End of the Line for the Dugong
Moderator
Helps if a bit more information is provided! https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47231504
Also known as the Sarah Jessica Parker because it’s ugly and high maintenance
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a shame the big bus is coming to an end, it's just the sign of the times. The world economy is fragile & the aviation sector is at the mercy of that fragile economy. Having flown many Hrs on both types (conventional column & side stick there really is no comparison...…….......civilized pilots eat from a table :-):-)
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,979
Received 107 Likes
on
61 Posts
civilized pilots There’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one!
In my time in and around the Industry I have known quite a few Pilots whom I would have described as 'civilised.'
For me, that term means an "Educated Gentleman" or, an "Educated Lady."
If some would criticise the above as being 'elitist' or whatever, I care not.
And Griffo, I'm sure that you know just where I place you!
Moderator
The world economy is fragile & the aviation sector is at the mercy of that fragile economy.
Boeing had considered larger-capacity versions of the 747 several times during the 1990s and 2000s (Boeing New Large Airplane). The 747-500X and -600X, proposed at the 1996 Farnborough Airshow, would have stretched the 747 and used a 777-derived wing, but it did not attract enough interest to enter development. In 2000, Boeing offered the 747X and 747X Stretch derivatives as alternatives to the Airbus A3XX. This was a more modest proposal than the previous −500X and −600X. The 747X would increase the 747's wingspan to 229 ft (69.8 m) by adding a segment at the root. The 747X was to carry 430 passengers up to 8,700 nmi (16,100 km). The 747X Stretch would be extended to 263 ft (80.2 m) long, allowing it to carry 500 passengers up to 7,800 nmi (14,400 km). However, the 747X family was unable to attract enough interest to enter production. Some of the ideas developed for the 747X were used on the 747-400ER.
Interestingly of the 130 B747-8 delivered so far, 84 (64.6%) were 747-8F freighters. Boeing 747-8 base price $403.6M for 410 pax, three class seating, versus US$445.6M for the A380, typically 555 pax, three class seating.
I wonder whether surplus A380s may eventually turn up in cargo configuration, or whether that is even possible.
The A380 is a great aircraft, hope they survive into the future.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder whether surplus A380s may eventually turn up in cargo configuration, or whether that is even possible.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More importantly, perhaps Airbus should have been watching Boeing research into the market for larger capacity, longer range aircraft?Finally Boeing built the 747-8 largely from the 747-400 base plus existing Boeing technology and has sold 130 at December 2018, whilst the Airbus A380 was a €25 billion new technology project, 234 currently sold and in service and it appears production will cease in the very near future.
Interestingly of the 130 B747-8 delivered so far, 84 (64.6%) were 747-8F freighters. Boeing 747-8 base price $403.6M for 410 pax, three class seating, versus US$445.6M for the A380, typically 555 pax, three class seating.
I wonder whether surplus A380s may eventually turn up in cargo configuration, or whether that is even possible.
The A380 is a great aircraft, hope they survive into the future.
Interestingly of the 130 B747-8 delivered so far, 84 (64.6%) were 747-8F freighters. Boeing 747-8 base price $403.6M for 410 pax, three class seating, versus US$445.6M for the A380, typically 555 pax, three class seating.
I wonder whether surplus A380s may eventually turn up in cargo configuration, or whether that is even possible.
The A380 is a great aircraft, hope they survive into the future.
The smaller Buses will live on, the 380 is just one design that will still feature in aviation for many years to come as the World turns in what seems like ever increasing smaller circles.
The B747 was originally built as a freighter for USAF but lost the competition to the C5A Galaxy. The B747 went on to be a successful pax aircraft and didn't need any where as much re-engineering to convert to a freighter as I believe the A380 would require. Have heard it said a few times by people within the industry who one would expect to know that an A380 freighter is highly unlikely, largely due to conversion cost.
You are correct that the A380 doesn't pencil out as a good freighter - the upper deck would need massive strengthening to take cargo (plus new infrastructure to load other than SLF to the upper deck), and it's MZFW is too low to carry a lot of freight. The only way it might work would be as a combi - with freight on the main deck and passengers on the upper deck - but after the 747 combi Helderberg crash, the new regulations have made it very, very difficult to certify a new combi aircraft.
Moderator
Rather, the 747 was largely the result of a request by Pan Am's Juan Trippe for a very large passenger aircraft....
There was another factor also that greatly benefited the 747, that of range. Pan Am had a number of very long air routes - US into South America and Europe, trans Pacific etc - and was looking for greater payload range, compared to the B707 (-320 3,700 miles). The 747-100 had a range of 4,600 miles, 747SP 5,800 miles and 747-200 6,500 miles.
Whilst the A380's 8,000 mile range offered a great improvement during development, unlike the 747 that for many years reigned supreme in long haul range, the A380 range was rapidly matched by smaller, more flexible and economical twins such as the Boeing 787 (7,400 miles) and now the A350 (8,400 miles).
I suspect a viable limit of commercial passenger aircraft range has now been reached, at 8,000 miles/17 flight hours/one third Earth circumference. Any increase in aircraft range without being matched by a comparable increase in aircraft speed, could prove very unpopular with long haul passengers.
But who knows? The concept of todays air travel and aircraft capability could not even be imagined when my father was born only 6 years after Richard Pearce and the Wright Brothers first flew!
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yes, the "super-guppy's days are numbered for sure now.
Lovely to fly on as passenger, with great service options especially on longer flights.
Lovely to fly on as passenger, with great service options especially on longer flights.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks tdracer, I have happily followed the crowd for years, without checking, and thought the story about the C5A v. B747 was true!
Was the 747 ever offered up as an alternative to the C5A or is it pure mythology from start to finish?
Was the 747 ever offered up as an alternative to the C5A or is it pure mythology from start to finish?
That sort of cross pollination between development programs is common - much of the groundwork for what became the 777 started out with the 7J7 ( rear engine unducted fan - never got past the concept stage). Similarly much of the never launched 'Sonic Cruiser' work ended up being incorporated into the 787.
When the USAF was preparing to buy the second batch of C5 aircraft in the early 1980s - Boeing made a serious bid for the 747 Freighter instead - but it never got very far because the 747 doesn't have the outsized cargo capability of the C5, nor the unimproved field capabilities.