Knock/Eirtrade thread

cnocbui · 06-02-2020 9:56pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Economics aside what would exclude them, the shape of a wing or the weight being too heavy? Is there any cross over at all in the engineering considerations of an aircraft wing vs a turbine blade, would have thought both need to be light weight metals that can withstand huge wind forces. Thats as far as my engineering nous goes though

I'd imagine an A380 wing would be designed for an airspeed of 533 kn, while a wind turbine blade would be designed for roughly one tenth of that. Also notable is the significant twist in a wind turbine blade due to the considerable difference in airspeed between the fast moving tip and the slower bit nearer the hub.

jamo2oo9 · 06-02-2020 11:02pm

L1011 wrote: »

Everything.

Shape. Size. Weight. Aerodynamics.

They're two totally different things that look slightly similar.

Also, theres ~480 A380 wings in existance in totality. There are about 1000 turbines 3 blades each in Ireland alone. It wouldn't be worth the effort to try adapt them.

Not even that, the material. Wind turbines are predominately made of steel. The aircraft itself is made of aluminium alloys (contains other metals like carbon or iron etc). Not really worth their weight to be made into wind turbines.

cnocbui · 06-02-2020 11:31pm

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Not even that, the material. Wind turbines are predominately made of steel. The aircraft itself is made of aluminium alloys (contains other metals like carbon or iron etc). Not really worth their weight to be made into wind turbines.

Wind turbine blades are not made of steel. They are predominantly made of composites like fiberglass and carbon fiber, like the wings of sailplanes 40 years ago..

07-02-2020 12:24am

cycling is fun wrote: »

Hi can I ask how you know this? I contacted Knock yesterday via messanger on facebook and they said that had no fixed date as of yet. I live 1 hour from Knock and would be interested in travelling over to see it. I contacted eirtrade and have got no reply back from them yet

can I ask how you came to find out?

Pretty much like everyone else, you build up sources over time some are ok and some are great. This source is accurate 99% of the time and it isn’t their fault if something falls through for the 1%. But like I always say to people, take every rumour with a health warning. For multiple reasons things fall through. Even up to the last minute with weather or tech issues.

As others have said set up a warning on FR24 for its movement. If it is inbound Knock from Dresden you will get 2-3 hours warning.

Tenger · 07-02-2020 12:25am

Muahahaha wrote: »

Mad that a plane is getting scrapped after just 10 years in service. Anyone got any insight into the breaking process and where it goes? What happens things like the cockpit and all instruments, seats, etc? Would there be a collectors/enthusiasts market for those? Or perhaps film companies creating an airplane set.

And the wings, I presume these are just crushed and recycled but (in theory) could they be re-purposed as turbine blades for wind farms?

Many parts are very valuable; engines, landing gear, flaps, doors. (For use as spares for flying A380s)
Cockpit can be repurposed as a sim, but I doubt that is really in high demand for the A380.
Seats can be reinstalled on other aircraft.

The aircraft is stripped down before flying off, (interior fittings), upon landing any valuable equipment (doors, flaps, engines, gear, cockpit etc) is taken off.
At that point its an empty meyal tube with 2 sticky out bits. The fuselage is essentially chopped into 3-4 metre sections with a giant chain (A380 may have its own issues though) then crushed for use as raw metal.

Charles Babbage · 07-02-2020 12:29am

Presumably there is no market for conversion into a freighter?

Spocker · 07-02-2020 12:32am

cnocbui wrote: »

Wind turbine blades are not made of steel. They are predominantly made of composites like fiberglass and carbon fiber, like the wings of sailplanes 40 years ago..

Which makes them really hard to recycle apparently, so they are just buried

hopeso · 07-02-2020 1:05am

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty much like everyone else, you build up sources over time some are ok and some are great. This source is accurate 99% of the time and it isn’t their fault if something falls through for the 1%. But like I always say to people, take every rumour with a health warning. For multiple reasons things fall through. Even up to the last minute with weather or tech issues.

As others have said set up a warning on FR24 for its movement. If it is inbound Knock from Dresden you will get 2-3 hours warning.

Thanks for the info so far.... Needless to say, keep us informed.

kevinandrew · 07-02-2020 4:41am

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Presumably there is no market for conversion into a freighter?

No, the A380's large size is appealing but its design makes it near impossible.

While the A380 could theoretically fit 60% more cargo volume than a typical 747 freighter, it's maximum take off weight is only around 30% more so it would max out well before it was completely full and end up flying around empty space.

Also, the design of the aircraft isn't ideal for cargo. The 747F has a high cockpit positioned on the upper deck which allowed for a cargo nose door, this enabled large cargo to be loaded quickly. The A380 cockpit is awkwardly located in the middle of its two floors making it impossible to convert. It also has a complex upper deck floor which would likely need reinforcing along with new loading equipment to reach it at every airport.

marcos_94 · 07-02-2020 8:56am

Spocker wrote: »

Which makes them really hard to recycle apparently, so they are just buried

They can be difficult to recycle but the main reason they are buried now is because there is no profitable market for recycling just yet

dzilla · 07-02-2020 9:47am

kevinandrew wrote: »

No, the A380's large size is appealing but its design makes it near impossible.

While the A380 could theoretically fit 60% more cargo volume than a typical 747 freighter, it's maximum take off weight is only around 30% more so it would max out well before it was completely full and end up flying around empty space.

Also, the design of the aircraft isn't ideal for cargo. The 747F has a high cockpit positioned on the upper deck which allowed for a cargo nose door, this enabled large cargo to be loaded quickly. The A380 cockpit is awkwardly located in the middle of its two floors making it impossible to convert. It also has a complex upper deck floor which would likely need reinforcing along with new loading equipment to reach it at every airport.

Interesting. Is this bad design and future proofing on airbus behalf?

Tabnabs · 07-02-2020 10:50am

marcos_94 wrote: »

They can be difficult to recycle but the main reason they are buried now is because there is no profitable market for recycling just yet

Nor is there any profitable solution yet on the horizon. On top of that, the current recycling methods use more energy than production from new, thereby calling into question the effectiveness of recycling.

Nforce · 07-02-2020 11:45am

kevinandrew wrote: »

No, the A380's large size is appealing but its design makes it near impossible.

While the A380 could theoretically fit 60% more cargo volume than a typical 747 freighter, it's maximum take off weight is only around 30% more so it would max out well before it was completely full and end up flying around empty space.

Also, the design of the aircraft isn't ideal for cargo. The 747F has a high cockpit positioned on the upper deck which allowed for a cargo nose door, this enabled large cargo to be loaded quickly. The A380 cockpit is awkwardly located in the middle of its two floors making it impossible to convert. It also has a complex upper deck floor which would likely need reinforcing along with new loading equipment to reach it at every airport.

Also, the 747 was designed to be foremost a freighter from the outset, before being redesigned as a passenger aircraft.

marcos_94 · 07-02-2020 12:08pm

Tabnabs wrote: »

Nor is there any profitable solution yet on the horizon. On top of that, the current recycling methods use more energy than production from new, thereby calling into question the effectiveness of recycling.

Recycling them is challenging but there are some interseting ideas being floated on reuse. Specifically turbines being decommissioned and being reconditioned for use at a more l;ocal level rather than commercial wind farm level. Taking Ireland as an example, a developer could sell a decommissioned turbine to one of the universities/colleges for use in meeting their local demand for example.

SNNUS · 07-02-2020 12:52pm

Neworder79 wrote: »

They've had several wide-body charters (bar the bigger Airbuses). TriStar, DC8, 707s from US in early days.
Last 747 was a charter in 2003 and but mostly 757 and the odd 767.

---

Here is the last batch scrapped by Eirtrade at EIKN (2x737, 1x757).
I think one may have been acquired for fire training:

Think the nearest aircraft is an A321

Lurching · 07-02-2020 1:18pm

Tenger wrote: »

The aircraft is stripped down before flying off, (interior fittings)

Not always. It's often much easier to remove the interior when you can cut a huge hole in the side of the fuselage. This is certainly the way it's done in the States.
It's tricky to do that prior to it's last flight!

cnocbui · 07-02-2020 2:37pm

Spocker wrote: »

Which makes them really hard to recycle apparently, so they are just buried

What incredible timing! https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51325101

Sexual Chocolate · 07-02-2020 2:43pm

Nforce wrote: »

Also, the 747 was designed to be foremost a freighter from the outset, before being redesigned as a passenger aircraft.

Watched a documentary before about the 747 where Boeing thought the idea of an aircraft that size was so ludicrous that it wouldn't do well for passenger travel that they designed it as a freighter as a fall back in case, as well as the threat of supersonic airliners such as Concorde and their own plans to go in that direction. Turns out it was the best thing they ever done.

If memory serves me right I think Pan Am had a part to play in it as well.

Hotblack Desiato · 07-02-2020 3:49pm

Nforce wrote: »

Also, the 747 was designed to be foremost a freighter from the outset, before being redesigned as a passenger aircraft.

Not really. Their unsuccessful entry in the C-5 competition got them thinking about commercial aircraft of that size though.

corsav6 · 07-02-2020 4:48pm

SNNUS wrote: »

Think the nearest aircraft is an A321

Definitely an a320 series aircraft.

Connacht · 07-02-2020 5:30pm

Yes, one of those 737s (wingless) is positioned at the far end of the airfield, presumably for training purposes.

billy few mates · 07-02-2020 6:49pm

As mentioned above practically all the LRUs, actuators, pumps and motors will be recertified for re-use also the engines and all the cabin interior items which are often difficult to get hold of could be salvaged.
Probably the most valuable part will be the landing gear. On most commercial aircraft the landing gear is removed for overhaul every ten years.
This is possibly why this aircraft is being scrapped at ten years, the landing gear is probably due for overhaul, it would make no sense to overhaul the LG at enormous cost if you know you are going to scrap the aircraft, it probably makes more commercial sense to scrap the aircraft when the LG falls due and salvage the landing gear, send it for overhaul and sell (or rent) it out. There's quite a big market in 'loan' sets of LG which an operator rents while they're own LG are in the shop for two or three months getting overhauled.
It's a fact of life that some aircraft are worth more dead than alive as the sum of its parts are worth more than the whole.

EchoIndia · 07-02-2020 7:06pm

Nforce wrote: »

Also, the 747 was designed to be foremost a freighter from the outset, before being redesigned as a passenger aircraft.

Source? I thought it was designed primarily as a passenger aircraft but with freighter potential.

GM228 · 07-02-2020 8:01pm

Nforce wrote: »

Also, the 747 was designed to be foremost a freighter from the outset, before being redesigned as a passenger aircraft.

It's the other way round, development began as a passenger aircraft following consultation with Pan Am.

However, whilst the development started as passenger the final designs were for three variants, all passenger, all cargo and a convertible passenger/freighter.

The confusion comes from the fact that Boeing were working on the CX-HLS (the C-5A project), when Lockheed won that contract Boeing incorporated some of the developmental stage of the CX-HLS into the 747.

cycling is fun · 07-02-2020 10:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty much like everyone else, you build up sources over time some are ok and some are great. This source is accurate 99% of the time and it isn’t their fault if something falls through for the 1%. But like I always say to people, take every rumour with a health warning. For multiple reasons things fall through. Even up to the last minute with weather or tech issues.

As others have said set up a warning on FR24 for its movement. If it is inbound Knock from Dresden you will get 2-3 hours warning.

Thanks for the info I will see if I can set up an alert on fr24 more than likely I will keep an eye on here as well and maybe contact Knock Airport again next week, Monday would have suited me as I am off that day, work have said they will try and work with me as well but I don't think they will do so on 2 hrs notice, sure who knows if I miss this one there might be another along again in a year or two

Nforce · 08-02-2020 1:10am

My apologies, I'd always thought that the 747 was initially designed to be a freighter hence the location of the cockpit.

Rawr · 08-02-2020 9:30am

Nforce wrote: »

My apologies, I'd always thought that the 747 was initially designed to be a freighter hence the location of the cockpit.

If I remember right, you're correct. Boeing thought that the future of passenger travel would be super-sonic, like the newly developed Concorde. Thus the 747 was designed to operate as a heavy freighter with the entire lower deck used for storage.

Massive bonus that it turned out to be a great passenger jet too

smurfjed · 08-02-2020 9:36am

I was under the impression that the 747 started life as a contender for the USAF, but lost the contract to the Galaxy C5.

In 1963, the United States Air Force started a series of study projects on a very large strategic transport aircraft. Although the C-141 Starlifter was being introduced, officials believed that a much larger and more capable aircraft was needed, especially to carry cargo that would not fit in any existing aircraft. These studies led to initial requirements for the CX-Heavy Logistics System (CX-HLS) in March 1964 for an aircraft with a load capacity of 180,000 pounds (81,600 kg) and a speed of Mach 0.75 (500 mph or 800 km/h), and an unrefueled range of 5,000 nautical miles (9,300 km) with a payload of 115,000 pounds (52,200 kg). The payload bay had to be 17 feet (5.18 m) wide by 13.5 feet (4.11 m) high and 100 feet (30 m) long with access through doors at the front and rear.[18]

The desire to keep the number of engines to four required new engine designs with greatly increased power and better fuel economy. In May 1964, airframe proposals arrived from Boeing, Douglas, General Dynamics, Lockheed, and Martin Marietta; engine proposals were submitted by General Electric, Curtiss-Wright, and Pratt & Whitney. Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed were given additional study contracts for the airframe, along with General Electric and Pratt & Whitney for the engines.[18]

Then Juan Trippe showed up with a crazy idea to use it for passenger services, the first 747’s almost bankrupted Boeing and Pan Am.

smurfjed · 08-02-2020 9:38am

The A380 must have cost around $300,000,000, so that’s $30,000,000 per year in capital costs alone. Is it conceivably possible for one airframe to make that amount of money per year?

Andrew33 · 08-02-2020 9:48am

smurfjed wrote: »

The A380 must have cost around $300,000,000, so that’s $30,000,000 per year in capital costs alone. Is it conceivably possible for one airframe to make that amount of money per year?

Very roughly, 500 seats at an average of $1000 per seat. That’s 1/2 million in gross revenue per flight. If the plane is full of course.

Knock/Eirtrade thread

Comments