Boeing Nut
Topic Author
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:10 pm

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 
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
supa7E7
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:05 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:55 am

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.
"Who's to say spaceships aren't fine art?" - Phil Lesh
 
ehho
Posts: 769
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:26 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:05 am

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
Posts: 417
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:57 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:17 am

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
FLY SKYTEAM JETS
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3188
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:24 am

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
Posts: 5066
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:33 am

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.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23079
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:35 am

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
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:40 am

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
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:34 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:26 am

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
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:34 am

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
Posts: 3188
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:39 am

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
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:08 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:41 am

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
Posts: 3188
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:52 am

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
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:58 am

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
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:03 am

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
Topic Author
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: 777LRF Update (Boeing Link)

Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:06 am

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.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.