I just read a recent news article from Turkey stating that Airbus is looking at producing some new Belugas based on the A340-600 Frame.
This is obviously quite a bit larger, most obviously in length, but would they increase the diameter?
What would they use this aircraft for? The same role as the current Beluga (just using it to increase capacity as sales increase) or would it be able to fit A380 parts in too (those that don’t fit in the current Beluga?
This could mean that Airbus has officially decided to go ahead with this exciting project.
http://www.habermonitor.com/en/haber/detay/airbus-turkey-has-offered-a-special-package-f/132197/
Sorry about the poor translation, there are a few other Turkish based news stories on this.
Edit, just found some more info (searching for A340 beluga instead of ‘Beluga Ex’
It will have a fuselage width of 11.2m (the A300 Beluga has 7.4m, and Dreamlifter 8.4m!), so it will be MASSIVE, and should be able to transport A380 parts, the current system does seem unwieldy. That is t say it would be the STE in the diagram below, as opposed to the ST (same width at the current Beluga)
By: Flightmech - 30th March 2012 at 15:57
Well theres 4 of them, (an extra 2) for a start compared to the current Beluga!
Why has my post been “moderator edited” Cocrule15?? I though that’s what I wrote to start with?
By: symon - 30th March 2012 at 09:27
The bulkiness will only affect the drag. Which will primarily affect the fuel burn and range capability. Given the wing design, the Trent 500s need to move enough air over the wings to generate the required lift to overcome the weight. So if the wings are at their maximum design capability (size/weight) and the engines are still not powerful enough, then maybe they need to stick four Trent 900s on there!
By: Arabella-Cox - 29th March 2012 at 11:29
Obviously I am aware that lift has to be greater than weight. I was simply musing out loud whether such an unwieldy-looking aircraft would need modification in terms of power plants given the likely weight and bulkiness of what it was being designed to carry.
By: Amiga500 - 29th March 2012 at 10:13
Force due to lift > force due to weight.
No no…
In reality, we’ve installed a bunch of skyhooks which all aircraft everywhere dangle from… 😉
By: symon - 29th March 2012 at 06:51
Force due to lift > force due to weight.
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th March 2012 at 21:09
Thank you Mr Flightmech. I get it now.:)
Still, one has to ask, as a relative layman, how these extraordinary aircraft get off the ground.
By: Amiga500 - 28th March 2012 at 15:33
I have my doubts.
Filton is going to lose the airfield shortly, so no sense having a new Beluga they cannot use to transport parts from all sites.
If that was their strategic thinking, surely EADS would buy the airfield off BAe.
By: Flightmech - 28th March 2012 at 11:24
Well theres 4 of them, (an extra 2) for a start compared to the current Beluga!
By: Arabella-Cox - 28th March 2012 at 09:24
Presumably the engines would be bigger, wouldn’t they?
By: garryrussell - 28th March 2012 at 08:59
Looks impressive
By: pauldyson1uk - 28th March 2012 at 08:48
WOW that would look fantastic 😀
By: lmisbtn - 22nd March 2012 at 10:49
Saw this article (or something very similar) a couple of years ago.
Around the same time there was a model (maybe the model in that pic) listed on ebay for a fairly hefty sum.
Nice idea and good looking plane, maybe it’s now back on the Airbus agenda.
Sign In
March 22, 2012 at 10:37 am