jetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2021 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 14064 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Very interesting news. The A330 is a great choice, one does have to wonder though why not the A340? I would imagine they have a couple A340s either sitting around or easily picked up. Perhaps weight wise it is best to stick with the A330.
Blue
Professor Foltz: You push down on that yolk, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yolk, the houses get bigger.
Braniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2625 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13971 times:
Question is... what'll happen to the old machines? I imagine there could be a market for them.
The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5745 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13837 times:
Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 4): Question is... what'll happen to the old machines? I imagine there could be a market for them.
Retired probably. According to the linked powerpoint presentation they're scheduled to leave service in 2025, at which point they'll have been in service for 31 years. The mx costs are also set to rise from 2020, so they pretty much have to start thinking about their replacement soon.
I noticed that Page 5 states this new plane would be for the European network only and would not need to be able to reach the A320 FAL in Mobile, Alabama. I seem to recall the plan now is to ship the assembles to Mobile by sea?
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4004 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13604 times:
I'm curious if they will stick with the lowered cockpit/front end load design or go with a swing tail like the Dreamlifter.
KarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1768 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13545 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 10): I noticed that Page 5 states this new plane would be for the European network only and would not need to be able to reach the A320 FAL in Mobile, Alabama. I seem to recall the plan now is to ship the assembles to Mobile by sea?
I noticed it too. Toulouse - Alabama is about 4000nm (source) and the Beluga XL should have a range of about 4800nm. So why can't it reach Alabama?
Pugman211 From UK - England, joined Dec 2012, 50 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13345 times:
I heard a rumor about Airbus designing a new Beluga sometime soon, based on A330/A350. There is the potential to extend the runway at Broughton, only at the south end I believe. A road runs at the end of the runway, but that could be re-routed. At the other end is a railway line, so that end will not change. Can someone explain more about the wet landing requirements for the runway at Broughton????
I believe the current A300 Beluga suffers from quite a bit of tech problems (what these are I dont know, everynow and then you will see a Beluga parked up out of service at Broughton), as the oldest frame is now nearly 18 years old. Also, if they didnt design a new Beluga, there would be alot of flights just for the A350 seeing as it can currently only carry 1 wing diagonally at present. So for a ramp up of 10 per month, you would need double the flights.
queb From Canada, joined May 2010, 375 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13060 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 12): I noticed it too. Toulouse - Alabama is about 4000nm (source) and the Beluga XL should have a range of about 4800nm. So why can't it reach Alabama?
it can but it was not a mandatory requirement for the new Beluga since the plan is to ship the assembles to Mobile by sea.
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 14): Why don't they make an A380 Beluga so they can have a plane big enough to ship the A380 parts?
because they can't remove the second floor structural beams. The A330 deck height and length is (with A300) the only aircraft compatible with FLY10000 Facilities
queb From Canada, joined May 2010, 375 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12925 times:
Quoting kalvado (Reply 17): And-setting pride aside - wouldn't Dreamlifter converted 747 be cheaper, since engineering and at least part of certification are already paid for?
Please, read the document. 747 LCF fuselage (6.83 x 6.36 m) is too small for two A350 wing boxes (mandatory requirement). A330 XL fuse = 8.08 x 7.84 m
A rather simple design study. If you look at the last A346 rendering you will notice that for starters a larger vertical stabilizer is needed.
But that's all useless speculation, as the A340 is ruled out per the article.
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 5): The linked article states that the A340 would not meet wet landing requirements at Broughton.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 9): I see. Looking at Google Maps it seems impossible to extend the runway at the Broughton plant.
And even if it were possible. Look at all the political struggle nowadays with runway extension or build-up in Europe. Why go through all the hassle which may well take 10+ years of planning, lawsuit, building etc when you can design and build a plane that you're going to need anyways in due time.
Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 4): Question is... what'll happen to the old machines? I imagine there could be a market for them.
Like previous posters already mentioned, they will have to leave in about 10 years, but until then they remain a massive workhorse for Airbus.
Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 11): I'm curious if they will stick with the lowered cockpit/front end load design or go with a swing tail like the Dreamlifter.
Most probably. The renderings on the linked articles all show lower cockpits. First of all they already have the infrastructure and know-how to build and utilize it this way, and second, adapting a design that your main rival has thought of, knowing that you have a design which perfectly suits the mission, is rather pointless on a PR level.
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
speedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 11792 times:
Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 11): I'm curious if they will stick with the lowered cockpit/front end load design or go with a swing tail like the Dreamlifter.
The will stick with the forehead door. In addition to what Semaex mentioned, the 747LCF needs special vehicles on ground to operate the tail door, while the Beluga is self-sufficient. The front door also don't carry any flight loads, making the structure much lighter than a swing tail.
bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3018 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 11277 times:
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 9): Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 5):
The linked article states that the A340 would not meet wet landing requirements at Broughton.
I see. Looking at Google Maps it seems impossible to extend the runway at the Broughton plant.
It has to be taken into consideration how important Broughton is to the local and national economy, around 6000 workers making it the UK's largest industrial site. If Airbus issued a statement saying "we need an extra 2000 feet of runway or the site closes and the work heads to Germany/France" the railway would be soon be in a tunnel.
Looking at the diagrams, one things leaps out at me, the proposed fuselage diameter is 7.84 metres, an increase not much more than 0.5 metres would take it to the stage that A380 fuselage sections could be tranported.
The other thing is that as the Beluga grows, it potentially becomes less efficient at its main job, transporting A320 sections. as the extra diameter serves no benefit.
LH422 From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 278 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 10941 times:
Quoting queb (Reply 18): Please, read the document. 747 LCF fuselage (6.83 x 6.36 m) is too small for two A350 wing boxes (mandatory requirement). A330 XL fuse = 8.08 x 7.84 m
Makes you wonder how much of the A350 design was due to the dimensions of the Beluga.
queb From Canada, joined May 2010, 375 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 10913 times:
Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 21): The other thing is that as the Beluga grows, it potentially becomes less efficient at its main job, transporting A320 sections. as the extra diameter serves no benefit.
But Airbus plans to manufacture 10 to 12 A350 per month. Actually, the A300 Beluga can only carry one A350 wing, the new Beluga can carry two.
Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 21): Looking at the diagrams, one things leaps out at me, the proposed fuselage diameter is 7.84 metres, an increase not much more than 0.5 metres would take it to the stage that A380 fuselage sections could be tranported.
Impossible. A380 outside fuselage height is 8.41 m. The cross section requirement is to carry A350-1000 Section 15/21. Don't forget that sections are loaded on a jig.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11122 posts, RR: 63 Reply 24, posted (3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 10801 times:
Finally, this has been on the cards for years - I'd be surprised if the Belugas have enough in them to last until 2025.
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 5): The linked article states that the A340 would not meet wet landing requirements at Broughton.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 9): I see. Looking at Google Maps it seems impossible to extend the runway at the Broughton plant.
Quoting Semaex (Reply 19): And even if it were possible. Look at all the political struggle nowadays with runway extension or build-up in Europe. Why go through all the hassle which may well take 10+ years of planning, lawsuit, building etc when you can design and build a plane that you're going to need anyways in due time.
It's only an issue with the current runway, which is in an atrocious state and has very poor friction qualities - IIRC last year it was given a maximum of three years useful life left after a short term resurfacing.
Essentially when the last Beluga replacement plans were shelved the rational for upgrading the runway at Hawarden also disappeared, as the noises coming from Airbus at the time was that overland shipping would be used instead - later backed up by the decision to end Beluga services to Filton, now closed.
With Airbus now appearing to be committed to a new Beluga then it makes commercial sense to invest the many millions to strengthen, resurface and then groove the runway. The performance charts show that this upgraded and grooved runway would provide a suitable LDA in the wet. It may also be possible to increase the LDA slightly if, as I suspect, it's limited by physical obstacles in the approach and departure surfaces - by removing them, without actually increasing the runway length.
Dan
25 Pugman211: Total runway length at Hawarden Airfield (Broughton plant) is 2500 meters. Yet, the LDA is 1650m? Could they not extend the LDA??
26 Pugman211: Another thing to point out, Airbus also use the China Wing Transport trailers to ship a set of wings to the FAL sometimes. That could create less burd
27 PlymSpotter: It's 2,043m x 45m. LDA for 04 is 1,663m. LDA for 22 is 1,743m. To allow regular operations it is the shorter of the distances which general calculati
28 r2rho: From the linked powerpoint, it seems that the decision to build a new Beluga is a done deal and will become a necessity in some years (aging frames),
29 affirmative: Thats dry. And in the document the issue was with runway LDA in wet which is another factor of 15% (if my memory serves me right). So the runway woul
30 PlymSpotter: In the case of Filton it was Airbus's wind down and virtual cessation of services, followed by the closure of the independent spray shop which lead t
31 bohica: Any airplane built to fly A380 wings and fuselage sections would have to be a clean sheet design. The plane would be so large that it would make the
32 rwood89: The old machines (current Beluga) will remain in service until 2025. I noticed someone had mentioned that transporting Single Aisle wings in the larg
33 ytz: Just curious. Is there business case for this? Could these parts not be made to fit into a C-17 for example?
34 bikerthai: Yes, but the Engineering and certification was paid by Boeing. I don't think Airbus can get the design mod from Boeing free of cost . . . maybe at a
35 Pugman211: Granted, it does not happen very often. But has been seen to happen more in the last few years. Last time a Beluga went tech was due to a lightning s
36 TriniA340: Hmmm, maybe they can subcontract the An-225 to ship A380 parts? Is it big enough? And maybe they can get Antonov to complete the second An-225
37 queb: No, the cost of a C-17 is a lot more than a used modified A330 and the fuselage (neither C-5M or AN-124) is much too small for A350 wings and fuselag
38 queb: too small, same cross section than An-124 Purple line: A330 Beluga Red line: A300 Beluga [Edited 2013-02-07 12:54:38]
40 kaitak744: It looks almost big enough to fit an A380 fuselage. Why not make it slightly bigger to do so? Also, Boeing C-5 Galaxy??????
41 Semaex: Haha that would be kinda nice to see. But in all honesty.... if they are using 5 Belugas today which aren't enough to provide sufficient transport in
42 JerseyFlyer: No B777 P2F option being considered - I wonder why?
43 finnishway: Why would Airbus buy B777 when then can build their own aircraft? Yes, I understood your question, but it doesn't have anything to do with Airbus. B7
44 scouseflyer: Is there a plan on how the A350 and A400M large wing parts that are made at FZO are going to get to the rest of the Airbus network - road to BRS or A
45 breiz: The link was removed. Could anybody post the document again? Thanks in advance.
46 PlymSpotter: Both, depending on the component and destination. Dan
47 rutankrd: If the runway at Hawarden (Broughton) becomes a problem again then EADS will have to resort to pervious strategies. IE roading up M56 30 miles to Manc
48 queb: I downloaded it before it was removed https://mega.co.nz/#!voAHmLhS!RniXwTrZbMLSj6DnvdCzWyOxYssOdRbN_Btwo-jQPz4
49 speedygonzales: A bit O/T, but I remember seeing pictures from an airport in the former DDR where there was a gap in the overhead line for the railway due to the pro
50 Stitch: Airbus could have purchased new-builds 777 freighters if it met the requirements... ...which it doesn't.
51 JerseyFlyer: This is a bit of a no brainer - Airbus already have the engineering in place to convert an A300, of which the A330 is essentially a longer - fuselage
52 moo: It's wide enough for the A380, but would have to be made a lot taller - in order to retain the best structural shape, any increase to accomodate the
53 antonovman: Well it may be a great plane but OMG its ugly especially with the lowered cockpit which i know didn't happen, fortunalty
54 breiz: Many thanks . It sure helps following the discussion.
55 india1: FG reports Airbus are considering a 332 based Beluga, which corroborates something I'd read being discussed a while ago (on this forum?) http://www.fl
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined May 2010, 375 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2021 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 1768 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5745 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Dec 2012, 50 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 769 posts, 
From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 668 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11122 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
