User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10927
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:52 pm

.
The main standard for using containers for luggage and cargo are LD3 variants for WideBodies and LD3-45 for NarrowBodies like A320, MS21 and C919.

The 7 abreast 767 suffered from the inbetween width of its fuselage and introduced the LD2.

Image

When a new 2-3-2 fuselage is introduced it might be practical to introduce a convertible, extendable version of the widely used AKH / LD3-45.

To make efficient use of available belly space and save room for cargo pallets or/and auxiliary fuel tanks.

Such a container could be used on both A320 series (C919, MS21) and new MoM / NMA sized aircraft.

It could be converted from Narrowbody into Mediumbody width in seconds.

The extra weight of the convertable container is neglectable in relation to revenue volume opportunity, the 1500KG load and operational flexibility for mixed fleets.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6744
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:08 pm

The advantage for freight in containers and having standardised sizes is, being able to take a loaded container and stuff it into the next bird. The only container size being able to fit many different birds is the LD-3 and than you end up with A300/330/340 fuselage diameter, with 8 pax a row, as a minimum size. But the 767 has shown that you can have a specialised container for an aircraft family. If the MoM can use something bigger than a LD3-45, it will just get its own specialised one.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:27 am

How many Airbus 319/20/21 operators actually use the LD3-45 ? I know they're popular on A-net, but when I was in airfreight I hated them. Next to useless for the task that we had to use them for, so we gave up and either lodged the freight loose with that particular airline, or more commonly moved to another airline and utilised bigger containers.

As for the idea of an expandable container, well I'm sure the airlines who do use the LD3-45 would just be thrilled at having to carry around the extra weight and the reduced available space for freight of an expandable container. Not going to happen. If it gets built and has a unique cross section, the MOM will have a unique container, custom designed to make the best use of all the space available, as mjoelnir has already mentioned.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6744
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:40 am

jupiter2 wrote:
How many Airbus 319/20/21 operators actually use the LD3-45 ? I know they're popular on A-net, but when I was in airfreight I hated them. Next to useless for the task that we had to use them for, so we gave up and either lodged the freight loose with that particular airline, or more commonly moved to another airline and utilised bigger containers.

As for the idea of an expandable container, well I'm sure the airlines who do use the LD3-45 would just be thrilled at having to carry around the extra weight and the reduced available space for freight of an expandable container. Not going to happen. If it gets built and has a unique cross section, the MOM will have a unique container, custom designed to make the best use of all the space available, as mjoelnir has already mentioned.


I have read about you not liking the LD3-45 before. As far as I know the LD3-45 is widely used, one sees a lot of them around the airports. It is difficult to do a search about what airlines use it, the usage or non usage is not advertised by most airlines.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10927
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:56 am

:point: You could put the stuff you put in 5 AKH's in 3 of those when you extend them. Saving weight & freeing up space.
:point: You could stuff bigger goods in them. Revenue potential.
:point: They're AKH's. You could use them on the thousands of A320/321s worldwide from day 1.
:point: The increase of tare would be only less than 1% compared to current (up to 1500kg) AKH's.
:point: A MoM like aircraft could also use conventional AKH's if more practicle, or a mix dependent on freight density.
:point: New MoM availability would be low the first years. Fitting in the current container standard is a big bonus.

Re-inventing a entirely new standard proved very moderate successful on the 767's LD2's. The industry is conservative.

Image

:point: a 6 sq m volume container makes more sense to transfer onward onto a 787 /A330 sized aircraft than a 3sq m AKH.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6395
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:27 am

Operationally it still would be a type you would track separately and would preferably use on a the MoM. It would be wasted to be used on the A320, especially as it would be rare.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:17 pm

jupiter2 wrote:

As for the idea of an expandable container, well I'm sure the airlines who do use the LD3-45 would just be thrilled at having to carry around the extra weight and the reduced available space for freight of an expandable container. Not going to happen. If it gets built and has a unique cross section, the MOM will have a unique container, custom designed to make the best use of all the space available, as mjoelnir has already mentioned.


It is a rather simple business case to analyze whether an expandable LD3-45 or a brand new container type is better. The expandable LD3-45 will add some weight and most likely lose some volume due to hinges and the adjustable mechanism in the smaller configuration. The same drawbacks would exist in the expanded configuration as well as possibly losing some potential available cargo volume in the hold since it may not be the correct height or contour to fill all useable space. Weight is incredibly important in such a trade. Cargo containers are cheap compared to the fuel expenses. I have heard that A single extra pound of weight can result in $10,000 extra fuel burned over the life of an airplane or more. Each airline has its own evaluation numbers when deciding to incorporate fuel saving paybacks are.

An engineer can easily run the numbers for an airline to decide what is best. The fact that none of the US A320 family based operators use LD3-45s will make that a pretty easy business case for US based operators.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:49 pm

I expect MOM to either use the LD3-45 or the LD2. I expect most, if not all, airlines do not directly interline lower hold ULDs between airframes so the advantage is the container itself, not it's dimensional compatibility.

Boeing sold a shedload of 767s so the LD2 is pretty common and would not be a burden to any operator adding it to their mix if they ordered a MOM that utilized them. Let us not forget that 707s and 727s offered containerized cargo long before the A320 came along with it's own unique ULD and airlines didn't bat an eye at needing to move to the it. I don't see them batting an eye at moving to the LD2 if that is what is necessary.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10927
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:58 pm

Not many 767's / LD2 left outside the US. LD2 is high/ impracticle for a medium wide body. Assuming a LD3-45 might be a good option but something competible, using the same space but 60% more volume not, because it weighs 1 % more.. Ignoring the operational commercial opportunities!

US based operators don't use AKH's because MD80's, 737's, 757's didn't either. It's not really important to have containers for e.g the MAX., as concluded here often because US operators don't use them. The chances of a new NSA, NMA, MoM not having the dapability are considered practicle 0 at the same time.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:21 pm

keesje wrote:
Not many 767's / LD2 left outside the US.


It's not like the industry lacks the ability to make more LD2s, though.


keesje wrote:
LD2 is impracticle for a medium wide body.


Dual LD2s offer about double the capacity of a single LD3-45. Depending on the fuselage diameter and underfloor hold space, it could be a much more effective option for cargo.
 
User avatar
CrimsonNL
Posts: 1974
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:39 pm

This is an interesting concept but to be honest I think you are overlooking a major problem; durability. Even the most well-maintained AKHs suffer from incredible abuse and are often found with punctures and tears all over. Though the puncturing is less of a problem with fiberglass panels you also get displaced panels, bent floor plates etc etc. I think these expandable AKHs would be grounded after just days of service after the sliding rails and sections will inevitably get warped/bend preventing the container from collapsing or expanding.

My two (euro) cents,

Martijn
Always comparing your flown types list with mine
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10927
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:08 pm

CrimsonNL wrote:
This is an interesting concept but to be honest I think you are overlooking a major problem; durability. Even the most well-maintained AKHs suffer from incredible abuse and are often found with punctures and tears all over. Though the puncturing is less of a problem with fiberglass panels you also get displaced panels, bent floor plates etc etc. I think these expandable AKHs would be grounded after just days of service after the sliding rails and sections will inevitably get warped/bend preventing the container from collapsing or expanding.

My two (euro) cents,

Martijn


Martijn agree. I've been considering different options. This sliding mechanism can't be simple,ruggedized and light enough. The AKH's are light (~80kg) for what they can carry (1500kg) and I included a weight penalty for such a mechanism. I guess with all harsh requirements it comes down to good engineering. It's not gonna be a smooth thin slide like you typically see in seats/galleys. I've seen similar constructions were you have to lift a section and move it until it falls in place and is lock it. The integrity of the side walls and top has also to be guaranteed.

The are various variants of AKH's already e.g. for fork lifts and the PKC pallet, cooled ones etc. I assume an extended variant can be done, the challenge is to do it light, cheap and pratical..

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Blotto
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:00 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:41 pm

My experience with containers is: Everything that is somehow movable will break rather sooner than later. It doesn't really make sense to give up THE advantage of a container and instead deal with the hassle of not fully converted containers where the mechanism is somehow stuck
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:42 am

keesje wrote:

Image


I think the idea of an expandable cargo container that can be used on both an A320 and an airplane that hasn't been launched and doesn't exist is an answer to a question no body is asking. There are so many reasons why it is not very practical yet somehow someone already has a patent pending on it.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10927
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:23 pm

Tare of a regular AKH is about 80-84kg. The additional mechanism and plate material take some weight but less than 1 percent of an AkH in operation.

A fixed extra wide LD3-45 would lack the flexibility. It would still have .x% extra weight but no application on the thousands of A320/21s around the world.

Underusing available belly space seems a weak business strategy for any airline.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:31 pm

At the design stage the belly can, to a degree, be made as large as the airlines want. My suspicion is that they will settle for what ever gives the best CASM for passengers. As an aside, WN's 737s while not all that great for freight provide enough space for WN to regularly win awards for their freight division.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:33 am

Whats the weight penalty?
L' Esprit de Mai 68
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 804
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45hesr

Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:57 am

Here's the issue I see with this logic. Boeing no doubt is designing this plane in mind with it selling very well within the US. No airline in the US has AKH containers as none of the A320 fleets in the US use them. Many airlines do have the 767 with its DPE container on property, it would make more sense for them if the 797 took those. Another thing is if the thing is 2-3-2 surely it would be wide enough to take more than AKH eve if elliptical so using AKH could waste potential cargo capacity.

I don't see what the big deal is which type of box it can take. It is slated to be a 767 replacement and if it does such airlines using it for that would already have DPE and if they don't have 767s to replace it is likely that they are expanding their fleet which generally means they are expanding their collection of containers anyway, sure it would be less convenient for some, but far from a deal breaker if the economics are otherwise as great as they are supposed to be.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
B777LRF
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:01 am

From someone who used to be the station manager of a ULD repair facility: I'll give this 'extension mechanism' a service life of between 2 and 4 days before it breaks. Seriously, ULDs are abused during ground handling like nothing else. They are dropped, pushed, driven into and generally treated like the dirt under your shoes. The key to durability is simplicity and ruggedness; introducing an extension mechanism, however simple and rugged, will simply lead to an increase in repairs, which means increased downtime and that in turn means the airline(s) need to purchase a larger number of ULDs to ensure there's enough around.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:12 am

Most international operators of the 767 used the LD-8 container, or DQF. It is a full width contoured container and did away with the need to use the LD-2 side by side. It saved weight and increased volume available compared to the LD-2. Similarly there is the ALF, or LD-6, it fits full width on the 747, 777, 787, 330, 380, MD11 and if there are any left L1011 and DC10.

Full width contoured containers save weight and increase volume and I would assume LD3-45 users would attest to that as well. So I would assume that if the MoM has a unique under floor cross section, then it to will have a unique container, it isn't really a big deal and makes maximum use of the available space.

Is anybody able to advise if all 320 series aircraft are built with the capability to take the LD3-45, or is it an only an option that customers have to specify to Airbus ? I would expect that a cargo hold floor equiped to handle the containers would have added weight compared to one without for the handling system.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:35 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
Is anybody able to advise if all 320 series aircraft are built with the capability to take the LD3-45, or is it an only an option that customers have to specify to Airbus ? I would expect that a cargo hold floor equiped to handle the containers would have added weight compared to one without for the handling system.


It's a customer specified option and, yes, it does add weight compared to a conventional floor. Ground handling in the US is 'cheap' compared to most of Europe, and US carriers don't have to bother themselves with transfer of bags from international to domestic flights. This all lends to the non-ULD carrying option being the preferred, whilst in Europe the opposite may well be the case for network carriers.

As an example, a well-known handling company are turning around containerised A32X using only 2 staff members. Bulk loaded, the same aircraft need 3 staff - 4 if it's 'heavy'. Both for a 'standard' 30-minute turn, employing 1 or 2 Powerstow belt-loaders on the bulk loaded aircraft, and 1 'CLC' loader on the ULD aircraft. In other words, it's a question of GSE and staff cost vs fuel and ULD management cost.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:16 pm

B777LRF wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
Is anybody able to advise if all 320 series aircraft are built with the capability to take the LD3-45, or is it an only an option that customers have to specify to Airbus ? I would expect that a cargo hold floor equiped to handle the containers would have added weight compared to one without for the handling system.


It's a customer specified option and, yes, it does add weight compared to a conventional floor. Ground handling in the US is 'cheap' compared to most of Europe, and US carriers don't have to bother themselves with transfer of bags from international to domestic flights. This all lends to the non-ULD carrying option being the preferred, whilst in Europe the opposite may well be the case for network carriers.

As an example, a well-known handling company are turning around containerised A32X using only 2 staff members. Bulk loaded, the same aircraft need 3 staff - 4 if it's 'heavy'. Both for a 'standard' 30-minute turn, employing 1 or 2 Powerstow belt-loaders on the bulk loaded aircraft, and 1 'CLC' loader on the ULD aircraft. In other words, it's a question of GSE and staff cost vs fuel and ULD management cost.


Thanks for that, so I would assume from that then, that not every 320 coming on/off lease would be suitable for all 320 operators. I just came back from a trip through a few Asian ports and they were a bit of a mixed bag, some with containers and some bulk loaded. Are the floors powered, or is the power derived from man ?
 
B777LRF
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:59 am

jupiter2 wrote:
Thanks for that, so I would assume from that then, that not every 320 coming on/off lease would be suitable for all 320 operators. I just came back from a trip through a few Asian ports and they were a bit of a mixed bag, some with containers and some bulk loaded. Are the floors powered, or is the power derived from man ?


The floor is powered, but I don't know if it's possible to change from a ULD carrying to a bulk loaded floor. I suppose it is, if you're willing to pay for it. Probably easier to rip the powered floor out and replace with a bulk carrying floor, and since most 2nd hand aircraft goes to 2nd and 3rd tier airline with little to no use of ULDs, I wouldn't be surprised if it's been done on a few occassions.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
 
User avatar
CrimsonNL
Posts: 1974
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:38 am

B777LRF wrote:
The floor is powered, but I don't know if it's possible to change from a ULD carrying to a bulk loaded floor. I suppose it is, if you're willing to pay for it.


The 320s transferred from LH to 4U/EW get sort of a "bulk" conversion by installing metal plates with nets and posts on top of the ULD floor. They get loaded like a PMC and then they are secured in place. The end result looks just like a regular bulk loaded 320 only the available volume is reduced because these plates and the ULD locking system.

Martijn
Always comparing your flown types list with mine
 
B777LRF
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:22 am

CrimsonNL wrote:
The 320s transferred from LH to 4U/EW get sort of a "bulk" conversion by installing metal plates with nets and posts on top of the ULD floor. They get loaded like a PMC and then they are secured in place. The end result looks just like a regular bulk loaded 320 only the available volume is reduced because these plates and the ULD locking system.

Martijn


Thanks for the reminder. Come to think of it, Vueling did the very same thing when the converted from ULD to bulk. Our ramp guys hated that floor, though, as the 'pallets' were not fully fixed in place and do slide a bit forward/aft. This make for unsure footing and presents a H&S issue. Vueling, not surprisingly, were not interested in hearing about those concerns.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10927
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:54 pm

Some time ago Leeham made some NMA concepts. Fitting in containers shows consequences.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10927
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:00 am

Saw tthis picture fell away (thank you photobucket) so reposted.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], N751PR, redroo and 14 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos