Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Possibility of An A320 Combi?  
User currently offlineAcjflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 426 posts, RR: 6
Posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3392 times:

I know that Alaska Airline is very pleased with their 737-400 combi cargo/passenger aircraft, which makes me wonder whether it would be possible to do the same thing to an A320.

Would a converted A320 with cargo in front and passengers in back be a good solution for someone trying to do the same thing that Alaska is doing with the only difference being that they want Airbus instead of Boeing?

Also, would it be possible to do the same thing with the A318, A319, 737-300, and 737-700?

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAlaska737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1063 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3386 times:



Quoting Acjflyer (Thread starter):
I know that Alaska Airline is very pleased with their 737-400 combi cargo/passenger aircraft,

I wouldnt say that.....A 737-700C would have turned out better. They are however very pleased with the 737-400F.


User currently offlineAcjflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 426 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3378 times:



Quoting Alaska737 (Reply 1):
A 737-700C would have turned out better.

Why is it that they went with the 737-400C instead of the 737-700C?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3367 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Since AS had 737-400s, it was likely cheaper to convert them to combi's as new 737-800s arrived rather then buy brand-new 737-700Cs. They flew their 737-200C fleet for some time.

As to making an A32x combi, I don't see why it could not be done.


User currently offlineXtoler From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 953 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3304 times:

Pax are aft of cargo? I didn't think we could do that in the States, or is that just a USAF rule? I know the RAF did it that way and probably still do. But for at least AFOSH and the old MAC and AF regs dealing with pax on aircraft the cargo is aft of the pax. Oh, wait, I just remembered, on US Navy DC9's did have low profile 463L pallets in front of the pax, if they didn't have Medvac litters. Then again, I was used to much larger aircraft with engines on the wings.


EMB145 F/A, F/E, J41 F/A, F/E, because my wife clipped my wings, armchair captain
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3248 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Xtoler (Reply 4):
Pax are aft of cargo? I didn't think we could do that in the States?

You can if there is a fixed fire-resistant bulkhead between the pax (wherever they are) and the cargo. And I am not sure if this is specific to new-build planes (like the 737-700C) or if it applies to conversions (like AS' 737-400Cs).


User currently offlineAcjflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 426 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3148 times:

If you ended up putting the cargo compartment in the back of an A319 would that cause some serious weight and balance issues? I may be wrong but I heard that Airbus prefers to fly the aircraft slightly tail heavy.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3073 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Acjflyer (Reply 6):
If you ended up putting the cargo compartment in the back of an A319 would that cause some serious weight and balance issues? I may be wrong but I heard that Airbus prefers to fly the aircraft slightly tail heavy.

Proper loading (in both positions and materials) should handle any CoG issues, I would think.


User currently offlineCanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2976 times:



Quoting Xtoler (Reply 4):
Pax are aft of cargo? I didn't think we could do that in the States,

Pretty much every narrow body combi aircraft I can think of has the cargo up front. I think the new rules though say it has to be a fixed bulkhead instead of a movable one like most combis have/had.

Just going off my memory though, so I could easily be out to lunch on that one.



CanadianNorth



What could possibly go wrong?
User currently offlineAcjflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 426 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

How exactly does the 737-700C work then? Does it have to be all pax or all cargo or is there a way to do both?

User currently offlineAlaska737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1063 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2876 times:



Quoting Acjflyer (Reply 9):
How exactly does the 737-700C work then? Does it have to be all pax or all cargo or is there a way to do both?

It would work exactly like any other combi, cargo in front pax in the back, it just couldnt have a a moveable bulkhead AFAIK....I wish AS would get a few.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9338 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2760 times:



Quoting Alaska737 (Reply 10):
It would work exactly like any other combi, cargo in front pax in the back, it just couldnt have a a moveable bulkhead AFAIK....I wish AS would get a few.

Narrowbody yes, but the 747 Combi had the cargo aft. I remember fkying in a 727-100 Combi GLA-CPH some 40 years ago and that is actually the only combi flight I can remember having been on. There had to be a path between the cockpit and the passenger area, which lead to some funny contouring of the pallets/containers.

To answer the questiuon, a 320 Combim could certainly be done, but where#s the market? Alaska, alright, but there is no market in Europe, as, except for the integrators, urgent cargo is flown "level 0" (small vans and trucks) all across Europe. Much quicker for urgent freight than air and leavoing the valuable night slots for inter cont freight.

Boeing has it ready with the 737s, the market is not big enough for Airbus to certify their version.



.,



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineVhqpa From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 1456 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2667 times:



Quoting Acjflyer (Thread starter):
Also, would it be possible to do the same thing with the A318, A319, 737-300, and 737-700?

You can forget about an A318 Combi and maybe even a A319 Combi there isn't enough room in front of the wing to put a large cargo door.


Vhq



"There you go ladies and gentleman we're through Mach 1 the speed of sound no bumps no bangs... CONCORDE"
User currently offlineAcjflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 426 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2519 times:

What if the A319 combi had the cargo in back? Wouldn't there be enough room ofr a door there?

Quoting Vhqpa (Reply 12):
You can forget about an A318 Combi and maybe even a A319 Combi there isn't enough room in front of the wing to put a large cargo door.



User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25205 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2467 times:



Quoting PanHAM (Reply 11):
Quoting Alaska737 (Reply 10):
It would work exactly like any other combi, cargo in front pax in the back, it just couldnt have a a moveable bulkhead AFAIK....I wish AS would get a few.

Narrowbody yes, but the 747 Combi had the cargo aft.

MD-11 combis (only 5 built, all for AZ) also had cargo aft, unlike DC-10 combis where cargo was at the front. The MD-11F freighter also has the main deck cargo door at the front, unlike the combi. Less risk of cargo loading equipment colliding with the wing and tail etc. when loading is in front of the wing.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sunbird Photos by Don Boyd
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Air Sheep



User currently offlineFlyingClrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2419 times:

Would a 737-400 combi with the cargo hold in front work better than with the passengers in front?

User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

No, there just is too little space between wing and tail to moce the cargo. No problem on a MD11, and also A 739 or A321 would be fine for this, but 319 and 737 not. 320/738 maybe.

If any airline would come and want some. Now that the cargo conversions of the early A320 start, maybe ...


User currently offlineBE77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2244 times:

For the record, all the First Air and Canadian North 737-200 Combis are cargo in front, and the bulkheads are movable (I've been in the passenger compartment with anywhere from about 6 rows to about 18 rows of seats in Combi mode).
As far as I can figure, they still use the -200's because of all the gravel strips they use in the North - both for towns and for the diamond mines they service. I can't imagine how much gravel would get sucked into the engines in the later marks (-600 to -900).



Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
User currently offlineIcareflies From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 59 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2104 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hey guys

I found this in a French Newspaper (Le Figaro)

L'avionneur européen entend lancer une version cargo de son modèle A320 d'ici 2011, grâce à une coopération avec les compagnies russes UAC et Irkout.
Le directeur de l'usine de Dresde, où sera construit en partie le modèle, annonce que le plan de financement devrait être terminé d'ici la fin du mois de mai. Par ailleurs, il déclare que le modèle aurait déjà un client potentiel exigeant 30 modèles.

Dès lors, le prototype sera réalisé grâce à Airbus Freighter Conversion (AFC), une structure permettant la conversion des avions passagers en cargo.

Enfin, selon les mêmes sources, les coûts de conversion de l'A320 pèseraient 100 millions de dollars dont 70 millions seraient financés par le biais de crédits bancaires.

In English it says that in cooperation with Russian UAC company, Airbus will launch the A320 Cargo version in 2011. So not a combi but a full Cargo version.



AF777-300ER and 9W737-900 - Love it! Love it
User currently offlineHikesWithEyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 816 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2064 times:



Quoting Acjflyer (Reply 2):
Why is it that they went with the 737-400C instead of the 737-700C?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 15):
Would a 737-400 combi with the cargo hold in front work better than with the passengers in front?

The pallet positions on AS' 737-400 combis are located in front of the passengers.



First, benzene in my Perrier, and now this!
User currently offlineHatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1957 times:

The 737-400 Combis Alaska has are great when there is a full load of pax in the back. But rarely does that happen when they fly it to a lot of rural cities in Alaska. So they have been creating issues with weight and balance and have made it difficult for AS to deal with.

AS didn't opt for the 737-700 Combi because brand new I think it is something like $50 million plus per airplane. Converting a few of their already owned 737-400's cost a total of $10 million or so. Correct me on the numbers if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that is the reasoning behind not getting new 737-700 Combis. Obviously the 700 would have created a better weight and balance scenario like the old 200C's did because of a better center of gravity. But in the end it was just more cost effective to convert the 400's.


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...
A320 C/n 004 Scrapped posted Fri Mar 28 2008 04:57:22 by Anglo2
First A320 To Be Assembled In Hamburg posted Wed Mar 26 2008 03:14:33 by Columba
Austrian Retro A320 posted Wed Mar 26 2008 02:57:20 by Anglo2
Air Arabia Buy 2 A320, To Order 50 Aircraft posted Wed Mar 26 2008 02:38:11 by ENU
Best Air To Go A320/330 posted Wed Mar 19 2008 02:38:04 by Flying-Tiger
Air France A320-1 Schedules Please posted Sat Mar 15 2008 09:42:52 by CodyKDiamond
A320 Assembled At Hamburg. posted Fri Mar 7 2008 12:21:29 by FCKC
N201FR (Frontier's First A320) In Service Yet? posted Thu Mar 6 2008 16:25:39 by KELPkid
LH A320 Crosswind Landing Incident Part 2 posted Tue Mar 4 2008 10:27:45 by WILCO737
TAM A320 Flies Into CB ... Serious Damage! posted Sun Mar 2 2008 12:21:37 by Kaitak