Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:53 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 99):
at the very least, Leahy should have his own blog on Airbus.com

I've previously proposed he title it "Coffee with John".... Or Forgeard could do "Notes From Noel". Something catchy. They need to do more than "John's Blog".
EDIT: Before the hate mail starts, let me insert a smile, OK?  Wink

[Edited 2006-04-28 20:55:08]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Sat Apr 29, 2006 4:04 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 100):
've previously proposed he title it "Coffee with John"...Something catchy. They need to do more than "John's Blog".

We could call it "Coffee in the John" That would be catchy. bouncy  (see there's your smilie)

Seriously, John does need to blog.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:48 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 93):
Scheduled freighter ops rarely extends one leg beyond the maximum payload range of the aircraft used. In that vein don't expect the A380F to open up longer freighter routes either.

Interesting-- so why on earth would Airbus offer an extra center fuel tank as an option on the A388F? That would only improve payload at incredibly long ranges (> 8000 nm), with loads far below structural max. Weird.
 
glacote
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:01 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 64):
Because it's non-structural dead weight that would skew the amount of true payload an aircraft can carry.



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 65):
That's actually very good PR technique, Glacote - 'Anticipate your opponent's response'.

Indeed - it even fooled DfwRevolution. I stand firm on my claim: this arithmetic is dubious. It just makes the marginal ratio conveniently higher - but that would apply with any two aircrafts.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 68):
Yes indeed. But perhaps Glacote meant cost per available tonne-mile? Call it CATM. It walks and talks very much like CASM.

Indeed - thanks for correcting. At the end of the day what counts for the carrier is how much it costs per ton to bring some pallets from A to B. Marginal payload/OEW has nothing to do with that.

Comparing the ratio of marginal payload to marginal OEW is just a meaningless trick.

Now I find it a shame because I think the core of the argument holds water: the "CATM" is worse for the A388F than the B748F. Only the A388 flies further, has more capacity and accepts lower density payloads (which is a pros, not a cons).

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 76):
the highly touted A380 with 150t payload can not carry the assembled Trent 900...I do think that is worthy of comment.

I don't understand why sorry - how many Trent 900 will need to be transported by Fedex?
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:27 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 102):
Interesting-- so why on earth would Airbus offer an extra center fuel tank as an option on the A388F? That would only improve payload at incredibly long ranges (> 8000 nm), with loads far below structural max. Weird.

I don't believe Airbus is offering an extra center tank on A380F...Freighter operators will not trade cargo space for fuel, no matter what the range increase...

Quoting Glacote (Reply 103):
I don't understand why sorry - how many Trent 900 will need to be transported by Fedex?

Who knows , but the point is not exclusive to the FedEx operation, it is directed in comparison to the outsize cargo capability of the 747-8F relative to A380F...



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6024
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:52 am

Quoting Glacote (Reply 103):
Now I find it a shame because I think the core of the argument holds water: the "CATM" is worse for the A388F than the B748F. Only the A388 flies further, has more capacity and accepts lower density payloads (which is a pros, not a cons).

By that token, the Air Force should be operating scads of H-4 Hercules instead of C-17s.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:10 pm

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 104):
I don't believe Airbus is offering an extra center tank on A380F...Freighter operators will not trade cargo space for fuel, no matter what the range increase...

Airbus's own A380 airport compatibility guide states on page 21/253 that the A388F usable fuel capacity can go up to 355850 l (94000 gal) with the center tank fitted.

If what you say is indeed true, I am mystified by the reason for Airbus offering an option to trade up to 36 tonnes of payload for extra fuel which can only used beyond 8000 nm. (not to mention the OEW impact of the tank itself.)

What do you make of this? (notwithstanding the fact that nobody has ordered the A380F with the center tank...)

 scratchchin 
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:34 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 106):
Airbus's own A380 airport compatibility guide states on page 21/253 that the A388F usable fuel capacity can go up to 355850 l (94000 gal) with the center tank fitted.

If what you say is indeed true, I am mystified by the reason for Airbus offering an option to trade up to 36 tonnes of payload for extra fuel which can only used beyond 8000 nm. (not to mention the OEW impact of the tank itself.)

What do you make of this? (notwithstanding the fact that nobody has ordered the A380F with the center tank...)

plane manufacturers make options like these should a carrier want it....just like Boeing has given carriers the ability to add 3 extra tanks on the 777-200LR....AFAIK..only EK has ordered it with the extra tanks, and I'm not so sure about that either..

refitting the plane with the extra tanks isn't a big deal...and its worth the possibility of potentially getting more carriers..

[Edited 2006-04-29 08:35:08]
"Up the Irons!"
 
Poitin
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:32 am

RE: Randy's Latest Blog Entry: B748F Vs. A380F

Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 106):
Airbus's own A380 airport compatibility guide states on page 21/253 that the A388F usable fuel capacity can go up to 355850 l (94000 gal) with the center tank fitted.

If what you say is indeed true, I am mystified by the reason for Airbus offering an option to trade up to 36 tonnes of payload for extra fuel which can only used beyond 8000 nm. (not to mention the OEW impact of the tank itself.)

What do you make of this? (notwithstanding the fact that nobody has ordered the A380F with the center tank...)

There are those like SQ and QF who are looking for a Very Long Range pax airliner with less than half the population of the country on board. A 550 pax 380 going SIN-LHR is attractive to SQ as is a similiar A 380 to QF for SYD to LHR. But actually, there are very few 8000 nm routes. We should start a new thread on 8000 nm routes suitable for the A300 to see how many there are. The longest I found is HNL to JNB at about 10,500 nm, and I am not sure that that route could fill a 737 (if it had the range), let alone a A380.

As for the A380F, carrying fuel to avoid a stop at ANC is stupid. Only Airbus's marketing department could suggest such a thing. Even parishable goods like cut flowers will not complain about the 2 hour pit stop.
Now so, have ye time fer a pint?

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