bigdrewfl
Everyone Will Be Able To Go Through Security Again posted Tue Apr 20 2004 07:50:38 by LEO777
Will Etihad's Plans Be A Blow To The A380? posted Sun Jul 4 2004 16:59:21 by OD720
Will The A380 Be Visiting BFI? posted Wed May 4 2005 16:23:50 by Qxeguy
Will The A380 Be Like The Concord posted Sun Jun 13 2004 22:41:25 by Calpilot17
Will The A380 Be A Flying Hotel? posted Mon Oct 21 2002 22:23:20 by Bragi
Will The A380 Be A Modern Day Titanic? posted Mon Jun 18 2001 17:59:33 by BA FOREVER
How Much Longer Will WN Be Able To Do What They Do posted Thu Jul 15 2010 17:08:18 by c5load
Will Boeing 787 Suppliers Be Able To Keep Pace? posted Tue Apr 27 2010 15:08:27 by WarpSpeed