Simviation Forum - Next A380 models

Mar 12^th, 2008 at 4:47am

chornedsnorkack Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 363

What are the next A380 models Airbus would build?

Boeing 747-100 entered into service in January 1970. In June 1971, KLM started service of Boeing 747-200, with increased MTOW.

Douglas DC-10-10 entered into service in August 1971. In 1972, Douglas started delivering DC-10-40 and DC-10-30, with new wing, extra middle leg and increased MTOW.

Boeing 707-320 came out not very long after Boeing 707-120.

How much growth capacity is built into the Airbus 380-841?

The MTOW is 569 tons. There are mentions of MTOW like 590 tons, 625 tons, 650 tons...

Airbus 340-600HGW has MTOW of 380 tons and wing area like, 427 square metres. Which is barely more than half the 845 square metre wing area of A380.

If you want to build an A380 model whose wing loading, stall speed and runway length is similar to A340-600HGW, you get MTOW of about 750 tons!

So, what would be the next A380 models? And when would Airbus be ready to deliver them?

Boeing designed and built Boeing 747-400ER to satisfy a single order for 6 planes - the Qantas ones.

Qantas wanted 747-400ER for the MEL-LAX route. 12 800 km, and LAX-MEL is westwards - 747-400 non-ER has payload-range restrictions.

Qantas 380-841 would enter into service on the same MEL-LAX, because SYD-LAX is comfortable for 747, but even 747-400ER still struggles on MEL-LAX.

SQ wants to use A380-841 on HKG-SFO - 11 200 km. SQ was worried that A380 would struggle with payload-range on the westbound side nevertheless. Now that A380 is flying SIN-SYD, they discovered that the fuel burn is several % better than Airbus promised - it would also be better on SIN-LHR and SFO-HKG...

EK plans flying A380 DXB-JFK (11 000 km).

There are a number of routes now flown by A340-500 and B777-200LR. EK has DXB-GRU (12 200 km). PIA has KHI-JFK (11 700 km). Indian has JFK-BOM (12 500 km). Singapore has A340-500 struggling on SIN-LAX (14100 km) and SIN-EWR (15 400 km).

Are there any attractive routes which are slightly beyond the range of the now A380 and which have sufficiently large demand to fill A380-800 rather than A340-500 or B777-200LR?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Mar 12^th, 2008 at 11:40am

expat Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!

Gender:
Posts: 8499

Right now I think it would be more in the direction of the possible growth capacity that has been built into all the airports that are currently expanding or have been expanded. Air Bus, no doubt can do many things with the basic airframe, but if no one can handle or take advantage of these improvements then at the moment it seems a little pointless to invest into that direction. Also it would make sense to break even first and I think they are still a few sales short of that mark.

Matt

PETA People Eating Tasty Animals.

B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Mar 12^th, 2008 at 4:32pm

chornedsnorkack Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 363

expat wrote on Mar 12^th, 2008 at 11:40am:

Right now I think it would be more in the direction of the possible growth capacity that has been built into all the airports that are currently expanding or have been expanded. Air Bus, no doubt can do many things with the basic airframe, but if no one can handle or take advantage of these improvements then at the moment it seems a little pointless to invest into that direction.

Can you explain which airports that already can take 569 ton A380s cannot take 590 ton A380s, and why?
expat wrote on Mar 12^th, 2008 at 11:40am:

Also it would make sense to break even first and I think they are still a few sales short of that mark.

Matt

Why would this make sense?

A380 development costs are borne.

Did Boeing break even with B747-100? Did Douglas break even with DC-10-10?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Mar 13^th, 2008 at 5:13am

expat Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!

Gender:
Posts: 8499

chornedsnorkack wrote on Mar 12^th, 2008 at 4:32pm:

expat wrote on Mar 12^th, 2008 at 11:40am:

Right now I think it would be more in the direction of the possible growth capacity that has been built into all the airports that are currently expanding or have been expanded. Air Bus, no doubt can do many things with the basic airframe, but if no one can handle or take advantage of these improvements then at the moment it seems a little pointless to invest into that direction.

Can you explain which airports that already can take 569 ton A380s cannot take 590 ton A380s, and why?
expat wrote on Mar 12^th, 2008 at 11:40am:

Also it would make sense to break even first and I think they are still a few sales short of that mark.

Matt

Why would this make sense?

A380 development costs are borne.

Did Boeing break even with B747-100? Did Douglas break even with DC-10-10?

Extra 20 to 30 tons weight on a taxi way or ramp. Well the first thing that comes to mind is the max weight the ground surface can take for starters. You cannot just say, nice taxi way, lets go. Max all up weight is not just for aircraft, it is also a very important load and stress factor for the material that the ramp, taxi way and runways are made of.

As for the break even, you think just because an aircraft has been designed and is flying that you can change things at not extra cost. It still costs millions to change the design the tiniest amount. Then you have certification, just because it can fly in one configuration, does not mean you get automatic authority to fly in a converted model. Add marketing, retooling, new or modified production line, the cost just spirals.

Just pushing out a modified aircraft is not as easy as you seem to think it is.

Matt

PETA People Eating Tasty Animals.

B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Mar 13^th, 2008 at 7:54am

chornedsnorkack Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 363

expat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2008 at 5:13am:

chornedsnorkack wrote on Mar 12^th, 2008 at 4:32pm:

expat wrote on Mar 12^th, 2008 at 11:40am:

Right now I think it would be more in the direction of the possible growth capacity that has been built into all the airports that are currently expanding or have been expanded. Air Bus, no doubt can do many things with the basic airframe, but if no one can handle or take advantage of these improvements then at the moment it seems a little pointless to invest into that direction.

Can you explain which airports that already can take 569 ton A380s cannot take 590 ton A380s, and why?
expat wrote on Mar 12^th, 2008 at 11:40am:

Also it would make sense to break even first and I think they are still a few sales short of that mark.

Matt

Why would this make sense?

A380 development costs are borne.

Did Boeing break even with B747-100? Did Douglas break even with DC-10-10?

Extra 20 to 30 tons weight on a taxi way or ramp. Well the first thing that comes to mind is the max weight the ground surface can take for starters. You cannot just say, nice taxi way, lets go. Max all up weight is not just for aircraft, it is also a very important load and stress factor for the material that the ramp, taxi way and runways are made of.

Yes, but A380 has 20 main wheels to spread the weight over.

A340-600HGW has 12 main wheels. So A380 would have to weigh 633 tons to impose the same pavement loads as an A340-600HGW at 380 tons. This is approximate, of course.
expat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2008 at 5:13am:

As for the break even, you think just because an aircraft has been designed and is flying that you can change things at not extra cost. It still costs millions to change the design the tiniest amount. Then you have certification, just because it can fly in one configuration, does not mean you get automatic authority to fly in a converted model. Add marketing, retooling, new or modified production line, the cost just spirals.

Just pushing out a modified aircraft is not as easy as you seem to think it is.

Matt

Yes, it does cost something.

However, any new models of A380 have to meet their own development costs only. It is irrelevant what the original development costs of baseline A380-800 were, and whether or not those were met.

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: