Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Lift Capability

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Anzac View Post
    https://www.aviationbusinessnews.com...oeing-737-800/

    Quite a detailed article on the business side of the 738 aircraft for P2F conversion.
    Interesting but not the whole story.
    Feedstock is key to any conversion program and that is driven by the market value of the aircraft. Many people wondered why it took Airbus so long to bring the A320neo family to the market when it was clear from the C-Series that the new PW engines offered such a fuel burn improvement. Well in addition to relatively low fuel prices the other main factor was protecting the value of aircraft the customer already had. When Boeing introduced the NG to replace the Classic the value of the Classic aircraft drop by halve within a period of 18 months. Naturally the airlines and lessors that had Classics were not too happy.

    People had looked at A320 conversions before. There was a big effort about 12 yrs ago but it came to nothing as the feedstock costs were too high. Fast forward a few years and just like what happened with Boeing, Airbus introduces a new generation of A320, and although better planned for, we again see a dramatic drop in the market value of A320's. Also we start to see a lot of earlier aircraft enter the second hand market. And one thing that most overlook is that the biggest customers of single aisle aircraft B737/A320 are lessors and their business case is very different from a traditional aircraft. They constantly look how to maximize their return of investment, so they look at how much they earn by leasing or by parting out the aircraft (turning it into spares). Now as aircraft get older they need more care and their performance compared to the latest generation can be 20-30% worse. So now we see 8, 10, 12, 15yr old B373 & A320 being scrapped. (It is not just the big boys like the A380)

    With regard to the 737-800 feedstock, that would be coming online if Boeing did not have had a few little issues with the 737MAX. As the numbers of MAX aircraft entered the market it would have driven down the -800 market value rapidly. But now we have Coronavirus and the forecast from IATA are not good.

    covid-19-outlook-for-air-travel-in-the-next-5-years (2).pdf

    They expect a 40% reduction is the amount of travel for aircraft like the B737 & A320 and that the market will take at least 2 years to recover. That means not only will the be less new aircraft manufactured but there will be a lot of people sitting with aircraft, costing them money for a long period of time. This will have a massive effect on the market value of potential feedstock. Some will be parted out to reduce the cost of new spares for those aircraft still flying, others will just be scrapped as they were nearing the end anyway but a lot will still remain and as it costs money to park an aircraft companies will be doing a lot to reduce those costs. Thus if you are in the market for a B373-800, A320 or A321 P2F conversion there has never been a better time than now.
    Last edited by EUFighter; 18 May 2020, 07:33.

    Comment


    • Plenty of supply of nice used 320/737, but no QC version is currently available and there is no commercial appetite to build and certify such a kit.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
        Plenty of supply of nice used 320/737, but no QC version is currently available and there is no commercial appetite to build and certify such a kit.
        Do not get hung up on QC, this like the use of combi aircraft has fallen out of use in the ordinary commercial field.
        We are talking an aircraft for military operations. If we take the KC46, they have a large main deck door so that the main deck can be used for cargo or mixed cargo/passenger transport. The French Air Force will have some of the A330 MRTT's with the same capability. and looking further afield IAI Bedek did a conversion of a B767 for Columbia to have cargo or passengers on the main deck.

        What is involved is that first a cargo door and CLS are needed and these are available on the market at present. If you want a Multi-role Transport, then (a) there will need to be kept some of the PAX doors as active (this is what limits the KC46 to around 50 PAX), (b) there needs to be kept the services for PAX, so toilet and galley (usually the aft), (c) there needs to be palletized seats.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
          Plenty of supply of nice used 320/737, but no QC version is currently available and there is no commercial appetite to build and certify such a kit.
          PEMCO are going through the STC process for the 73NG right now.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post

            (this is what limits the KC46 to around 50 PAX)
            Though without 463L pallets on the main deck the KC-46A can seat 114 pax using RoRo palletised seating.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Anzac View Post
              Though without 463L pallets on the main deck the KC-46A can seat 114 pax using RoRo palletised seating.
              Yes and this is the what the USAF wanted and are paying handsomely for it.

              In the P2F conversion you take out all the PAX equipment , not just seats, but ballet, WC and most importantly the Oxygen system and Pax service units, you can't just slide in seats on rails without the other equipment.

              If there were such a conversion for the 321/737 that would be interesting, but therre currently isn't. Its questionable whether there is any commercial appetite for a QC narrow body.

              The wide body's have so much more real estate and can keep galleys, WC's etc and still have a full load floor on the main deck. Have a look at the crew seats and galleys on aircraft like the 777F and MD-11F.

              The MRTT and KC-46 were designed and certified with this capability. There might be a real danger here of the AC having a Unique aircraft type and all the associated costs and difficulties that go with that.

              If a commercial operator picks up the tab and is using the same system, then the aircraft becomes a very viable option on cost grounds given the low prices of feed stock.

              Comment


              • We need something that can operate from Baldonnel (even if it needs to be repositioned for loading).

                What’s the biggest Airbus that could operated unloaded/loaded?
                Last edited by DeV; 18 May 2020, 11:08.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  What’s the biggest Airbus that could operated unloaded/loaded?
                  I think it would be a 320 at 77T MTOW, Balanced field is listed at 6070ft. Thats standard day nil wind.

                  IIRC 29/11 is 6001ft, Airbus stated when the 319ACJ was on the cards that it would not be limited out of Bal, that was at 77T.

                  a 321 would have a significant payload penalty out of Bal.

                  Comment


                  • I'm sure the Main at baldonnel is long enough to take any unladen aircraft that uses Cork airport, given their runways are almost the same length. Cork once took a B747 for demonstration purposes. 1800m is plenty. It's your local residents that would pose the problem, with the sudden surge in noisy circuits on 29/11 by large jet aircraft.
                    A380 won't fit, it needs 3000m
                    A319 would struggle to take off but could land no problem.
                    A318 would scrape it.
                    A330 could just about land but zero room for error. It couldn't take off though.
                    A350 is also out.

                    Is there a case to be made for extending the runway? No residential area of note on the west of the airfield, apart from that located at the end of the runway on Aylmer road. Space for another 1000m of runway anyway.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                      I'm sure the Main at baldonnel is long enough to take any unladen aircraft that uses Cork airport, given their runways are almost the same length. Cork once took a B747 for demonstration purposes. 1800m is plenty. It's your local residents that would pose the problem, with the sudden surge in noisy circuits on 29/11 by large jet aircraft.
                      A380 won't fit, it needs 3000m
                      A319 would struggle to take off but could land no problem.
                      A318 would scrape it.
                      A330 could just about land but zero room for error. It couldn't take off though.
                      A350 is also out.

                      Is there a case to be made for extending the runway? No residential area of note on the west of the airfield, apart from that located at the end of the runway on Aylmer road. Space for another 1000m of runway anyway.
                      Weston is possibly more of an issue

                      Comment


                      • An A321neo could get out 29/11 @ 195,000lb which is about 25,000lb below MTOW.
                        An A321ceo could get out of 29/11 @ 185,000lb, so 35,000lb less than MTOW.
                        Higher optional MTOW weight are available and the situation is similar on the A320 as to the A321.

                        For a B767-300 it could get out of 29/11 @ 350,000lb which is some 60,000lb below MTOW. Still enough to do the trip to Beirut.

                        All figures are a guide only and based upon best weather conditions, and what must be remembered that runway 23/05 is only 4800ft.

                        Comment


                        • JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources.


                          Commercial Intratheater Airlift: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Use in U.S. Central Command

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                            I'm sure the Main at baldonnel is long enough to take any unladen aircraft that uses Cork airport, given their runways are almost the same length. Cork once took a B747 for demonstration purposes. 1800m is plenty. It's your local residents that would pose the problem, with the sudden surge in noisy circuits on 29/11 by large jet aircraft.
                            A380 won't fit, it needs 3000m
                            A319 would struggle to take off but could land no problem.
                            A318 would scrape it.
                            A330 could just about land but zero room for error. It couldn't take off though.
                            A350 is also out.

                            Is there a case to be made for extending the runway? No residential area of note on the west of the airfield, apart from that located at the end of the runway on Aylmer road. Space for another 1000m of runway anyway.
                            Don't be so sure about the A380, I know at least one recently retire French test pilot would be more than willing to show that 6,000ft is plenty of room. Getting it out also if the aircraft hadn't broken the runway due to its weight, would also be possible. It is all a question of what weight you fly, at MTOW no way but a light A380 can put in a awesome performance.

                            I mentioned the runway breaking like happen a little airport in France where BA sent some A380's. So the PCN has to match the ACM, runway strong enough, taxiway wide enough, turnoff radius big enough, lights and signs in position they will not be damaged and no building (or anything else) in an area where the wake vortex will cause damage.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                              Don't be so sure about the A380, I know at least one recently retire French test pilot would be more than willing to show that 6,000ft is plenty of room. Getting it out also if the aircraft hadn't broken the runway due to its weight, would also be possible. It is all a question of what weight you fly, at MTOW no way but a light A380 can put in a awesome performance.
                              I mentioned the runway breaking like happen a little airport in France where BA sent some A380's. So the PCN has to match the ACM, runway strong enough, taxiway wide enough, turnoff radius big enough, lights and signs in position they will not be damaged and no building (or anything else) in an area where the wake vortex will cause damage.
                              A380 PCN is less then a 777-300er. Taxi routes and wingtip clearance are more limiting, as are ground service equipment etc.

                              At light weighs the 380 is a spectacular performer, remember that mostly when you see large transport category aircraft departing they are using reduce thrust.
                              On a four engined airliner that is permitted up to 40% of rated thrust. In the majority of cases 380's are using max flex!!

                              380 would have no problem landing and stopping in Bal, getting it turned around and out would be a different story.

                              I think you might be surprised at a 330 out of 1800m, but still very limited. 330 has better runway performance then the 767.

                              321 is too limited out of Bal, EICK is 7000ft so is far less limited.
                              Last edited by Charlie252; 18 May 2020, 12:54.

                              Comment


                              • EINN is even better at 10,495ft and there are all the MRO around to do the support.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X