Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Flight - "Airbus Has No Timeline On The A380F"  
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8934 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quote:
A freighter version of the Airbus A380 remains on the backburner, as the European manufacturer continues to play catch-up with delivering the passenger version to customers who have been “suffering” for want of the ultra-large aircraft.

The A380 cargo version “is part of the plan but right now [we’ve] put it back out into the future”, said Airbus chief operating officer, customers John Leahy today during the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading (ISTAT) conference in Orlando, Florida.

He notes that there “isn’t a specific date yet” for bringing the A380 freighter to market.

I expect this means that "traditional" cargo operators are content with new-build 747 freighters as well as 747 passenger-to-freighter conversions so there remains a lack of interest in the A380-800F. And 5X and FX have both addressed their immediate needs originally meant to be handled with the A380F with 747Fs, 777Fs and 767Fs.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...imeline-on-the-a380-freighter.html

113 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4970 posts, RR: 40
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8921 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If this is true (and likely it is) this could possibly mean that an A380-F might be developed alongside the A380-900 development. Only in this configuration (and possibly with the latest engines mounted under its wings) it could have a real chance of winning special interest from cargo carriers. If not, then it could be we are not going to see the A380-F ever. Something which I do not hope, but could be the case!

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8801 times:



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 1):
If this is true (and likely it is) this could possibly mean that an A380-F might be developed alongside the A380-900 development.

Or after the A380-900. Right now, no matter how small the A380-900 market may be, the A380F market seems smaller. But that might change in ten years, so why offer a plane now that nobody wants for 10 years? They've already released the A380-800 years before there was projected strong demand.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePlaneInsomniac From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 685 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8758 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
no matter how small the A380-900 market may be

I believe that quite a few people in this forum think the market for the -900 may actually be larger than the market for the -800 due to its even lower projected seat-mile costs.

As far as the A380F is concerned, it is a wise move by Airbus to focus on the much more important passenger versions for the time being. The A380F as it had been proposed has a hard time competing with the 748F anyway.

[Edited 2008-03-11 10:49:18]


Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8735 times:



Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 3):
I believe that quite a few people in this forum think the market for the -900 may actually be larger than the market for the -800 due to its even lower projected seat-mile costs.

I don't. That's why I said "may be" though.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 926 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8731 times:



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 1):
If this is true (and likely it is) this could possibly mean that an A380-F might be developed alongside the A380-900 development.

I would expect it to come earlier, more alongside the A380-800R. Offering the F before the A380-900 would help to keep the production line busy if customers switch orders from the -800 to the -900.

I think some people are a bit too optimistic about how soon we will see the -900.


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7144 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8643 times:



Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 3):
The A380F as it had been proposed has a hard time competing with the 748F anyway.

 checkmark 
The only ones for whom the A380F makes sense are the package carriers, and there aren't enough of them to make it worthwhile. Double deck freighters just don't work very well for most applications, and the infrastructure to load and unload them does not exist at all.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 1):
this could possibly mean that an A380-F might be developed alongside the A380-900 development. Only in this configuration (and possibly with the latest engines mounted under its wings) it could have a real chance of winning special interest from cargo carriers.

I'm not even sure that will be enough, to be honest. The A380-800F is a very capable plane in and of itself, so jacking up the maximum payload even more may not be enough, especially if it is payload density that is holding it back (since an A380-900F is not going to significantly improve that over the A380-800F).

Also, the infrastructure needed to support any model of the A380 freighter does not yet exist and there is a bit of a "chicken or the egg" deal there where cargo carriers don't want to buy A380Fs until the infrastructure to support them, and yet the infrastructure will be driven hardest by A380Fs being in operation.

But never say never, so the future will unfold as it unfolds...


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8493 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 1):
If this is true (and likely it is) this could possibly mean that an A380-F might be developed alongside the A380-900 development.

Or after the A380-900.

I think it is more likely that we see an A380E first.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 6):
The only ones for whom the A380F makes sense are the package carriers

 checkmark  The A380F may have excessive range and volume. That doesn't preclude that a new market develops around these capabilities in the future.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8454 times:

Well, it's an uphill battle. It requires relocating massive amounts of infrastructure to take advantage of a moderate increase in range, and replacing shorter range aircraft en masse to match that new paradigm. That means no 744BCFs would work in that new structure.

In other words, increased range is nice, but it has limited appeal. It would only appeal as a by-pass option between two cities, and considering the size of the A380F, those would have to be MAJOR cities. The smaller 777F is a better option here.

The A380F would be better redesigned to increase payload density at the expense of range. Airbus may end up doing just that.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10934 posts, RR: 37
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8293 times:

I have one A380F Airbus brochure that I picked up at one of the Air Shows, maybe Farnborough I can't remember. I guess this brochure will become a rare collector's item in the future.


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7144 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8153 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
The A380F would be better redesigned to increase payload density at the expense of range. Airbus may end up doing just that.

But you still are stuck with a double decker, which just sucks bigtime.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26005 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8147 times:



Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
I expect this means that "traditional" cargo operators are content with new-build 747 freighters as well as 747 passenger-to-freighter conversions so there remains a lack of interest in the A380-800F.

Except for one 747-200F delivered to LH in 1972, two years after the 747 first went into service, no other factory-built 747F pure freighters were delivered until July 1974, four and half years after the first 747 passenger service.


User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8087 times:

My first guess is... they're going to wait for XWB engines...

The A388 will certainly be used as testbed for these engines.

XWB-1000 engines can power A388ER, A380F and A389.

If efficiency of the XWB-900 engines proves to be excellent, perhaps the A388ER could be powered by these.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8043 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
The A380F would be better redesigned to increase payload density at the expense of range. Airbus may end up doing just that.

The A380-800F can increase it's payload density, but it cannot be loaded to maximum volume when it loaded as such, so it ends up flying around empty floorspace.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6542 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8011 times:

NCB, I'm pretty sure that you hit it right on the spot (reply #13).

I'm sure that any development work on the higher powered engines for the shelved 380F has been put on hold. And that at the soonest possible opportunity the 350XWB and 380 will get the highest possible engine commonality based on what is being developed for the 350XWB.

They will hardly ever be totally identical and interchangeable engines since a twin requires some extra redundancies especially related to accessories, which on the 380 would mean unneeded weight and extra maintenance. But apart from that...

If the oil price continues anywhere near cuurent price, then I will put a question mark behind the future of the 380ER and other ultra long range planes such as 777LR. They will be harmed economically more than other planes since they spend a lot of fuel on transporting fuel. Ultra long range flights will tend to put in a fuel stop in order to be able to carry more payload instead of fuel.

But getting near to 2020 I wouldn't be surprised to see a 380-900 with four Trent XWB engines.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7961 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
Right now, no matter how small the A380-900 market may be, the A380F market seems smaller.

I don't know why anyone, especially Airbus, would let themselves get distracted by marketing the F version. Let's face it: the A380 was conceived and optimized first and foremost as a passenger airplane. The F version was nothing more than an afterthought. How many passenger airplanes were launched with with a freighter version in close tandem? (The 747 was the exception, but that's only because, at the time, SST's were expected to become the norm with the 747 becoming primarily a freight hauler.) Airbus is smart to shelve the project for now and just concentrate on the passenger version.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7958 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Engines likely are not what is holding back the freighter version of the A380. Additional fuel efficiency would be nice, but not critical in a cargo role where payload weight and density are the primary drivers.

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7928 times:



Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 3):
I believe that quite a few people in this forum think the market for the -900 may actually be larger than the market for the -800 due to its even lower projected seat-mile costs.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
I don't. That's why I said "may be" though.

Steve Hazy does. That's generally enough for me.

NS


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7911 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
Additional fuel efficiency would be nice, but not critical in a cargo role where payload weight and density are the primary drivers.

I'm not sure if this is a valid assertion. One could equally assert that fuel efficiency is almost single-handedly how and why the 748F edged out the A388F.

Much gets made of the double deck loading issue... but how much harder is it to lift pallets 8 meters high rather than 5 meters high? For each $300M aircraft, just how painful is it to procure a dozen (gasp!) $250K upper deck loaders?

I also believe the A350F is a far better proposition than the A380F, even if re-engined. Once the composite twins get turned into freighters (Boeing's 787 included), watch out!


User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7892 times:

Well stitch you've said it right yourself.

More payload.

With the A380 engines available now, that payload strikes a limit.

Since the A350-1 XWB engines are likely to be ready by 2013, ie 2 years before EIS, why not fit a variant of these on an A388 fuselage and give it A389 wings thus stretching the payload capability another 50 ton further forward while keeping or exceeding the range compared to the previous A380F?

Though density will be lower compared to existing aircraft, its cost per kg-km will be unbeatable.


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 926 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7849 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 16):
Let's face it: the A380 was conceived and optimized first and foremost as a passenger airplane.

Not entirely. The plan was always to make it a viable freighter as well. Airbus designed the passenger A380 so that it could easily be converted to a freighter and they always planned to introduce a dedicated freighter variant early on, in part because it was thought that demand for the passenger variant might take time to develop.

The combination of the program delays and a 4-year backlog of orders for the passenger model (at full production) kind of invalidated the rationale for an early introduction of the freighter.

Quoting NCB (Reply 13):
XWB-1000 engines can power A388ER, A380F and A389.

Seems a logical way to go, unless the current A380 engines could be upgraded to XWB-or-better efficiency.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 6):
The only ones for whom the A380F makes sense are the package carriers, and there aren't enough of them to make it worthwhile.

Nonsense. The market for package freight is growing rapidly, in particular internationally. Yes, there are few big carriers, but that means that the big carriers need big fleets of big aircraft. UPS and Fedex really wanted the A380F, placed orders for 25 of them in an initial round, and have indicated that they will consider it again in the future.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7829 times:



Quoting NCB (Reply 20):
With the A380 engines available now, that payload strikes a limit.

The engines do not limit the payload. The structure does: floor loading, fuselage bending moment, and especially wing root bending moment, to cite a few examples.

Quoting NCB (Reply 20):
why not fit a variant of these on an A388 fuselage and give it A389 wings

The A380F already had what could be considered A389 wings. It had an MTOW of 590 t, about 30 t higher than the passenger variant. While these wings had the same overall dimensions, they had reinforcement to handle higher MTOW and higher MZFW.

Quoting NCB (Reply 20):
thus stretching the payload capability another 50 ton further

As mentioned above, this would primarily require structural reinforcement, further increasing the weight of the airplane. The ratio of payload to OEW would get even worse than it already is compared to the 748F.

Quoting NCB (Reply 20):
while keeping or exceeding the range compared to the previous A380F

Part of why the A380F was so structurally inefficient as mentioned above is because the range is so high (5600 nm at max payload, more than 10% further than any other freighter). Perhaps at a future time there will be market demand for greater range.

Quoting NCB (Reply 20):
Though density will be lower compared to existing aircraft, its cost per kg-km will be unbeatable.

That honor will belong to the A350-900F.


User currently offlineNCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7797 times:



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 22):
The engines do not limit the payload. The structure does: floor loading, fuselage bending moment, and especially wing root bending moment, to cite a few examples.

Indeed MZFW is limiting for payload. But if you give it a wing able to handle a higher MZFW, you need engines that can cope with the higher payload to avoid loosing too much on range.
The A388 does not really have the A389 wing, the A388F wing is closer to the intended A389 wing.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 22):
Quoting NCB (Reply 20):
Though density will be lower compared to existing aircraft, its cost per kg-km will be unbeatable.

That honor will belong to the A350-900F.

Well I don't know. The B777ER never beated the B744 in CASM and the B777F is not likely to beat the B748F in cost per ton x mile. Airbus will not sell an A359F as long as it sells A332F's, seen that the USAF will need to replace the next batch of KC-135's starting from 2013 and that the B787/A350's are sold out for that period, Airbus may not come up with an A350F til around 2018.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7789 times:



Quoting Scipio (Reply 21):
UPS and Fedex really wanted the A380F, placed orders for 25 of them in an initial round, and have indicated that they will consider it again in the future.

I'm sorry, but you don't cancel an order for a plane you "really want". It wouldn't have cost FedEx and UPS a dime (they'd probably have been paid delay payments) to leave the A380F on the books and they walked away anyway. That should tell you something about how much they actually wanted it.

Tom.


25 RedFlyer : I have no reason to doubt what you're saying as I think most airplane models are designed with an eye towards secondary markets in the freighter indu
26 WingedMigrator : It didn't? I don't have CASM figures handy (they would need to be from the same airline, for an apples-to-apples comparison). If you do, I'd love to
27 Astuteman : Unless Airbus managed to increase the MZFW by a larger proportion than the OEW. A combination of a FURTHER increase in MTOW, and a reduction in the f
28 NicoEDDF : At the time the 380F project was stopped in our house (I am employed at a supplier), it is still projected to resume 2012.
29 Burkhard : The buisiness modell of a giant packet freighter, aka A380F, depends on the following: When you from the US order a pair of jeans over the internet, w
30 XT6Wagon : I don't think the A388R will ever exist. Its just a terrible idea. Add weight and complexity for more range that isn't needed? Gee thanks. The A389 ma
31 Rheinwaldner : Some questions must be clarified to judge the A380F prospects: Is there a better alternative for packages at all? At places where high volume is aske
32 Post contains images Moo : I thought some Pacific customers had issues with its ability to reach certain locations in the US? Adding range would help them certainly. And I don'
33 Scouseflyer : Wasn't there speculation at the time that UPS ordered the A380F instead of the 30-off A300s that they decided to cancel - this meant that they could
34 Fridgmus : If the A380F is developed, how would you load it? With upper and lower cargo doors on the side of the fuselage or would it be worthwhile to have a swi
35 Moo : Upper and lower cargo doors - swing tails are a significant leap up in logistical nightmare land, as you start having issues with weather conditions
36 Post contains images Rheinwaldner : Very good post! I wondered about ULH operations too. I think so far lack of efficiency prevented money-making ULH operations. But could there be a br
37 XT6Wagon : I think we are almost there. In 10-15 years with the next stage of the evolution of the technologies in the 787, yet more advanced engines, etc I thi
38 Post contains links NCB : http://www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/allpirg/allpirg4/wp28app.pdf If the B744 can be filled (incl cargo), it will have lower CASM. If the B744 trades pax a
39 Thegeek : I don't think it's that bad an idea, but it is easily a lower priority than a A389. The A388HGW would allow a reduction in weight restrictions for se
40 Stitch : But the 747-400F and 747-400ERF sold fine against the A380-800F, even though they were at a disadvantage in range, maximum payload, noise and fuel ef
41 Baroque : True and while the TXWB seems a nice idea, reading between the lines of those who might know, it seems more likely that improvements from RR will be
42 SparkingWave : It's hard to imagine that any A389 would be built without an A388 predecessor. There would have to be enough orders to justify building the A389. 25
43 Post contains images Astuteman : The only thing is, the weight and complexity addition is minimal. A centre wingbox tank, and an extra pair of brakes, and a little bit (and it is lit
44 Sh0rtybr0wn : Does Airbus even want to sell freighter versions of the A380? Eventually sales will begin for the -900 model and they'll have their hands busy produci
45 SEPilot : Having operated forklifts myself, I can assure you that the difference between loading 5m high vs. 8m high is huge. You run a much greater risk of da
46 Thegeek : Besides QF, who would need such a beast to fly SYD-DFW without too severe a weight restriction, what other airlines need the extra range?
47 Post contains images Astuteman : From what I've heard, quite a few existing customers (EK + VS included) and some prospective ones (CX for example), are pushing Airbus hard to add mo
48 Thegeek : They must be looking to fly to places that they don't already. I wouldn't think CX would have to offload passengers JFK->HKG (their longest route), f
49 Post contains images Astuteman : It would make sense. A388R - the ultimate market fragmentation aircraft. Regards
50 Thegeek : Your link predates the existence of the 77W, but according to your info, 772 beats the 744 on per seat-hour operating costs! So I'm satisfied that th
51 SEPilot : If this is true, then it certainly would be more lucrative for Airbus to develop the A388R and/or the A389 and forget the freighter. Just as the 748i
52 Prebennorholm : I'm not sure it is that simple. I think that at the moment Airbus sees 388R, 389 and 388F as basically the same plane except for the fuselage and fue
53 Post contains images Flysherwood : I would vote for this scenario. By George Stitch, I think you've got it!!!
54 Thegeek : If you omit the centre fuel tank and keep the MZFW for an A388R, is there any need for strengthening of the wing? The extra weight is distributed acr
55 NCB : The 744 carries almost 50% more pax as the 772/772ER. The 772ER is a 772 with bigger, more powerful engines to carry more fuel for more range and has
56 Stitch : The A380's maximum wing loading is said to be 650t, but I don't know if that was the loading Airbus tested at was that great or a lower figure.
57 Ikramerica : 747, due to shape, is not as good at cargo hauling as newer widebodies of the tube variety. 777 has more usable cargo space, and the 787 will have ev
58 Jdevora : My understanding at the time was that FedEx had financial issues about keeping the order because they wouldn't get enough credit (without getting int
59 Tdscanuck : SFC gets lower, not higher, with larger engines (for equal technology level). Overall fuel burn increases due to higher weight, but SFC is lower. Tom
60 Post contains images Astuteman : The 650 tonnes "maximum wing loading" is an aerodynamic capability (I believe its higher, but no matter) Airbus have tested a wing to destruction at
61 Thegeek : A 77W is a 777-300ER. I understand that this offers noticeably lower CASM than a 772 or 77E. And besides, on your figures the 744 is more than 50% mo
62 NCB : amateur comments. The -ER engine has a higher thrust rating which implies that it burns more fuel even at idle, I'm not talking about fan diameter. M
63 Stitch : Palletized cargo is more volume-dependent since it can be built-up in a variety of ways since the only hard limits are the length and the width of th
64 Post contains images Astuteman : With a 50t (525 pax payload), the current A380 would fill its wing tanks to within around 6 - 10tonnes (I calculate), and then reach MTOW. To get an
65 XT6Wagon : I take it you don't ship much. I've shipped alot of strange things, strange places... and I can ASSURE YOU that they will charge based on volume, and
66 NCB : So you're the one shipping much: Oh I got it, you're talking about your lil' yearly shipment from the post office. If it can't fit in the container,
67 SEPilot : It depends entirely on what you are shipping. The point is you what you pay depends on mass AND volume; whichever one is greater (in terms of expecte
68 NCB : Indeed but from an airline's point of view, volume is less important than mass. Mass is a limiting operational factor while volume is not. Volume beco
69 Thegeek : You are assuming no cargo. I contend that one of the main selling points of an A388R would be not so much the ability to fly longer distances, but to
70 474218 : I once had a manager that had a saying "nothing will ever get done if it doesn't have a due by date". If Airbus will not even establish a due by date,
71 Tdscanuck : It depends on how you got to MTOW. You can't have full payload and full fuel at the same time. If you have full fuel, that will relieve the wing bend
72 XT6Wagon : haha no, I've shipped alot of stuff alot of ways, but I think I only used the post office once outside of my personal needs. Trust me I got charged b
73 Thegeek : If this particular example is one of a software change, then you are even more correct. That's correct. I was advocating increasing the amount of fue
74 Gigneil : The 747-400 and A380 both feature superior CASM to the 777-300ER on missions within their capability profiles. Its a simple matter of seats. Why are w
75 Tdscanuck : That depends on what the critical part of the wing is. With full fuel on the ground, the wing is in tension on top and compression on the bottom, whi
76 WingedMigrator : While it is often cited as fact, I have seen no evidence of the 747-400 having better CASM than the 777-300ER. It certainly has higher specific fuel
77 Thegeek : A possibility I had left out. But I was under the impression that the landing gear would be OK for the A389. If so, it's got to be OK for the A388R.
78 Art : They wanted more lift IIRC but Airbus could not or would not make the A380F available fast enough. So they bought more lift elsewhere. Sensible thing
79 Ikramerica : I think this is more true of FedEx than UPS. UPS was always a question as to whether they really wanted it, or got a good deal by converting the A300
80 Post contains images Astuteman : Which was the point I was trying to make. We already know an A388R will need a centre tank. Forgotten that. As far as I know, Tom, this is actually t
81 Thegeek : Sorry, but I exclude myself from those that know this. It depends on the mission as to whether it needs the centre tank, therefore I think it should
82 Moo : Actually, it doesn't - the area where the centre tank would go is within the wing box area, and is not used for belly cargo.
83 Andhen : Hi, interesting post, thanx. I think I heard somewhere that the a380 cannot do taxiing with full wing tanks, and due to this some of the fuel in the w
84 Post contains images Astuteman : Without the capacity offered by the centre tank, isn't it just another A388, not an A388R?.. In fact, because the A389 will have a substantially high
85 Stitch : The A380-800R leverages the A380-800F's structure and systems so by definition it will have the center tank. It will also have brakes on each main wh
86 Tdscanuck : It could be...the design conditions for tension and compression are *very* different for a wing skin. The upper wing skin is normally in compression
87 NCB : I guess you are quoting the wrong paragraph. Anyway let me explain you where it is going wrong: in my above example, I m replying to a comment that s
88 Thegeek : What's the relevance of this comparison? You need to compare the planes over the same sectors. To say the 772A burns less fuel per seat-mile on a 4 h
89 Stitch : The A380-800F has a higher payload then the A380-800 (151t vs. 91t) so it burns more fuel. Airbus also wanted to give it more range then the 747-400E
90 Post contains images WingedMigrator : operating cost per block hour depends on how far you're flying. It was an option. I'm not sure if the 5600 nm range at max payload was with, or witho
91 Astuteman : Ah. I get where you're coming from. But such a plane will undoubtedly require stronger wings, as by definition, if there's no extra fuel in the wings
92 NCB : Yes I guess the example ICAO figures were not a good illustration. After doing some research it seems that B744 and B777ER are similarily profitable
93 Tdscanuck : The A350XWB doesn't have enough of an advantage to generate more absolute profit than an A380...at best, it could just hold the same profit per ASM.
94 WingedMigrator : I think it's useful, entirely as an aside, to put these big numbers into perspective. The MTOW of the 772LR is 15% greater than the 772ER's. The MTOW
95 Post contains images Brendows : ...unless they increase MTOW further As noted by WingedMigrator, it was optional, it's a tank that would take 45850 liters (~36000kg.) The payload ra
96 Thegeek : I think this discussion could have come a full circle here, but FWIW, there is some benefit in moving MTOW restricted part of the payload vs range ch
97 Post contains images Astuteman : I knew I could rely on my Bridge partner pick that one up.. Fair question. For me the answer's "yes" because a) one (set) has already been designed a
98 Post contains links WingedMigrator : There are two obvious options here: (1) the Trent 900 has several variants already certified to thrust levels of 84 klbs, in anticipation of A380 gro
99 Post contains images Astuteman : Nice link WM . A-net and F1 simultaneously - what more could you want? Oh yes - a night's sleep too.. Rgds
100 Post contains images Stitch : It would require development of a new braking system (at least in terms of materials performance) as the current system with brakes on all 20 wheels
101 WingedMigrator : It would require not only more braking capacity but more wheels-- in other words, a fifth gear leg. There is a space ready for it in the ~40 foot lon
102 Zeke : I think that is incorrect, I believe they actually got better performance than what they designed for, also with the electric brakes being tested on
103 Stitch : I admit I don't know where I got it from (I want to say Astuteman, but I could be wrong), so it might be out of date or wrong. I can't find any info
104 Post contains links Zeke : "The aircraft was stopped in a distance 20m (66ft) less than that calculated, says Rosay. "We were then required to taxi to the turn pad and wait 5mi
105 Post contains images Stitch : Well if 16 shot brakes can stop 575t, I imagine 20 can stop more then 625t.
106 Zeke : I agree, but just be careful it is not a linear relationship. The energy is a function no only of mass, but also the square of the speed. A higher MT
107 Tdscanuck : I'm not sure that electric brakes buys you any extra capacity by itself. It doesn't change the amount of energy the brake can absorb, which is the li
108 Zeke : They are smaller and lighter than the current brakes, allowing for lager brakes to be installed for the same size/mass, or a lighter/smaller brake fo
109 Tdscanuck : I understand that the actuator mechanism is smaller and lighter, but how do they actually get a bigger brake stack in there without putting on a bigg
110 Post contains images Astuteman : Cheeky b**tard.. FWIW I've never nailed my colours to the mast of the A380 20-wheel brake-set being limited to 625 tonnes MTOW. I've almost certainly
111 Thegeek : Perhaps it requires a smaller gap between the brake disc and the wheel rim?
112 Tdscanuck : There shouldn't really be any gap between the disc and the rim (other than clearance for rotation). The whole brake stack fits inside the wheel rim o
113 Thegeek : Well, that's a whole lot better than what happens in a car.
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...
Has Anybody Flown On The New Airbus 340'of Swiss? posted Fri Oct 3 2003 23:11:05 by Joleb
Has Anyone Ever Flown The "Shagadelic" NK Plane? posted Tue Aug 13 2002 03:47:52 by BlueJet
Why No 737's In The "new Sabena"? posted Sat Nov 10 2001 11:40:09 by American 767
What Has Happened To All The "twe" JS-41s At Jfk? posted Tue Aug 29 2000 03:56:50 by N960AS
Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777 posted Tue Jul 31 2007 19:54:27 by Douwd20
Reuters: Airbus Has Not Decided On China Plant posted Sun Sep 24 2006 20:50:37 by Lumberton
Airbus, Why Not Take On The 777? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 06:26:10 by Tangowhisky
Still No Word On The A 350 For EK? posted Mon Nov 21 2005 13:19:57 by EK156
Why No Topics On The A380 Vs 787? Ok Seriously posted Fri Feb 11 2005 02:48:46 by TransportEng
Airbus Plans To Take On The 7E7! posted Tue Jul 27 2004 19:53:06 by VSFullThrottle
Has Anyone Ever Flown The "Shagadelic" NK Plane? posted Tue Aug 13 2002 03:47:52 by BlueJet
Why No 737's In The "new Sabena"? posted Sat Nov 10 2001 11:40:09 by American 767
What Has Happened To All The "twe" JS-41s At Jfk? posted Tue Aug 29 2000 03:56:50 by N960AS
Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777 posted Tue Jul 31 2007 19:54:27 by Douwd20
Reuters: Airbus Has Not Decided On China Plant posted Sun Sep 24 2006 20:50:37 by Lumberton
Airbus, Why Not Take On The 777? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 06:26:10 by Tangowhisky
Still No Word On The A 350 For EK? posted Mon Nov 21 2005 13:19:57 by EK156
Why No Topics On The A380 Vs 787? Ok Seriously posted Fri Feb 11 2005 02:48:46 by TransportEng
Airbus Plans To Take On The 7E7! posted Tue Jul 27 2004 19:53:06 by VSFullThrottle