New Large Freighter Aircraft — Tech Ops Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

New Large Freighter Aircraft

Flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 11 hours ago) and read 1882 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Some may remember that a few months ago I started a topic about a university project in which we had to design a freighter.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/217201

Well the project is almost at an end and the aircraft is as defined as it is going to get with the reports all handed in now but we have a public (I think) design exhibition at the university on Wednesday and Thursday next week and so we have a model now in production which is due to be glassed tomorrow evening or Saturday morning.

Ok, well here is a link to the GA (I apologise for the dimensions being in mm, I'm sure you can work it out)
http://www.box.net/shared/vmc4xd4ow4

Here is a link to a data sheet (again sorry for the ridiculous number of sig. figs on some of the values).
http://www.box.net/shared/50mqi2ug4s

It is projected to have operating costs of 38.26c/t-nm. Can carry 20ft ISO shipping containers sideways in the main cabin and when packed using 118 inch high PMCs and with the projected 12lbs/ft^3 cargo density can carry a maximum of 187t of cargo but capable of 200t at higher densities and will transport 175t 5500nm.

It has an engine thrust of 90,860lb per engine, of which there is 4 Wink , a wing area of 869m^3 an MTOW of 590t and OWE of 230t.

The list price of the aircraft has been projected to be $320million.

Anyway here is a pretty pic

If you have any questions please ask as my team mates and I need to practice answering any questions for the large grilling we will get on it at the design exhibition.

thanks

Fred

P.S. I am well aware that it has a hump and so does a 747, look from the top and you'll see where 90% of the inspiration came from.

16 replies: All unread, jump to last

Larshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

It' looks good, I just think the nose looks a bit stubby.
How many 20 ft containers can fit in there?

/Lars

306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, B22, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4

Flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 1):
How many 20 ft containers can fit in there?

17 I think.

Flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 1):
How many 20 ft containers can fit in there?

EDIT: 23 can fit in.

Fred

Vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8211 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Looks like the evil spawn of an A380 and a 747 Smile

Just had a cursory look at the specs table. Looks interesting - about all I can say after a brief look. What are the two drag coefficients (A and B)?

I'll be doing something similar next spring semester in my Aircraft Design class. Should be interesting (and a crapload of work).

"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.

Flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 4):
Just had a cursory look at the specs table. Looks interesting - about all I can say after a brief look. What are the two drag coefficients (A and B)?

The A part is the Lift independent drag and the B is the lift dependent drag (multiplied by Cl^2).

Fred

Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

That is large. Big grin

Also very expensive. What's your market outlook in a world where Antonov can presumably dish out an An-225 for half the price?

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo

KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5932 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 hours ago) and read 1852 times:

Quoting Flipdewaf (Thread starter):
P.S. I am well aware that it has a hump and so does a 747, look from the top and you'll see where 90% of the inspiration came from.

Space Shuttle solid rocket booster? Silly

Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)

Flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):

747-8F is at about $300million list price. The Direct operating costs of the aircraft are about 16% lower than that of the 748F with a market of around 40% of the large general freight market (252 aircraft from 2020-2035) and 90% of all time sensitive items moving from container ships to airfreight (hence the ISO capability). As for the antanov thing, with predicted $4/US-gallon by 2020 then the trip costs of the an-225 would be truly astronomical as anywhere near MTOW it cruises at very low altitude.

Fred

Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Quoting Flipdewaf (Reply 8):
747-8F is at about $300million list price. The Direct operating costs of the aircraft are about 16% lower than that of the 748F with a market of around 40% of the large general freight market (252 aircraft from 2020-2035) and 90% of all time sensitive items moving from container ships to airfreight (hence the ISO capability). As for the antanov thing, with predicted $4/US-gallon by 2020 then the trip costs of the an-225 would be truly astronomical as anywhere near MTOW it cruises at very low altitude.

Very good. Arent' you glad for the practice? Wink

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo

Flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9):

Very good. Arent' you glad for the practice? Wink

Yes, Jeff Jupp (ex technical director of Airbus) is coming to give us a grilling and he is the cleverest person I have ever spoken too, He knows everything! the more I (and the team, its a team mark) can prepare the better.

Fred

Rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 hours ago) and read 1771 times:

Given that you're designing a pure freighter:

Why low wing? It messes up the center of your cargo area (at least the lower deck). Second, you increase the height off the ground of the cargo doors. On the plus side, you do pick up ease of engine maintenance, and you get a better place to store some landing gear (although pods along the lower edges of the fuselage seem to work well too).

Why the emphasis on speed? M.85 for a freighter? Why not go with a much simpler straight wing optimized for M.70 or so? You'll save on high lift devices and get better short field performance to boot. The resulting thicker and straight wing will likely be structurally simpler, and weigh less to boot.

Please don't take this as criticism of your work, I'm just curious about some of your decisions.

Point8six From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 hour ago) and read 1698 times:

Did you do the project on current (at the time) fuel prices or projected prices? (You quote 38.26 c/t nm.
Does the a/c have a nose-door for loading? Not all freight is loaded in containers due to unusual dimensions.
Mach 0.85 as a cruise speed (as opposed to M0.70) is because of the wing design and available engine thrust, however at the predicted MTOW, only those few airports that are "A380 compliant" would be available, due load bearing surfaces etc..
I'll bet you have has a lot of fun in this project and good luck for the rest of your course.
By the way, ask Jeff Jupp what he thinks the oil price will be in a years time! bigthumbsup

HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (4 years 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

Streamlining the Nose would help increase fuel efficiency in my opinion.
regds
MEL

Think of the brighter side!

Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66
Reply 14, posted (4 years 12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1652 times:

It definitely needs a better livery. Get some marketing person on the project now. I'm serious. Gray does not sell. Wink

Or just ask your friendly polls and opinions crowd. Wink

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo

Jetlife2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 214 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (4 years 12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1651 times:

What do you assume for engine sfc? Drives fuel burn and direct operating cost. I see your overall pressure ratio is 39 so that's lower than a GE90 (40). On this basis you could use off the shelf GE90-90B's and meet your goal. Let me know where you want the first ship set delivered, that'll be about $100M please, or less if you want to sign up for a few sets!

Flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 12 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1629 times:

Quoting Jetlife2 (Reply 15):
What do you assume for engine sfc? Drives fuel burn and direct operating cost. I see your overall pressure ratio is 39 so that's lower than a GE90 (40). On this basis you could use off the shelf GE90-90B's and meet your goal. Let me know where you want the first ship set delivered, that'll be about $100M please, or less if you want to sign up for a few sets!

Engine sfc is around 5% better than current but its too variable to give you an exact value in cruise. Pressure ratio isnt the only thing that determines efficiency although it will be predicted to be to around 50 by the time 2020 came around.

Quoting Point8six (Reply 12):
however at the predicted MTOW, only those few airports that are "A380 compliant"

The ACN number is 69 to give us better airport compatability than the A380.

Fred

Top Of Page

Forum Index

Reply To This Topic New Large Freighter Aircraft

Username:	No username? Sign up now!
Password:	Forgot Password? Be reminded. Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)

Tech/Ops related posts only!
Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
No hostile language or criticizing of others.
Do not post copyright protected material.
Use relevant and describing topics.
Check if your post already been discussed.
Check your spelling!
DETAILED RULES

Check Spelling

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics: