Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23739
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:42 pm

Devilfish wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The 787 has a similar wing span as the A330, so the same problem with fitting on the apron and it would be not an inexpensive solution.

Question --- is there an inherent disadvantage to a CFRP fuse/wing that could mitigate against it being used as a freighter vs an all-metal frame :?:

Other than cost, I can't think of one.

Metal is cheaper, somewhat easier to modify, and is conductive so lightening protection is not a big deal.

CFRP is stronger per unit weight thus lighter, can be shaped with more precision, and largely avoids issues with metal fatigue so fewer inspections are needed, but the tooling to work with it is expensive and so is the material itself.

It's a big deal because metal fatigue often ends up being the thing that ends an airplane's life, although these days things like avionics obsolescence are playing a big role too.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Sokes
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:27 pm

Revelation wrote:


If one could see how much space is on the left, in front and on the right of the picture one could argue there is no space.
Assuming there is no space one could remove the building in the background and construct a new one in the forest behind.

I believe wing length is troublesome for New York's and other important urban airports.
That we have this discussion now for cargo airports surprises me.

We should have never introduced smartphones, as these don't work well with 2G.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
jbs2886
Posts: 2315
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:41 pm

Sokes wrote:
Revelation wrote:


If one could see how much space is on the left, in front and on the right of the picture one could argue there is no space.
Assuming there is no space one could remove the building in the background and construct a new one in the forest behind.

I believe wing length is troublesome for New York's and other important urban airports.
That we have this discussion now for cargo airports surprises me.

We should have never introduced smartphones, as these don't work well with 2G.


There isn't a "forest behind" the airport in that picture - that's all housing. Moreover, its very expensive to expand airport property and completely redo a cargo terminal.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:37 pm

Revelation wrote:
Devilfish wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The 787 has a similar wing span as the A330, so the same problem with fitting on the apron and it would be not an inexpensive solution.

Question --- is there an inherent disadvantage to a CFRP fuse/wing that could mitigate against it being used as a freighter vs an all-metal frame :?:

Other than cost, I can't think of one.

Metal is cheaper, somewhat easier to modify, and is conductive so lightening protection is not a big deal.

CFRP is stronger per unit weight thus lighter, can be shaped with more precision, and largely avoids issues with metal fatigue so fewer inspections are needed, but the tooling to work with it is expensive and so is the material itself.

It's a big deal because metal fatigue often ends up being the thing that ends an airplane's life, although these days things like avionics obsolescence are playing a big role too.


Composites are higher strength but less stiffness at that state, wing deflection can be quite amazing, this is a good feature as this deflection causes load shedding in a manner similar to a shock absorber. That is an advantage.

Composites are earlier on the material cost curve compared to metals, which are mature. If a CFRP wing today costs 20% more, in a couple decades it might cost 10% less. In particular if advances such as eliminating the autoclaves can occur. But additive manufacturing of aluminum introduces a competing curve.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:39 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
Sokes wrote:
Revelation wrote:


If one could see how much space is on the left, in front and on the right of the picture one could argue there is no space.
Assuming there is no space one could remove the building in the background and construct a new one in the forest behind.

I believe wing length is troublesome for New York's and other important urban airports.
That we have this discussion now for cargo airports surprises me.

We should have never introduced smartphones, as these don't work well with 2G.


There isn't a "forest behind" the airport in that picture - that's all housing. Moreover, its very expensive to expand airport property and completely redo a cargo terminal.


Rebuilding all those stands, all related infra structure, expanding the airfield. It seems a 330F with that large wingspan doesn't have chance at all. Prohibitive addition costs. You have to wonder why Fedex and UPS are buying all those tripple 7's and 74 with even more wingspan.. amazing.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:38 pm

keesje wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
Sokes wrote:

If one could see how much space is on the left, in front and on the right of the picture one could argue there is no space.
Assuming there is no space one could remove the building in the background and construct a new one in the forest behind.

I believe wing length is troublesome for New York's and other important urban airports.
That we have this discussion now for cargo airports surprises me.

We should have never introduced smartphones, as these don't work well with 2G.


There isn't a "forest behind" the airport in that picture - that's all housing. Moreover, its very expensive to expand airport property and completely redo a cargo terminal.


Rebuilding all those stands, all related infra structure, expanding the airfield. It seems a 330F with that large wingspan doesn't have chance at all. Prohibitive addition costs. You have to wonder why Fedex and UPS are buying all those tripple 7's and 74 with even more wingspan.. amazing.


Capacity and range against space. Fedex and UPS seem to have decided that the A330F is either to big, or not big enough. DHL seem to take all available used A330F, while having ordered a batch, AFAIK 15, A330-300 p2f.

edit: DHL has 8 on firm order and 10 options, in regards to A330-300 p2f.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4639
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:56 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
keesje wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

There isn't a "forest behind" the airport in that picture - that's all housing. Moreover, its very expensive to expand airport property and completely redo a cargo terminal.


Rebuilding all those stands, all related infra structure, expanding the airfield. It seems a 330F with that large wingspan doesn't have chance at all. Prohibitive addition costs. You have to wonder why Fedex and UPS are buying all those tripple 7's and 74 with even more wingspan.. amazing.


Capacity and range against space. Fedex and UPS seem to have decided that the A330F is either to big, or not big enough. DHL seem to take all available used A330F, while having ordered a batch, AFAIK 15, A330-300 p2f.

edit: DHL has 8 on firm order and 10 options, in regards to A330-300 p2f.


And with the delivery of the final Egyptair A332P2F, they are now the only remaining customer for the conversion. It's surprisingly unpopular, especially considering the age and state of some of the 763s being converted.

The barely-transatlantic range of the A332F is a real hindrance in this area. It would be interesting to see what kind of tradeoffs would need to be made for an A338NF to be used on the same routes UPS is currently using 763Fs on, let alone trying to replace an MD-11.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:03 am

Spacepope wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
keesje wrote:

Rebuilding all those stands, all related infra structure, expanding the airfield. It seems a 330F with that large wingspan doesn't have chance at all. Prohibitive addition costs. You have to wonder why Fedex and UPS are buying all those tripple 7's and 74 with even more wingspan.. amazing.


Capacity and range against space. Fedex and UPS seem to have decided that the A330F is either to big, or not big enough. DHL seem to take all available used A330F, while having ordered a batch, AFAIK 15, A330-300 p2f.

edit: DHL has 8 on firm order and 10 options, in regards to A330-300 p2f.


And with the delivery of the final Egyptair A332P2F, they are now the only remaining customer for the conversion. It's surprisingly unpopular, especially considering the age and state of some of the 763s being converted.

The barely-transatlantic range of the A332F is a real hindrance in this area. It would be interesting to see what kind of tradeoffs would need to be made for an A338NF to be used on the same routes UPS is currently using 763Fs on, let alone trying to replace an MD-11.


They want to do 10 to 15 a year. So they do not need a huge number of orders. DHL ordered 4, got the first one and did a repeat order straight away. AFAIK they have delivered 3 -200 conversions and 2 -300 conversions up to now.

To increase the range of the A330F should be not a big problem, the bird is at a MTOW of 233 t, it should not be a to big problem to beef that up to 242 t for more range.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4639
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:04 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Capacity and range against space. Fedex and UPS seem to have decided that the A330F is either to big, or not big enough. DHL seem to take all available used A330F, while having ordered a batch, AFAIK 15, A330-300 p2f.

edit: DHL has 8 on firm order and 10 options, in regards to A330-300 p2f.


And with the delivery of the final Egyptair A332P2F, they are now the only remaining customer for the conversion. It's surprisingly unpopular, especially considering the age and state of some of the 763s being converted.

The barely-transatlantic range of the A332F is a real hindrance in this area. It would be interesting to see what kind of tradeoffs would need to be made for an A338NF to be used on the same routes UPS is currently using 763Fs on, let alone trying to replace an MD-11.


They want to do 10 to 15 a year. So they do not need a huge number of orders. DHL ordered 4, got the first one and did a repeat order straight away. AFAIK they have delivered 3 -200 conversions and 2 -300 conversions up to now.

To increase the range of the A330F should be not a big problem, the bird is at a MTOW of 233 t, it should not be a to big problem to beef that up to 242 t for more range.

At that conversion rate they have less than 6 months backlog.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:28 am

So far there are a total of 42 new build A330F freighters, this compares with the 763F at 223 orders with a backlog of 58, for the 777F it is at 232 orders and a backlog of 55, 126 744F orders, and 107 748F orders with a backlog of 18. For a large number of reasons the A330F has not taken off, but the A300-600F was a great freighter that is still in demand. In fact a cockpit refurbishment project of UPS's 52 A300-600Fs is starting its certification.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4139
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:16 am

Devilfish wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The 787 has a similar wing span as the A330, so the same problem with fitting on the apron and it would be not an inexpensive solution.

Question --- is there an inherent disadvantage to a CFRP fuse/wing that could mitigate against it being used as a freighter vs an all-metal frame :?:


Yes, there absolutely could be. The 777 isn't even a composite airframe, but weak composite/graphite floor beams prevented cargo conversions. The same could turn out to be the case for the 787 and A350 (and I'm thinking the nature of how 787 fuselage barrels are made in one piece could throw a major spanner into the works too).
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1508
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:45 am

This quashes any thought of a neo platform for the MRTT in the near future:

"Airbus’s defence unit currently has no plan to transition its MRTT activity to the re-engined A330neo platform, and Plantecoste says: “We are working closely with our civil partner at Airbus to secure production of the Ceo – for the time being we have no concern.”"

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... me-462203/
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:45 pm

I can not find it at the moment, but Airbus was at a time proposing a new build A330-300F volume freighter. I assume that Airbus could still be offering it to integrators and that is what put into gear this new version rumor.
It should not be a big deal for Airbus to do the A330-300F, as all ingredients are there and just have to be mixed up slightly different.
It has of course to be certified, but that should also be the main cost, apart from building a frame.

edit: https://leehamnews.com/2011/09/26/fedex ... us-boeing/
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23739
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:50 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
This quashes any thought of a neo platform for the MRTT in the near future:

"Airbus’s defence unit currently has no plan to transition its MRTT activity to the re-engined A330neo platform, and Plantecoste says: “We are working closely with our civil partner at Airbus to secure production of the Ceo – for the time being we have no concern.”"

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... me-462203/

Supporting MRTT and freighter as CEO and pax as NEO seems to be baking in a bunch of complexity for the A330 production line, but I guess it must pencil out as the best solution.

Will Airbus have the same problem as Boeing is said to have in that older engines such as CEO's engines won't meet pollution specs in ~2026 so they will have to do something by then?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4639
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:51 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Devilfish wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The 787 has a similar wing span as the A330, so the same problem with fitting on the apron and it would be not an inexpensive solution.

Question --- is there an inherent disadvantage to a CFRP fuse/wing that could mitigate against it being used as a freighter vs an all-metal frame :?:


Yes, there absolutely could be. The 777 isn't even a composite airframe, but weak composite/graphite floor beams prevented cargo conversions. The same could turn out to be the case for the 787 and A350 (and I'm thinking the nature of how 787 fuselage barrels are made in one piece could throw a major spanner into the works too).


Boeing claims they planned for freighter 787s since the beginning, even making sure wiring and ductwork were routed away from potential cargo door during initial design. With this sort of consideration I highly doubt the fuselage barrels are any sort of hang up here. The CFRP floors on the 777 are a completely different issue.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10468
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:55 pm

As long as there is enough structural support added for the door cargo conversion of a CRFP fuselage is not an issue. Floors are an issue because they are holding the load. Except for the new stresses from the giant hole from the cargo door the fuselage load doesn’t change much in a freighter vs pax aircraft.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:03 pm

When floor load changes, the load for the fuselages changes too.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23739
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:31 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
I can not find it at the moment, but Airbus was at a time proposing a new build A330-300F volume freighter. I assume that Airbus could still be offering it to integrators and that is what put into gear this new version rumor.
It should not be a big deal for Airbus to do the A330-300F, as all ingredients are there and just have to be mixed up slightly different.
It has of course to be certified, but that should also be the main cost, apart from building a frame.

edit: https://leehamnews.com/2011/09/26/fedex ... us-boeing/

You can say the same about 764F: They can put 763F's cargo floor into 764 and add GEnX integration from 748F, add strengthening where needed, then test and certify.

seahawk wrote:
When floor load changes, the load for the fuselages changes too.

True, all of us "armchair airplane designers" are neglecting all the analysis that has to be redone when a given element is repurposed.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Sokes
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:38 pm

jbs2886 wrote:

There isn't a "forest behind" the airport in that picture - that's all housing. Moreover, its very expensive to expand airport property and completely redo a cargo terminal.



I'm sure Tarzan would be pleased to hear about such housing. How is the public transport in that "housing"?

While I can't offer a quantitative discussion, here a principle discussion about what is "expensive":
1) Golden age of British canals:
"This success proved the viability of canal transport, and soon industrialists in many other parts of the country wanted canals. After the Bridgewater Canal, the early canals were built by groups of private individuals with an interest in improving communications. In Staffordshire the famous potter Josiah Wedgwood saw an opportunity to bring bulky cargoes of clay to his factory doors, and to transport his fragile finished goods to market in Manchester, Birmingham or further afield by water, minimising breakages. Within just a few years of the Bridgewater's opening, an embryonic national canal network came into being, with the construction of canals such as the Oxford Canal and the Trent & Mersey Canal.[5]

The new canal system was both cause and effect of the rapid industrialisation of the Midlands and the north. The period between the 1770s and the 1830s is often referred to as the "Golden Age" of British canals.

For each canal, an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise construction, and as people saw the high incomes achieved from canal tolls, canal proposals came to be put forward by investors interested in profiting from dividends, at least as much as by people whose businesses would profit from cheaper transport of raw materials and finished goods.

In a further development, there was often out-and-out speculation, in which people would try to buy shares in a newly floated company simply to sell them on for an immediate profit, regardless of whether the canal was ever profitable, or even built. During this period of "canal mania", huge sums were invested in canal building, and although many schemes came to nothing, the canal system rapidly expanded to nearly 4,000 miles (over 6,400 kilometres) in length.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... Golden_Age

Soon afterwards the railways took over and canals went out of use. Was it a wrong investment? No, because there wouldn't have been a railway invented without the industrial revolution the canals made possible.

2) Similar 2G was a necessary step to 4G.

Some of us want the B737 replaced by a new narrowbody. Why should Boeing do that if wingspan remains the same/ if gates remain forever limited to 35 m?

3) In the industrial revolution railway bridges were built with bricks. It's expensive to replace them with concrete structures. Should it be done?

4) If electric cars become popular five cars in one road at a time may require high electric power for recharging. The distribution system has to be massively strengthened. Should it be done?

5) It must have been expensive to lay an underground glass fiber network.


Unlike feudal societies which are stagnant, capitalist societies have permanent change.
I read new York has discussions about replacing a railway tunnel from the 1920s. Too expensive?
To know the value of such a tunnel is simple. Blow the old tunnel. The resulting cumulative property price decrease is the value of the railway system that tunnel enabled.

Why are Americans so critical to cost of infrastructure? Because it's financed by tax that was "stolen" from taxpayers?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:44 pm

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I can not find it at the moment, but Airbus was at a time proposing a new build A330-300F volume freighter. I assume that Airbus could still be offering it to integrators and that is what put into gear this new version rumor.
It should not be a big deal for Airbus to do the A330-300F, as all ingredients are there and just have to be mixed up slightly different.
It has of course to be certified, but that should also be the main cost, apart from building a frame.

edit: https://leehamnews.com/2011/09/26/fedex ... us-boeing/

You can say the same about 764F: They can put 763F's cargo floor into 764 and add GEnX integration from 748F, add strengthening where needed, then test and certify.

seahawk wrote:
When floor load changes, the load for the fuselages changes too.

True, all of us "armchair airplane designers" are neglecting all the analysis that has to be redone when a given element is repurposed.


There is a A330-300 p2f certified, so floor loads in relation to the fuselage should be well know. No new engines. I think it is still quite a bit less work for a A330-300F, than doing a 767-400FMAX.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18975
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:57 pm

Sokes wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

There isn't a "forest behind" the airport in that picture - that's all housing. Moreover, its very expensive to expand airport property and completely redo a cargo terminal.



I'm sure Tarzan would be pleased to hear about such housing. How is the public transport in that "housing"?


Have a look on Google Earth. It's no forest.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23739
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:58 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
There is a A330-300 p2f certified, so floor loads in relation to the fuselage should be well know. No new engines. I think it is still quite a bit less work for a A330-300F, than doing a 767-400FMAX.

True, but the main delta in work is going to be putting GEnX onto the 767 platform, which adds a lot of benefit above the A330 CEO engines in terms of fuel burn, noise, emissions, maintenance and commonality with the 748F platform for operators who may want both like UPS. In theory there may also be an option for 764X passenger models, but I'm not a believer in that idea.
Last edited by Revelation on Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4639
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:59 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I can not find it at the moment, but Airbus was at a time proposing a new build A330-300F volume freighter. I assume that Airbus could still be offering it to integrators and that is what put into gear this new version rumor.
It should not be a big deal for Airbus to do the A330-300F, as all ingredients are there and just have to be mixed up slightly different.
It has of course to be certified, but that should also be the main cost, apart from building a frame.

edit: https://leehamnews.com/2011/09/26/fedex ... us-boeing/

You can say the same about 764F: They can put 763F's cargo floor into 764 and add GEnX integration from 748F, add strengthening where needed, then test and certify.

seahawk wrote:
When floor load changes, the load for the fuselages changes too.

True, all of us "armchair airplane designers" are neglecting all the analysis that has to be redone when a given element is repurposed.


There is a A330-300 p2f certified, so floor loads in relation to the fuselage should be well know. No new engines. I think it is still quite a bit less work for a A330-300F, than doing a 767-400FMAX.


Except it can't fit into the existing infrastructure of its 2 biggest potential customers. I doubt we'll see an A333F (new build) as for the same wingspan, you can get a 777F for increased range/payload mass or a 773ERBDSF for Ecomerce volume.

Airbus isn't stupid, if they saw a market for it they'd have pulled the trigger by now.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4024
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:05 pm

It would require flight test - but as you are not modding the wing or extending the fuselage - it should be pretty minimal - probably just stall characteristics due to the larger nacelle.
Is someone being naughty here. LOL

And res another post
Sokes - interesting post.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Sokes
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:21 pm

scbriml wrote:
Sokes wrote:

I'm sure Tarzan would be pleased to hear about such housing. How is the public transport in that "housing"?


Have a look on Google Earth. It's no forest.


I scored an own goal.
On the other side:
There is plenty of place south of the airport. Expand the north-south runways towards south. Shift the east/ west runway to the southern end.
https://earth.google.com/web/search/Mem ... Q5cfYn9WwA

Therefore no need for folding wingtips and one can adjust the airport.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
HPRamper
Posts: 5009
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:38 pm

Sokes wrote:

Why are Americans so critical to cost of infrastructure? Because it's financed by tax that was "stolen" from taxpayers?

Because the money has to come from somewhere. More often than not, there's no slack in the local budget and quite likely a deficit, so that cost will have to be funded through massive and far-reaching fee increases or from increased taxes, or both. Increase taxes generally must be approved by the population and depending on the demographics that will frequently not happen as nobody wants to pay for something they don't feel they will personally and directly benefit from. That pretty much leaves the airport tenants to pay through those increased fees, and they would be very steep and long-lasting to fund that large a project. They would most likely refuse to pay, and threaten to leave the market if forced upon them.

Whether or not those are valid or logical viewpoints isn't my point. They are the reason mass transit and infrastructure in the United States are in such embarrassing shape overall.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10468
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:49 pm

Sokes wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

There isn't a "forest behind" the airport in that picture - that's all housing. Moreover, its very expensive to expand airport property and completely redo a cargo terminal.



I'm sure Tarzan would be pleased to hear about such housing. How is the public transport in that "housing"?

While I can't offer a quantitative discussion, here a principle discussion about what is "expensive":
1) Golden age of British canals:
"This success proved the viability of canal transport, and soon industrialists in many other parts of the country wanted canals. After the Bridgewater Canal, the early canals were built by groups of private individuals with an interest in improving communications. In Staffordshire the famous potter Josiah Wedgwood saw an opportunity to bring bulky cargoes of clay to his factory doors, and to transport his fragile finished goods to market in Manchester, Birmingham or further afield by water, minimising breakages. Within just a few years of the Bridgewater's opening, an embryonic national canal network came into being, with the construction of canals such as the Oxford Canal and the Trent & Mersey Canal.[5]

The new canal system was both cause and effect of the rapid industrialisation of the Midlands and the north. The period between the 1770s and the 1830s is often referred to as the "Golden Age" of British canals.

For each canal, an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise construction, and as people saw the high incomes achieved from canal tolls, canal proposals came to be put forward by investors interested in profiting from dividends, at least as much as by people whose businesses would profit from cheaper transport of raw materials and finished goods.

In a further development, there was often out-and-out speculation, in which people would try to buy shares in a newly floated company simply to sell them on for an immediate profit, regardless of whether the canal was ever profitable, or even built. During this period of "canal mania", huge sums were invested in canal building, and although many schemes came to nothing, the canal system rapidly expanded to nearly 4,000 miles (over 6,400 kilometres) in length.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... Golden_Age

Soon afterwards the railways took over and canals went out of use. Was it a wrong investment? No, because there wouldn't have been a railway invented without the industrial revolution the canals made possible.

2) Similar 2G was a necessary step to 4G.

Some of us want the B737 replaced by a new narrowbody. Why should Boeing do that if wingspan remains the same/ if gates remain forever limited to 35 m?

3) In the industrial revolution railway bridges were built with bricks. It's expensive to replace them with concrete structures. Should it be done?

4) If electric cars become popular five cars in one road at a time may require high electric power for recharging. The distribution system has to be massively strengthened. Should it be done?

5) It must have been expensive to lay an underground glass fiber network.


Unlike feudal societies which are stagnant, capitalist societies have permanent change.
I read new York has discussions about replacing a railway tunnel from the 1920s. Too expensive?
To know the value of such a tunnel is simple. Blow the old tunnel. The resulting cumulative property price decrease is the value of the railway system that tunnel enabled.

Why are Americans so critical to cost of infrastructure? Because it's financed by tax that was "stolen" from taxpayers?


If you want to spend money on infrastructure there are far better options out there that benefits far more people than expanding MEM just so FX is more comfortable with the A330’s wingspan. That is a solution looking for a real problem. FX can spend their own money to encourage the design of aircraft that fits their needs or adjust their operations to fit what is available.

I understand that we are all aviation enthusiasts, but come on let’s put some prospective on things. It is not the end of the world if FX passes over any 787/A330Neo/addition 777 freighters because of wingspan issues. That is FX’s problem, not our (the taxpaying public’s) issue.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:00 pm

HPRamper wrote:
Sokes wrote:

Whether or not those are valid or logical viewpoints isn't my point. They are the reason mass transit and infrastructure in the United States are in such embarrassing shape overall.



I got your point. I have never been to the US and it wasn't my intention to insult the US. I just wanted to poke against the "anti tax" attitude which I believe to have observed strongest among Americans.
I think in India only 3% or so of the population pays income tax. That isn't great either.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4639
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 5:15 pm

Sokes wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Sokes wrote:

I'm sure Tarzan would be pleased to hear about such housing. How is the public transport in that "housing"?


Have a look on Google Earth. It's no forest.


I scored an own goal.
On the other side:
There is plenty of place south of the airport. Expand the north-south runways towards south. Shift the east/ west runway to the southern end.
https://earth.google.com/web/search/Mem ... Q5cfYn9WwA

Therefore no need for folding wingtips and one can adjust the airport.


That's a multi-billion dollar project, and the NIMBY-ism from the people now suddenly under the flight path of the new runway, as well as people experienceing the noise of the new expanded loading areas would probably drown out an A330F at full thrust. FedEx may be big in MEM, but I doubt even they have the political capital to burn on that proposal.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
Sokes
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:01 pm

Spacepope wrote:

... the people now suddenly under the flight path of the new runway,... would probably drown out an A330F at full thrust. ...



Good point. What about expanding the main runways 100m towards south and shift the east-west runway 50 -100 m towards south?
Maybe one can get another 100 m towards north and west. Indeed looking north it appears that car parking is more important than plane parking. It's not "mission impossible".
Considering how little space is kept for plane parking one wonders that this is supposed to be one of the US cargo hubs.
I assume each parking space has to serve several planes/ night?

Expanding wingspan from 52 m to 65 m is 25%. As there has to be clearance between wingtips maybe 20%.
B767-300: 55 m length
A330-200:59 m length
A330-300/B777-200: 64 m length = 116% B767-300 length

40% increase in cargo aircraft parking area in Memphis is probably less than 10% airport area. But it would mean massive capacity reserves. The buildings required for serving these cargo planes would probably be the limiting factor.

What I'm missing in this discussion is that lift increases square with wing length. 25% longer wing means 56% more lift and less than 10% airport area increase.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4861
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:45 am

Just wondering? How much difference in capacity is there between the 777F or 777BCF, the A330F and the MD10? The 330F would come with RR engines which it appears they aren't doing to well with reliability at the moment. being a big operator in the USA, there isn't that much of an alternative should the engine NOT be viable due to reliability. Does Airbus offer an alternative engine? I'm asking because I don't know, Not to flame anybody.
 
trex8
Posts: 5543
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:59 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Just wondering? How much difference in capacity is there between the 777F or 777BCF, the A330F and the MD10? The 330F would come with RR engines which it appears they aren't doing to well with reliability at the moment. being a big operator in the USA, there isn't that much of an alternative should the engine NOT be viable due to reliability. Does Airbus offer an alternative engine? I'm asking because I don't know, Not to flame anybody.


do you mean the present A330-200F when you ask A330F?

777F vol . payload . 653m3 . 102t
A330F . 458m3 . 65-70t
MD10 380m3 . 59t

A330F were certified with Trent and PW engines but not the GE
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4861
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:59 am

the present A330F? Is the 777F a direct competitor? and does the price match up with the size difference to the MD-10F or the MD-11F?
These might be the questions I would ask Airbus and Boeing were I to open an RFP for a new airplane. I was around when United bought the 747-422/777-222 combination purchase they offered each individually then offered them both as a package price. I think Boeing could and might do that again were they so inclined.
Airbus right now has a disadvantage as they don't field a middle weight freighter.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:44 am

There may actually already be a solution for airport expansions. Use existing car parking space. The cars can be parked in towers which an elevator automatically picks up/ delivers from ground floor.

Image

source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparent_Factory



Image

source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... 7213587376)_(3).jpg
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:37 am

Sokes wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Sokes wrote:

I'm sure Tarzan would be pleased to hear about such housing. How is the public transport in that "housing"?


Have a look on Google Earth. It's no forest.


I scored an own goal.
On the other side:
There is plenty of place south of the airport. Expand the north-south runways towards south. Shift the east/ west runway to the southern end.
https://earth.google.com/web/search/Mem ... Q5cfYn9WwA

Therefore no need for folding wingtips and one can adjust the airport.


MEM is in a bad neighborhood, but still a low rent house sells for $75K for 1/4 acre. Condemnation takes years in the US, probably 50K in cost, and 50K to demo and remove utilities and grade it flat. So 175K/lot or 700K per acre, before the sitework begins. The big issue is FedEX does not own the airport the Airport Authority does and it is still hurting from when the NW hub went away, it was like only at 25% pax capacity at its low point, so hard to do a bond issue to pay for the infrastructure.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1206
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:08 am

B767-400ER already lost to A330-200 in the 90s. What makes them think they could win it now?

Besides, Airbus already got the neo going. Maybe A330-800F is next on the line?
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:25 am

ewt340 wrote:
B767-400ER already lost to A330-200 in the 90s. What makes them think they could win it now?

Besides, Airbus already got the neo going. Maybe A330-800F is next on the line?

In the freighter market the 767 continues to beat the A330 to this day by a very large margin. Even thouhg it will be newer tech, a A330neoF will still be entering this race with Boeing already having a clear lead.

But if Airbus makes the right plane the market could always switch back in their advantage of course.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:17 am

JayinKitsap wrote:

...
So 175K/lot or 700K per acre, before the sitework begins. The big issue is FedEX does not own the airport the Airport Authority does ...



700.000 $/ acre = 1.750.000 $/ ha = 175 Mio $/ sqkm

I don't know how much place one plane parking position has today. I assume 50 m x 57 m = 2850 sqm. I further assume it has to be increased to 60m x 70 m = 4200 sqm.
That's roughly 1400 sqm extra/ parking place. One extra square kilometer would be enough to increase the size of roughly 700 parking positions.
How many parking positions does Memphis's cargo section have? I guess much less.

175 Mio $/ 700 planes = 250.000 $/ parking position. Add 60% for traffic area?

I think land acquisition cost will not be the expensive part.

Let's assume the cost of increasing the size of one cargo position comes to 2 Mio $. Or maybe 3 Mio $?
How much is a B767, how much an A330?

At any rate it has to be done sometime. Why not now? When will be a better time?

Does one parking position serve one plane/ night?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
HPRamper
Posts: 5009
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:08 pm

trex8 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Just wondering? How much difference in capacity is there between the 777F or 777BCF, the A330F and the MD10? The 330F would come with RR engines which it appears they aren't doing to well with reliability at the moment. being a big operator in the USA, there isn't that much of an alternative should the engine NOT be viable due to reliability. Does Airbus offer an alternative engine? I'm asking because I don't know, Not to flame anybody.


do you mean the present A330-200F when you ask A330F?

777F vol . payload . 653m3 . 102t
A330F . 458m3 . 65-70t
MD10 380m3 . 59t

A330F were certified with Trent and PW engines but not the GE

Purely volume-wise the A330F is comparable to the MD11F, but keep in mind it is a narrower fuselage so the containers needed are completely different (AAD/AAX vs AMJ) and that has its own cost.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4639
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:46 pm

HPRamper wrote:
trex8 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Just wondering? How much difference in capacity is there between the 777F or 777BCF, the A330F and the MD10? The 330F would come with RR engines which it appears they aren't doing to well with reliability at the moment. being a big operator in the USA, there isn't that much of an alternative should the engine NOT be viable due to reliability. Does Airbus offer an alternative engine? I'm asking because I don't know, Not to flame anybody.


do you mean the present A330-200F when you ask A330F?

777F vol . payload . 653m3 . 102t
A330F . 458m3 . 65-70t
MD10 380m3 . 59t

A330F were certified with Trent and PW engines but not the GE

Purely volume-wise the A330F is comparable to the MD11F, but keep in mind it is a narrower fuselage so the containers needed are completely different (AAD/AAX vs AMJ) and that has its own cost.


When looking at just UPS and FX, they already operate A300 and 767, so the containers are already in circulation in quantity for both carriers. Are MD-11 containers what's also used on 77F?
The last of the famous international playboys
 
HPRamper
Posts: 5009
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Sat Nov 16, 2019 11:34 am

Spacepope wrote:
HPRamper wrote:
trex8 wrote:

do you mean the present A330-200F when you ask A330F?

777F vol . payload . 653m3 . 102t
A330F . 458m3 . 65-70t
MD10 380m3 . 59t

A330F were certified with Trent and PW engines but not the GE

Purely volume-wise the A330F is comparable to the MD11F, but keep in mind it is a narrower fuselage so the containers needed are completely different (AAD/AAX vs AMJ) and that has its own cost.


When looking at just UPS and FX, they already operate A300 and 767, so the containers are already in circulation in quantity for both carriers. Are MD-11 containers what's also used on 77F?

Indeed they are, for the most part, but the 777F can also accomodate the smaller types. It's just not quite as volume-efficient. It would not be a matter of a full replacement, but it would need a large number adjustment especially as the MD11Fs are retired leaving a much smaller fleet of AMJ-compatible frames.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23739
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:05 pm

HPRamper wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
HPRamper wrote:
Purely volume-wise the A330F is comparable to the MD11F, but keep in mind it is a narrower fuselage so the containers needed are completely different (AAD/AAX vs AMJ) and that has its own cost.

When looking at just UPS and FX, they already operate A300 and 767, so the containers are already in circulation in quantity for both carriers. Are MD-11 containers what's also used on 77F?

Indeed they are, for the most part, but the 777F can also accomodate the smaller types. It's just not quite as volume-efficient. It would not be a matter of a full replacement, but it would need a large number adjustment especially as the MD11Fs are retired leaving a much smaller fleet of AMJ-compatible frames.

Sorry but I can't quite follow the discussion, how many different categories of containers are needed for optimal main deck usage in the FX fleet considering potential A330 addition?

My guess from the above:

* MD11/777: AMJ
* A300/A330: AAD/AAX
* 767: ?
* 757: ?

FX web site seems to have been reorganized with Google now pointing at many dead links.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
HPRamper
Posts: 5009
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:21 pm

Revelation wrote:
HPRamper wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
When looking at just UPS and FX, they already operate A300 and 767, so the containers are already in circulation in quantity for both carriers. Are MD-11 containers what's also used on 77F?

Indeed they are, for the most part, but the 777F can also accomodate the smaller types. It's just not quite as volume-efficient. It would not be a matter of a full replacement, but it would need a large number adjustment especially as the MD11Fs are retired leaving a much smaller fleet of AMJ-compatible frames.

Sorry but I can't quite follow the discussion, how many different categories of containers are needed for optimal main deck usage in the FX fleet considering potential A330 addition?

My guess from the above:

* MD11/777: AMJ
* A300/A330: AAD/AAX
* 767: ?
* 757: ?

FX web site seems to have been reorganized with Google now pointing at many dead links.

767: AAD
757: SAA
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4139
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:28 pm

Spacepope wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Devilfish wrote:
Question --- is there an inherent disadvantage to a CFRP fuse/wing that could mitigate against it being used as a freighter vs an all-metal frame :?:


Yes, there absolutely could be. The 777 isn't even a composite airframe, but weak composite/graphite floor beams prevented cargo conversions. The same could turn out to be the case for the 787 and A350 (and I'm thinking the nature of how 787 fuselage barrels are made in one piece could throw a major spanner into the works too).


Boeing claims they planned for freighter 787s since the beginning, even making sure wiring and ductwork were routed away from potential cargo door during initial design. With this sort of consideration I highly doubt the fuselage barrels are any sort of hang up here. The CFRP floors on the 777 are a completely different issue.


While it is true that Boeing kept wiring and ducts away from where a potential cargo door would be, it is way too early to claim that it is suited as a freighter. While doing it makes sense, it won't really cost Boeing or the operators anything to have all the ducts and cables running elsewhere in the cabin. There are way more and much bigger considerations when it comes to converting a plane to cargo.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23739
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:38 pm

HPRamper wrote:
Revelation wrote:
HPRamper wrote:
Indeed they are, for the most part, but the 777F can also accomodate the smaller types. It's just not quite as volume-efficient. It would not be a matter of a full replacement, but it would need a large number adjustment especially as the MD11Fs are retired leaving a much smaller fleet of AMJ-compatible frames.

Sorry but I can't quite follow the discussion, how many different categories of containers are needed for optimal main deck usage in the FX fleet considering potential A330 addition?

My guess from the above:

FX web site seems to have been reorganized with Google now pointing at many dead links.

767: AAD
757: SAA


Thanks!

So we have:

* MD11/777: AMJ
* A300/A330: AAD
* 767: AAD
* 757: SAA

As you say, MD11 retirement removes a large user of the widest containers, but I presume 77F mainly gets used on the longest intercontinental hub to hub routes so it's largely in its own category with a limited number of stations visited. Then remaining A300, new 767 and potential A330 would be regional wide bodies and 757 regional narrow bodies so we probably end up with three classes of containers with or without A330.

I guess one thing we could say is adding A330 would add additional volume that probably would not be utilized since the same containers would need to be interchangeable with 767? If so, could we also say that current A300 use is sub-optimal?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4639
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:57 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

Yes, there absolutely could be. The 777 isn't even a composite airframe, but weak composite/graphite floor beams prevented cargo conversions. The same could turn out to be the case for the 787 and A350 (and I'm thinking the nature of how 787 fuselage barrels are made in one piece could throw a major spanner into the works too).


Boeing claims they planned for freighter 787s since the beginning, even making sure wiring and ductwork were routed away from potential cargo door during initial design. With this sort of consideration I highly doubt the fuselage barrels are any sort of hang up here. The CFRP floors on the 777 are a completely different issue.


While it is true that Boeing kept wiring and ducts away from where a potential cargo door would be, it is way too early to claim that it is suited as a freighter. While doing it makes sense, it won't really cost Boeing or the operators anything to have all the ducts and cables running elsewhere in the cabin. There are way more and much bigger considerations when it comes to converting a plane to cargo.


And while you are technically correct, if making internal considerations for future freighter use in the potential cargo door area, it would be foolish to think the considerations were not made and implemented airframe-wide.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4139
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:14 pm

Spacepope wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Spacepope wrote:

Boeing claims they planned for freighter 787s since the beginning, even making sure wiring and ductwork were routed away from potential cargo door during initial design. With this sort of consideration I highly doubt the fuselage barrels are any sort of hang up here. The CFRP floors on the 777 are a completely different issue.


While it is true that Boeing kept wiring and ducts away from where a potential cargo door would be, it is way too early to claim that it is suited as a freighter. While doing it makes sense, it won't really cost Boeing or the operators anything to have all the ducts and cables running elsewhere in the cabin. There are way more and much bigger considerations when it comes to converting a plane to cargo.


And while you are technically correct, if making internal considerations for future freighter use in the potential cargo door area, it would be foolish to think the considerations were not made and implemented airframe-wide.


You mean all the other modifications that actually add weight, cost and complexity?
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:20 pm

Airbus current newbuild freighter the A330-200F turned out not successful, with only 42 orders and 38 deliveries.
The A330MMRT also only got 60 orders with 39 delivered.
The A330P2F conversion isn't very successful as well. Two questions:

1) why was the A300-600F successful and the A330-200F not?
Is the forward pitching nose of the A330, because of the same forward landing gear, but longer main landing gear to accommodate larger diameter engine, compared to the A300, the main problem. The A330-200F has been made vertical on the ground, but this caused the nose landing gear bulb, which is less aerodynamic.

2) What is the required capability of the new build freighter; 50mT (100k lb) or 80mT (175k lb)?

The A330NEO involved a part of the original A350 proposed by Airbus. Possibly somethings are in the pipeline.
Let's end with a date: 18 Dec. 2020 ...

Edit to add that I think that folding wings on an Airbus is very unlikely.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4639
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:27 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

While it is true that Boeing kept wiring and ducts away from where a potential cargo door would be, it is way too early to claim that it is suited as a freighter. While doing it makes sense, it won't really cost Boeing or the operators anything to have all the ducts and cables running elsewhere in the cabin. There are way more and much bigger considerations when it comes to converting a plane to cargo.


And while you are technically correct, if making internal considerations for future freighter use in the potential cargo door area, it would be foolish to think the considerations were not made and implemented airframe-wide.


You mean all the other modifications that actually add weight, cost and complexity?


No, the considerations for those mods though. They didn't make a freighter with passenger seats just because. But they also didn't make the same floor mistake as the 777 passenger variants either.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Rumor: New version of A330F being proposed

Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
HPRamper wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Sorry but I can't quite follow the discussion, how many different categories of containers are needed for optimal main deck usage in the FX fleet considering potential A330 addition?

My guess from the above:

FX web site seems to have been reorganized with Google now pointing at many dead links.

767: AAD
757: SAA


Thanks!

So we have:

* MD11/777: AMJ
* A300/A330: AAD
* 767: AAD
* 757: SAA

As you say, MD11 retirement removes a large user of the widest containers, but I presume 77F mainly gets used on the longest intercontinental hub to hub routes so it's largely in its own category with a limited number of stations visited. Then remaining A300, new 767 and potential A330 would be regional wide bodies and 757 regional narrow bodies so we probably end up with three classes of containers with or without A330.

I guess one thing we could say is adding A330 would add additional volume that probably would not be utilized since the same containers would need to be interchangeable with 767? If so, could we also say that current A300 use is sub-optimal?

This is main deck containers right?
Lower deck (cargo hold on passenger planes) are:
777/DC-10/A3xx: LD3 (AKE), LD6 (ALF)
767: LD2 (APE), LD8 (AQF)
747: LD1 (AKC)

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