|Quoting Solnabo (Reply 3):|
but I guess its bye bye 744ERF.
Air Cargo Management Group's market forecast is based on an assumption that Boeing also will soon launch the new derivative of its jumbo, the 747 Advanced, and that this too will have a freighter version later.
If Boeing failed to launch that airplane — which would be a surprise — the market for the 777 freighter would be even bigger.
Both FedEx and United Parcel Service, the major express air freight companies, are committed in the next few years to expanding their MD-11 fleets by converting old passenger jets, Dahl said.
Roughly 160 MD-11s worldwide are slated for such conversions.
Once those are done, there'll be few jets of that size available, and the 777 freighter market should grow.
[Edited 2005-05-24 15:43:25]
really, I would rather go with the seattletimes article than your opinion...
"Air Cargo Management Group's market forecast is based on an assumption that Boeing also will soon launch the new derivative of its jumbo, the 747 Advanced, and that this too will have a freighter version later"
"If Boeing failed to launch that (747ADV) airplane — which would be a surprise — the market for the 777 freighter would be even bigger."
"Up the Irons!"
If you think the B777-200F will significantly impact B747Adv sales, then you are ignorant of the freighter market. They have different capabilities. If you think Boeing would ever build a B777-300F, then you are aggressively ignorant. In the freighter business, weight is much more important than volume. Your hypothetical B777-300F would carry less payload by weight than the B777-200F, burn more fuel doing so, have less range, and cost more to manufacture. Only package haulers like FedEx and DHL might have any interest. To a general freight company a B777-300F would be absurd.
Why building 747ADV-F when Boeing got 773ER and maybe (just maybe) a 773ER-F version, I´m sure its gonna compete with 747ADVF...
no it won't, the 777-300ERF is, just like the A380F underpowered for big cargo stuff and therefore only good for package flights...
...and let's not forget the B747AdvF's front loading capability (which I assume it will have!) that allows it to carry outsized cargo that wouldn't otherwise fit through a side cargo door.
Wasn't there a rumour that the freighter version of the B747Adv was going to have an earlier EIS than the passanger version?
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Yes this was mentioned... I believe most likely to happen...
The 772LRF and the 747Adv has a KEY difference:
747 Advanced would be able to haul about 134 metric tons compared to 113 w/ the current 744.
777LRF would be able to haul about 100 metric tons... 34% less!
A380 would be able to haul about 150 metric tons
So no, sales of the 747Adv should do well, as its more efficient and bigger that the 777... The A380 lacks key features to compete fully with the 747Adv, such as loading aspects...
Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
Good to see the go ahead for the 777LRF and I do think that the 747ADV Freighter will get the offical start as well this year.
The A380F has a big problem. loading the upper deck, which will be very difficult if not impossible with conventional, height adapted high loaders and loading outsize pieces. That will limit its operations hub to hub, good for integrators but look at the route structire of Cargolux, no way they can make full use of the A380 throughout their netowork. The can with the 744F and will be able to do so with the 747ADVF as well.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
not underpowered... just that it would be something of a deadweight, considering that the lighter -200 can still heft essentially the same payloads.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
The 777F will have 15-20% better ton/mile economics than the current 747-400ERF. It will burn less fuel for a given payload and have longer range with a full volume or structural weight limited payload. This is significant as it will allow such routes as NRT-SFO with full payload and without a costly technical stop in ANC. 777F will be able to load 22 120 inch high pallets vs the 747-400F's 21. Despite the 747's nose door the advantage here goes to 777F because those pallets are too high to load through the nose anyway.
Fundamentally I do think there will be some impact on future 747F sales driven by operators who do not absolutely need the extra 20t of payload or two additional main deck positions that the current 747 offers, and who are attracted to the much lower operating cost. As far as the 747ADV Freighter goes, it will offer four more main deck positions vs the current 747 plus 12t more structural payload. The 747ADV proposal Boeing has released shows a slight increase in fuel capacity, so this combined with more efficient engines should keep range on par the the current 747-400ERF. Still, 747ADVF will be a much more expensive plane to purchase and operate than any 777F, and the advantages of operating 747F's are for carriers who specifically require it's unique capabilities. If operators are willing to trade a few less main deck pallet positions, for longer range and lower operating cost the 777F will be the choice more often than not.
Actually the problem with a potential 773F is that while you would gain an additional six main deck positions plus four on the lower deck, range with a similar payload to 772F would suffer dramatically. Power is not a problem, as GE90 power can easily be extended beyond 115,300lbs , but the structural capability of 773 can not be extended much over an allowable MTOW of 800,000lbs. This limits fuel load with a near maximum payload, and subsequently range. You would end up with an aircraft that could load just as much as a 747-400ERF structurally, but range would be as much 1,000nm less. So for the moment, a 773F not a very good idea.
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
zero surprise here.
That the 777LRF makes a great freighter (apart from its inevitably sky-high, and, therefore in some cases prohibitive, pricetag) and is the perfect replacement for all the DC-10F, MD-11Fs and part of the 747 Classic freighters in the the next decade is without a doubt.
The 777LRF and 773ER effectively kill off the new 747 production, which of course is the plan for Boeing. They want to move on from the 747. They are basically now in the 747F conversion business, with most new "orders" for the plane as SF conversions.
The whole point of the 777F is that it will carry the same cargo pallets, have the same cockpit, and use the same pilots as the 744F,ERF,SF,ERSF, so it makes integration and transition easy.
Which would also indicate that any new freighter version of 74xadv, 797 would also share those same economies.
PS - what makes the MD11 such a great cargo plane compared to it's flopping as a pax plane? Is it the 3 engines vs. 4, but longer range than a twin aspect, or is there something else at work (or is it just that it's easy to get them?). I liked flying in the MD11 the one time i did so for all of 1 hour.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Good question. Several reasons:
1. The M11 always had an F version on offer. Fedex was an early M11 customer, so its freighter capability was always proven.
2. The early M11 fell short of promised range/payload guarantees which lost it some passenger-version sales (in particular, SQ).
3. The A340 never had an F version, whether as a new build or as a conversion.
4. Fedex operates a huge portion of the worldwide M11 fleet, so it distorts the stats.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
...course, you failed to give the primary (not to mention, most fundamental) reason-- namely, that the M11 has an enormous payload density factor that only the 777F can surpass (for relative size).
The A340 etc cannot match this for a 90-100T freighter, the 747 too large, the 767/A330 too small.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
Maybe someone can help me-I assume the capital cost of a 777lrf is much more than a used 747-400 converted to a freighter. Since the "passengers" on a freighter don't care about the age of the plane can the improved operating ecomics make up for the huge capital cost diffential-Is one of the reasons that large freighters unlike the small DC9 and 727 counterparts spent alot of time in the air?
B772LRF would carry 25.37% LESS than B747Adv.
(134-100)/134 = 0.2537 [Base of comparison is B747Adv]
B747Adv would carry 34% MORE than B777LRF.
(134-100)/100 = 0.34 [Base of comparison is B772LRF]
Aviation is not so much a profession as it is a disease.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: A330NZ, Andy33, AngMoh, Baidu [Spider], bennett123, Bing [Bot], blueflyer, BlueLine, CattleClass, cedarjet, chiad, CriticalPoint, deltacto, DTWLUVER, ElroyJetson, ERJ170, flyguy89, hatbutton, hk4321, Jayce, Jetty, JU068, karungguni, LAX772LR, LH779, Mir, notdownnlocked, nutsaboutplanes, Okcflyer, pa747sp, QF1607, SANFan, scbriml, seahawk, soundmind, StTim, TAADC930, The777Man, TheF15Ace, trees, tullamarine, Wingtips56, wxtech, Yahoo [Bot] and 20 guests
Popular Searches On Airliners.net
Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe
Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days
Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit
Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior
Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft
Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials
Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions
Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin
Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon
Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos
Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft
Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries
Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground
Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos