RootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4179 posts, RR: 45 Posted (6 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 4869 times:
Until now Airbus has used its very distinctive beluga as a supertansporter. A modified A300.
However as you know the Beluga was too small to carry A380 fuselage as that was a major limiting factor in A380 manufacturing!
Couldn't airbus modify an the A380 in the way they modified the A300 to the Beluga to carry A380 parts?
And if not possible, Airbus could use an A380 anyways to carry parts around Europe. The A380 being much bigger than the beluga could mean less roundtrips for Airbus and hence a gain of time and money.
Regards
BM
[Edited 2006-12-20 14:34:49]
A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 4744 times:
I don't believe Airbus could remove the upper deck of the A388 which would be required to allow it to take loads the current Beluga handles. Perversely, Airbus would be better off ordering 747LCFs as it is the better platform.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 4724 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 3): IIRC still too small for the A380 fuselage. What's the diameter of the cargo bay ?
Oh no way an completed A380 fuselage would fit. I don't think it will fit in any currently operating heavy lifter.
But as a replacement for the Beluga, the A388 would not be a viable platform compared to the LCF. However, since A350 fuselages look unlikely to be delivered pre-assembled, the Beluga should suffice.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 4638 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 1): Well, they have already leased the ships and enlarged roads for the A380 parts transport, so now it's somewhat too late.
It seems a pity, but basically you would need some A380 frames before you could build a transporter and to get them you needed the ships and roads and all. So it was a bit like lifting yourself up by the shoelaces.
But you do have to wonder if the beast had a transporter version built in as part of Plan A, if it might not have been a more effective in the freighter version due to carry over.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7750 posts, RR: 26 Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 4556 times:
Even if, they would need an enlarged fuselage to carry A380 fuselage sections. The logistics are set and proven by now, there is no need for a A380 Beluga.
Such an enlarged A380 would have no effect on the freighter viability either. The Belugas are chartered out occasionally, but these are niche markets which are also covered by the A124/225.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7750 posts, RR: 26 Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 4228 times:
Quoting Iowa744Fan (Reply 9): Do you remember what type of aircraft the old "Guppies" were? They were modified Boeing 377s, so the concept isn't too far out of the realm!
OK,but that soltion had to be taken because there was no Airbus a/c around then. Besides that, the guppies had been modified in the US befoe Airbus used them. After AB used the Guppies they ook up the idea later an modified several 306s.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 3 hours ago) and read 4179 times:
Quoting MBJ2000 (Reply 8): Indeed! But what about the opposite, could Boeing have used the Beluga to transport 787 parts?
I do not believe so, as the 787 fuselage is wider then the A330/A340 (which I believe the Beluga carries? Or is it only A320 family fuselages?) and I don't think there is much spare clearance.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 4022 times:
BTW - I believe this is one reason the 350XWB is not being made in complete barrel sections.
They have had a nightmare with the A380 and wish they had never done the transporting they designed.
The A300 Transporters are not large enough to take the larger A350X fuselage sections as a whole.
Thus it require new Transporters to transport complete barrels. But not long panels and wings. They can fit. And the tail and cockpit sections can be spun sections as well, because they are physically smaller around than the rest of the fuselage, so they fit.
I don't think Airbus would ever come out at say it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this is the reason the A350X is designed the way it is...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Rheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1956 posts, RR: 52 Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 3905 times:
Imagine the industrial set-up of Airbus in 2010 - may be quite different from today. Why drop the proven pre-assembly concept if you can have a final assembly line at port towns like St. Nazaire or Rostock?
Rank speculation, to be honest, based on the production process Airbus has said they will use. I imagine it would be easier to ship fuselage ribs and panels seperately to TLS and perform final assembly of them there. Plus the fact that if Airbus air-shipped pre-assembled fuselage barrels to TLS, they'd need a 747LCF because they're not going to fit into a Beluga and you can't make an A388LCF.
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 24 Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 3775 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5): However, since A350 fuselages look unlikely to be delivered pre-assembled, the Beluga should suffice.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13): BTW - I believe this is one reason the 350XWB is not being made in complete barrel sections.
Interesting point. Is the design of the A350 is being compromised to utilize available infrastructure? Given that the stated cost of the A350 project exceeds that of the B787, and that the cost of the B747LCF is included in 787 program costs (I presume)...I say hmmm. Why can't Airbus afford a new, larger transporter? Totally unsubstantiated speculation follows: Declaring it "impossible" to transport complete sections of the A350 goes a long way toward maintaining work in Toulouse. This may be a motivating factor for avoiding consideration of a new supertransporter.
I'm going to pay close attention to details like this...should be fun and informative.
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4422 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 3773 times:
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16): Why drop the proven pre-assembly concept if you can have a final assembly line at port towns like St. Nazaire or Rostock?
Then Airbus should begin investing in putting up those final assembly sites now, which given their current financial crunch, would be a big undertaking.
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 18): If need be, an LCF based on the A342 or the A332 would probably do.
Which still couldn't take A350 fuselage barrels, thus reverting to the more economical and efficient Belugas transporting smaller sections. And where would it deliver the parts in St. Nazaire or Rostock just in case?
GQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months ago) and read 3750 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 7): The logistics are set and proven
Are thy still transporting parts through that one small town? I seem to remember a show on the telly showing wings going through a small town at night with only inches to spare, and to do that they had to shut everything down completely in that town.
BuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2777 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3642 times:
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16): Why drop the proven pre-assembly concept if you can have a final assembly line at port towns like St. Nazaire or Rostock?
Well Hamburg is a port town so no need to move to Rostock I think
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3484 times:
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 18): If need be, an LCF based on the A342 or the A332 would probably do.
Since the Beluga is based on the A306, which shares the same cross section with the A332 and A342, I'm with DEVILFISH in that it would not be sufficient unless expanded even wider.
That being said, evidently Airbus performed a design study of a similarly configured A340, to be named the A340ST Mega Transporter, to carry A388 components. I don't see how it could carry A388 fuselage sections, but I could see it possibly carrying the A388's wings (should be able to put two of them into an enlarged-fuselage A343).
So it could be possible for Airbus to "super size" an A343 to make it wide enough to fly the three primary fuselage structures of the A350X, though I still say buying a 747LCF would be faster and easier.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3478 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 19): Is the design of the A350 is being compromised to utilize available infrastructure?
No, you can't look at it that way.
All industrial designs have to be built. The process of figuring out how to build them often leads to changes. This is true in cars, planes, boats, houses, etc.
Airbus may have determined that for their business model, the panels process is more cost effective and gives up marginally little in weight compared to the expensive logistics of getting large, completed sections to their inland "capital" of Toulouse. Since they have to compete on performance AND cost, that's a bean counter decision, but not a negative one.
It also might explain why Airbus was SOOOO reluctant to move away from the 330/340 fuselage diameter. Nothing else will fit in a Beluga...
Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 22): Well Hamburg is a port town so no need to move to Rostock I think
Where have I heard that before...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
25 PanHAM: They haven't changed the original logistics concept. There is road transport of A380 fuselage barrels as well as wings to the finalö assempblyline o
26 Emirates2005: A thought: How about Dubai World Central as the new assembly line? Given the sheer size of the airport this MAY be an option. How to get parts from Eu
27 Rheinbote: Internally the current A300-608ST is a little more than 7m in both width and height to accomodate widebody cross-sections of 5.64m in diameter. A350X
28 Scouseflyer: In one of the discovery channel docos they show a concept of an A340 transporter which carried A380 wings by strapping them to the top of the fuselag
Sponsor Message: 
From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4179 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, 
Interesting point. Is the design of the A350 is being compromised to utilize available infrastructure? Given that the stated cost of the A350 project exceeds that of the B787, and that the cost of the B747LCF is included in 787 program costs (I presume)...I say hmmm. Why can't Airbus afford a new, larger transporter?
Totally unsubstantiated speculation follows: Declaring it "impossible" to transport complete sections of the A350 goes a long way toward maintaining work in Toulouse. This may be a motivating factor for avoiding consideration of a new supertransporter.
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4422 posts, 
From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2777 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
