Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Airbus Curtails Production Of A380 Freight Superjumbo
Manufacturing.net ^ | 1 March 2007 | David Rising

Posted on 03/01/2007 12:56:24 PM PST by magellan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: ccmay

LOLOL. DC-3's need an airfield?


41 posted on 03/02/2007 6:29:00 AM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jambe

True, but we are talking about European egos here.


42 posted on 03/02/2007 6:41:22 AM PST by Redleg Duke (Heaven is home...I am just TDY here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gridlock

just wait until the A350XWB gets close to launch...

They will have over 7 years to reverse engineer the entire 787. If they can't produce something better given that advantage, they are toast.


43 posted on 03/02/2007 9:04:40 AM PST by Proud_USA_Republican (We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Proud_USA_Republican

Then they are toast. I don't think they can do it.


44 posted on 03/02/2007 9:11:24 AM PST by gridlock (Isn't it peculiar that no matter what the problem, the government's solution is always "more taxes")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
The problem with a conventional fuselage airplane like the A-380 and the 747 is developing jet engines that size and fitting it under the wings... and the trust that is needed.
I am not saying it's impossible, just very difficult to do.
45 posted on 03/02/2007 1:57:23 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

Opps... I meant,,, developing a twin engine plane like the size of the A-380 , 747


46 posted on 03/02/2007 2:01:00 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
The problem with a conventional fuselage airplane like the A-380 and the 747 is developing jet engines that size and fitting it under the wings... and the trust that is needed.
I am not saying it's impossible, just very difficult to do.

But that will probably happen within the next 15 years. the GE90-115 has been tested at 130,000 pounds of thrust. It will probably take an engine with at least 150,000 pounds of thrust for a twin engined CFRP 747 replacement. It will come out a long time before the A380 gets the desired rate of return for Airbus. Also, if Boeing were to develop a 747 sized blended wing body composite aircraft, its possible they might be able to be able to mount three engines in the rear. This would eliminate the necessity of developing a very large engine that would have a demand for a very low number of units.


47 posted on 03/02/2007 2:08:30 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: magellan

Thank you, UPS for sticking it into them and breaking it off!
Go Boeing!!!!!!
USA! USA! USA! USA!


48 posted on 03/02/2007 2:09:11 PM PST by Riptides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magellan

It never made sense for FedEx or UPS in the first place. I have no idea what they were thinking buying an airplane that takes until after 1030 am just to unlosd, maybe currying favor with Airbus at the time in regard to other issues (FedEx flies a lot of A310's)?


49 posted on 03/02/2007 2:14:40 PM PST by cookcounty (How odd. Lee Hamilton now employed by Sandy Berger: stonebridge-international.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo

The part about Boeing being petrified is pretty funny. Hey, guess what, Air bus, Boeing can deliver their jets on time!


50 posted on 03/02/2007 6:54:57 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("Logic" is as meaningless to a liberal as "desert" is to a fish.--Freeper IronJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Proud_USA_Republican; gridlock
If they can't produce something better given that advantage, they are toast.

The reason Boeing wandered in the wilderness all the way up to the 707 is the airlines had a perception of them as the one manufacturer that didn't shoot straight with them. They figured Boeing would pretend to listen to their concerns and then foist a half-hearted re-engineering of their military aircraft on them. Airbus is going to have a very serious credibility problem if they don't get this plane "off the ground," and not being Boeing is not going to be enough to sell their airplanes. This will be especially true in categories where there are several players, because an airline can write off Airbus and still have two or three options to choose from.

Trust issues are a big, big problem, much bigger than engineering, and Airbus bought themselves a big one by trying to screw UPS.

51 posted on 03/02/2007 7:09:23 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("Logic" is as meaningless to a liberal as "desert" is to a fish.--Freeper IronJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: skeptoid

I think Randy compares apple with bananas.

The 787-8F can carry 140 t payload at a range of about 8.000 km. The A380F carry 150 t more than 10.000 km. Up to this range the 787-8F can only carry 110 t.

But what does FedEx, UPS or DHL needed most - mass or volume? The Airbus can handle 1.7 times more volume.


And no doubt for Randy on an Airbus containers are more than one and half times heavier than on a Boeing.


52 posted on 03/06/2007 2:45:09 AM PST by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
I think Randy compares apple with bananas.

Look at the numbers he uses (he says 380 #'s are Airbus' claim).
With the figures in the graphic, the max dry weight (minus tare) of the -8F is 312; 393 for the 380F.
That translates to a Revenue Payload fraction for the -8 of 43%; 36% for the 380F. This is NOT MTOW; this is max DRY WEIGHT (minus tare) from the numbers in the graphic.

And no doubt for Randy on an Airbus containers are more than one and half times heavier than on a Boeing.

There is NO doubt that the A 380 F has three cargo decks vs two on the 747-8F, and the -8F has big doors and 'full frontal' loading. The 380F will certainly need more containers for 3 decks vs 2, and perhaps one and half times more 'tare' per trip! It will also take longer to load; perhaps much longer.

So then it would seem that the 747-8F will burn a lot less fuel per tonne/mile than the 380F, and the longer the route, the greater the trip cost difference.

These are raw, rough numbers, but they are certainly valid in this comparison, no?

53 posted on 03/06/2007 11:15:15 AM PST by skeptoid (BS, AE, AA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
BTW, the graphic is from a Boeing guy and it's been up since April '06. I hope they still believe it.
54 posted on 03/06/2007 11:30:15 AM PST by skeptoid (BS, AE, AA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: skeptoid
"These are raw, rough numbers, but they are certainly valid in this comparison, no?"

No.

"There is NO doubt that the A 380 F has three cargo decks vs two on the 747-8F, and the -8F has big doors and 'full frontal' loading. The 380F will certainly need more containers for 3 decks vs 2, and perhaps one and half times more 'tare' per trip! It will also take longer to load; perhaps much longer."

This is just guessing. With the same cargo you got the same containers whether you got 2 or 3 decks.

There are two doors on booth planes for the lower cargo compartments and two doors on the other decks. With the same number of containers or pallets it would be the same time but with more you will probably need more time.

I don't know in which business you are but most parcels we get are very lightly. I won't think weight is the problem with the standard cargo for parcel services. Volume is it.


Ups, no A380F at all?
55 posted on 03/07/2007 1:32:16 AM PST by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
No.

The comparison is NOT valid??
Again, the graphic has been posted by a Boeing executive for over ten months, and it compares a 747 (in production for 37 years), against the A380 (flying for almost two years).
What's not to trust?

.

With the same cargo you got the same containers whether you got 2 or 3 decks.

Maybe it would be possible to load the same payload using the same number of containers on both 747 and 380, but in the real world, you move what the customer wants to move. Boeing claims it can move it like this if you like.
And these are supposedly each company's own figures. The Weight a minute comparison uses Boeing's numbers for the 747 and Airbus' numbers for the 380.
I'm assuming Airbus knows why the 380F carries 50% more tare to deliver 5% more payload.

.

....most parcels we get are very lightly. .... Volume is it.

Agreed that more loads are cube limited rather than max weight, and I would like to see Airbus publish a comparison showing it's advantage over the 747-8F for volume optimized loads.

56 posted on 03/07/2007 10:32:19 AM PST by skeptoid (AE, AA , MBS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: magellan

bump


57 posted on 03/07/2007 10:33:09 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson