QANTAS recently replaced one of their wet leased 744F's with a 748F. They did this because of the extra revenue opportunity associated with the larger aircraft.

Another important consideration revolves around turn around times. The QANTAS 747 freighters fly from Australia > China > USA > Australia. As such these freighters have very high utilisation rates. A nose door could result in quicker turn around times.

snasteve wrote:

I thought the 747 nose with the -8 extra length was the only thing able to move the long and skinny items ASAP for the oil industry. Without going to the Antonov?

There is hundreds of 747 freighters in service and many more parked. The sort of work you are talking about is not common and would not justify keeping a final assembly line open.

If you really want something light and long to go by air in the future Airbus would be able to provide a A330-743L.

travelhound wrote:

QANTAS recently replaced one of their wet leased 744F's with a 748F. They did this because of the extra revenue opportunity associated with the larger aircraft.

Another important consideration revolves around turn around times. The QANTAS 747 freighters fly from Australia > China > USA > Australia. As such these freighters have very high utilisation rates. A nose door could result in quicker turn around times.

Except you can’t use the full volume of the fuselage if you only use the nose door. Front opening clearance is only 8 feet through the nose door because of the cockpit floor. Iirc full height pallets of 10 feet can only go in through the side door. You lose close to 20% of your volumetric payload if you just use the nose door as you suggest.

Reading between the lines shows that the floor will not be brought up to standard freighter load capacity, which indicates that it will be primarily used by package delivery airlines and less by general freight carriers. This still leaves room for the 748F and 777F; but it is likely that one will cease production as there will be insufficient demand for both. Boeing is clearly unhappy about this, as in the past they have not hesitated to support planes converted by third parties. I think this is poor strategy on their part, and hope they reconsider. It is clear that there will be a large number of 77Ws becoming available in the next few years with a lot of life left in them, and at the same time the demand for package air freight is rapidly increasing. This seems like a good solution to several problems, and I hope it is successful.

SEPilot wrote:

Reading between the lines shows that the floor will not be brought up to standard freighter load capacity, which indicates that it will be primarily used by package delivery airlines and less by general freight carriers. This still leaves room for the 748F and 777F; but it is likely that one will cease production as there will be insufficient demand for both. Boeing is clearly unhappy about this, as in the past they have not hesitated to support planes converted by third parties. I think this is poor strategy on their part, and hope they reconsider. It is clear that there will be a large number of 77Ws becoming available in the next few years with a lot of life left in them, and at the same time the demand for package air freight is rapidly increasing. This seems like a good solution to several problems, and I hope it is successful.

It is a very poor long term strategy for Boeing not to support this conversion. For otherwise resale values drop further, hurting airlines and Leasing companies.

We've been waiting for a 777-300ERBCF, instead, a SF.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

Reading between the lines shows that the floor will not be brought up to standard freighter load capacity, which indicates that it will be primarily used by package delivery airlines and less by general freight carriers. This still leaves room for the 748F and 777F; but it is likely that one will cease production as there will be insufficient demand for both. Boeing is clearly unhappy about this, as in the past they have not hesitated to support planes converted by third parties. I think this is poor strategy on their part, and hope they reconsider. It is clear that there will be a large number of 77Ws becoming available in the next few years with a lot of life left in them, and at the same time the demand for package air freight is rapidly increasing. This seems like a good solution to several problems, and I hope it is successful.

It is a very poor long term strategy for Boeing not to support this conversion. For otherwise resale values drop further, hurting airlines and Leasing companies.

We've been waiting for a 777-300ERBCF, instead, a SF.

Lightsaber

Exactly. And that will induce airlines to hold onto their 77Ws longer insread of buying 77Xs, or even induce them to switch to A350s.

zeke wrote:

That spells the death on the 747-8F

I see there is an existing thread for this viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1433187

As much as it hurts me I agree with you. I need to had to KPAE to spot the last few UPS 747s.

Do you think it would be possible to have a swing tail on the 777 like the 747 LCF to allow the same style of oversized cargo loading?

Okcflyer wrote:

I suspect floor beams are not being changed. Main deck will be density limited. Heavier items will go below deck. If unable to fit, that freight will move on a 77F or 747.

This is clearly targeted to the booming eCommerce market globally.

FYI ... UPS’s air shipments tend to be much denser than Fedex. It’s why they operate 747’s and stop in Alaska regularly where as FX over flies regularly.

I would like to see further analysis on the FYI. UPS does operate much denser flights than FedEx, that seem to have called for 747s over 777s. Specifically on the US-Asia routes where UPS's 747-8Fs spend most of their time. This is not to say the 77WP2F couldn't be a fit for UPS, just that from what has been demonstrated and stated, the 747 for UPS is a cornerstone of their operations.

In addition, how does the floor strength issue work into the operational needs of Atlas, Cargolux and Volga?

lightsaber wrote:

...
There are only two outstanding 748F orders. One undisclosed, I assume for a Chinese carrier. The other is UPS. In my opinion, this ends any chance of a UPS top off order.
...
Lightsaber

Last I looked, there were two orders indeed, and besides UPS, it's Ruskies, not Chinese:
http://active.boeing.com/commercial/ord ... iew+Report

The question remains, if those orders will be taken up, as the customers appears to be short of money:
http://ulnovosti.ru/content/2/VolgaDnep ... _posadku_/
The gist is that the health of the entire holding, the Volga-Dnepr group, is under scrutiny.

While indeed, Air Bridge Cargo/Volga-Dnepr UK Ltd. holds these orders formally, if their mother company runs out of money -- there's going to be pain and suffering.

Spacepope wrote:

travelhound wrote:

QANTAS recently replaced one of their wet leased 744F's with a 748F. They did this because of the extra revenue opportunity associated with the larger aircraft.

Another important consideration revolves around turn around times. The QANTAS 747 freighters fly from Australia > China > USA > Australia. As such these freighters have very high utilisation rates. A nose door could result in quicker turn around times.

Except you can’t use the full volume of the fuselage if you only use the nose door. Front opening clearance is only 8 feet through the nose door because of the cockpit floor. Iirc full height pallets of 10 feet can only go in through the side door. You lose close to 20% of your volumetric payload if you just use the nose door as you suggest.

The nose loading option allows you to haul items that cannot be hauled in other airframes. It is a unique feature and one that Atlas, Cargolux and Volga have all stated it very important to them. For all 3 companies to put that much emphasis on it and what would replace it was telling. It wouldn't be used instead of the side door but in addition to or in place of when necessary.

Long term, 747-400Fs are getting long in the tooth. Something will need to replace them. Is there room for the 777-300F, 777F and 747-8F? Maybe, maybe not. I agree that the 747 won't be in production in 2030 but does it make it another 8-10 years in production or bow out earlier?

CX747 wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

travelhound wrote:

QANTAS recently replaced one of their wet leased 744F's with a 748F. They did this because of the extra revenue opportunity associated with the larger aircraft.

Another important consideration revolves around turn around times. The QANTAS 747 freighters fly from Australia > China > USA > Australia. As such these freighters have very high utilisation rates. A nose door could result in quicker turn around times.

Except you can’t use the full volume of the fuselage if you only use the nose door. Front opening clearance is only 8 feet through the nose door because of the cockpit floor. Iirc full height pallets of 10 feet can only go in through the side door. You lose close to 20% of your volumetric payload if you just use the nose door as you suggest.

The nose loading option allows you to haul items that cannot be hauled in other airframes. It is a unique feature and one that Atlas, Cargolux and Volga have all stated it very important to them. For all 3 companies to put that much emphasis on it and what would replace it was telling. It wouldn't be used instead of the side door but in addition to or in place of when necessary.

Long term, 747-400Fs are getting long in the tooth. Something will need to replace them. Is there room for the 777-300F, 777F and 747-8F? Maybe, maybe not. I agree that the 747 won't be in production in 2030 but does it make it another 8-10 years in production or bow out earlier?

I know all that, however the nose door is only economical for the usual freight loads if either the pallets are really long (you can slide some surprisingly very long items through the SCD, including helicopters I've seen) or not very tall. There is a reason the floor of the extended upper deck was removed and raised in the 200SUD/300/400 P2F conversions.

I have seen 747's land, open up the nose door, unload standard pallatised freight, reload new freight, close the door and fly off again.

I think there are more advantages to the nose door than just long freight.

speedbird52 wrote:

Do you think it would be possible to have a swing tail on the 777 like the 747 LCF to allow the same style of oversized cargo loading?

Perhaps, but it's just not a very good solution to the problem.

If you'll note, Boeing spent the $$$ to build a Dreamlifter facility at all the stations it visits.

Why?

The swing tail has a wind limit that isn't very generous, just like the Guppy did.

You simply can't unload it if the wind is too strong, the hinges will bend or break and then you are screwed.

Thus they now unload inside.

Working around the wind limits doesn't work out too well when your business is to haul out-sized goods on demand to random locations on an ad-hoc basis.

Revelation wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

Do you think it would be possible to have a swing tail on the 777 like the 747 LCF to allow the same style of oversized cargo loading?

Perhaps, but it's just not a very good solution to the problem.

If you'll note, Boeing spent the $$$ to build a Dreamlifter facility at all the stations it visits.

Why?

The swing tail has a wind limit that isn't very generous, just like the Guppy did.

You simply can't unload it if the wind is too strong, the hinges will bend or break and then you are screwed.

Thus they now unload inside.

Working around the wind limits doesn't work out too well when your business is to haul out-sized goods on demand to random locations on an ad-hoc basis.

Is it true the cargo compartment of the Dreamlifters are unpressurized?

Spacepope wrote:

Is it true the cargo compartment of the Dreamlifters are unpressurized?

That is correct.

Revelation wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

Do you think it would be possible to have a swing tail on the 777 like the 747 LCF to allow the same style of oversized cargo loading?

Perhaps, but it's just not a very good solution to the problem.

If you'll note, Boeing spent the $$$ to build a Dreamlifter facility at all the stations it visits.

Why?

The swing tail has a wind limit that isn't very generous, just like the Guppy did.

You simply can't unload it if the wind is too strong, the hinges will bend or break and then you are screwed.

Thus they now unload inside.

Working around the wind limits doesn't work out too well when your business is to haul out-sized goods on demand to random locations on an ad-hoc basis.

Also, a swing tail on a pressurized 777 would need a bunch of flange bolting. The thrust of the rear bulkhead at 7 psi is over 135 tons. That is a 20 mm bolt every 25 cm around the perimeter. Hard to get latching that works on that, a rotating bayonet possibly.

The dreamlifter is not pressurized. There is a bulkhead at the back of the cockpit / crew rest area.