LyleLanley wrote:

IADFCO wrote:

Words...

You, sir, can take your well-reasoned, cogent argument someplace else. Like to one of those uppity threads where people think and what not. This is a thread about the USAF ordering 748 freighters even though there’s no shortage of airlift, the 747 is going (gone?) out of production, and it’d serve a role that can be done wayyyyyy cheaper by literally anyone else: thinking, logic, and reasonable arguments have no place, here!

Isn't there a way to save the production line?

UA857 wrote:

LyleLanley wrote:

IADFCO wrote:

Words...

You, sir, can take your well-reasoned, cogent argument someplace else. Like to one of those uppity threads where people think and what not. This is a thread about the USAF ordering 748 freighters even though there’s no shortage of airlift, the 747 is going (gone?) out of production, and it’d serve a role that can be done wayyyyyy cheaper by literally anyone else: thinking, logic, and reasonable arguments have no place, here!

Isn't there a way to save the production line?

She’s dead, Jim.

acecrackshot wrote:

UA857 wrote:

LyleLanley wrote:

You, sir, can take your well-reasoned, cogent argument someplace else. Like to one of those uppity threads where people think and what not. This is a thread about the USAF ordering 748 freighters even though there’s no shortage of airlift, the 747 is going (gone?) out of production, and it’d serve a role that can be done wayyyyyy cheaper by literally anyone else: thinking, logic, and reasonable arguments have no place, here!

Isn't there a way to save the production line?

She’s dead, Jim.

Then what if the USAF needs a future airlifter?

That’s a 2040s/2050s problem.

acecrackshot wrote:

That’s a 2040s/2050s problem.

Exactly. The SOF demanded the huge Mark V boat that was designed around being deployed by C-5. Now they downsized to a C-17 sized SOF craft. They’ll adapt, but the 747 is dead, no revival after the new VC-25s arrive. And the 747-8 wasn’t the airlifter of the past or the future.

acecrackshot wrote:

She’s dead, Jim.

Very nice!

UA857 wrote:

Then what if the USAF needs a future airlifter?

They'll do the same thing they do whenever they need anything else, buy a new one!

When a military branch grows up and gets bored with what they have, or they realize there's just a burning hole in their requirements, they'll make themselves known to potential suitors (defense contractors) that they're desperate for a new weapon system. The contractors will then wine & dine the branch's representatives and convince them that they'll take care of them, especially when regular check-ups go wrong or when sustainment costs balloon. Because the service has stars in their eyes (Literally! You don't make General/Admiral by saying "no" to new spending) they'll believe anything the contractor says, even when it's obvious bullshit, as money talks and they're blinded. They truly believe the contractors even when their friends (the other services) warn them to stay away from them. After the pre-nup (contract) is signed, the real magic happens and 9 years later the new weapon system is unveiled. It's then 18 years before the bugs are worked out and the system is ready to be used, by which time the original contractor is long since gone and the branch is left with the pitiful result. At this point, the service once again gets bored with what they have, or they realize there's just a burning hole in their requirements...

UA857 wrote:

Then what if the USAF needs a future airlifter?

Boeing has finished their BWB model test flights. Airbus is doing theirs. Once that is done, both team should have sufficient data for a proposal and fly off.

Maybe start with the KC-Z and morph into a C-17 size BWB.

That will be an interesting competition.

bt

LyleLanley wrote:

acecrackshot wrote:

She’s dead, Jim.

Very nice!

UA857 wrote:

Then what if the USAF needs a future airlifter?

They'll do the same thing they do whenever they need anything else, buy a new one!

When a military branch grows up and gets bored with what they have, or they realize there's just a burning hole in their requirements, they'll make themselves known to potential suitors (defense contractors) that they're desperate for a new weapon system. The contractors will then wine & dine the branch's representatives and convince them that they'll take care of them, especially when regular check-ups go wrong or when sustainment costs balloon. Because the service has stars in their eyes (Literally! You don't make General/Admiral by saying "no" to new spending) they'll believe anything the contractor says, even when it's obvious bullshit, as money talks and they're blinded. They truly believe the contractors even when their friends (the other services) warn them to stay away from them. After the pre-nup (contract) is signed, the real magic happens and 9 years later the new weapon system is unveiled. It's then 18 years before the bugs are worked out and the system is ready to be used, by which time the original contractor is long since gone and the branch is left with the pitiful result. At this point, the service once again gets bored with what they have, or they realize there's just a burning hole in their requirements...

Can Boeing offer the 777F to the USAF?

Why, after the KC-46?

Asking as a taxpayer.

UA857 wrote:

Can Boeing offer the 777F to the USAF?

Absolutely! Cessna can also offer a C-172, Toyota can offer the new 4Runner, etc. That’s the beauty of private enterprise and government contracts: corporations can always offer, and the govt can always pass

LyleLanley wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Can Boeing offer the 777F to the USAF?

Absolutely! Cessna can also offer a C-172, Toyota can offer the new 4Runner, etc. That’s the beauty of private enterprise and government contracts: corporations can always offer, and the govt can always pass

Would the USAF really be interested in purchasing a 777F.

UA857 wrote:

Would the USAF really be interested in purchasing a 777F.

Not especially

UA857 wrote:

LyleLanley wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Can Boeing offer the 777F to the USAF?

Absolutely! Cessna can also offer a C-172, Toyota can offer the new 4Runner, etc. That’s the beauty of private enterprise and government contracts: corporations can always offer, and the govt can always pass

Would the USAF really be interested in purchasing a 777F.

No chance. Private freight operators will always have 777 style freighters for the USAF to hire. Boeing and Airbus will always provide new build freighters if the private companies want them. In 20 years time we'll probably have A350 and 787 freighters.

The reason for mentioning the 747-8F is that it has unique oversized capability and nose loading that frequently gets used by the USAF. In 20 years time when the 747 fleet runs low the USAF will lose that capability. A 747-8F fleet purchase by the USAF and privately operated would have secured 50+ years of cheap oversized freight.

Purchasing freighters outright with the yearly defence budget is taking away funds from other programs. It's probably better to just deal with a freighter shortage in 20 years time.

To the OP, what is this fixation on clearly non-starters?

If we are bringing back cool stuff, I vote for airships.

acecrackshot wrote:

If we are bringing back cool stuff, I vote for airships.

Airship flights are too long, you need a calendar in your logbook

RJMAZ wrote:

The reason for mentioning the 747-8F is that it has unique oversized capability and nose loading that frequently gets used by the USAF. In 20 years time when the 747 fleet runs low the USAF will lose that capability. A 747-8F fleet purchase by the USAF and privately operated would have secured 50+ years of cheap oversized freight.
.

I’ve been in the USAF deployment and Aerial Port business for nearly 40 years. I can count on the thumbs of one hand the number times 747 nose loading capability was actually required. People would be surprised at what will go in the 747s side cargo door - provided the powered rollers are working. Same with KC-10/MD-11, deuce and a half (2.5 ton truck) would go right in with a little work.

zanl188 wrote:

Same with KC-10/MD-11, deuce and a half (2.5 ton truck) would go right in with a little work.

And airstream trailers, KC-10 engines, etc. Section 5 items for the win!

UA857 wrote:

LyleLanley wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Can Boeing offer the 777F to the USAF?

Absolutely! Cessna can also offer a C-172, Toyota can offer the new 4Runner, etc. That’s the beauty of private enterprise and government contracts: corporations can always offer, and the govt can always pass

Would the USAF really be interested in purchasing a 777F.

No but the USAF will rent them from who does own them everyday.

zanl188 wrote:

I’ve been in the USAF deployment and Aerial Port business for nearly 40 years. I can count on the thumbs of one hand the number times 747 nose loading capability was actually required. People would be surprised at what will go in the 747s side cargo door - provided the powered rollers are working. Same with KC-10/MD-11, deuce and a half (2.5 ton truck) would go right in with a little work.

747 nose loading is quickly becoming another one of those oft repeated forum myths. I’ve worked for a civil cargo carrier with 747s, and similar to you, almost never required the nose door. Yet everyone here insists we need it on every flight. What do people think is being shipped around?

Get a decent load team and an airplane in reasonably good shape and you really can fit a lot through that side door

The Russians/Ukrainians might some day (toward 2035 or so) be able to produce a dozen, or half dozen Antonovs a year to satisfy the outsize civil cargo market. The Russians have been trying to build one on a new line themselves I believe (making a 5 foot wind tunnel model of an upgraded version), but I am skeptical it will happen in the next few years. That one was used to get a new (assembled) GE9X from Ohio to Washington for the 779 program is perhaps emblematic of the ability/need/capacity for the type to service outsize cargo needs moving forward.

But the market is small, and if it weren’t, I bet Lockheed might have figured out a way to produce/offer some C-5’s over the past 5 decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-124_Ruslan

texl1649 wrote:

But the market is small, and if it weren’t, I bet Lockheed might have figured out a way to produce/offer some C-5’s over the past 5 decades.

A cheaper solution is an articulated tail like the Dreamlifter. The mod is already approved. They just need to certify it for a more general payload.

If you wat a two engine version, I'm sure Boeing can whip up a 777 version. Only problem will be rhe cargo section can not be pressurized.

bt

The Dreamlifter is a specialized transport needing ground vehicles. The opposite end of what the An-124 does.

Noshow wrote:

The Dreamlifter is a specialized transport needing ground vehicles. The opposite end of what the An-124 does.

True, but we are not talking about roll-on, roll-off capability. We are just discussing outsized cargo being moved from one airport to another in an expedited scenario.

bt

But right after arrival your problems start when you try to unload your very heavy stuff, say outsized industrial installations, and need specialized equipment. The Dreamlifter is a smart solution for some specific given job but for nothing else. It doesn't need any other capability.

Noshow wrote:

But right after arrival your problems start when you try to unload your very heavy stuff, say outsized industrial installations, and need specialized equipment.

That is why you have planners. Those folks are smart enough to come up with something. Like lining up a couple of standard cargo lifter trucks for the really long items. You may have to send along another 747 with a pair of lifter trucks that have sensors to synchronize the platform height.

bt

Noshow wrote:

The Dreamlifter is a smart solution for some specific given job but for nothing else. It doesn't need any other capability.

The Dreamlifter was only certified to carry 787components. I suppose that was to simplify the certification process and reduce cost. It was allowed to deliver medical equipment during the height of the Covid -19 mask shortage.

So if one was to create a more generalized 777 version for outsized cargo, you could do so. It may cost more than other options. But we are talking hypotheticals.

bt

As wide bodies go further into electrification for controls (tail/stabilizer, not just trim etc), then it will be easier to create a guppie/dream lifter type of larger carbon framed outsize cargo hauler with a swing tail, and then one will be built and the ground support equipment to load/unload it also sold to make it ‘palatable’ for the cargo carriers imho.

A military application would surely be interesting at that point, as well.

How about moving the cockpit of the 777X freighter up or down (Beluga style) to enable some nose door instead of swinging the tail?

Noshow wrote:

How about moving the cockpit of the 777X

The aerodynamics at the front end is critical. Changing that would require lots more testing. There are also lots more wires going into the cockpit.

The major headache of pivoting the tail is how to deal with the apu and the fuel line that goes to it. The APU is critical for the 777 to obtain ETOPs. For a specialized cargo plane, it may not be a big deal if you replace that with battery and an Electric starter/generator like the 787.

bt

The avionics bay (really, a mid-size room) on a 777 can’t just be moved/adapted easily. It’s sort of a ‘tweener” generationally, with some older and some newer tech still. I don’t think a 777 will be evolved significantly more beyond a possible -10x variant (less suitable as a freighter).

Once they phase over to the 777-X passenger, wouldn't they want to go for an X freighter? Otherwise they would have to maintain 2 wing lines, one metal and one composite.

bt

Yes, an 8F freighter is inevitable, imho, but not one with a swing tail, let alone a cockpit relocated for a nose door. If they build an 8x pax version, I really have no idea why they (and customers/lessors) wouldn’t just forego the composite floor beams.

texl1649 wrote:

I really have no idea why they (and customers/lessors) wouldn’t just forego the composite floor beams.

30% less weight than an aluminum floor beam is a good enough reason. The composite floor beam was on the original 777.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I really have no idea why they (and customers/lessors) wouldn’t just forego the composite floor beams.

30% less weight than an aluminum floor beam is a good enough reason. The composite floor beam was on the original 777.

bt

But there’s a very limited market, and if built with easy/contracted conversion capability into a BCF I think the residual values will be much better, and they might actually sell more (plus suitability for CRAF fleet etc.). It would still have better economics as a freighter of course than the 77F. Floor beam weight isn’t really a holy grail of cost savings on an 8x model. They could even be built with the cut out for the cargo door already there.

texl1649 wrote:

But there’s a very limited market, and if built with easy/contracted conversion capability into a BCF I think the residual values will be much better, and they might actually sell more

The idea that it is easier to strengthen an aluminum floor beam vs a composite floor beam may have merit, but may not provide as much a cost difference as one may think.

The resale value for a 777 is lower on the priority list than the 20 years of fuel burn from passenger passenger operation.

If Boeing want to simpliy the BCF conversion, they would strategically increase the gage in the composite floor beams to meet the freighter requirement. That would only increase the weight a little relative to all luminum floor beams and would not increase the manufacturing cost much beyond the margin vs the existing composite floor beams and avoid maintaing a second set of Engineering, Fabrication infrastructure (factory space) for the metal beams.

Note that not only Boeing would have to maintain the second line, but their prime as well. It would go against what they are trying to achieve. And it would not be a sale incentive for their dedicated freighter

bt

We are perhaps talking past each other. Boeing today sells the 77F without composite floor beams. The design/engineering/supply chain stuff is done. Use of those floor beams from the 77F would not involve changes other than putting them under the Pax floor on the 778x.

It could also appeal to 778 customers who also operate dedicated cargo aircraft (affording flexibility), and those buying it who are leasing the aircraft via a third party. Hint; that's the whole order book so far, basically, with only EK and QR really on the hook for examples right now. There's no call to engineer a stronger composite floor beam to use also in the 779.

All Nippon Airways.
British Airways.
Cathay Pacific.
Emirates.
Etihad Airways.
Lufthansa.
Qatar Airways.
Singapore Airlines.

The 778 is intended essentially to be a middle east to the west coast (US) aircraft, and a freighter. Boeing has always catered well in it's offerings to cargo airlines, and I would think this makes a lot of sense. It could also easily see military applications if so, not just as a pax/CRAF fleet aircraft potentially, but in a combi role in the future.

texl1649 wrote:

Boeing today sells the 77F without composite floor beams.

I was not aware of this. Can you confirm the metal floor beam are on new built freighters and not as a conversion kit?

It does add another dimension to the 777X freighter design as the section 44 wing box would have composite floor beams. Although the wing box would already be mighty stout.

Not sure if they can re-use the existing metal floor beam design for the 777x as it has new fuselage barrel or would have to design new ones.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Boeing today sells the 77F without composite floor beams.

I was not aware of this. Can you confirm the metal floor beam are on new built freighters and not as a conversion kit?

It does add another dimension to the 777X freighter design as the section 44 wing box would have composite floor beams. Although the wing box would already be mighty stout.

Not sure if they can re-use the existing metal floor beam design for the 777x as it has new fuselage barrel or would have to design new ones.

bt

The fuselage strengthening (in certain areas) and floor beams are the primary differentiators for the 777-200F. This is something that could be extended to all -8x is my contention. See:

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... _02_1.html

Complicating things a bit, some of the composite beams are to be made now in the Middle East I believe:

https://www.aviationpros.com/engines-co ... ade-in-uae

There is no change planned in the barrel itself, either in dimensions, nor materials, but for some additional sections vs. the present -200/300 versions.

texl1649 wrote:

Complicating things a bit, some of the composite beams are to be made now in the Middle East I believe:

The article only mentioned composite materials and not composite parts/components. It is logical for UAE to go into composite raw materials as part of their Aeospace diversification push, (including the Mar probe), as the constituent for GR/EP composites are all petro-chemical based.

Shouldn't make a difference either way as some Boeing composite components are already being build near by in India.

As for the metal floor beams. It does make the passenger to freighter conversion a little easier. The joints from the floor beam to the airframe are critical but have relatively few fasteners and is straight forward. Since the beams are already designed, it may be cheaper just to swap out the beam instead of trying to strengthen the composite one.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Noshow wrote:

But right after arrival your problems start when you try to unload your very heavy stuff, say outsized industrial installations, and need specialized equipment.

That is why you have planners. Those folks are smart enough to come up with something. Like lining up a couple of standard cargo lifter trucks for the really long items. You may have to send along another 747 with a pair of lifter trucks that have sensors to synchronize the platform height.

bt

I am one of those planners of which you speak.... Air Force has nothing to move that would justify the purchase expense of a swing tail or nose loader 747.

Lining up a couple of "lifter trucks" (k-loader is the term) is not as simple as you suggest. To move anything as large as you suggest the alignment would have to be near perfect to avoid platforms/pallets getting jammed in the rails.

The times I’ve seen really long loads in the C-5, they were on specially built trailers designed to carry the load overland and facilitate aircraft loading. Talbert in Indiana built several designs for the USN to transport the Mark V boat, the Virginia sub parts and transmissions.

zanl188 wrote:

Air Force has nothing to move that would justify the purchase expense of a swing tail or nose loader 747

Don't disagree that the Airforce shouldn't buy the specialized transport.

The discussion drifted to the civilian transport that can be used by the Airforce as needed.

As for the stacking of the lifters, isn't that what Boeing did to load and unload the 787 sections from the Dream lifter?

bt

Cant say what Boeing uses to load their cargo, but I can say what they’re not—K-loaders, either Tunners or Halvorsens

Yeah, it looks like the loader they used a uniquely designed that took components for two loaders and fuse them together.

The design is there. Might be able to borrow it b if the need arise.

bt

Boeing uses a custom loader for the Dreamlifter. If I’m not mistaken TLD made it for them. TLD is a manufacturer of commercial aircraft loaders.

Someone mentioned above flying the loader in on a 747. Good luck with that. If memory serves 747 main deck is 19 feet in the air. Tunner and Halvorsen k-loaders were designed from the start to reach main deck of a 747, but neither is easily airliftable on a 747.

Prior to that there was a requirement for a KC-10 main deck loader that could be airlifted on a KC-10. AF fielded two designs of an elevator loader that broke down like an erector set and could be loaded on pallets for airlift. Both were rickety and unreliable affairs - although I honestly don’t recall any accidents related to the design. They would allow loading a deuce and a half sized vehicle on a KC-10 though. KC-10 required a subfloor, usually 463L pallets, to drive vehicles aboard.

I believe Boeing did develop a commercial loading device that a 747 could fly with and use to load itself. I’m fuzzy on the details, but my recollection is it was not substantial and was limited to airline containers and cookie sheet pallets.

Moving K-loaders was a common load during early contingencies, esp to Guard and Reserve units. By now, I’d guess most units that deploy have at least one loader.

An entire study about all (tanker/cargo) possibilities of 747's in military service is available here : http://www.ausairpower.net/APAA/APA-2005-02.pdf
This study was performed for the Australian tanker selection, but also a lot of info about the 747 military pallet cargo loads / loading possibilities is listed here.
Additional a lot of different high loaders, incl the 747 on-board loader are pictured.

747classic wrote:

An entire study about all (tanker/cargo) possibilities of 747's in military service is available here : http://www.ausairpower.net/APAA/APA-2005-02.pdf
This study was performed for the Australian tanker selection, but also a lot of info about the 747 military pallet cargo loads / loading possibilities is listed here.
Additional a lot of different high loaders, incl the 747 on-board loader are pictured.

Thank you! Interesting stuff.

Doesn’t say much about how they make main deck compatible with trucks and tracks - just “floor stiffness increase”. They’d surely need to do something with roller system to get vehicles in.

Does the 747F have “flippable” rollers? The C-5 loads would just unlatch recesses in the floor and flip over the panels to expose the rollers or leave them down for a flat floor. 40,000# every 36”.