Quoting Keesje (Reply 77): Back to the topic maybe UPS will delay delivery e.g. 1-2 yrs and buy some 330's with discount, just like Thai. Both happy.

Except for the fact that they just bought 27 763Fs which can more or less do what the 330F does. No need to add fleet compexity is there?

According to RATI, Airbus is in talks with UPS to save the order.

Quoting Columba (Reply 99): Before calling the A310 a failure keep in mind that it was the second type of a new manufacturer and many airlines had not as much faith in Airbus back then as they had in Boeing and decided for the 757/767 instead.

Yes, and also keep in mind it outsold the 762 (normal AND ER), it's direct competitor. By a very small margin (less than ten aircraft, not counting the 5 that will never be delivered). So I really would not call the a310 a failure at all.

Quoting Kappel (Reply 102): Yes, and also keep in mind it outsold the 762 (normal AND ER), it's direct competitor.

Add the 757-200 as a direct competitioner of the A310 because it has competed with it as well.
The 757/767-200 were clearly more succesful but they had the bigger homemarket with airlines like AA, Delta and TWA ordering that many 757s and 767s. Nevertheless the A310 was not a failure since it helped Airbus to become what it is today.
P.S. My favorit livery on the A310:

View Large View Medium

Photo © M.Oertle

Quoting CX747 (Reply 76): There are 737-300/400/500Fs flying around though.

Not to be nit-picky, but there's not a single 735F flying around, and we can say this won't change in the future.

Quoting Columba (Reply 103): Add the 757-200 as a direct competitioner of the A310 because it has competed with it as well.

Not really. The A310 is quite a bit larger. If anything, the 757-300 was its competitor.

Quoting Columba (Reply 99): Before calling the A310 a failure keep in mind that it was the second type of a new manufacturer and many airlines had not as much faith in Airbus back then as they had in Boeing and decided for the 757/767 instead.

Look, its not a big deal that the A310 failed. Airbus survived it, and went on to better things. Clearly Boeing never let such stupid ideas as the 720 stop it from going on. All I am asking is that it not be used to prove that Airbus knows whats its doing. I mean the 747SP is nice and all but I would mock anyone who used it to show how boeing is a master of airplane design.

On why there are no A320F's in service now but there is 737F's of the same age? I think a big reason is the -100 is fairly worthless compared to its -200 versions as a freighter. Good enough to make money while you have them, but if you are going to be investing millions into the frame, you want to start with the superior -200. The A320 is also blessed with high demand right as they near that age where airlines have to start thinking hard about replacing them. The older shorter ranged 737 are more common, and already filtering down the food chain of airlines as they were being replaced by A320 and 737NG. So the A320 can't leave the fleets because you can't get a new one to replace it, and the secondary market already has a decent pile of 733s floating around.

Quoting Columba (Reply 73): The A320 is still in demand as a passenger plane and most used A320 find a place with a new pax airline soon. Some older aircraft were already broken up and a freighter conversion would not have made sense anyhow. Conversion of A320F will start around 2010 which is a good date.

And again, I agree with this.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 83): All that does not change the ICAO category, as ICAO have previously stated, both the 380 and 748 are Cat F.

Zeke, while its true the aircraft are technically in ICAO CAT F..... How does that matter when no airport will EVER be required to adopt full CAT F status to see the A380/748 in regular scheduled service. Your flat assertion that the 748 will ONLY be able to fly out of A380 ready airports is laughable. The technical reasons for this are obvious... The 748 interacts with the airport environment much closer to the 744 than it does with the A380. The 748's wings are around SEVENTEEN FEET SHORTER. do you not think that might influence the minimum runway/taxiway centerline separation if you need 34ft overall less distance between the two centerline to allow 748s to pass each other as compared to A380s. I also expect in some cases the extra length of the 748 to restrict it at some airports where the shorter A380 might not be restricted. You also seem to have missed Airbus stating the low % of airports that see 744 usage and their compliance with full cat E provisions despite the 744 being technically a Cat E plane.

Point is both aircraft will get specific rules that a airport must follow before it can see scheduled service from either aircraft. The 748 restrictions will be much closer to the restrictions placed on the 744, as compared to the A380.

Well, the markets have closed. Safe to say no UPS A380 related news today?

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 106): Well, the markets have closed. Safe to say no UPS A380 related news today?

Can't tell you for sure but look for news headlines regarding the A380 F for UPS on some other day. Possibly.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 62): So... how much loved is the A310F?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 62): It has one failed one, the A310 which I can not find the numbers on how many were 200C and 300C versions, but not enough as the whole program was a flop.

This is just wrong. Most of the A310s ever produced have been converted to freighter service, and FedEx is still putting their hands on as many of them as possible.

The A310 and A300-600R have quite a bit of commonality, the systems for the A300-600 having been pioneered on the A310 first.

NS

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 108): This is just wrong. Most of the A310s ever produced have been converted to freighter service, and FedEx is still putting their hands on as many of them as possible.

Again, Converting A310 passenger jets is NOT an airbus program. Airbus sold a "convertable" A310 that was for quick changes between passenger and cargo use. I can not find the numbers for that program, but its clear that it was a tiny fraction if any. Just as I don't see Boeing doing well with the 737 program for quick converting passenger/frieghters except that the military already ordered and paid for them to design it, so might as well offer it to airlines.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 12): That lift-up nose and front loading is just a HUGE advantage in the 747F's favor. When A380 orders were placed, it didn't look as if Boeing was going to respond witha new freighter of their own, then along came the 748F and changed everything. That nose is more important than it gets credit for.

The nose door is but one characteristic that makes the 747 freighter the most versitile freighter in the world. It helps to explain its acceptance in all cargo markets from package freight to general cargo to contract heavy lift and outsize cargo. The A380F by contrast has virtually no outsize cargo capability and has volume all out of proportion to payload, which makes it wonderfully suited for the package freighter segment but leaves general and outsize operators wanting...

Basically Airbus has put all of the A380F's eggs in one basket and it's delayed arrival has upset the operators in the fast moving package freight market. It would be different if the A380 had a 200t payload capacity, but it does not and never will. Airbus needs to thouroughly rethink its freighter strategy to be a formidable competitor to Boeing. The characteristics that have allowed Boeing to dominate, low specific weight, high strength airframes, across a wide range of weight capacities, currently is not a strong suit for Airbus. We will have to wait and see if they can do the about face necessary to gain parity with Boeing.



-widebodyphotog

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 105): Quoting Columba (Reply 99): Before calling the A310 a failure keep in mind that it was the second type of a new manufacturer and many airlines had not as much faith in Airbus back then as they had in Boeing and decided for the 757/767 instead. Look, its not a big deal that the A310 failed.

Contrary to your rather unorthodox beliefs, the A310 was actually very successful, not just as an individual aircraft model, but in the fact that most of its customers went on to buy A330/A340s. The A310 played a very significant part in the eventual realisation of Airbus as the worlds formost producer of civil aircraft.

[Edited 2007-02-17 01:51:57]

I wonder if ups/fedex will order the new 767-200LRF's?

Quoting EI321 (Reply 111): Contrary to your rather unorthodox beliefs, the A310 was actually very successful, not just as an individual aircraft model, but in the fact that most of its customers went on to buy A330/A340s. The A310 played a very significant part in the eventual realisation of Airbus as the worlds formost producer of civil aircraft.

So its a successful program if you only sell 255 frames if you go to the expense of a

1. new wing
2. new tail
3. new fuselage length
4. two major variants

This after others point out that it barely sold more frames than two programs that killed the civilian aircraft programs at two different companies. I very much doubt that they made any money on the program. what other metric would you like to measure it with?

The thread said "a few" days , , Is that a week maybe? Before the 1st of March? ?
Do you think that UPS could maybe take all twenty A380 freighters starting in five years?
I keep reading here that it is a "great" package carrier , , so why not take them all over ten years? That would keep them away from FedEx !
If not the WhaleJet , how many of what do you buy? More 777F & 748F I guess .

Quoting Nitrohelper (Reply 114): Do you think that UPS could maybe take all twenty A380 freighters starting in five years?

I thought about this and this would have been my guess... except UPS just signed up for 767s that have the same lift capacity as a fleet as the A380 order. So going for a double down on the A380 means a TRIPLE capacity addition compared to what they were planning when they originally ordered the A380.

If anything I think they would get a SMALL A330F order to give the type a test drive. However I think they have enough hold over airbus to get their deposits from the A300 back in cash, and this will be used for whatever they want, no need to covert the A380 order.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 106): Safe to say no UPS A380 related news today?

Did you not read my post? According to ATI, Airbus is in talks with UPS to save the order. From the mood of the article it doesn't sound like it's going to happen anytime soon.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 113): 1. new wing

Why a new wing? What's the difference between the A300 and A310 when it comes to the wing? The fact that the A310, unlike the A300, does not have outboard ailerons hardly qualifies for it being a new wing IMO.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 117): Why a new wing? What's the difference between the A300 and A310 when it comes to the wing? The fact that the A310, unlike the A300, does not have outboard ailerons hardly qualifies for it being a new wing IMO

The A310 in fact had a new wing done for it. If it was simply a shorter A300, then yes it would have been a good idea. It wasn't and so it wasn't.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 118): The A310 in fact had a new wing done for it. If it was simply a shorter A300, then yes it would have been a good idea. It wasn't and so it wasn't.

I see what you mean. But what do you mean with "if it was simply a shorter A300"? Are there any more differences between them?

Quoting EI321 (Reply 111): The A310 played a very significant part in the eventual realisation of Airbus as the worlds formost producer of civil aircraft.

That was a short lived distinction.

Quote: Chief Executive Officer James McNerney helped Chicago-based Boeing top Airbus in the dollar value of commercial orders, deliveries and backlogs last year for the first time since 2001. He sped up production to meet record demand after manufacturing problems caused delays and higher costs for Airbus's new A380 superjumbo jet. Airbus still ranks No. 1 in unit deliveries, with 434 planes turned over to customers last year, and forecasts deliveries of 440 to 450 planes this year. Boeing sees as many as 445 airliner deliveries this year and has said it will take the top spot in 2008.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...601103&sid=aq_DpXW2KXL8&refer=news

Which would you rather be: Number One in dollar value of commercial orders, deliveries and backlogs or Number One in unit deliveries?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 113): So its a successful program if you only sell 255 frames if you go to the expense of a 1. new wing 2. new tail 3. new fuselage length 4. two major variants

Funny to read here about whether or not the A310 was a success and in another thread the same arguments about the 767-400 and 757-300.
Regarding the new wing and new tail as well as other improvements of the A310 in regard to the first version A300s many have been adopted to the A300-600 so these developments have been paid off.
Another aspect to the discussion might be that you can not compare the first Airbus models with Boeing or MDD aircraft but with other European aircraft developed before such as the VC10.
The A310 helped Airbus to become a respected manufacturer and many customers that have ordered the A310 ordered the A320 as well as later the A340 and A330.
Again I have to say for the second type of a manufacturer that nobody believed to ever sell copies of their first type 255 is a success. If you add the numbers of the A306s to the that you will get around 700 aircraft. So I would say the development of the new wing, and new electronics and all the other advantages of the A310 to its predecessor that also find their way into the A306 really paid off.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 117): Why a new wing? What's the difference between the A300 and A310 when it comes to the wing?

A300-600:

Wing Span: 44.8m
Wing Area: 260m2

A310;

Wing Span: 43.89m
Wing Area: 219.0m2

767-200/300/200ER/300ER

Wing Span: 47.57m
Wing Area: 283.3m2

Airbus undersized the A310 wing area, giving it no significant growth capability and hamstringing it's range capability. The greater span of the 767 also gave it lower drag and reduced fuel burn compared to the A310. The A310 wing sizing was a serious marketing error and also allowed the 767 to take the bulk of the widebody twin market until the advent of the A330.

Developed models of the 767, ie the 762ER. 763 and 763ER were more responsible for the limited 762 sales than the A310.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 122): The greater span of the 767 also gave it lower drag

  

Funny how this characteristic seems to be completely dismissed when the A380 is under discussion, whilst in reality it's probably one of A380's greatest strengths..........

It's particularly dismissed when we discuss the A380F where the discussion seems to be completely limited to the difference in OEW, and nose doors.......

Regards

Astuteman, re:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 123): It's particularly dismissed when we discuss the A380F where the discussion seems to be completely limited to the difference in OEW, and nose doors.......

I know you probably know a thing or two about fluid dynamics (for those of you who don't know aerodynamics is a subset thereof). You therefore also know that while the 380 may have decuded drag due to it's wing, it will have a higher drag due to it's larger surface area. You will also undoubtedly know that while the drag may be lower and the plane better from a pure aerodyanmic perspective, that it does not necessarily offset the weight disadvantage the plane has versus something like the 748F (I say necessarily because it really is going to depend on the mission profiles, and how full the aircraft is in terms of max operating weight).

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 124): I know you probably know a thing or two about fluid dynamics (for those of you who don't know aerodynamics is a subset thereof). You therefore also know that while the 380 may have decuded drag due to it's wing, it will have a higher drag due to it's larger surface area.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 122): The greater span of the 767 also gave it lower drag

You might want to address your comment to OldAeroGuy. He brought the subject up (and probably knows more about the aerodynamic functioning of the wing than I do..)

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 124): You will also undoubtedly know that while the drag may be lower and the plane better from a pure aerodyanmic perspective, that it does not necessarily offset the weight disadvantage the plane has versus something like the 748F (I say necessarily because it really is going to depend on the mission profiles, and how full the aircraft is in terms of max operating weight).

Didn't say it did.
My point was that any positives, no matter how minor, relating to the A380 or A380F, are not only dismissed, but in most cases "not even allowed" on airliners.net, but are fine if applied to a Boeing product.
In this case I happen to think the positive might not be minor, whilst accepting that in all probability it will not be positive enough.
Tip for you, though. You might want to keep that open mind, and questioning eye on A380 Pax version CASM discussions......  

Regards

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 122): A300-600: Wing Span: 44.8m Wing Area: 260m2

whoa noticed something strange, the A300B2 has a 1,850NM range and the A300B4 has a 3,400NM range. What did airbus change between the first and second model to nearly double the range? Was it just the extra 13K lbs MTOW or was there deeper changes to the model?

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 123): Funny how this characteristic seems to be completely dismissed when the A380 is under discussion, whilst in reality it's probably one of A380's greatest strengths..........

unfortunately the A380s lower drag due to the large wing... is offset by EVERYTHING being oversized for the "900" they were planning with. Still it shows in the efficiency of the A380 at the limits of its payload range chart if you are willing to take the airbus public numbers as accurate.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 126): whoa noticed something strange, the A300B2 has a 1,850NM range and the A300B4 has a 3,400NM range. What did airbus change between the first and second model to nearly double the range? Was it just the extra 13K lbs MTOW or was there deeper changes to the model?

Does the B4 have a 3400NM range ? I thought it was a bit less, but anyway...

Not only the MTOW was changed, there were also additional tanks and some modifications to the wing leading edge high lift devices. Maybe more powerful engines, but I'm not sure about that.

Quoting ATCGOD (Reply 116): Did you not read my post? According to ATI, Airbus is in talks with UPS to save the order.

Yes, I read your post. Wouldn't it be a safe bet that Airbus has been in talks to save this order since the latest delay was announced?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 115): UPS just signed up for 767s that have the same lift capacity as a fleet as the A380 order

Wo says the 767s are not DC8 replacements.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 120): That was a short lived distinction.

That does not change what I said, airbus are still the worlds formost producer of civil aircraft

[Edited 2007-02-17 15:08:21]

Quoting EI321 (Reply 111): Contrary to your rather unorthodox beliefs, the A310 was actually very successful, not just as an individual aircraft model, but in the fact that most of its customers went on to buy A330/A340s. The A310 played a very significant part in the eventual realisation of Airbus as the worlds formost producer of civil aircraft.

  
It is not fair to call the A310 a failure, just as it would be unfair to call the Boeing 247 or Stratocruiser a failure, even though none of them made money. It is what they led to that is important. The thought that anyone could break into the airliner market and only build "successful" airliners is laughable. Every company has to go through a learning curve, and every company has to build a reputation with its customer base. The fact that during the time Airbus was establishing itself in the field Lockheed, which was one of the most illustrious names in the field, was being pushed out speaks volumes. The fact remains that Airbus is at present the leading producer of airliners (even though that may be shortlived, at the moment it is the case) cannot be denied and the A310 helped get them there. Just remember what followed the A310.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 108): The A310 and A300-600R have quite a bit of commonality, the systems for the A300-600 having been pioneered on the A310 first.

Correct, the A300R is practically an A310 with the A300 fuselage length & an upgraded A300 wing. Both have the intermediate cockpit design, between the original A300 and the A320/A330/A340 cockpit.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 105): Quoting Zeke (Reply 83): All that does not change the ICAO category, as ICAO have previously stated, both the 380 and 748 are Cat F. Zeke, while its true the aircraft are technically in ICAO CAT F

Wait a minute, then why have you recently been insisting that this is incorrect, that it was NOT CAT F? :

Quote: Quoting AutoThrust (reply 280) Nope, it will be ICAO Category F same as the A380 wich most here seem to forget. It is even longer then the A380. Quoting XT6Wagon (reply 281): Wrong, I don't know why you are posting that it will be ICAO category F...

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 105): How does that matter when no airport will EVER be required to adopt full CAT F status to see the A380/748 in regular scheduled service.

It matters when you try to park it at a gate which cannot accommodate its wingspan.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 105): Quoting Columba (Reply 99): [quote=XT6Wagon,reply=109]Airbus sold a "convertable" A310 that was for quick changes between passenger and cargo use. I can not find the numbers for that program, but its clear that it was a tiny fraction if any.

Sub models like the A310-200C are as inexpensive to develop as they are unsoughtafter [should I ask you how many 757C's were sold?]. Manufacturers will usually do them at the request of just one airline, in the case of the A310-200C that airline was martinair.

[Edited 2007-02-17 16:10:36]

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 122): The greater span of the 767 also gave it lower drag and reduced fuel burn compared to the A310. The A310 wing sizing was a serious marketing error and also allowed the 767 to take the bulk of the widebody twin market until the advent of the A330.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 123): Funny how this characteristic seems to be completely dismissed when the A380 is under discussion, whilst in reality it's probably one of A380's greatest strengths..........

The issue isn't span, it is aspect ratio. All else remaining equal a wing with a higher aspect ratio will have lower induced drag when compared to a wing with a lower aspect ratio. This holds well for the tube with wings that are modern jet transports. AR can be calculated in these instances using the following equation AR = b*b/S or AR = span squared over wing area

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 122): A300-600: Wing Span: 44.8mWing Area: 260m2A310;Wing Span: 43.89mWing Area: 219.0m2767-200/300/200ER/300ERWing Span: 47.57mWing Area: 283.3m2

Using these numbers A300-600 has an aspect ratio of ~7.7, the A310 of ~8.8 and the B767 of ~7.9. The other issue is wing loading since induced drag trends with the square of the lift coefficient. The wing loading for the heaviest A310 is around 750 kg/m2 while for the B767-3ER it is about 650kg/m2.

The A380's problem is that in order to fit in the 80x80 box the wing is span limited. This forces its aspect ratio down, it is only ~7.5.

Of course the larger the aspect ratio the heavier the wing, hence why we do not typically see glider type aspect ratios on commercial transports.

As an aside It is more accurate to use span squared divided by wetted area when comparing disparate aircraft's performance. This is more useful when looking at a blended wing body or similar.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 59): The first few parts went into production in May 2006 IIRC.

The following parts for the A380F were under production as of October 2006:
- fuselage panels
- wing and centre wing box
- landing gear components
50% of the required structural design drawings had been released by then.
Source: Airbus Letter 2006.

Quoting Brendows (Reply 135): - wing and centre wing box - landing gear components

What exactly is the difference with these between the Passenger and Freighter model?

Quoting EI321 (Reply 136): What exactly is the difference with these between the Passenger and Freighter model?

Some differences:
Strengthened fuselage sections (more fuselage sections will include GLARE)
Strengthened wing box
Strengthened landing gear
Brakes on all 20 wheels on the MLGs.
A higher MTOW
Uprated engines
IIRC, the height of the main deck is increased (-> lower height on the upper deck) to accommodate higher loads on the main deck (the height is increased by about 10cm.)
AlLi floor beams instead of the Al + CFRP floor beams on the A380p.
Strengthened floor, to handle higher loads.
The A380F will have a upper deck courier area in the crown in front of the upper cargo deck, with a stair up from the 1L door.
The A380F has an optional fuel tank in the centre wing box, that can hold another 45850litres of fuel.)

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 123): Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 122): The greater span of the 767 also gave it lower drag Funny how this characteristic seems to be completely dismissed when the A380 is under discussion, whilst in reality it's probably one of A380's greatest strengths..........

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 125): Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 124): I know you probably know a thing or two about fluid dynamics (for those of you who don't know aerodynamics is a subset thereof). You therefore also know that while the 380 may have decuded drag due to it's wing, it will have a higher drag due to it's larger surface area. You might want to address your comment to OldAeroGuy. He brought the subject up (and probably knows more about the aerodynamic functioning of the wing than I do..)

You're both right, but it is a question of degree. Induced drag in unit force terms is proportionate to the weight/(wing span^2). The lower this parameter is, the lower induced drag will be. Now let's look at some aircraft data. (We're assuming all the wings have approximately the span load distribution.

A312:

Wing Span: 43.89m
MTOW:142t
MTOW/(Span^2): 73.72

762:

Wing Span: 47.57m
MTOW: 142.9t
MTOW/(Span^2): 63.14

A388:

Wing Span: 79.8m
MTOW: 560t
MTOW/(Span^2): 87.94

748i:

Wing Span: 68.5
MTOW: 440t
MTOW/(Span^2): 93.77

The 762 and the A388 were airplanes that started life in a similar situation. Both had their wings sized for future growth. This meant that drag wise they were penalized by having greater wing wetted area than would have been required if they were point designed for their initial mission.

The A312 and the 748i were more point designed with more minimal wing areas for their design missions.

In the case of the A312 vs the 762, the additional wing area did not penalize the 762 severely compared to its rival since it was more than offset by better induced drag due to its 16.7% better span loading.

For the A380, the growth wing area wetted area it is carrying will be more penalizing since it's span loading advantage over the 748i is only 6.6%

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 129): Wouldn't it be a safe bet that Airbus has been in talks to save this order since the latest delay was announced?

Well, seeing how everyone on a.net thinks the cancellation is a foregone conclusion I figured that an article directly related to this link on ATI was an important thing to post. The gist of the article is that Airbus has been in talks with UPS all week trying "desperately" to save this order.

Quoting Toulouse (Reply 51): Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 25): We can't do it so we'll sour grapes about the whole thing and down play it and poo-poo it like everything else Boeing does (but secretly we're going to copy the idea shortly). Don't know what they mean, but they've already done in on their Belugas, so I'm sure they could have done it on the 380F.

Since placing the A380 flight deck at a midpoint between the upper and lower passenger decks was deemed by Airbus optimal for a double-decker designed mainly as a passenger airplane, a nose-loading door wasn't an option. No point in comparing it with the Beluga, a special-purpose freighter. Airbus COULD have given the A380F a nose door ONLY if it had designed it with a raised (ala 747) or lowered (ala Beluga) flight deck, although structural matters associated with the double-deck design might also have been obstacles. Whatever, I think the lack of a nose-loading door is secondary to the deficiency against the 748F and 777F in carrying higher density cargo and pallets larger than 8' high. However, it's NOT over for the A380F until U.P.S. says so - let's not assume it's dead although the signs aren't encouraging.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 140): Airbus COULD have given the A380F a nose door ONLY if it had designed it with a raised (ala 747) or lowered (ala Beluga) flight deck, although structural matters associated with the double-deck design might also have been obstacles.

Theres the problem of the position of the upper cabin floor, as the structual integrety of the fuselage is dependant on it. So even if you moved the cockpit to a location similar to that on the beluga, the upper floor would still render a front loader design pointless, unless of course you found a way of elimitating the upper level floor on the A380F, which would certainly require large amounts of structural alterations.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 133): Wait a minute, then why have you recently been insisting that this is incorrect, that it was NOT CAT F? :

Do you have to be dense? It could technically be in CAT G or CAT Z and it wouldn't matter if it could fly into every CAT E airport that has a nicer fire engine. Zeke and others have been insisting that the 748 and A380 will share the same requirement to operate out of only FULL CAT F AIRPORTS. Which a 5min google search proves to be completely wrong for the A380, and the assertion that the 748 will face the same airport compatibility requirements as the A380 is, I'm sorry, laughable. Also think of it this way, the A380 would be out of CATF if it got .5m extra wingspan. So winglet your A380 instead of the little fence thing, and its now technically in a whole new category. Do you think you would suddenly be restricted from all A380 airports that are not up to that category? No. It would at most require that the A380 compatible airports you fly it into recheck the centerline separation numbers against the new wingspan and the size of the spot you want to park it at.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 133): It matters when you try to park it at a gate which cannot accommodate its wingspan.

If you can park it at a given gate does NOT depend on the category of the airport, and as you have asked about this and I have answered... I have no idea why you said this. The A80 and 748 use different size "boxes" and so actualy have somewhat different compatiblity issues as compared to a 744. The 748 has a minimial increase in wingspan thanks to the new wingtips, and a fairly signifgant increase in length. The A380 has a 11meter longer wingspan making it ALOT wider than a 744, yet the length is not too different. Again gate compaiblity has nothing to do with the ablity to operate the aircraft on your runways and taxiways.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 120): Which would you rather be: Number One in dollar value of commercial orders, deliveries and backlogs or Number One in unit deliveries?

Exactly. Cessna is #1 worldwide in terms of deliveries, but they lose big time in other metrics.  

Quoting EI321 (Reply 131): That does not change what I said, airbus are still the worlds formost producer of civil aircraft

"Foremost" is a subjective term. What does it mean? It could mean "more technologically advanced," in which case it is arguable. If it just means "shipping the most >100seat airframes out the door," then I will grant you that. If it means "best at squandering two years and lots of goodwill," then I will also grant you that.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 142): Do you have to be dense? It could technically be in CAT G or CAT Z and it wouldn't matter if it could fly into every CAT E airport that has a nicer fire engine. Zeke and others have been insisting that the 748 and A380 will share the same requirement to operate out of only FULL CAT F AIRPORTS. Which a 5min google search proves to be completely wrong for the A380, and the assertion that the 748 will face the same airport compatibility requirements as the A380 is, I'm sorry, laughable.

I did not say that if you care to reread my posts.

The 380 and 748 share the same ICAO airport compatibility category, Cat F. The aspects of the airport compatibility that are of a concern are runway and runway pavement widths (for instrument and non instrument runways), parallel taxiways, bridges, signage, taxi lines, bridges, holding points, and parking spaces. Many aspects between Cat E and F are the same which you have not made clear in your posts, and I believe this is why you have a perception that they will be able to operate from any Cat E airport. Your flippant remarks (e.g. "a nicer fire engine") regarding airport compatibility is of some concern considering the number of ground based accidents that occur, the standards that are in place as a result of many past accidents and incidents.

Your passion and bias towards Boeing products is noted, could I ask you to refrain using this passion and bias from putting words in my mouth.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 49): 1. 748F will have no trouble using 99% of the existing 744 facilities and equipment, not true for the A380F

With the increased wingspan the 748 airport compatibility reduces as it will not be able to fit into Cat E parking spaces (sub 65m).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 144): The 380 and 748 share the same ICAO airport compatibility category, Cat F. The aspects of the airport compatibility that are of a concern are runway and runway pavement widths (for instrument and non instrument runways), parallel taxiways, bridges, signage, taxi lines, bridges, holding points, and parking spaces. Many aspects between Cat E and F are the same which you have not made clear in your posts, and I believe this is why you have a perception that they will be able to operate from any Cat E airport. Your flippant remarks (e.g. "a nicer fire engine") regarding airport compatibility is of some concern considering the number of ground based accidents that occur, the standards that are in place as a result of many past accidents and incidents.

yes, and please show where either will be subject to the full exact letter on any of the other aspects of Cat F. While its hard to find exactly what they are requiring in the more detailed aspects, as far as I have been able to find the A380 will require separations that are based on two A380's passing each other on adjacent taxiways with a modest buffer. I do not know if that is in effect full Cat F separation or a reduction from it, but in what I have read it was NOT based on a fixed number handed down for Cat F.

More over, you seem to not accept that 744's operate daily out of airports that do not conform to full Cat E standards. Or that airbus claims that MOST operate under such conditions. Or that Airbus created an agency/group to get the A380 minimum airport standards as close to Cat E as they could get. Which it has done so for most nations that will see A380 in commercial service.

If you would like to prove your assertion that both the A380 and 748 will be subject to the same regulations for airport compatiblity, provide actual documents stating so. If you want me to believe that the A380 will be subject to full Cat F regulations, you only have to provide evidence. I found in a few minutes a nice and easy to read guide to the rules that New Zealand will be using for their airports. Which is in no way close to CatF standards in many ways.

OK, I started reading this thread when it started but lost interest with the endless speculation after about post number 20. I haven't heard any "big" news since. Did I miss something? Or do I have to read all 144 posts to catch up????????

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 146): OK, I started reading this thread when it started but lost interest with the endless speculation after about post number 20. I haven't heard any "big" news since. Did I miss something? Or do I have to read all 144 posts to catch up????????

Nope, "it" has not been announced yet. Seems to be par for the course in the industry though as a "order to be placed next month" can take one or two years to finally get finished and signed.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 142): Quoting EI321 (Reply 133): Wait a minute, then why have you recently been insisting that this is incorrect, that it was NOT CAT F? : Do you have to be dense?

If you feel that you must resort to personal insults then its simply a sign of the lack of substance behind almost everything you post. Ive seen quite a few members like you pop up on this site, but fortunatly most tend to get banned within a few months. Your reply has absolutly nothing to do with my question, I asked why your claims about the 748 and its requirements completly contradict themselves from one thread to another.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 142): Zeke and others have been insisting that the 748 and A380 will share the same requirement to operate out of only FULL CAT F AIRPORTS.

Yet again you are trying to create a perception that fools members into believing that somebody said something that they in fact did not. There is however somebody that you are fooling. It not me. Its not Zeke. Its you.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 144): I did not say that if you care to reread my posts. The 380 and 748 share the same ICAO airport compatibility category, Cat F. The aspects of the airport compatibility that are of a concern are runway and runway pavement widths (for instrument and non instrument runways), parallel taxiways, bridges, signage, taxi lines, bridges, holding points, and parking spaces. Many aspects between Cat E and F are the same which you have not made clear in your posts, and I believe this is why you have a perception that they will be able to operate from any Cat E airport. Your flippant remarks (e.g. "a nicer fire engine") regarding airport compatibility is of some concern considering the number of ground based accidents that occur, the standards that are in place as a result of many past accidents and incidents. Your passion and bias towards Boeing products is noted, could I ask you to refrain using this passion and bias from putting words in my mouth.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 146): Did I miss something? Or do I have to read all 144 posts to catch up????????

According to ATI on Friday, Airbus has been trying very hard to save the order and was in negotiations with UPS all week long.