Hacker News Reader

Comment by seanmcdirmid | Hacker News Reader

The 787 replaced the 767 in Boeing's lineup, which in turn was competitor of the 350. The 747 is still incredibly successful for cargo, so the 380 didn't replace it; it is absolutely nuts that AirBus didn't come up with a cargo version of the 380 yet.

Next up is the 777, which has higher capacity than the 787/350. However, it is modern enough that it can probably just be upgraded, no new plane is needed.

View on HN

The Airbus competitor to the 767 is the not the A350, it is the A330, which is ubiquitous outside of NA in the medium haul market. It has been an extremely successful plane for Airbus and will likely continue to be so with the A330neo.

While each company's offerings overlap somewhat, the A350 is a substantially larger plane and competes with the 777.

Widebody twin 2-class capacity (variants):

  767  | 216 / 261 / 296
  A330 |       246 / 300
  787  |       242 / 290 / 330
  A350 |                   325 / 366
  777  |                   313 /     / 396
  777X |                         365 / 414

I stand corrected, thanks! The 767 is replaced by the 787 still (well, the 767 is still in production for non passenger uses), which exists in the space as a smaller wide body.

There was a 380 cargo version. It was not economical for operators to fly and all the initial orders were cancelled. It was called the 380F.

The A380 doesn't make sense for cargo. Too much volume for the weight it can lift. At the average plane cargo density, an A380 cargo would be at weight capacity way before it gets to volume capacity.[1]

The A380 cannot lift much more than a B747. But it has more volume, which comes in handy for passengers, not for cargo.

[1]: https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen...

edit: 747 n° mistake

The A380's useful payload is actually less then a 747 freighter. The added weight of the aircraft itself, plus the extra fuel necessary to get and keep it airborne, eats up all the extra takeoff weight capacity and then some.

777 has incredible range, the current 777-LR (worldliner) still flies further than the 787. I think Boeing will upgrade the 777 with better composites and engines, but I doubt 777 will be die anytime soon.

The 777X program is already well advanced, with first flight expected sometime next year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X

You can't just take the seats out and fill it with boxes? What else is needed for a cargo plane?

Usually you need special flooring with tie-downs and rollers to facilitate moving the load around, which helps maintain an appropriate CG (Center of Gravity).

Purpose-built freighter models also remove things that aren't necessary and just add weight - such as windows (packages don't need a view). This allows the carrier to transport more cargo in the same flight.

You need a good way to get the boxes on and off the plane, such as the 747 freighter's nose door [1]. The A380 can't be fitted with one of these due to its cockpit placement.

The 2nd floor of the A380 also can't be removed because it's required structurally, and that really limits the size of the cargo you could potentially put in it.

1: http://www.aerospace-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites...

Supposedly the A380 also has a max weight that would not use all the available volume for cargo.

"The A380-F would be able to carry 60% more volume than the 747, but only 28% more weight."

https://www.flexport.com/blog/airbus-a380-no-cargo-equivalen...

Is that a restriction? Are cargo planes typically flying at weight capacity? I thought with ecommerce, more lower-weight items are now flown.

The A380's maximum takeoff weight is 575,000kg, compared to 447,700kg for a 747-8 freighter. However, the A380 -- sitting empty on the ground -- weighs 80,000kg more to begin with, and also requires more fuel (because of its greater mass).

The result is that the useful payload of an A380 is lower than a 747-8F (about 84,000kg versus 132,000kg).

And that's without getting into the other issues, like the A380's structural middle-deck (which can't be removed to turn the interior into a giant cargo hold) or inability to have its nose turned into a large cargo door like a 747 (the A380's flight deck is too low to the ground, in order to maintain training compatibility with the A330 and A340).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com