777LRF Update (Boeing Link) — Civil Aviation Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1634 times:

Good article on the status of the 777 freighter program.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q3/060731b_nr.html

Wonder if the Pentagon is looking at this article? Hmmmm... scratchchin

15 replies: All unread, jump to last

Supa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1481 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Thread starter):
Wonder if the Pentagon is looking at this article?

Great question. The 777F is about the same price as a C-17, but longer range and carries about 20t more cargo.

Nah... the C-17 is a great warplane with capabilities (in-flight refueling etc) the 777F can only dream about.

EHHO From Bulgaria, joined Dec 2005, 815 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1450 times:

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 1):
The 777F is about the same price as a C-17, but longer range and carries about 20t more cargo.

Now, let's try to land a loaded 772LRF on a 500 yard dirt strip. It's going to be fourth of July like you haven't seen it before.

"Get your facts first. Then you may distort them as much as you please" -- Mark Twain

Rpaillard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1404 times:

Hi,

It's good to see that the program is doing well. I'm also very happy to see the high level of interaction between AF and Boeing. I think it will be an trully amazing aircraft in cargo version. it will be interesting to see the cost improvement for AF against the current old 747!

I just can't wait to see it on AF livery.

Raphael

OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3206 posts, RR: 66
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1374 times:

Quoting EHHO (Reply 2):
Now, let's try to land a loaded 772LRF on a 500 yard dirt strip. It's going to be fourth of July like you haven't seen it before.

And how often does the C-17 use this capability? Most of it's missions are flown into paved runways that are useable by the 777F.

With regard to air-to-air refueling, the better MZFW range of the 777F (5000 nm vs 2400 nm) reduces the need for this feature and takes a load off the USAF tanker fleet.

There is probably room for both in the USAF inventory.

Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis

NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5152 posts, RR: 49
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1346 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Thread starter):
Wonder if the Pentagon is looking at this article? Hmmmm...

I think it would make a great tanker though windtunnel tests would have to make sure that turbulent flow doesn't disrupt the airflow over the wings of the trailing warplanes (fighter, etc).

That which does not kill me makes me stronger.

Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1346 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 4):
And how often does the C-17 use this capability? Most of it's missions are flown into paved runways that are useable by the 777F.

Before Boeing bought McD, they fought hard to convince the USAF to buy 747Fs instead of C-17s as they offered better operating economics and, as noted, many USAF ops are from improved airfields.

Of course, once Boeing bought McD, that went out the window. Smile

And I heard this morning the RAAF just bought four C-17s. thumbsup

Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1311 times:

Quoting EHHO (Reply 2):
Now, let's try to land a loaded 772LRF on a 500 yard dirt strip. It's going to be fourth of July like you haven't seen it before.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 4):
And how often does the C-17 use this capability? Most of it's missions are flown into paved runways that are useable by the 777F.

With regard to air-to-air refueling, the better MZFW range of the 777F (5000 nm vs 2400 nm) reduces the need for this feature and takes a load off the USAF tanker fleet.

Indeed, the C-17 is used to move a lot of palletized cargo around between military bases. For overseas missions, that would also require air-to-air refueling. A 777F-based tanker could be used to move more cargo given the higher payload and volume while reducing the need for refueling on long range missions. This will reduce pressure on the C-17 fleet as well, allowing them to be used for missions more suitable to their talents.

ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!

Pavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1216 times:

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 1):
Nah... the C-17 is a great warplane with capabilities (in-flight refueling etc) the 777F can only dream about.

The 777F range is just awesome without refuelling. And the C-17 is way to expensive. The only thing keeping it living is taxpayers money. It just couldn't cope on civilian market.

Sebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1194 times:

It may be the longest range twin ever, but it can't fly nonstop from Hong Kong to the West Coast of North America without refueling. It's no MD-11 or 744F.

OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3206 posts, RR: 66
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1173 times:

Quoting Sebring (Reply 9):
It's no MD-11 or 744F.

You're right. The 777F has better payload-range capability than either of these airplanes.

Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis

Sebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1173 times:

It may have better payload range characteristics but factor in the 90-minute fuel stop in Anchorage, with a likely additional crew change. Airlines don't live off specs alone, they also live with labor agreements, greedy airports with their landing fees, arcane customs and new safety regs. Making a stop in a third country is definite issue for carriers.

OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3206 posts, RR: 66
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1129 times:

Quoting Sebring (Reply 11):
It may have better payload range characteristics but factor in the 90-minute fuel stop in Anchorage, with a likely additional crew change.

I'm trying to understand your point. The MD11F and the 744F are also subject to this fuel stop. What's the difference? Are you talking about the package freight range capability of the A380F?

To return to the other point, I didn't know the USAF had a labor contract. Why are they concerned about re-fueling stops or 16 hr+ air-to-air refueling missions?

Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis

Phollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1106 times:

Quoting Sebring (Reply 9):
It may be the longest range twin ever, but it can't fly nonstop from Hong Kong to the West Coast of North America without refueling. It's no MD-11 or 744F.

Where are you getting this info? The LRF will have the same MTOW as the LR. It also has the same engines, this means that is should be able to take-off from HKG on a std+20°C day at MTOW. Now I don't know what the OEW or MZFW will be but it should allow over 120,000 lb of payload from HKG to the states, which is what the MD11F can deliver.

Phollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1080 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 12):
Why are they concerned about re-fueling stops or 16 hr+ air-to-air refueling missions?

It really is about time and money, though the degree to which the USAF cares about this is debatable. fuel stops require friendly airfields (not that hard to find, but could get harder) and take extra time. Refueling is quite expensive I have seen numbers that suggest that tanker delivered fuel costs ~$250/gal.

Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1067 times:

Off of Boeing's site....

747-400F.........248,600 lb payload - 4,450 nm.

747-400ERF......270,600 lb payload - 4,450 nm. or
.......................248,600 lb payload - 4,975 nm.

777F................229,000 lb payload - 4,895 nm @ 10.2 lbs per cu ft.

Top Of Page

Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: