3 ms·

Cargo companies seem to have older fleets and the 767s are being displaced from passenger service and have a cargo conversation option. The a380 doesn't have a

by xvf22 6y ago

Cargo companies seem to have older fleets and the 767s are being displaced from passenger service and have a cargo conversation option. The a380 doesn't have a cargo conversation option as far as I've seen. Plenty of old 747s are in service for cargo flights. Kalitta air has a bunch of older 747s and Atlas has a sizable fleet including some 8Fs.

formercoder 6y ago
Pretty sure I’ve read there will never be a cargo a380 because its max takeoff weight is low compared to its volume.
- csours 6y ago
  I think cause and effect may be chasing each other here. You're not wrong, but also the A380 was not designed to have a high takeoff weight because they never intended it to carry cargo, so it will never carry cargo because it has a low takeoff weight compared to its volume. It was a design decision to be a people mover. [0] 0: https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/ https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen...
  - tormeh 6y ago
    Many low-density things need to be shipped fast, though. But I guess that niche is not big enough.
excitom 6y ago
Interesting point: The original reason for the double deck design on the 747 was to allow the entire nose to be a cargo door. Having an upstairs lounge or first class cabin was side benefit.
- nickff 6y ago
  Boeing looked at many possible configurations for the 747, a full-length double-deck among them (photos exist of such a wind tunnel model). The short top deck exists for a variety of reasons, one of the more interesting ones is that the 747 was designed to be faster than later airliners, so the Whitcomb area rule is a factor in its design, especially noticeable in the -400 model, where the top deck ends above the wing root leading edge.
  - dingaling 6y ago
    Note that the 400 and 800 freighters kept the short bump because the longer upper deck reduced main deck height and impaired cargo handling. That's also the main reason that passenger 400s are seldom converted to freighters.
    - nickff 6y ago
      Thanks for the info (I did not know that)!
oblio 6y ago
> cargo conversation I guess you mean "cargo conversion"?

by xvf22 6y ago

formercoder 6y ago

Pretty sure I’ve read there will never be a cargo a380 because its max takeoff weight is low compared to its volume.

csours 6y ago
I think cause and effect may be chasing each other here. You're not wrong, but also the A380 was not designed to have a high takeoff weight because they never intended it to carry cargo, so it will never carry cargo because it has a low takeoff weight compared to its volume. It was a design decision to be a people mover. [0] 0: https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalent/ https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen...
- tormeh 6y ago
  Many low-density things need to be shipped fast, though. But I guess that niche is not big enough.

excitom 6y ago

Interesting point: The original reason for the double deck design on the 747 was to allow the entire nose to be a cargo door. Having an upstairs lounge or first class cabin was side benefit.

nickff 6y ago
Boeing looked at many possible configurations for the 747, a full-length double-deck among them (photos exist of such a wind tunnel model). The short top deck exists for a variety of reasons, one of the more interesting ones is that the 747 was designed to be faster than later airliners, so the Whitcomb area rule is a factor in its design, especially noticeable in the -400 model, where the top deck ends above the wing root leading edge.
- dingaling 6y ago
  Note that the 400 and 800 freighters kept the short bump because the longer upper deck reduced main deck height and impaired cargo handling. That's also the main reason that passenger 400s are seldom converted to freighters.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Thanks for the info (I did not know that)!

oblio 6y ago

> cargo conversation I guess you mean "cargo conversion"?