Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Reduces 747-8 Weight By 2.5tons  
User currently offlineWaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 18557 times:

I didn't see this posted anywhere yet.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ght-tweaks-aileron-setting-379799/


The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 18454 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

747classic pegged the OEW excess for the earlier-built frames at between 1.8 and 2.7 tons, so this 2.5 ton reduction should pretty much bring the 747-8 on-target.

So with the 7.7 ton increase in MTOW, that should help recover a fair bit of payload for the freighter. And once the GE PiPs are in place to address the SFC miss...   


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10074 posts, RR: 97
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 18300 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
747classic pegged the OEW excess for the earlier-built frames at between 1.8 and 2.7 tons, so this 2.5 ton reduction should pretty much bring the 747-8 on-target.

So with the 7.7 ton increase in MTOW, that should help recover a fair bit of payload for the freighter. And once the GE PiPs are in place to address the SFC miss

Agree. Cargolux seem to think the improvements get the plane pretty much to its original spec

Quote:
"The performance, with [the improvements] all in mind, is quite close to what Boeing had in mind," Germeaux added.

Rgds


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 18244 times:

Nice to see the grand old lady still has some improvement in her. Will the freighter ever be eclipsed? The passenger model will fade with time, but will the freighter model live on?

User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10748 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 17956 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 3):

Nice to see the grand old lady still has some improvement in her. Will the freighter ever be eclipsed? The passenger model will fade with time, but will the freighter model live on?

The suggested A380F, if it ever becomes reality, is a different concept that apparently doesnt work for most customers. I dont think it´ll fly. The same is the case for a possible re-engineered and vastly modernised AN124.

There is no serious competition, nothing even remotely visible on the horizon to take the 747Fs place so I say chances are high that will see new Jumbo Jet freighters rolling of the line after 2025. Even another new 747F variant with more efficient engines seems possible beyond the mid-20s. Chances are the 747 will become the aircraft type with the longest production run ever.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 17889 times:

The A380 has no nose loading possibility, sure it could carry heavier weights but it could not do what the 747 does. It will probably be the only civilian freighter with a nose cargo door. A unique feature so far for civilian freighters?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 17864 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I know some pundits like to point out that "nobody" uses the nose door for cargo handling (even though the Photo database continues to add new pictures of operators using the nose door for cargo handling), but if that was truly the case, one would think Boeing would not have engineered it into the 747-8F as it adds weight and complexity.

[Edited 2012-12-05 10:57:47]

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 17776 times:

Yeah the pictures of the first 748F delivered had it loaded through the nose. I would guess a nose loading is faster?

User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2729 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 17751 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
A unique feature ?

Nope, Bristol 170


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 17692 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 7):
Yeah the pictures of the first 748F delivered had it loaded through the nose. I would guess a nose loading is faster?

Yes.

The disadvantage to nose loading is pallets cannot be dimensioned as high as those loaded through the side door.


User currently offlineExtra300 From Sweden, joined Sep 2011, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 17657 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
A unique feature so far for civilian freighters?

Don´t forget the utterly cool ATL-98 Carvair


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 17659 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 7):
I would guess a nose loading is faster?

The main reason for using the nose door is for cargo which cannot go through the cargo door. Often it is very long items.


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 6 hours ago) and read 17629 times:

And the Me-323 Gigant  


Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9113 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 17325 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
I know some pundits like to point out that "nobody" uses the nose door for cargo handling (even though the Photo database continues to add new pictures of operators using the nose door for cargo handling), but if that was truly the case, one would think Boeing would not have engineered it into the 747-8F as it adds weight and complexity.

A very small percentage of our freighter flights use nose loading in HKG, and that is normally for long items like yacht masts. The shape of most freighter aprons does not cater for nose loading, often these bays have structures for guidance onto the bay erected in-front of the pilots to tell them left/right and when to stop. Wingtip clearance is the issue.

With the longer length of the 747-8F again, nose loading takes up taxi/apron space, or the vehicular access road. As previously mentioned, the pallets if nose loaded are restricted to 8' high due to the cockpit, where they can go to 10' high with a larger footprint via the main door.

Quoting sweair (Reply 7):
Yeah the pictures of the first 748F delivered had it loaded through the nose. I would guess a nose loading is faster?

I have never seen any of the express carriers load via the nose at HKG, they would not most time sensitive carriers. Loading/unloading only via the nose would not be that smart from a W&B point of view, sounds like a good way for this to potentially happen


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Morris Biondi

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 8):
Bristol 170

Armstrong Whitworth Argosy, Antonov (various), Beluga, Super Guppy are some others. For long bulky items, an aircraft the size of a 747 in most cases is an overkill for the payload length, volume, or mass.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5590 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 17259 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 13):
For long bulky items, an aircraft the size of a 747 in most cases is an overkill for the payload length, volume, or mass.

Like airlines using long haul aircraft on regional routes, some operators would probably prefer to have the capability built into their 747's and have it when needed. Or, I guess, they could tell the customer to pound sand. I'm sure if someone is loading through the nose that no one is holding a gun to their head - they could always turn the business away if it isn't profitable, so I'm guessing that it's a least a useful feature at times.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 17219 times:

The nose door would be gone if customers did not want it, I am sure it is a benefit for many operators other than Zekes employer.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19794 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 17091 times:

Returning to the OT (heaven forbid   ), what did Boeing to do shave off 2.5T of weight? And what did they do to the ailerons? Is it the same slight downward deflection to improve the wing twist as on the 77L/W vs the 772?

Is the 748i now fully FBW or are only some surfaces FBW?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 17027 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
What did Boeing to do shave off 2.5T of weight?

As I understand it, the airframe was over-engineered / over-built - especially the parts handled by the Moscow Design Center ( they must have been building to Soviet spec.   ). This was why they could raise the MTOW almost 8 tons. So I expect they have subsequently engineered out some of that extra structure.

I believe only the spoilers and outboard ailerons are FBW. They do droop the ailerons to allow for low speed performance and tune low-speed roll response. They also are used to counter the flutter effect generated by certain flight conditions.

[Edited 2012-12-05 12:24:23]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9113 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 5 hours ago) and read 16969 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 15):
The nose door would be gone if customers did not want it, I am sure it is a benefit for many operators other than Zekes employer.

There is a benefit, however it is small.

Have a look for yourself at the worldwide freighter fleet (all sizes) and see how many aircraft have nose loading, and ask yourself if there was a considerable benefit, why the majority of freighters do not have it.

Ask yourself what sort of customer needs to send something by air that cannot fit on a standard pallet, and how often that demand would arise. The answer is not zero, however it is not as great as the the demand for shipping engines, or electronics. Airlines survive by having consistent loads which are boxes and pallets, ad-hoc charters for over size items are great of you can get them, and if the spare capacity is there in your fleet at the time.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5590 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 4 hours ago) and read 16815 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
Airlines survive by having consistent loads which are boxes and pallets, ad-hoc charters for over size items are great of you can get them, and if the spare capacity is there in your fleet at the time.

True. But you can't get those needing a nose-loading capability if you don't have nose-loading capability. You don't need every freighter in your fleet to have the ability but having it on one type will benefit some operators. I guess the question is if it would make sense to have it only be an option, but apparently Boeing decided that it wasn't. Thus, a moot point.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 4 hours ago) and read 16672 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
There is a benefit, however it is small.

This depends highly on the operator. There are some 747F operators with contracts to carry goods which require the nose door (again, primarily because of length). The 747 is the only viable freighter with this capability and many carriers would have been hurt by a 747F which did not offer it. The weight of the nose door easily buys its way onto the airplane for these operators; they often charge up to a 50% premium for this cargo (as I am sure CX does for carrying masts, etc).


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5590 posts, RR: 29
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 4 hours ago) and read 16521 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 20):
The weight of the nose door easily buys its way onto the airplane for these operators; they often charge up to a 50% premium for this cargo (as I am sure CX does for carrying masts, etc).

If they didn't, I'm sure they wouldn't be carrying it. Unless, of course, they have two much capacity, but then why take additional 748F's?

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4335 posts, RR: 28
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 16349 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
There is a benefit, however it is small.

Small, but commercially viable from an aircraft manufacturing standpoint. Which says it all.

And that's all that really matters.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5590 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 16308 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 22):
And that's all that really matters.

Somehow I think it will never really matter.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1384 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 16118 times:

Quoting na (Reply 4):
Chances are the 747 will become the aircraft type with the longest production run ever.

Will be interesting to see if it can/will surpass the C-130 Hercules which has been in continuous production since 1954, which has 14 or 15 years on it......



Treat others as you expect to be treated!
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7073 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 16980 times:

Can existing planes be retrofitted so that they benefit from that weight reduction as well. I believe LH will be very keen to get some lighter planes.


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinekl671 From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 16810 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
A unique feature so far for civilian freighters?

And the Airbus A300-600ST Beluga.


User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 560 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 15902 times:

Quoting kl671 (Reply 26):

The beluga is NOT nose loading. It's forehead loading.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25459 posts, RR: 22
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 15792 times:

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 10):
Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
A unique feature so far for civilian freighters?

Don´t forget the utterly cool ATL-98 Carvair

And the Bristol 170 Freighter.



User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7884 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
There is a benefit, however it is small.

Quite... I worked at an airport supporting 3 or 4 cargo airlines which used their 747s there... not once in 4 years did i see the nose opened... all loaded through the sides...



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7572 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
There is a benefit, however it is small.

Quite... I worked at an airport supporting 3 or 4 cargo airlines which used their 747s there... not once in 4 years did i see the nose opened... all loaded through the sides...

Which in a sense rules this factor out as to why the 380F failed. One reason was that they were so far behind schedule at the time.However the big one (as I recall) was that whilst the 380 offered volume it did not offer payload to match (ie ligher bulky stuff).But it was a while ago could be wrong. However...

Over the past 2 years Airbus has been ramping up the weight the 380 can use if I am not mistaken (and this is with the "lighter" wing) . Perhaps - just perhaps it may one day make a comeback when/if the payload numbers become acceptable?


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10748 posts, RR: 9
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7427 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 30):
Quite... I worked at an airport supporting 3 or 4 cargo airlines which used their 747s there... not once in 4 years did i see the nose opened... all loaded through the sides...

Perhaps that impression is influenced because many of the 747Fs you see are BCFs? In FRA I regularly see 747Fs with open nose. If airlines wouldnt need the (surely expensive) nose door, they would force Boeing to be able to order the 747F without it. Simple as that.


User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1367 posts, RR: 3
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7259 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
I know some pundits like to point out that "nobody" uses the nose door for cargo handling (even though the Photo database continues to add new pictures of operators using the nose door for cargo handling), but if that was truly the case, one would think Boeing would not have engineered it into the 747-8F as it adds weight and complexity.

My office happens to be adjacent to a cargo loading bay at LAX. We see mostly Southern, Asiana, CX, & NCA on this side. Discounting the ones that don't actually have the front-loader, I would say they open that nose about once a fortnight. So not much, but I'll bet it's worth it when they have it.

Quoting zeke (Reply 13):

I have never seen any of the express carriers load via the nose at HKG, they would not most time sensitive carriers. Loading/unloading only via the nose would not be that smart from a W&B point of view, sounds like a good way for this to potentially happen

The CX 744 & 8fs that come here all use a tail stand to prevent just that. In fact, most 747 operators do that as well.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5832 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting parapente (Reply 30):
Which in a sense rules this factor out as to why the 380F failed. One reason was that they were so far behind schedule at the time.However the big one (as I recall) was that whilst the 380 offered volume it did not offer payload to match (ie ligher bulky stuff).But it was a while ago could be wrong.

I fully believe that the lack of nose-loading played zero impact in the A380-800F not finding strong interest in the general cargo market. And the A380-800F was not lacking in terms of raw payload weight (142t not including tare weight for general cargo).

What hurt the A380-800F was it's high OEW in relation to it's revenue payload. For each kilogram of revenue cargo you flew, you flew 1.7 kilograms of empty structure (150t payload with 251t OEM OEW). Compare that to a 747-400ERF, which flew 1.3kg of structure (126t payload with OEM OEW of 164t).

Now that extra structure allowed the A380-800 to load significantly more fuel - with a 150t payload, the A380-800F could fly twice as far as a 747-400ERF with a 126t payload (10,000km vs. 5,000km), however shorter hops allow more payload to be carried and can end up burning less fuel then the non-stop.

The express carriers liked the A380-800F because they run out of space before they run out of weight. And they ship high-value product that can command the fees to cover the extra fuel necessary to make the trip non-stop.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10748 posts, RR: 9
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5727 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
The express carriers liked the A380-800F because they run out of space before they run out of weight. And they ship high-value product that can command the fees to cover the extra fuel necessary to make the trip non-stop.


If I remember right the only interest in the A380F came from package carriers, Fedex etc. I doubt that Airbus would ever build it for just a handful of clients ordering a few dozen over a decade. If UPS and Fedex would order 15 each plus options, and DHL maybe 10, ok, thats a start. But otherwise, no.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5539 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 34):
If I remember right the only interest in the A380F came from package carriers, Fedex etc.

EK ordered the first two in 2001 (my joke was they were to carry back all the shopping that wouldn't fit in the hold of the passenger A380s). ILFC also added 5 in 2001, followed by FedEx with 10 in 2002 and UPS with 10 in 2005.

EK and ILFC both converted their freighters to passenger models in 2006 and FedEx cancelled their order that same year. At that point, Airbus put the A380-800F on hold and UPS subsequently cancelled in 2007.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9113 posts, RR: 75
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5522 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 20):
The weight of the nose door easily buys its way onto the airplane for these operators; they often charge up to a 50% premium for this cargo (as I am sure CX does for carrying masts, etc).

You might think so, even with our large 747F fleet, working out of the airport with the most amount of international air freight in the world, we would not even have the work for one 747F that requires nose loading.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 21):
Unless, of course, they have two much capacity, but then why take additional 748F's?

They are parking/scrapping all the older 744s, including the BCFs. Another member on the orders thread stated that it was their view that the 77Fs have been traded in for 77Ws.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 22):

Small, but commercially viable from an aircraft manufacturing standpoint. Which says it all.

Kind of, you cannot buy a 747F without one.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):

I fully believe that the lack of nose-loading played zero impact in the A380-800F not finding strong interest in the general cargo market. And the A380-800F was not lacking in terms of raw payload weight (142t not including tare weight for general cargo).

The biggest problem with the A380F was the misinformation put into the market by people with a vested interest in another platform, a bit like the original A350. All of the scare tactics regarding what the A380F could and could not do in practice have been shown to be baseless.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10074 posts, RR: 97
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5269 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting parapente (Reply 30):
Which in a sense rules this factor out as to why the 380F failed. One reason was that they were so far behind schedule at the time.However the big one (as I recall) was that whilst the 380 offered volume it did not offer payload to match (ie ligher bulky stuff).

The big one was the schedule slippage, which caused 2 customers to convert to pax models.
The freight specialists (FX and 5X) insisted that Airbus give them a timeline for their freighter deliveries, which Airbus signally, and deliberately, failed to do. Their focus was on rescuing the passenger model.
In effect, Airbus gave these carriers no choice but to cancel.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
What hurt the A380-800F was it's high OEW in relation to it's revenue payload. For each kilogram of revenue cargo you flew, you flew 1.7 kilograms of empty structure (150t payload with 251t OEM OEW). Compare that to a 747-400ERF, which flew 1.3kg of structure (126t payload with OEM OEW of 164t).

I'm not convinced that "hurt" the A380F all that much. A bit perhaps.
I was (and am) amongst those who wanted to see the MZFW go up at least 20t to counter this weakness, though.  

I think Airbus could have traded that for 20t of fuel. Speaking as an expert of course ....     
Quoting na (Reply 34):
If I remember right the only interest in the A380F came from package carriers, Fedex etc. I doubt that Airbus would ever build it for just a handful of clients ordering a few dozen over a decade

Not strictly true. EK and ILFC also ordered.

What is interesting is that, back then, David Sutton, Exec VP of fleet planning at FX suggested that we would see over 200 A380F's flying 2 decades after its EIS.
What would he know eh?  
True, he did claim that many of these would be ex pax conversions, but was quite clear that the early pax conversions would have nothing like the capability of the dedicated freighter (they have a 30 tonnes lower MTOW for a start)

Rgds


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2160 posts, RR: 14
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5246 times:

It all depends what kind of freight your sales department is able to attract and also how flexible your flight scheduling department is .

Having operated a few years 747 freighters with a nose cargo door with MP, I noticed that approx. 3-5% of all flights needed the use of the nose cargo door.
However the revenue of these "nose loading " flights was much higher, because the over-sized cargo part multiplied the yield of the entire flight. It's a niche market , but very profitable.

In our fleet we had 3 x 747-200F/C's with cargo door and one converted 747-200(SUD)SF without cargo door.
The aircraft without nose door was rescheduled to another destination when over-sized cargo had to be transported to another destination (aircraft rotation was altered).

IMHO , a new 747-8F version, without nose cargo door (3-4 tons lower OEW), could be a very economical option for parcel transport companies and for freight forwarders, that already have several "nose door "747-8 freighters in their fleet.

Perhaps an idea for Boeing in this difficult cargo times. Every pound (or kilo) less OEW counts these days and it's a minimum investment (almost a paperwork-certification) to produce a 747-8F, without nose door.

And remember this : the first f 747 -200 freighters were delivered with only the nose door installed.
Soon the side cargo door was added.

[Edited 2012-12-06 08:07:04]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8412 posts, RR: 10
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5002 times:

Quoting na (Reply 4):
There is no serious competition, nothing even remotely visible on the horizon to take the 747Fs place so I say chances are high that will see new Jumbo Jet freighters rolling of the line after 2025

So what's keeping the "twin engine revolution" from eventually making its way to the freighter business? It's not like range is a benefit in this business. Is it simply because there are way too many capable pax aircraft available for freighter convertions which keeps manufactures from developing more capable dedicated twin freighter planes?

Quoting na (Reply 31):
Perhaps that impression is influenced because many of the 747Fs you see are BCFs? In FRA I regularly see 747Fs with open nose. If airlines wouldnt need the (surely expensive) nose door, they would force Boeing to be able to order the 747F without it. Simple as that.

It's even simpler than that. Boeing has no financial incentive to do the job so anyone who wants a new 747F has no other choice. The alternative is a BCF.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5030 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 37):
The big one was the schedule slippage, which caused 2 customers to convert to pax models.

That certainly explains why the package carriers walked, but we both know that Airbus didn't develop the A380-800F to only appeal to package carriers.

My...interest...is why the general cargo companies didn't order it, but continued to order 747-400Fs (and then 747-8Fs).



Quoting astuteman (Reply 37):
I'm not convinced that "hurt" the A380F all that much. A bit perhaps.

I was (and am) amongst those who wanted to see the MZFW go up at least 20t to counter this weakness, though.   

The cargo density figures for the A380-800 are all over the place depending on the source, but I wonder if the A380-800F really could have utilized that extra 20t of MZFW (which would have been 422t) based on floor loadings/cargo densities.



Quoting airbazar (Reply 39):
So what's keeping the "twin engine revolution" from eventually making its way to the freighter business?

You could argue it already has. In terms of payload weight, the latest specification 777 Freighters are within about 5% of the 747-400F (107t vs. 113t). The 767-300F offers more volume and payload weight than the DC-8F family.And the A330-200F can match the payload weight and volume of the DC-10-30F with significantly better efficiency.

[Edited 2012-12-06 08:31:43]

User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3656 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
The biggest problem with the A380F was the misinformation put into the market by people with a vested interest in another platform

I'm not sure this is really a fair assessment of the situation. Every competitor casts doubt on the competition (see past Leahy comments about the 787-8 being too small, too risky, too much technology, and more recently the 787-10 being too expensive to compete with the A333-300). This does not prevent intelligent airlines from assessing the performance of an airplane independent of either OEM's assessment.

In truth, the A380F made a great package freighter, but lacked the floor strength and MZFW to enable the higher density loads, which the 777F, 747F, A330F and even older freighters could handle. This complicated interlining and meant less revenue per trip than the A380F's volume would have otherwise implied.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 37):
I was (and am) amongst those who wanted to see the MZFW go up at least 20t to counter this weakness, though.

This is what is required. There is speculation we will see the A380F again, but not until the A380-900 has entered service. At that point, a shrink of the A389 into an A388-sized freighter would make a potent airplane. This is precisely what Boeing did with the 777F - essentially a -200 size freighter with the structural payload of a 777-300ER. Also, the 777F required the same floor strengthening the A380F would require, in order to take heavy enough pallets.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5590 posts, RR: 29
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3521 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
The biggest problem with the A380F was the misinformation put into the market by people with a vested interest in another platform, a bit like the original A350. All of the scare tactics regarding what the A380F could and could not do in practice have been shown to be baseless.

Really? Carriers didn't buy the freighter model because of misinformation? That was the biggest problem?

What a sad and awkward statement about the talent at these carriers if it were true.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3083 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Boeing would not have engineered it into the 747-8F as it adds weight and complexity.

Boeing has had the design for the nose door since the B-747-200F, and continued through the B-747-400F/-400ERF.

Quoting zeke (Reply 13):
A very small percentage of our freighter flights use nose loading in HKG

Cargo airlines use it a lot at DFW.

Quoting zeke (Reply 13):
I have never seen any of the express carriers load via the nose at HKG, they would not most time sensitive carriers. Loading/unloading only via the nose would not be that smart from a W&B point of view, sounds like a good way for this to potentially happen

Yes, but that would happen even if all the cargo is loaded through the aft side cargo door, if cargo is not moved foreward. The B-747F uses a tail stand for cargo loading/inloading operations to prevent that from happening.

UPS ordered their new build B-744Fs back in 2008 (2007?) specifically for the nose cargo loading door. Unfortunately they lost one, and more iportantly the crew in the UPS accident in DXB.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
Is the 748i now fully FBW or are only some surfaces FBW?

No, only a few control surfaces are FBW now.

FedEx had a small fleet of worn out B-742Fs for a few years after they aquired Flying Tigers, but I don't ever recall them needing to use the nose cargo door.


User currently onlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5472 posts, RR: 30
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3063 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 38):
IMHO , a new 747-8F version, without nose cargo door (3-4 tons lower OEW), could be a very economical option for parcel transport companies and for freight forwarders, that already have several "nose door "747-8 freighters in their fleet.

I bet that if someone was willing to put a down payment on a few, Boeing would be willing to make a 748F without the nose door. I doubt they would have much effort certifying it since I suspect the nose of the 748i would basically bolt right on.

A few tons more cargo capacity and a few million cheaper might appeal to some operators.



What the...?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ipads Help Reduce Scoot Aircraft Weight By 2 Tons posted Sun Jun 3 2012 13:55:26 by LAXDESI
Boeing Raises 748F Mtow By 13000lb posted Wed Jan 18 2012 00:46:13 by art
Boeing: Passengers To Space By 2015 posted Thu Sep 16 2010 09:05:57 by voar
Boeing Assembles 747-8I Forward Fuselage posted Tue Sep 14 2010 08:19:49 by OyKIE
Boeing Completes 747-8F Factory Gauntlet posted Fri Nov 6 2009 09:51:55 by IAD787
Tui Reduces 787 Order By Ten Aircraft posted Tue Sep 29 2009 02:52:15 by BestWestern
Boeing Targets 747-8 Payload/range Boost posted Wed Jun 17 2009 02:49:38 by Aviationbuff
747 Followed By Fighter Jet Near Manhattan posted Mon Apr 27 2009 07:10:59 by Curiousflyer
Emirates Seeks A380 And 747-8 Weight Control posted Sat Oct 27 2007 07:24:40 by EI321
Northwest B-747 Hit By Lightning posted Tue Aug 14 2007 11:43:04 by SIBILLE