"At 65,000 cubic feet, the Dreamlifter's cargo capacity is more than twice that of the 747 freighters that shipping companies like United Parcel Service Inc. fly.
A less eye-catching but equally important piece of the Dreamlifter puzzle is a long, 32-wheeled cargo loader that drives up to the open-tailed freighter and pulls out fuselage sections, wings, whatever shipment the plane is carrying.
The loader is "designed to be kind of one-stop shopping," Bunney said. "You can get parts in and out of the airplane then move them around the factory site with the same device, so it simplified the whole logistics process."
Without the Dreamlifter, Boeing would have to wait several weeks for certain 787 parts made entirely or mostly of light, sturdy carbon-fiber composites to arrive by sea, leaving "an unbelievable amount of in-process inventory out bobbing around on the ocean," Bair said.
Another problem: Some parts, like the wings and center fuselage, are so large they won't fit in standard shipping containers. "If we had decided to do ocean shipping, we probably would've had to buy our own ships," Bair said."
As many have asked Boeing if the do no think to sell Dreamlifters to interested customers, they stated
that "it was built only for the specific task to transport B787 parts"
Being the Dreamlifter the only jet of this size, with a long enough range, with the basic used aircraft
B747-400 available to already low prices and increasingly lower in the future, the need to transport huge
parts increasing, this answer seems not to make sense. But obviously there must be some reasons.
Comments ??
Further it is stated:
"Airbus spokeswoman MaryAnne Greczyn said the Beluga will be used to transport parts of the A350, the midsize jet Airbus is developing to compete with the 787, but the fuselage will probably have to be shipped some other way because it's expected to be too large for the Beluga."
As far I realize, Airbus has chosen (or have they still not decided what to do) to use CFRP modular instead complete
structures, citing as advantages (several potential customers do not agree that they are):
* easier repairs
* avoid costly transports fro manufacturers of these parts to the assembly site
with the additional reason from Airbus point of view that they have not much experience regarding the
manufacture of and related with these huge CFRP parts.
M Grechyn's. statement seems to indicate that the changed or are about to change their minds,
Can anybody put this in the real perspective ??
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8161 times:
Wouldn't it be ironic if Airbus bought a 747 Dreamlifter to transport A-350 fuselage components in?
DeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2821 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8142 times:
Quoting Aminobwana (Thread starter): "it was built only for the specific task to transport B787 parts"
Couple things:
1. As the manufacturer, they would have to create a support network for a handful of used modified aircraft, probably not worth the investment. Even though there will be 3-5 of them, they are really one off custom planes.
2. The thing is not pressurised, which limits its potential uses.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
DeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2821 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8129 times:
Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 1): Wouldn't it be ironic if Airbus bought a 747 Dreamlifter to transport A-350 fuselage components in?
It would not be the first time they bought a Boeing to transport parts IIRC.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1895 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8129 times:
Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 1): Wouldn't it be ironic if Airbus bought a 747 Dreamlifter to transport A-350 fuselage components in?
I would suspect that they could beluga a A346 to get what they need, though yes, buying/leasing LCF's from Boeing would be a better idea.
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8130 times:
Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 3): It would not be the first time they bought a Boeing to transport parts IIRC.
Moo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8083 times:
Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 5):
First I've heard that. When did Airbus do this??
The Super Guppies that Airbus used prior to the Belugas were originally Boeing aircraft, purchased off a NASA contractor for the job.
Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 2):
1. As the manufacturer, they would have to create a support network for a handful of used modified aircraft, probably not worth the investment. Even though there will be 3-5 of them, they are really one off custom planes.
This is precisely the reason the LCFs are operated by Evergreen and not Boeing themselves - integration into a successful cargo operators fleet with the ready built support infrastructure.
AirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2562 posts, RR: 40 Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7996 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
I would suspect that they could beluga a A346 to get what they need, though yes, buying/leasing LCF's from Boeing would be a better idea.
They looked at doing that, or even building a specialized A380 to do that for the A380 program. However, Airbus just needs to move large pieces around Europe, not across oceans, so the efficiencies gained are actually pretty minimal for large one piece systems.
Airbus isn't' (IIRC) trying to match Boeing's three day build cycle right now. That's one of the imperatives that caused Boeing to go 747LCF.
CygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 623 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7794 times:
Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 1): Wouldn't it be ironic if Airbus bought a 747 Dreamlifter to transport A-350 fuselage components in?
If that's the correct answer economically, then they should and will do it. Nothing ironic about it. I'm sure if Boeing felt a Beluga could do the job, and Airbus was willing to sell them at a decent price, Boeing would have opted for a Beluga.
If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1895 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7756 times:
not really, belugas are insanely complex and extensive modifications of an A300. Boeing already has superior frames than the A300 for carting stuff, and was involved in the pioneering of large volume unpressurised freighters.
Now if for Y3 Boeing needs even more than the current LCF, and Airbus had a A380 based beluga certified, then I could see it. If not the 748 is very simple to make a LCF mk2 from.
Basicly the only reason people would advise Airbus to not do their own frame is that if Boeing already has the engineering done and certified for something like this, then its an easy choice to ask to piggyback onto it.
BHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2693 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7688 times:
Aminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7494 times:
After reading replies 1-11:
- Dreamlifter could be marketed wit a support agreement with Evergreen, the airline which I understand
modified the B747- 400
- As it s a modified B744, is there much difficulty to make the support for a airline very knowledgeable
of the B744 ??
- it will not be pressurized: obviously the aircraft, which would be not expensive as based on
a obsolete used model +Taiwanese labor costs, will be used only for big items transport not
requiring pressurisation (or anything else not requiring such)
- question: why do not market it, as the design and perfecting was already done ??]
- my question regarding the A350 composite parts did not refer if Airbus would use or not
the Dreamlifter,but reading the statement of Airbus spokeswomen, it seemed that they think
now to build large integrated structures as BOEING does and not modular parts. My question
Has Airbus changed their mind and now will build the frame as BOEING does with the B787 ?? ??
NRA-3B From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 111 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7332 times:
Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 12): Dreamlifter could be marketed wit a support agreement with Evergreen, the airline which I understand
modified the B747- 400
Just a small nit pick if I may....
To repeat, probably not for the last time,
Evergreen International Airlines of McMinnville, OR will be operating the LCF fleet under contract from Boeing.
The LCFs were modified from passenger 747-400 airframes for Boeing by EGAT (Evergreen Aviation Technologies) of Taiwan, part of the Evergreen Group, which includes EVA Airways.
There is no connection between the modification center and the operating airline. (In spite of the confusingly similar names. )
LTU932 From Mexico, joined Jan 2006, 12845 posts, RR: 57 Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7316 times:
Quoting Moo (Reply 6): The Super Guppies that Airbus used prior to the Belugas were originally Boeing aircraft, purchased off a NASA contractor for the job.
Correct. The Super Guppy is basically a heavily modified Boeing 377 Stratocruiser.
Zu fettigem Käse und kalorienreicher Kunstmarmelade, nehme ich einen Doppelkorn.
Rheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1645 posts, RR: 49 Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7309 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10): not really, belugas are insanely complex and extensive modifications of an A300. Boeing already has superior frames than the A300 for carting stuff,
Now you made me really curious. Can you point me to an area where the Beluga is 'insanely complex'?
Aminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7301 times:
Quoting NRA-3B (Reply 14): Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 12):
Dreamlifter could be marketed wit a support agreement with Evergreen, the airline which I understand
modified the B747- 400
Just a small nit pick if I may....
To repeat, probably not for the last time
Thanks. Sorry I have not seen your previous clarifications.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10): belugas are insanely complex and extensive modifications of an A300.
In what way are the Beluga modifications "insanely complex". I don't see it as significantly more complex than what's been done for the LCF.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 10): and was involved in the pioneering of large volume unpressurised freighters.
I was unaware of this, what was it?
There was another thread recently about transportation of A350 monolithic fuselage components, and several people thought the Beluga would be able to manage it.
Notice how the fuselage starts curving down to the nose section. Either they modified a great part of the front section or the aft section, so they could expand the fuselage cross section the way they did. That alone may require very complex and extensive structural modifications to the whole aircraft.
Zu fettigem Käse und kalorienreicher Kunstmarmelade, nehme ich einen Doppelkorn.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 9016 posts, RR: 51 Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7218 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 19): Notice how the fuselage starts curving down to the nose section.
Yes, the nose was re-profiled (but it is still the basic A300 nose). The alternative, if feasible, would have been a swing-tail. However, looking at the slope of the bulge at the back end, it may be that the swing-tail joint would need to be to far forward.
Given that, and the work involved at the back-end of the LCF to provide a swing-tail, I don't see the Beluga being "insanely complex" compared to the LCF.
LTU932 From Mexico, joined Jan 2006, 12845 posts, RR: 57 Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7204 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 20): Yes, the nose was re-profiled (but it is still the basic A300 nose). The alternative, if feasible, would have been a swing-tail. However, looking at the slope of the bulge at the back end, it may be that the swing-tail joint would need to be to far forward.
So that is why Airbus went for the "forehead" cargo door when building these A300STs. Interesting.
Zu fettigem Käse und kalorienreicher Kunstmarmelade, nehme ich einen Doppelkorn.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1895 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7159 times:
Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 16): Now you made me really curious. Can you point me to an area where the Beluga is 'insanely complex'?
Its nearly a completely new airframe with A300 wings. The drooped snout, new complex tail arrangement are just the standout issues. Airbus was completely correct in doing it that way, but It does mean that given the extent of the modifications that dupicating it in the same way on one of the newer platforms would be a serious mistake. However the A380 might be a possible canidate for a beluga Mk2 with less insane levels of modification given its extra size. Dumping a cockpit down as far as possible in the frame would be the largest difficulty if they dupicate the beluga loading style. Tail swing would also work, but I don't know how well Boeing or others have it locked out with patents.
Point is the Beluga was the right answer then. Doing a new beluga in the same style but with a A330 or 340 basis would make very little sense now.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 18): I was unaware of this, what was it?
It does look like I was wrong on that. I recalled reading somewhere that Boeing was involved in the superguppy but apparently not any more than who built the orgional frames.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 20): Given that, and the work involved at the back-end of the LCF to provide a swing-tail, I don't see the Beluga being "insanely complex" compared to the LCF.
The mini guppy had a swing tail. The LCF brings to the concept hinges that leave all the controls, wires, hydraulics and the like connected with the tail open
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 22): Quoting LTU932 (Reply 21):
So that is why Airbus went for the "forehead" cargo door when building these A300STs. Interesting.
I don't know, I was just making a suggestion.
yes that is why the Beluga has the over the cockpit opening since the tests on the superguppy after a open and close cycle was very long and very annoying. Not to mention an actual economic problem since it was alot of money to do, and caused low utilization. Now the special loaders to clear the nose and bridge into the cargo bay are alot more complex than one for the superguppy.
Moo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7144 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 19): Notice how the fuselage starts curving down to the nose section. Either they modified a great part of the front section or the aft section, so they could expand the fuselage cross section the way they did. That alone may require very complex and extensive structural modifications to the whole aircraft.
In the end it doesn't matter how extensive the structural modifications were - these are custom built aircraft designed to do one job well, not mass produced mass market designs where the same alterations have to be done week in week out on new airframes.
If Airbus needs to do the same to an A330 or A340, then they will, its the best option open for them - contracting an LCF would be tantamount to business suicide.
25 Scbriml: It's an A300 with the bulge built on, just like the LCF is a 747 with a bulge built on. Would be of doubtful benefit given the basic fuselage is the
26 Zeke: I believe that statement is incorrect. The aircraft were manufactured by Aero Spacelines, they own the TCDS for the aircraft. Aero Spacelines designe
28 Zeke: AFAIK the fuselages for the Airbus ones were built from scratch, they are longer than the 337, I don't know about the wings, b ut I think they are al
29 Aminobwana: Only my memory !! But of the 3 arguments forwarded by Airbus, is this not the obvious one ?? Can you answer my question if Airbus finally have abadon
30 Scbriml: Clearly you seem to think it's "obvious", but for what reason? Airbus has been shipping wings and fuselages using the Beluga for A320, A330 & A340 an
31 Baron52ta: The wings are predominantly the same as the Lockheed Electra down to the Allison turboprops, but with new props like those of the Hercules.
32 Adools: If the Dreamlifter isn't pressurized, does that mean the pilots wear oxygen masks for the flight? Or is the cockpit somehow pressurized only and the f
33 KBFIspotter: They still started out as 377's. While a new fuselage was manufactured for the four Guppy's used by Airbus, the cockpit sections were retained, as we
34 LTU932: There's a pressure bulkhead separating the main cargo hold from Section 41, so the pilots and people who are flying in the nose section to supervise
35 Aminobwana: * In the Article I referred in my tread starter it is commented that such large parts are even very difficult to transport by sea. * if the manufactu
36 Moo: Most of the A380 at one point or another is transported by sea, its only fairly late in the transport stage that they are transferred to road. Howeve
37 Scbriml: Yes, I know (even though her statement is ambiguous). But you seem to be assuming that the reason for selecting CFRP panels was based on the fact tha
38 WingedMigrator: Here's the thread in question RE: Airbus NOT Using A Full Composite Barrel (by Zeke Feb 1 2007 in Civil Aviation) By the way, the cargo hold of the 7
39 Aminobwana: Scbriml: thanks. I am happy to discussing this with you in a friendly and objective form ! Understood Understood. But even with my limited specialized
40 MD-90: That's how they ship Delta rockets from their plant in Alabama. Why? Order 'em from Evergreen and slap some Airbus paint on them.
41 Revelation: I wonder how much of the Beluga's area is useful - it's shape seems less regular than does the LCF. I've asked questions about wind limits before, an
42 Flexo: Actually as Airbus built the Beluga they decided not to sell it so that competitors (Boeing) could not take advantage of the new transport system. It
43 Moo: And have the rest of the industry make the jibes that you commonly hear from maturity challenged posters on a.net and other forums about the Super Gu
44 Aminobwana: I didn't know that Count Masoch works halftime at Airbus and Boeing !!! aminobwaba
45 Zeke: Be the best part of 10 years ago they did look at a 340 versions (A340-300STE), as more recently a 340-600 version (A340-600FS), the 340 version had
46 XT6Wagon: The trick hinges is where the LCF makes the major leap. I'd also say that tail loading has some major advantages given the fact you don't have to red
47 Scbriml: Them fitting inside the Beluga has nothing to do with it. The point was that Airbus does have the experience of producing large, complex composite co
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Bahrain, joined Jul 2005, 1012 posts, 
I'm sure if Boeing felt a Beluga could do the job, and Airbus was willing to sell them at a decent price, Boeing would have opted for a Beluga.
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 238 posts, 
)
From Mexico, joined Jan 2006, 12845 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2006, 1645 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 9016 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
