Airbus A380 in Arizona

In article ,
User wrote:
Spotted on Interstate 10 about 75 miles east of Tucscon, Arizona, on
the afternoon of 11/17:

A large convoy of trucks guiding an oversized load. The oversized
load appeared to be a fuselage section about 75 feet long, and
significantly larger in diameter than a 747. And the whole package
was labeled "Airbus A380". (Sorry I don't have more detail. It was
my brother who saw this. Briefly. From the opposite lanes of
traffic. And since I work in the commercial aircraft industry he
called me to see if I knew what it was.)

Probably parts for the Boeing 787. That's wider than anything
currently in commercial service (and many of the newer jets are
already noticeably wider than a mere 747).

When I was up in Seattle a few weeks ago on a visit to Boeing
I got to look around the passenger cabin mockup they use to show
prospective customers. I also saw, sitting on the runway, one
of the custom-built freighters they have made to ferry 787 parts.

In article ,
John Francis wrote:
* In article ,
* User wrote:
* Spotted on Interstate 10 about 75 miles east of Tucscon, Arizona, on
* the afternoon of 11/17:
*
* A large convoy of trucks guiding an oversized load. The oversized
* load appeared to be a fuselage section about 75 feet long, and
* significantly larger in diameter than a 747. And the whole package
* was labeled "Airbus A380". (Sorry I don't have more detail. It was
* my brother who saw this. Briefly. From the opposite lanes of
* traffic. And since I work in the commercial aircraft industry he
* called me to see if I knew what it was.)
*
* Probably parts for the Boeing 787. That's wider than anything
* currently in commercial service (and many of the newer jets are
* already noticeably wider than a mere 747).

That's factually incorrect. The 787 will probably be deployed in a 2-4-2
configuration in economy, which is somewhat narrower than the 2-5-2 (or
3-3-3) configuration in use on the DC-10 (and derivatives) and the 777, not
to mention the 747's 3-4-3 configuration.

Boeing's site lists the width of the 787 at 18 feet, 11 inches; the 747 is
21 feet, 4 inches. The 777 is listed as being 20 ft 4 in wide.

By comparison, it appears that the A380 will have a 2-4-2 configuration on
the upper deck and a 3-4-3 configuration on the lower deck. Wikipedia says
that the width of the A380 will be 23 ft 6 in.

p
--
paulf | Some days you're the bug;
@ | Some days you're the windshield.
panix | ------------------------------
.com | http://paulfrankenstein.org/

In article ,
John Francis wrote:
* Probably parts for the Boeing 787. That's wider than anything
* currently in commercial service (and many of the newer jets are
* already noticeably wider than a mere 747).
*
* When I was up in Seattle a few weeks ago on a visit to Boeing
* I got to look around the passenger cabin mockup they use to show
* prospective customers. I also saw, sitting on the runway, one
* of the custom-built freighters they have made to ferry 787 parts.

That's factually incorrect. The 787 will probably be deployed in a 2-4-2
configuration in economy, which is somewhat narrower than the 2-5-2 (or
3-3-3) configuration in use on the DC-10 (and derivatives) and the 777, not
to mention the 747's 3-4-3 configuration.

Boeing's site lists the width of the 787 at 18 feet, 11 inches; the 747 is
21 feet, 4 inches. The 777 is listed as being 20 ft 4 in wide.

By comparison, it appears that the A380 will have a 2-4-2 configuration on
the upper deck and a 3-4-3 configuration on the lower deck. Wikipedia says
that the width of the A380 will be 23 ft 6 in.



--
paulf | Some days you're the bug;
@ | Some days you're the windshield.
panix | ------------------------------
.com | http://paulfrankenstein.org/

Paul Frankenstein wrote:
That's factually incorrect. The 787 will probably be deployed in a 2-4-2
configuration in economy,

Boeing admitted that most 787 customers will outfit their planes with 9
across. So 2-5-2, 3-3-3- or 2-4-3

To answer the original poster, the fuselage sections for the A380 are all
built in Europe.

There is no aircraft capable of transporting a fuselage setion for the
A380. There are special barges used to transport such sections, and one
ship capable of transporting sections from england and spain to france (and
barged up the river and then trucked to toulouse).

At this point in time, one would expect Airbus to have stopped producing
A380 parts, and it is conceivable that many parts would be available for a
tour to demo/showcase them. However, if that had been the case, there would
have been publicity about it. And the logistics to transport those parts
are huge and costly.

A simulator may require oversized transport trucks. Or some machines used
to build some A380 parts (there are many A380 parts built in the USA) might
also require special transport arrangements.

"John Francis" wrote....

Probably parts for the Boeing 787. That's wider than anything
currently in commercial service (and many of the newer jets are
already noticeably wider than a mere 747).

When I was up in Seattle a few weeks ago on a visit to Boeing
I got to look around the passenger cabin mockup they use to show
prospective customers. I also saw, sitting on the runway, one
of the custom-built freighters they have made to ferry 787 parts.


I suspect that what he saw was a combination of wry humor and a chunk of the
fuselage of one of those a/c specially rebuilt to haul "Wide Loads" on its
way from the boneyard to scrap, Tucson being the site of the US's largest
boneyard. There's one model built on the "chassis" of the old Boeing
Stratocruiser/C-97 which has an enormous diameter.

TMO

I suspect that what he saw was a combination of wry humor and a chunk of the
fuselage of one of those a/c specially rebuilt to haul "Wide Loads" on its
way from the boneyard to scrap, Tucson being the site of the US's largest
boneyard. There's one model built on the "chassis" of the old Boeing
Stratocruiser/C-97 which has an enormous diameter.

Those "Pregnant Guppy" type of planes have been around a while,
actually. The need originated with the space program, which had to
transport bulky (up to 20 foot diam.), albeit not proportionately
heavy, objects without either the delays of sea cargo or the need to
close roads and find a way around every low bridge and power line
between the manufacturers' sites and vehicle assembly -- especially
problematic in when the Interstate highway system was still young and
partial.


Boeing recently turned a used 747 into a "Large Cargo Freighter" that
they say is for in-house use to transport fuselage sections, as well as
wings, for the 787.
(http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers.../ts_sf05.html).
The Airbus equivalent is nicknamed the "Beluga" for instantly obvious
reasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga)

I don't know whether either of them would be quite up to A380 fuselage
sections, nor whether that would even be needed. They use specialized
ships and barges for the big parts, except some or all of the
empennage, which goes via Beluga, I think. Getting A380 pieces to
look like an airplane involves dizzying logistics and a lot of modes
and miles of surface transport. Probing around on
http://www.airbus.com/en/ gives an idea (hopefully there's a non-Flash,
low-graphics version for those who don't have broadband).

Cheers,
--Joe "Oversize load" Chew

On 5 Dec 2006 16:14:36 -0800, "Ad absurdum per aspera"
wrote:


I suspect that what he saw was a combination of wry humor and a chunk of the
fuselage of one of those a/c specially rebuilt to haul "Wide Loads" on its
way from the boneyard to scrap, Tucson being the site of the US's largest
boneyard. There's one model built on the "chassis" of the old Boeing
Stratocruiser/C-97 which has an enormous diameter.

Those "Pregnant Guppy" type of planes have been around a while,
actually. The need originated with the space program, which had to
transport bulky (up to 20 foot diam.), albeit not proportionately
heavy, objects without either the delays of sea cargo or the need to
close roads and find a way around every low bridge and power line
between the manufacturers' sites and vehicle assembly -- especially
problematic in when the Interstate highway system was still young and
partial.

There's a Super Guppy on static display at the Pima Air and Space
Museum here in Tucson off I-10 on the south edge of Davis-Monthan
Air Force Base and the "Boneyard",
http://www.sarimage.com/Aviation/DavisMonthan/ .

It's grotesquely monstrous.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

There's a Super Guppy on static display at the Pima Air and Space
Museum here in Tucson off I-10 on the south edge of Davis-Monthan
Air Force Base and the "Boneyard",
http://www.sarimage.com/Aviation/DavisMonthan/ .

It's grotesquely monstrous.

Yes, that was more or less my first thought upon seeing one at El Paso
years ago. There is something just *wrong* about it, less reminscent
of the sleekness of an airplane or even an airship than... I dunno; an
engorged aluminum tick. A giant-brained alien from the cover of an old
sci-fi paperback. Some deep-sea creature that was brought to the
surface too fast. You don't even expect it to be unloaded through
a cargo door so much as split open and spawn its cargo. Yet I
couldn't take my eyes off it -- just stood there recalibrating my
assumptions of what can and can't fly; not just in terms of the shape
but what those seemingly tiny wings and engines might accomplish.
Fascinating in a surreal sort of way.

--Joe

"Ad absurdum per aspera" writes:


I suspect that what he saw was a combination of wry humor and a chunk of the
fuselage of one of those a/c specially rebuilt to haul "Wide Loads" on its
way from the boneyard to scrap, Tucson being the site of the US's largest
boneyard. There's one model built on the "chassis" of the old Boeing
Stratocruiser/C-97 which has an enormous diameter.

Those "Pregnant Guppy" type of planes have been around a while,
actually. The need originated with the space program, which had to
transport bulky (up to 20 foot diam.), albeit not proportionately
heavy, objects without either the delays of sea cargo or the need to
close roads and find a way around every low bridge and power line
between the manufacturers' sites and vehicle assembly -- especially
problematic in when the Interstate highway system was still young and
partial.


How are the airlines moving spare 767/777 style engines around?

In the 707 era, UAL at least had a 707/DC8 with a 3rd pylon to
carry the inbound for repair or outbound for installation engine,
esp. to Hawaii...


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

David Lesher wrote:


How are the airlines moving spare 767/777 style engines around?

I live in the same town as a major P&W rebuild center.

I see many, many, engines come and go on drop-center trailer trucks,
pulled by tractors with massive sleepers, satellite TV, etc... They're
more like tractor trailer campers than trucks. There seems to be a
major specialty industry moving engines. I really doubt these trucks
would be practical for a trip of less than a few hundred miles.