Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:38 pm

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 16):
I don't think it will be that long. It will be fun watching to see who's right, as time will tell.

Indeed, we are in for a long wait. Big grin

Quoting Coleplane (Reply 38):
Agreed. I'm thinking 10-15. Case in point - SIA who pride themselves on having a young fleet. Do you think they would transfer them to their cargo division and/or does the A380F even suit their particular cargo needs?

OK, let's say SQ will ditch their first a380 after 10 years. That's still 2017-2018. That's a long wait for an aircraft that you may really want.
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11217
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:15 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Of course, when Airbus developed the A388F, they may have assumed that Boeing would not offer a plane with better performance then the 744F. The A388F as it is now is a much better plane then the 744F in terms of payload and range and if Boeing had not been able to improve the line as they did with the 748F, the A388F's future prospects with heavy cargo operators probably would have been brighter.

Well, not quite. Remember the B-747-400F was offered in 2 versions since 1998, The basic model was the B-747-400F, then in 1998 development began on the B-747-400ERF, with about 500nm more range. The B-747-400ERF even has longer legs than than the B-747-800F or B-777-200F.

I disagree that the A-380-800F is a much better airplane than the B-747-400F. That B-747F can do things the A-380 F cannot. The A-380-800F compares better with 2-3 B-757-200PFs as both these airplanes are really package freighters and not true heavy lift freighters like the B-747Fs are.

When UPS ordered their 8 B-747Fs last year, they ordered the basic B-747-400F, because they needed the lift capability (and as replacements for retiring B-747-100CFs), and not the longer range.

I am surprized that Boeing is not pointing out one of the B-747-800F's best comparisons between it and the A-380-800F. That is the ability for a much quicker turn around in cargo loading and unloading. The A-380-800F has 2 side cargo doors, one for each deck. The B-747-800F has one side cargo door, and the swing open nose, allowing double the speed to load or unload the cargo deck. The B-747 can also take longer and oversized cargo items the A-380 cannot.

There are only two commerical freighters available that can compete with the B-747F, the IL-76 and the An-124-100. Both can actually carry more heavy cargo weight (but the IL-76 cannot carry the bulk). But, there range is very small, less than 3,000nms with full cargo loads. Additionally, both the IL-76 and the An-124 started out in life as military cargo aircraft, as well as a tanker version for the IL-76.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:36 pm

If fast turns ever become a important aspect of cargo operation, the nose loading will become THE WAY to operate cargo.

already there exist loaders for the military cargo planes that load or unload the plane in one action. The LCF is loaded and unloaded the same way with a payload deck the size of the cargo plane's load floor. The best thing is that if you design your logistics correctly these massively expensive loaders will be able to do their job so quickly as to only require a tiny handful per cargo operation at most.

That said, cargo usualy can wait, and speed of loading will only become a factor if its too slow. being faster than too slow is of marginal benifit at this time. That may change as the cargo market runs more point to point, and scheduals get tighter for overnight/nextday shipping.


The nail in the A380F's coffin I think is the lack of a nose door, not for speed of loading or unloading, but because its a fundamaental restriction on what you can carry inside. Its rather like using a 40ft cargo container and they put on a normal household door in the side instead of a full width door in the back. The 747f series have long paid the bills at all levels of freight companies by being able to handle large cargos. Need to ship a mast for your racing catamaran? Sure, stuff it in the 744 over the while we take your bank acount for a ride. got 30 tons of oil rig equipment that needs to get to the gulf ASAP as you are loosing a couple million a day its not there and working? Well, we will only take 1/2 a days revinue to ship it there, and our plane is right here on the ramp to do it. The closest AN124 is booked full and 3 states away. Doesn't fit in anything else.

The 747F's have a flexiblity given the nose door, and this is the main thing that will save the 748F as a pre-built from the surge of smaller aircraft and a new wave of 744 conversions to replace the 747 classics that are leaving the fleets.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:00 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
There are only two commerical freighters available that can compete with the B-747F, the IL-76 and the An-124-100. Both can actually carry more heavy cargo weight (but the IL-76 cannot carry the bulk). But, there range is very small, less than 3,000nms with full cargo loads. Additionally, both the IL-76 and the An-124 started out in life as military cargo aircraft, as well as a tanker version for the IL-7

you should include the C130 Hercules as well as the C-.17 in that short summary.Both are equally unsuited for day-to-day cargo operations because they are simply too costy to operate commercially and can fiull niches only. The An-124 and the Il 76 are successful because they were available cheap (or next top nothing because they simply took some from the military paying peanuts or nothing at all and formed companies operating the aircraft, paying the crew small wages. But that is another story.,.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 52):
That said, cargo usualy can wait, and speed of loading will only become a factor if its too slow. being faster than too slow is of marginal benifit at this time. That may change as the cargo market runs more point to point, and scheduals get tighter for overnight/nextday shipping.

I agree that the nose loading capability is an asset for the 747F and always has been for over 35 years now. Not needed for every transport however. For the speed of transport it does not matter that much if you can load/unload a plane in 90 or 120 minutes. Cut off time for freighters now is at least 6 hours, usually miuch longer and it tales sometimes 24 hours until freight can be received off a 747. Facilitation on the grouind and paperless shipments will do much more to speed up freight.

Again, another story. Essence on this topic is that the 747-8F is a much better cargo plane than the A380F and together with the 777F has killed the whale jet freighter project.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5730
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:07 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 52):
The nail in the A380F's coffin I think is the lack of a nose door, not for speed of loading or unloading, but because its a fundamaental restriction on what you can carry inside.

 checkmark 
That plus the difficulty of loading the second deck as well as limitations on 2nd deck floor capacity.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 53):
Essence on this topic is that the 747-8F is a much better cargo plane than the A380F and together with the 777F has killed the whale jet freighter project.

It again shows up Joe Sutter's foresight in designing the 747 to be suitable as a freighter; he figured it would be supplanted by SST's, which didn't happen, but the fact that the 747 has proved to be the best freighter flying has made it a much more valuable plane. The A380 will never be so lucky.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
EI321
Posts: 5072
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:11 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 54):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 52):
The nail in the A380F's coffin I think is the lack of a nose door, not for speed of loading or unloading, but because its a fundamaental restriction on what you can carry inside.


That plus the difficulty of loading the second deck as well as limitations on 2nd deck floor capacity.

Plus, a nose door would be a bit pointless on the A380, as there is limited height inside each of the two main decks to make use if it.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 54):
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 53):
Essence on this topic is that the 747-8F is a much better cargo plane than the A380F and together with the 777F has killed the whale jet freighter project.

It again shows up Joe Sutter's foresight in designing the 747 to be suitable as a freighter

Was'nt the 747 concept originally concieved as a purpose designed freighter?

[Edited 2007-02-13 12:36:51]
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:34 pm

No, the 747 was designed to be a passenger plane from the start. The second deck evolved because it was assumed that the SST program that was hogging nearly all the resources at boeing would become the primary mover of passengers and that building in the capability to be a good freighter would extend the life of the program. I don't think they would have gotten away with the "novel" second deck for flight deck and "storage/crew rest" as intended, but as the first widebody once they sold the widebody concept to the buyer, everything else was easy to package as "the way its done". So if the 747 had followed say a 767, I don't think it would have had the hump at all, and it was Boeing's good fortune to have this dual capability built into the very extreme of the market in terms of size. Clearly the 747 killed as much profit as made for the airline industry as a whole in the passenger segment thanks to rampant miss-use of it over the decades, but freighters are a different story and I don't think anyone managed to find a way to run themselves under using a 747F.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:36 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 54):

It again shows up Joe Sutter's foresight in designing the 747 to be suitable as a freighter; he

 checkmark 

Quoting EI321 (Reply 55):

Was'nt the 747 concept originally concieved as a purpose designed freighter?

Lockheed made the race with the C5A. Boeing's design did not please the air force but was commercially much more viable, as we all know (now).
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5730
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:41 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 55):
Was'nt the 747 concept originally concieved as a purpose designed freighter?

No, it was originally conceived as a double decker; that's what Pan Am wanted. Joe Sutter was chief engineer of the project, and he decided that the double decker idea had a lot of problems, one of which was its unsuitability as a freighter. The big project at Boeing at the time was the SST, the 747 was just a sideline. Sutter figured that once the SST came the 747 would be relegated to freight, and that's why he was concerned about making it suitable as a freighter, which included putting the cockpit on the second deck. He also decided that an extra wide single deck would be more comfortable than a double deck, and built mockups of both to convince Pan Am, which he did. Joe Sutter just released a book about his role in the 747, aptly titled "747". It's a great read.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
EI321
Posts: 5072
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:52 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 58):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 55):
Was'nt the 747 concept originally concieved as a purpose designed freighter?

No, it was originally conceived as a double decker; that's what Pan Am wanted. Joe Sutter was chief engineer of the project, and he decided that the double decker idea had a lot of problems, one of which was its unsuitability as a freighter

Would love to see pictures of that original double decker. [BTW I was refering to the original 'concept' behind the 747, not the actual aircraft that was produced in the end]

Funny enough, I was watching a programme about the A380 a few evenings ago. It showed the four main double decker design concepts that were developed in the 90s:
1. The MD12
2. The A3XX (which of course became the A380)
3. A Boeing/Airbus joint design study for a double decker VLA (looked a bit like the A3XX)
4. Boeings own double decker. This was the one that Im most intrested in. It looked like a modified 747 witrh a full upper deck. The Tailfin and nose profile looked the same as the 747s, has anybody got more info on this aircraft????

[Edited 2007-02-13 12:54:26]
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:06 pm

the origional double decker was... a narrowbody. Think of it as two 707 stacked on each other with just one wing. (only 3 deck and one oval, not figure 8 style)

I think thats what really made them break away from "how its done" and create the first widebody. two 707's stacked just screams bad plan when you get down to it. What really sold Pan Am on the widebody is just how big the 747 was... it was 20ft wide inside, a whole ROOM. not a thin tube with another deck of thin tube below it. So Pan-Am felt they could sell seats just on the fact that it was different, new, and special compared to the existing narrow body airliners.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5730
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:20 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 57):
Boeing's design did not please the air force but was commercially much more viable, as we all know (now).

The 747 did not derive from the C5 competition; it was a clean sheet design. None of the leaders of the C5 proposal worked on the 747.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:37 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 61):
The 747 did not derive from the C5 competition; it was a clean sheet design. None of the leaders of the C5 proposal worked on the 747.

Did I say that? The air force tender for a large military transport was issued oin 1960 and Lockheed, Boeing and Douglas competed, Lockheed won the tender.

The Boeing design was then developed commercially and became the 747. The work on the SST design (Boeing 2-707) started in 1967, when the 747 program was in full swing and was stopped in 1971 because of the astronomical costs.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5730
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:21 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 62):
The Boeing design was then developed commercially and became the 747. The work on the SST design (Boeing 2-707) started in 1967, when the 747 program was in full swing and was stopped in 1971 because of the astronomical costs.

According to Joe Sutter (the chief engineer on the 747) the SST program was the main focus of Boeing when he was selected to head the 747 program, which was why he was chosen (he was quite junior at the time). The SST development actually started about 1961; it was given government support in 1967 (another argument against government financing of airliners.) Congress withdrew funding in 1971, killing the project. Sutter stated unequivically that he took nothing from the C5 project. As stated earlier, the original concept was for a double decker, and Sutter made the decision to go to a widebody. I don't know what the C5 proposal looked like, but it most definitely was not what the 747 became, unless Joe Sutter is a liar, which I doubt.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
EI321
Posts: 5072
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:34 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 63):
the SST program was the main focus of Boeing when he was selected to head the 747 program,

Have you seen the Boeing SST episode of 'Planes that never flew'? Excellent stuff. I think its on Discovery.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:46 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 62):
The Boeing design was then developed commercially and became the 747.

No, sir, that's not correct. The unsuccessful Boeing design for the CX-HLS competition looked very much like what we know today as the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy. Boeing started anew with the 747 - it is not derived from the design for the military transport in any significant way.
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27615
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:21 am

The original double-decker 747 was eventually rejected as they were concerned about being able to evacuate it in a reasonable amount of time.

The only picture I recall seeing of it was an episode of The History Channel's "Modern Marvels" about the 747 program. Joe Sutter (?) was holding a model of it in the "yellow and red" colors of the DASH 80.
 
patroni
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 1999 7:49 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:52 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 47):
No freight forwarder has a full load from a single place in the US to a single place in China 4 times a day. You pay a net rate to a carrier to get your custoemr's frfeight from A to B. What you worry about is how to make a profit on that businesss. You could not give a damn how many stops the plane makes en route.

Definitely. But my point is that there simply will not be as much freight going from the US to China as in the opposite direction due to the trade imbalance. So I - from an airline perspective - would rather send a light aircraft nonstop from the US to China to maximise its utilisation and make the fuel stop on the heavy sector back from Asia. Payload increase through fuel stops is a nice theory, which only works if there actuall *is* cargo to be flown!
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:01 am

Quoting Patroni (Reply 67):
Definitely. But my point is that there simply will not be as much freight going from the US to China as in the opposite direction due to the trade imbalance. So I - from an airline perspective - would rather send a light aircraft nonstop from the US to China to maximise its utilisation and make the fuel stop on the heavy sector back from Asia. Payload increase through fuel stops is a nice theory, which only works if there actuall *is* cargo to be flown!

Just to make a fine point the trade imbalance has more to do with money than tons. The US sends high volumes of raw materials and chemicals to Asia and they get back finished goods. The raw materials are far more dense, and far less valuable than the goods that are shipped back. One major trend in the air cargo industry is cargo density which is being driven by various raw material and semi finished goods manufactures in North America. These items are increasingly finding themselves on airplanes rather than ships these days. The air cargo business is generally one way but not in an obvious way. Freighters are not routinely going out dead empty and coming back chock full of whatever Asian manufactured goods. There are plenty of "tons" that fly in both directions...


-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:46 am

Quoting Patroni (Reply 67):
Definitely. But my point is that there simply will not be as much freight going from the US to China as in the opposite

There is an imbalance but as Widebodyphotog has already lined out, freight forwarders and airline marketing departments are trying to find new customers and new commodities to avoid empty flights. Or look at the routing FX and UPS -and the QF freighters operatted by Atlas - have - sending loaded freighters to Australia, take these aircraft from there to Asia (likely with meat or produce) and go back to the sstates full with export goods from Asia.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
patroni
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 1999 7:49 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:43 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 68):
Just to make a fine point the trade imbalance has more to do with money than tons.

I must admit that I am not too familiar with the details of the transpac market. However the trade statistics which I saw recently (believe based on customs data) showed airfreight in metric tonnes. And there the imbalance was significant.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 69):
Or look at the routing FX and UPS -and the QF freighters operatted by Atlas - have - sending loaded freighters to Australia, take these aircraft from there to Asia (likely with meat or produce) and go back to the sstates full with export goods from Asia.

It is definitely the best solution if an airline can fill the aircraft on all sectors, even with a "detour", but one important requirement for the QF scenario which you describe is the availability of traffic rights. If QF would not have 5th freedom rights from Asia to the US it could not make use of this nice routing.

Besides - the article which I critizised spoke of a route OAK-PVG via ANC. Would you chose ANC as a tech stop for e.g. OAK-MEL? Or not rather HNL?
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:11 am

Can I just say - fantastic thread guys, well done to all involved - a credit to a-net.

So nice to keep away from all the AvsB rubbish and actually LEARN something.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:27 pm

Quoting Patroni (Reply 70):
It is definitely the best solution if an airline can fill the aircraft on all sectors, even with a "detour", but one important requirement for the QF scenario which you describe is the availability of traffic rights. If QF would not have 5th freedom rights from Asia to the US it could not make use of this nice routing.

Besides - the article which I critizised spoke of a route OAK-PVG via ANC. Would you chose ANC as a tech stop for e.g. OAK-MEL? Or not rather HNL?

The nice thing about traffic rights is that they are reciprocal. "You give me 5th freedom for PVG-ANC-US and your guys get 5th freedom SYD/MEL - Asia". That's the way the Mercedes Bends. These "great circle" USAUSTRASIA flights are a perfect example of making the optimal use of resources.

I certainly would not route an OAK-MEL flight with a tech stop in ANC. HNL is the logic on that route. But - comparing HNL with ANC - HNL could never take the position ANC has if it was centered in a similar traffic main stream. Simply because the hubbing could take pleace before HNL is reached either at ONT, OAK or MHR. HNL would then simply be a tech stop like KHV is for some Kalitta or Evergreen 741/742 oldies on the way back home.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5730
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:05 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 66):
The original double-decker 747 was eventually rejected as they were concerned about being able to evacuate it in a reasonable amount of time.

That was only one of the concerns, but it probably was the one that tipped the balance. Joe Sutter was very concerned with making the 747 suitable for a freighter, and he also felt that the double decker felt too confining. He was also concerned that there would not be enough space for baggage, let alone air freight.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:40 am

This is a passenger question but since WideBodyPhotog's table is referenced here (thanks WBP), I'll ask it anyway.

According to the table, the seat bottom width in Y is 17.2 (748) versus 18.0 (A380), and using this measure (with equal seat bottom widths for F and C) one gets passenger counts of 467 and 555, the most often quoted figures.

My question (many times discussed before, but for the first time with reasonable data to speak from) is how close is this apples to apples in seatcount qualitatively? F and C we can assume is equal, and for Y, I can see it is apples to apples, but with the A380 being a nice Baldwin and the B747 being a smaller Granny Smith.

My basic questions stems from the recent A380 flight for the press where journalists commented on the space in Y and the armrest room. Does the A380 in Y with the 18 inch seat bottom also include the wider armrests for the 555 passenger count?
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:55 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 73):
Joe Sutter was very concerned with making the 747 suitable for a freighter, and he also felt that the double decker felt too confining. He was also concerned that there would not be enough space for baggage, let alone air freight.

he was also concerned that it would weigh too much.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27615
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:08 am

Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 74):
My question is how close is this apples to apples in seatcount qualitatively?

Both Boeing and Airbus use slightly different seating standards and Airbus uses more Economy seats while Boeing uses more First and Business seats.

As such, one really can't compare the manufacturer's products direct to direct, especially since the airlines themselves will have significant variation in seats per row and pitch, especially in First and Business Class.

To get the most accurate numbers, one needs to diagram the cabin floor space for each plane being compared and then physically fit in the correct seat type with the correct pitch for the airline in question, along with galley space, lavatory space, and closet/storage space.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:37 am

Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 74):
My question (many times discussed before, but for the first time with reasonable data to speak from) is how close is this apples to apples in seatcount qualitatively? F and C we can assume is equal, and for Y, I can see it is apples to apples, but with the A380 being a nice Baldwin and the B747 being a smaller Granny Smith.

It's generally assumed that Boeing and Airbus use the same international seating rules for their generic examples and presentations. Seat widths only determine seats per row, smaller seats can be fit in a smaller cabin width to get the same number of seats per row as larger seat bottoms and cabin widths. Since the seats are the same except for the seat bottoms the only difference is just that. The A380 has wider seats in the OEM generic configuration. Is that so much of a concern? Not really as each operator chooses seat/isle width based on a number of factors with just one of them being the physical dimensions of the aircraft. Service and supplier commonality, market acceptance, and cost being a few more of them. We should not get in a twist over generic seat widths as for example, on the 777 9 abreast seat widths range from 16.5 to 18.5 inches depending on the airline!...

In the cargo world none of that matters however. ULD's are ULD's they have standardized base dimensions and contours. Some containers are desgned for specific aircraft, and pallets are generically compatable and can be built to the appropriate contour for the aircraft being loaded. The criteria that make an effective freighter are practical volume utilization and payload/range/cost performance.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
patroni
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 1999 7:49 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:16 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 72):
The nice thing about traffic rights is that they are reciprocal.

The nasty thing at traffic rights is though that it's not all that easy in reality...  Wink

Any my statement that I doubt that you will have one full 747 westbound for each 747 eastbound still stands...
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:55 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 57):
Lockheed made the race with the C5A. Boeing's design did not please the air force but was commercially much more viable, as we all know (now).

The aircraft that Boeing bid to the Air Force in no way resembled the eventual 747. The design study simply proved to Boeing that such a large aircraft was possible.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:17 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 79):
The aircraft that Boeing bid to the Air Force in no way resembled the eventual 747. The design study simply proved to Boeing that such a large aircraft was possible.

Big version: Width: 500 Height: 229 File size: 16kb
Boeing CX-HLS


-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
EI321
Posts: 5072
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:24 am

Looks really like a 747 with a C-5 like high wing.
 
EI321
Posts: 5072
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:27 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 79):
The aircraft that Boeing bid to the Air Force in no way resembled the eventual 747.

Apart from the smaller tailfin and high wing configuration, that photo looks really like a 747! Im guessing one of the reason pure freighters tend to have high wings (C5, Herc, C141, C17, AN124, etc) is to have the engines far away from runways that may not be in great shape.

[Edited 2007-02-14 23:30:01]
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11231
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:43 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 82):
Im guessing one of the reason pure freighters tend to have high wings (C5, Herc, C141, C17, AN124, etc) is to have the engines far away from runways that may not be in great shape.

It's also so you can drop the nose of the aircraft to the ground for loading. Low wing isn't good for this, ever seen how close the 74's engines get if the nose wheel collapses (I think there was a pic of one posted not to long ago but I can't find it now)? Not good at all (apart from the nose gear collapsing!  Smile ).

Tug

[Edited 2007-02-15 00:01:04]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
EI321
Posts: 5072
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:58 am

Does the 747 retain the fuselage cross section / width of that aircraft?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27615
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:39 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 84):
Does the 747 retain the fuselage cross section / width of that aircraft?

The Air Force wanted a cargo area 17.5 feet wide. A 747's main deck is 20 feet wide and the C-5's is 19 feet, so it might have. However, the CX-HLS would not have had the underfloor cargo bays a 747 does as the main deck floor would have been much closer to the ground and the underside would have been more flattened and closer to maximum width,

So the 747's cross section should be quite different from the CX-HLS' even if they share some dimensions (which would have probably been driven in part by the desire to make the 747 capable of carrying military pallets similar to those loaded by the C-5/CX-HLS).
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:48 am

That wing has a different planform than the 747's. It has less sweep, and straight leading and trailing edges.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:57 am

Stitch, I think i did read that the military pallets were a driving force behind the width selected for the 747 as it was assumed that freight companies would use the military sized pallets as easy to agree on standardised size. Regardless it makes sense to design for it as atleast in theory you could sell/lease 747's to the military if they needed alot more cargo lift in a short period of time.
 
pygmalion
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:15 am

A high wing is not for engine height above ground... its for a flat cargo deck that is close to the ground. The center wing box on a low wing aircraft blocks the cargo bay in the middle. If you look at the LCF, you will see that the cargo loading height is 15 feet above the ground. Not good for a military cargo aircraft. High wing aircraft center wing box will restrict load height some times but Military likes loading with out special high lift loading equipment
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5730
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:36 am

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 88):
A high wing is not for engine height above ground... its for a flat cargo deck that is close to the ground.

This brings up another question: why all passenger planes have low wings. Is it because the wing box would interfere with ceiling height? High wings are actually aerodynamically more efficient, as they eliminate the need for dihedral, which increases drag.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27615
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:45 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 89):
This brings up another question: why all passenger planes have low wings.

Not all of them do. BAE and Avro made some high-wing RJs.

I would hazard a guess that it is easier to maintain a low-wing plane, especially the engines (if they happen to hang off it). Also, since fuel is often stored in the wingbox area, a low wing probably makes fuel transfer easier and may help CoG issues.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:54 pm

On a low-wing plane, the landing gear can fold up into the fuselage and wing root fairing. The landing gear of high-wing / low-load-floor freighters retracts into sponsons which add frontal area to the aircraft.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:17 pm

Also it creates a need for a much stronger mid section since on a low wing plane you are putting the wing and landing gear stresses into one single place. So in the air or on the ground, you have one place you need to reinforce, and the rest more or less just hangs off of it.

If you make it a high wing, you need to make that whole section of the plane strong as on the ground the weight of the wings, engine and fuel are on top of that "barrel" section, and in the air it all hangs down from the wings. So you need a wing-box that is strong, and landing gear box that is strong, and to connect the two with a stronger section of the body of the plane. Small aircraft may see more benefit from a high wing since the added weight is offset by not needed to put the engines in places you don't really want to put engines... like say on top of the wing, or way out back tail tail mounted. Plus for small aircraft you can mount larger and thus usually more efficient engines under a high wing.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:20 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 52):
If fast turns ever become a important aspect of cargo operation, the nose loading will become THE WAY to operate cargo.



Quoting Areopagus (Reply 91):
On a low-wing plane, the landing gear can fold up into the fuselage and wing root fairing. The landing gear of high-wing / low-load-floor freighters retracts into sponsons which add frontal area to the aircraft.

An option for high-wing turboprops is to put the gear in the engine nacelles, like on the Fokker F-27. Makes for a rather tall gear, though.

One some high wing aircraft, like the BAe-146 and the F-27, the wing box does protrude into the cabin, but on others, like the ATR-42 and -72, the wing is mounted high enough so that it does not.
 
EI321
Posts: 5072
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:26 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 89):
Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 88):
A high wing is not for engine height above ground... its for a flat cargo deck that is close to the ground.

This brings up another question: why all passenger planes have low wings.

Not all do. Most props dont, probably to allow for propellor diameter. BAE146 has high wing which helps increase lift.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:19 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 81):
Looks really like a 747 with a C-5 like high wing.

to me as well. Stored deep on my hard disk, but I can't remember the source of that information. Just from that picture I would say that Boeing used a lot of design work for the Air Force te3nder on the 747.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:25 pm

yah, you might think that from a picture... but they didn't.

THEY DID NOT USE ANY INFORMATION FROM THE AIR FORCE TRANSPORT PROJECT ON THE 747 PROJECT.

really I wish that could be in bold 48 point font... with a red glow and flashing yellow shadow.

This is like saying that the BAE 146 clearly was descended from this program, and that Airbus should be shutdown and all officers charged with industrial espionage because the A350XWB looks like a 787 with new cockpit windows.

What will convince you of this? clearly not the fact that the engineers on that program were... all off doing other things before the 747 became the third aircraft program Boeing was running at the time. So more or less the 747 got only the very young, or the rare person they could steal from other programs. It was behind the 737 which was behind the SST in terms of priority on resources.

How about the engineering aspect of it? The 747 is different in nearly every single detail that would force a change in the design. The 747 has 2 full decks, and one partial. The USAF plane had 2. I do not know the details of the upper deck on the military program, but its certain that it has nothing in common with the 747 design since the bottom level would have been a flat load floor wide enough for two military pallets, and a minimum loading height so that bipedal spam powered loaders could be used at both ends if required. The 747 has a conventional under floor luggage/cagro holds for the lowest deck, and a flat load floor for the main passenger/cargo deck. Upper deck on the 747 was conceived only to remove the cockpit as a restriction on the nose loading of the freighter variant, and not even intended to have cargo or passengers when first presented to Pan-Am. The high wing placement would have required a wing box, and a second landing gear box with a very strong connection between the two to support the loads as they change from the weight being supported from the landing gear on the ground and suspended from the wings in flight. The 747 needs a much simpler structure given that its supporting the weight from the same wing box regardless if its on the ground or in the air. There would be nothing to gain at all from the USAF program for the 747. different base design, different detail design, and most important different missions. If they were designing a freighter for operating large/heavy loads out of poor/small airfields with minimal support available, I'm sure they would have used the USAF design as a basis. Since they were designing a new large passenger jet for Pan-Am with a expected "second life" as a large freighter... they didn't.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5730
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:43 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 96):
yah, you might think that from a picture... but they didn't.

 bigthumbsup 
Thanks for the reinforcement-I've been trying to say that but the idea penetrates only with great difficulty sometimes.
 wave 
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:51 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 97):

Thanks for the reinforcement-I've been trying to say that but the idea penetrates only with great difficulty sometimes.

well, yes, OK, excuse me for being such a stubborn idiot. I gfo and hang myself now.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5730
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: 747-800F Vs A380F - Operating Cost Comparison

Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:56 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 98):
well, yes, OK, excuse me for being such a stubborn idiot. I gfo and hang myself now.

Hey-don't do that; who will I have to argue with then besides Keesje?
 bored   crazy 
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler

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