Miller22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 707 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4466 times:
My vote for best freighters are:
747 for obvious reasons
MD11/DC10 for the capability of hauling AMJ's
DC8-73 for more nooks and crannies to shove cargo than a Firefly class transport
ATR-72 (containerized) for slow, yet cheap containerized hauling.
But the number one spot is reserved for:
The Cessna Caravan for its ability to move stuff, well, anywhere.
HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2069 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4387 times:
I don't know the answer, but my roommate flew L-1011's for a few different Asian companies so they must've been at least okay. Now he flies 747 Classics but about to transition to the 777.
Beyond that, we're comparing apples to snow shovels.
They all work, or they wouldn't have been built or flown. It is impossible to discuss what makes any aircraft "best" or "worst" unless you first define what you want it to do.
Fabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1111 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4089 times:
Worst freighter? Passenger airplane.
And I am not talking about cargo transferred downstairs. There have been times when cargo was flown in passenger cabin. I know of at least one such aircraft that went down.
The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 11 Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4033 times:
Depends on what you want to use it for. For hauling 1000 lbs 400 nm, the Caravan is a great plane. For hauling 230,000 4000 nm, the 747-400 is a little better. I think the 777 is going to replace the 747 and be a great freighter.
Ex52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4003 times:
TF39 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 110 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3949 times:
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 9): I think the 777 is going to replace the 747 and be a great freighter.
And replace the MD-11F
I think at the end of the day it boils down to versatility. IMO the best all around (versatile) commercial freighter is the 747 as it was purposely designed with that intent. Huge volume plus through the nose access for outsize pieces. But I agree that the 777 will replace the 747 for the high volume freight market and for outsize cargo the AN-124 will capture that niche.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7451 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3946 times:
How about best fuel efficiency. Then 748F is definitely the best.
The worst fuel efficiency is going to be a Falcon 20 freighter, which can hardly carry anything but does burn a good bit of fuel.
But you know what, any freighter that can earn its keep is a good freighter. Any freighter that can fly and make money, is a "bad" one.
In the military however, things are different. Then, winning wars defines good or bad and cost does not.
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 11 Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3811 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 11): Any details on its IFSD rate,considering Single engined,also whats the regulation regarding night flying on this type.
Pretty low. I don't know exactly what it is, but it used a P&W PT6A, which is known for its reliability. The rate for the PT6A series overall is approximately .004/1000 hours. I think most Caravan losses are due to icing, which is the aircraft's weakest area. In the US, it has no restriction on night flying for private or commercial use.
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 11 Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3810 times:
Quoting TF39 (Reply 12): 777 will replace the 747 for the high volume freight market
The only place I think the 777 can't replace the 747 is for the heavy payload applications, and we have the 747-8 to look forward to there. Not sure if the new -8 will have a nose door, but I imagine Boeing will offer it if demand is sufficient.
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3206 posts, RR: 66 Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3799 times:
Quoting Lowrider (Reply 17): Not sure if the new -8 will have a nose door
The link below shows the 747-8F on the way to the paint hangar. You can see the divide line for the nose cargo door.
Tb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1375 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3794 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 13): The worst fuel efficiency is going to be a Falcon 20 freighter, which can hardly carry anything but does burn a good bit of fuel.
Hey! They can carry 6000#'s of freight and I think I figured the MPG to be close to a semi truck lol. It's not about bulking them out anyways, we just need to be able to fit whatever needs to be flown and get it there fast. We get paid the same amount whether it's 1 pound or 6000 and the key is also not to fly trips you would lose money on.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11141 posts, RR: 63 Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3765 times:
I'd suggest the Tu-144 as the 'worst' - a supersonic jet which ended it's brief commercial days flying mail around the Soviet Union. The Yak 42D wasn't a great success either - only one was tried out in cargo configuration and it didn't work, so it went back to passenger operation and I was lucky enough to fly on it after this brief forray as a frieghter. Likewise the single BAC-111 freighter didn't really work out, as there were plenty more which could have been converted if it had.
Conversely I'd suggest the 'best' would include types like the DC-3, DC-8, An-12, An-124/225, Il-76, B747 etc... which haven't just been good at carrying cargo, but have significantly changed the size, shape and way in which it was moved - I mean who'd have thought it would be possible to fly a 120 tonne locomotive before the An-124 came along?
Ajd1992 From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 2645 posts, RR: 6 Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3686 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 20): The Yak 42D wasn't a great success either - only one was tried out in cargo configuration and it didn't work, so it went back to passenger operation and I was lucky enough to fly on it after this brief forray as a frieghter.
Wasn't that also the plane that annihilated your back as well? I remember you mentioning it.
Best freighter = One that burns the least fuel over the longest distance with the highest payload.
B777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1010 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3591 times:
The Elleteneleven was, and still is, a great freighter, but not nearly as good as a MD-11F.
The best long-range wide-body freighter at the moment is probably the 777F, doing 90% of what a 747-400F will do, but flying further and doing so at only 60% of the cost. Does all you could ever ask of a freighter except loading the very longest of pieces.
For a medium-range wide-body, you'd be hard pressed to find anything beating the A300-600F - and that includes the 767.
For medium-range narrow-body missions, the B757SF ticks all the right boxes. The Tu-204F is also quite good, but not as good as the 75.
For a turboprop job, you'd have to look east and pick an An-26. They just go and go and go, accepting even brutal punishment without missing a beat.
Above all, however, are the An-124s and the sole -225.
Much harder to pick the worst one, discounting the Tu-144 which wasn't a real freighter anyway. But the BAe ATP is pretty crap. The Belslow is hardly a stellar performer either, and come to think of it the BAe-146 leaves quite a lot to be desired as well. Anyone spotted the common trend here?
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11141 posts, RR: 63 Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3590 times:
Quoting Ajd1992 (Reply 22):
Wasn't that also the plane that annihilated your back as well? I remember you mentioning it.
That was the smaller Yak-40, surprisingly also available in a cargo version, which I can't imagine is very efficient either due to it's tiny size, although it does have good STOL performance.
26 PlymSpotter: Yes indeed, although I did mistake the weight - it was 148 tonnes, not 120. The An-124 quite often flies this type of freight around, and other large
27 Airbuseric: Hmm,... true and not true. Many airlines dislike the contour of the B777F. It's not possible to transfer full-sized B747F pallets into B777F. The reb
28 Aerdingus: Fascinating picture! That's an Iarnrod Eireann (Irish Rail) train! What a plane......
29 HAWK21M: Interesting...Seems reliable for a single Engined craft. regds MEL.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 911 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 925 posts, 
From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1111 posts, 
That is what I loved about the 727 most nights it flew in, and it flew out.
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11141 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1618 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 2645 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1010 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
