RJMAZ wrote:tommy1808 wrote:Anyhow, i would think the -8 gets delayed until they make the -8F, at which point the pax model essentially comes for free, without taking up resources now.
The problem is the 777-8F offers no performance over the 777F when operating as a freighter. A few users have discussed this in the tech ops thread.
The original 777F retained the same landing weight as the 777W, with the shorter and lighter 200 fuselage length then it gave a very large max payload of 102t.
If the 777-8F had the same max landing weight as the 777-9 then the max payload of the 777X freighter will be 80-85% of the original 777F.
Now if the 777X freighter might burn 20% less fuel but carries 20% less payload so then there is no fuel burn improvement. The fuel burnt per kg of payload is unchanged. You would only gain some extra cabin volume for lightweight parcels.
The larger 777X wing provides big advantages on ultra long haul flights. But on shorter flights the higher empty weight reduces the advantage to near zero.
In addition to this an ultra long haul passenger 777-8 does not need the high landing weight of a freighter. So the passenger version would have a lot of deadweight.
It would be cheaper to just produce discounted 777F's. If the 777-8 and 787-8F cost $2 billion to develop then Boeing save that $2 billion and use that money to knock off $20 million from the price of 100 777F's.
It would only worth making the 777-8 freighter if the passenger version was made. If the 777-8 passenger version gets beaten by the A350-1000ULR then Boeing should just pull the plug on it.
First you say that a 777-8F and the passenger 777-8 will bite each other because of different optimal specs. But then you say that it would only make sense to do a 777-8F if there's also a passenger variant.
Considering the sales success of the 777F vs the 77L would ut not be ecomically possible to design a 777XF that is not linked to a passenger variant. So it won't have any of the issues related to the passenger variant?