Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Armadillo1
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Sun Aug 09, 2020 10:43 am

Beluga made for outsize cargo and flying low, slow and costly.
 
DartHerald
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:08 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Sun Aug 09, 2020 11:44 am

But isn't that precisely the gap that would be lost by the withdrawal of the AN124/225, for example? why not a programme for (say 50 or 60)

With all the relatively young A340-600s available as feedstock could they be the basis of a Beluga-ised version with a fuselage size around that of an AN124 and the Beluga dropped nose for front loading. One could imagine there might even be some military interest for supplementing C130/A400 fleets.
 
workhorse
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:53 pm

SEPilot wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Unless Russia is successful in building their proposed An-124 replacement, the "Slon" or "Elephant" which is supposed to have a payload of 180 t and use four of the PD35 engines intended for the CR929.

I won’t hold my breath. The same laws of supply and demand work in Russia as in the West. The only purpose built freighters in aviation history have been for the military, and I doubt that the Russian military is able to fund one at this time. And even if they do, it’s use will probably strictly military.


They definitely DO have the money for this. Aviation is one of the top priority topics of the Russian government. So, notwithstanding some catastrophic events that may shake our unstable world, this plane will be built (even if somewhat late). And it has already been stated that there will be a military and a civilian version.
 
2175301
Posts: 1907
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Sun Aug 09, 2020 9:24 pm

workhorse wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Unless Russia is successful in building their proposed An-124 replacement, the "Slon" or "Elephant" which is supposed to have a payload of 180 t and use four of the PD35 engines intended for the CR929.

I won’t hold my breath. The same laws of supply and demand work in Russia as in the West. The only purpose built freighters in aviation history have been for the military, and I doubt that the Russian military is able to fund one at this time. And even if they do, it’s use will probably strictly military.


They definitely DO have the money for this. Aviation is one of the top priority topics of the Russian government. So, notwithstanding some catastrophic events that may shake our unstable world, this plane will be built (even if somewhat late). And it has already been stated that there will be a military and a civilian version.


I disagree that they have the money. Russia as a country is under severe financial strain as their economy was based off of about $100 / barrel oil. Its currently in the low $40's and spent essentially all of the last year or so under $60.

Russia has been stopping projects all over its country. Just as one example how this is affecting defense is that in April they announced suspension of the development of the next generation destroyers (expected to enter service starting about 2025) ( https://www.interfax.ru/russia/704920 ). These new destroyers would have been a very much needed upgrade to modernize the fleet. Currently dead stop. This is not the only example of suspended programs or overhauls of existing ships if you follow Russian Military programs.

Russia is hurting for $ right now... I don't see them prioritizing cargo aircraft at this time.

Have a great day,
 
workhorse
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Mon Aug 10, 2020 12:05 am

2175301 wrote:
workhorse wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
I won’t hold my breath. The same laws of supply and demand work in Russia as in the West. The only purpose built freighters in aviation history have been for the military, and I doubt that the Russian military is able to fund one at this time. And even if they do, it’s use will probably strictly military.


They definitely DO have the money for this. Aviation is one of the top priority topics of the Russian government. So, notwithstanding some catastrophic events that may shake our unstable world, this plane will be built (even if somewhat late). And it has already been stated that there will be a military and a civilian version.


I disagree that they have the money. Russia as a country is under severe financial strain as their economy was based off of about $100 / barrel oil. Its currently in the low $40's and spent essentially all of the last year or so under $60.

Russia has been stopping projects all over its country. Just as one example how this is affecting defense is that in April they announced suspension of the development of the next generation destroyers (expected to enter service starting about 2025) ( https://www.interfax.ru/russia/704920 ). These new destroyers would have been a very much needed upgrade to modernize the fleet. Currently dead stop. This is not the only example of suspended programs or overhauls of existing ships if you follow Russian Military programs.

Russia is hurting for $ right now... I don't see them prioritizing cargo aircraft at this time.

Have a great day,


I am afraid you will be disappointed. But as of now, the discussion is moot: it's one belief against another. We'll have to wait ~10 years. See you there.
 
Deepgreen
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:15 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:08 pm

DartHerald wrote:
There already is an outsize freighter in existence, based on an in-production design, that features front loading, that no-one has yet mentioned - the A330 Beluga. If the demand was there I'm sure Airbus would be happy to modify this design (slightly less extreme fuselage barrel for example?) to create a production version.

Is the Beluga's range restricted by its outsize profile (increased fuel burn)? A smaller profile would help, but then the 'outsize' capacity feature diminishes.
 
tomcat
Posts: 609
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:57 pm

Deepgreen wrote:
DartHerald wrote:
There already is an outsize freighter in existence, based on an in-production design, that features front loading, that no-one has yet mentioned - the A330 Beluga. If the demand was there I'm sure Airbus would be happy to modify this design (slightly less extreme fuselage barrel for example?) to create a production version.

Is the Beluga's range restricted by its outsize profile (increased fuel burn)? A smaller profile would help, but then the 'outsize' capacity feature diminishes.


If the point is to provide an alternative to the front loading capability of the 747F, there is no need to modify the baseline fuselage diameter of the A330. All what is required is to use the lowered cockpit for the Beluga-XL in combination with a front door conforming to the regular A330 diameter. The whole cargo volume could then be pressurized.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2281
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Mon Aug 10, 2020 10:00 pm

Deepgreen wrote:
DartHerald wrote:
There already is an outsize freighter in existence, based on an in-production design, that features front loading, that no-one has yet mentioned - the A330 Beluga. If the demand was there I'm sure Airbus would be happy to modify this design (slightly less extreme fuselage barrel for example?) to create a production version.

Is the Beluga's range restricted by its outsize profile (increased fuel burn)? A smaller profile would help, but then the 'outsize' capacity feature diminishes.


Both the Beluga and the Dreamlifter are unpressurized and have much higher fuel burn.

I also recall that both programs are limited to 5 copies each and are limited to transporting the OEM's materials, cannot be used for revenue service. Certification was to the experimental category so far less substantial testing was needed.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1285
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:51 am

I don't think it would be viable.
There are currently 1242 B777-200ER and B777-300ER combined. With many B777-300ER still under 10 years of age.

When these aircraft reach their retirement cycle. There would be abundance of capable aircraft that could be converted into freighter version. Cheaply may I add.

B787 Freighter is also on the table.
 
amdiesen
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:12 am

When looking at author's topic problem from a demand perspective the market is shallow.
using a few resources, including planespotters, wikipedia and
https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/t ... -emirates/
one finds that the 748F and 744F fleets are comparatively young. Focusing on older 744 conversions and md11s as frames that are likely to need replacement this decade, one finds that FedEx, UPS, Atlas, Asiana and Kalitta will retire obsolete frames. Growth needs are tricky; however, Turkish and Amazon will likely be compelled to purchase.
B778F: Turkish, Asiana, Kalitta, China3 and the ME2(as a means of managing an over ordered book); however the total market is a low number. Financially capable airlines that want to replace b744CFs plus growth.
B77WCF: Fedex, Amazon, Emirates, DHL? (Fedex could conceivably replace ~30? MD11s with these GE90 conversions)
A359F: Singapore, DHL?, China3, UPS?
B789/10F: imo-this is UPS's wishlist to replace their MD11s late in the decade

Volga-Dnepr is the odd airline out needing to have a replacement for the AN-124s... at a time when this airline and boeing have relationship challenges.

:checkmark:
2175301 wrote:
I believe that Boeing has looked at or considered having a drop ramp tail - which just goes to essentially horizontal (not all the way to the ground) - in order to allow for the loading of oversized cargo in the proposed B777-8F... Have a great day,
puzzling over:
1) proper amortization of long-lived assets where costs and revenue are complex, in a technologically evolving environment.
2) the economics of gate real estate
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:18 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Both the Beluga and the Dreamlifter are unpressurized and have much higher fuel burn.

I also recall that both programs are limited to 5 copies each and are limited to transporting the OEM's materials, cannot be used for revenue service. Certification was to the experimental category so far less substantial testing was needed.


Airbus needes 6 BelugaXL and has therefore completed full testing in order to get the necessary certification. The BelugaXL is certified as the A330-700L, a derivative of the A330-300. Maximum payload is 51 t.

From Flightglobal:
"The A300-600ST [BelugaST] operates under a restricted type certificate from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, which allows aircraft that do not comply with all airworthiness requirements to be approved for operation through mitigating measures and limitations that ensure safety levels are maintained. While the BelugaXL – formally known as the A330-700L – is a specialised aircraft with a narrow production run, Airbus says there are “no regulatory restrictions” limiting the fleet to five, and it is free to expand".

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 38.article

I don't think the A330-700L will generate any additional orders. It is a highly specialised aircraft. Maybe we will see the BelugaXL in the US, transporting a A220 fuselage from the Airbus factories in Montreal, Canada to the assembly lines in Mobile, Alabama.
 
amdiesen
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:50 pm

workhorse wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Unless Russia is successful in building their proposed An-124 replacement, the "Slon" or "Elephant" which is supposed to have a payload of 180 t and use four of the PD35 engines intended for the CR929.

I won’t hold my breath. The same laws of supply and demand work in Russia as in the West. The only purpose built freighters in aviation history have been for the military, and I doubt that the Russian military is able to fund one at this time. And even if they do, it’s use will probably strictly military.


They definitely DO have the money for this. Aviation is one of the top priority topics of the Russian government. So, notwithstanding some catastrophic events that may shake our unstable world, this plane will be built (even if somewhat late). And it has already been stated that there will be a military and a civilian version.


respecting projections & economics v. realities...
Ilyushin offers a virtual view of an elephant with blended wing-body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W9qIrKX6yo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-106_PAK_VTA
puzzling over:
1) proper amortization of long-lived assets where costs and revenue are complex, in a technologically evolving environment.
2) the economics of gate real estate
 
workhorse
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Wed Aug 12, 2020 11:37 am

amdiesen wrote:
respecting projections & economics v. realities...
Ilyushin offers a virtual view of an elephant with blended wing-body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W9qIrKX6yo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-106_PAK_VTA


The video looks a bit too ambitious to me. I would expect An-124 fuselage (maybe a bit lengthened), new (likely composite) wing, PD-35 engines and new avionics.
 
workhorse
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:20 pm

tomcat wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I will be more provocative: if the passenger version of the 778 would be abandoned, why should the 778F be longer than the 772F if this would lead the 778F to have a lower payload than the 772F?


Absolutely! Let's be optimistic and accept the Boeing claim that the new wing has the same weight than the old one. Boeing also said that GE9X is heavier "more than 2 tonnes" than the GE90-115B. Again, let's be optimistic and suppose it's 2.1 tonnes. That's 4.2 tonnes more OEW. On the other hand, it is said that the new engine saves "about 10%" fuel, so the added weight of the new engines will be compensated by less fuel to take for the same flight. We know that a 77F burns about 6.5-7.5 tonnes an hour, so that's about 0.7 tonnes less fuel per hour of flight. That means that even if we have a 77F-NG of the same length as the classic 77F, the new freighter will take a payload hit on all flights of less than 6 hours!

If the fuselage is longer, it will be even more. Let's say we make it 3 meters longer in order to be able to add 4 more LD3s and one more pallet. Let's say adding 3 meters of fuselage adds 2 tonnes OEW (which is very optimistic). Now our 77F-NG is able to take the same payload as its older sibling only on flights longer than 9 hours!
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Topic Author
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:32 pm

A couple of things to respond to things that have come up…

(1) I don't think specialized bulky cargo haulers like the Beluga XL and the Dreamlifter quite fit into this conversation. This is about more routine long-range and heavy cargo operations.

(2) The 778F is only going to make sense, no matter its length, for people who need to fly (a) long-range missions (b) at high utilization. For missions below, say, 6-8 hours, posts above correctly describe why the existing 77F (for dense cargo) or a 77W CF (for lighter cargo) will be superior. For low utilization, even at long range, the 778F won't save enough fuel to pay for its acquisition cost. And at the long ranges where the 778F can actually make sense, it wouldn't be able to carry 103 t of cargo anyway. If it has a niche, it's as a transpacific package hauler for the big guys, and maybe as the eventual long-cargo replacement for the 748 if 2175301 is correct about a tail door.
 
User avatar
Boeing757100
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:03 am

Nah, there are simply too many 777Fs, 767Fs, MD-11Fs, and even 747s available for MUCH cheaper conversion.
The 757-MAX is happening tomorrow.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2089
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Mon Aug 17, 2020 2:09 am

workhorse wrote:
...
Boeing also said that GE9X is heavier "more than 2 tonnes" than the GE90-115B.
...
On the other hand, it is said that the new engine saves "about 10%" fuel, so the added weight of the new engines will be compensated by less fuel to take for the same flight. We know that a 77F burns about 6.5-7.5 tonnes an hour, so that's about 0.7 tonnes less fuel per hour of flight. That means that even if we have a 77F-NG of the same length as the classic 77F, the new freighter will take a payload hit on all flights of less than 6 hours!

Unless the rumor of an MTOW bump morrisond refered to comes true.

Also:
Nobody knows yet maintenance needs for the GE9X.
Will the new engine really only have the power of the old one?
GE is pushing the limits. They have to be careful what they promise. I believe the B777-9X will be much more capable than we know today.
I wouldn't be surprised if the -8 gets cancelled and a 3,3 m stretch to 80 m be done instead. Same thing happened with A350.

In which case we speak of a -9F with 360t or maybe even more MTOW.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
tomcat
Posts: 609
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:56 am

Sokes wrote:
workhorse wrote:
...
Boeing also said that GE9X is heavier "more than 2 tonnes" than the GE90-115B.
...
On the other hand, it is said that the new engine saves "about 10%" fuel, so the added weight of the new engines will be compensated by less fuel to take for the same flight. We know that a 77F burns about 6.5-7.5 tonnes an hour, so that's about 0.7 tonnes less fuel per hour of flight. That means that even if we have a 77F-NG of the same length as the classic 77F, the new freighter will take a payload hit on all flights of less than 6 hours!

Unless the rumor of an MTOW bump morrisond refered to comes true.



In case, as we expect, the OEW of the 778F would be higher than the OEW 772F then what is required for the 778F to have the same max payload as the 772F is primarily an equivalent increase of its MZF and MLW. Increasing the MTOW alone as it is often done on pax aircraft will not help to increase the max payload of the 778F. The question is, what does it take to increase the MLW? Is it something that can be easily integrated in the 778F design? In case it wouldn't be that simple, Boeing could still consider to keep the 778F length closer or identical to the 772F length given that the pax version will not be a design constraint anymore.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2089
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:41 pm

tomcat wrote:
The question is, what does it take to increase the MLW?

That is indeed a good question.

The -8 is 6 m longer than the -200.
Assuming 800 kg/ m as with A340-600, engines and fuselage should be around 10 t extra.
Does the new wingbox have the same hight as the old one?
If yes the wing would not only be 11% longer, but also slimmer. Add AR of 10 instead of 9.
I'm confused. I read wing area increases 18%, but then I don't understand how aspect ratio improves so much.

At MZFW the -200F can still take 100t fuel.
The new engine has only 91% thrust of the old engine. If we assume lift/ drag increases only 10% and thrust specific fuel consumption improves another 5 % there should be at least 15% fuel saving. That's equivalent to around 13 to 14 t at MZFW. So even with 10 t more OEW there should still be 4 t more payload and lot more volume.

That is without MTOW increase.
I expect a MTOW increase of more than 10t. Would GE make so much action for a heavier engine with less thrust?
If we assume 10t more OEW and 10t more MTOW and 11t more payload , MLW should go up by 21 t or so.
I agree, too many assumptions.

Does the MLW and landing speed of a certain landing gear depend on the wing?
Is start or landing more critical for a landing gear?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
tomcat
Posts: 609
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Mon Aug 17, 2020 6:45 pm

Sokes wrote:
tomcat wrote:
The question is, what does it take to increase the MLW?

That is indeed a good question.

The -8 is 6 m longer than the -200.
Assuming 800 kg/ m as with A340-600, engines and fuselage should be around 10 t extra.
Does the new wingbox have the same hight as the old one?
If yes the wing would not only be 11% longer, but also slimmer. Add AR of 10 instead of 9.
I'm confused. I read wing area increases 18%, but then I don't understand how aspect ratio improves so much.

At MZFW the -200F can still take 100t fuel.
The new engine has only 91% thrust of the old engine. If we assume lift/ drag increases only 10% and thrust specific fuel consumption improves another 5 % there should be at least 15% fuel saving. That's equivalent to around 13 to 14 t at MZFW. So even with 10 t more OEW there should still be 4 t more payload and lot more volume.

That is without MTOW increase.
I expect a MTOW increase of more than 10t. Would GE make so much action for a heavier engine with less thrust?
If we assume 10t more OEW and 10t more MTOW and 11t more payload , MLW should go up by 21 t or so.
I agree, too many assumptions.

Does the MLW and landing speed of a certain landing gear depend on the wing?
Is start or landing more critical for a landing gear?


I don't understand how you can conclude that with 10t more OEW the 778F could still have 4t more payload than the 772F. If the MZFW/MLW are identical for both aircraft, then the max payload of the 778F would be 10t lower than the 772F max payload.

The bigger and less swept wing of the 778F will help it to have a reduced approach and landing speed but this alone may not be sufficient to allow the landing gear to sustain a higher MLW. The vertical speed at touch down is a key parameter for sizing the landing gear and it is a fixed parameter for all the transport aircraft (*). So the higher the MLW, the stronger the landing gear and surrounding structure. What I don't know is how complex it would be to redesign the landing gear to accept a MLW 10 or 15t greater than the 772F MLW.

I'm also wondering what would be the point of having a longer fuselage and a bigger (and more expensive) wing than the 772F and not being able to take a higher payload (thus maintaining the payload density). So ideally, the 778F should have a greater max payload than the 772F. This would the landing gear even more.

(*) FAR 25.723:
The landing gear may not fail in a test, demonstrating its reserve energy absorption capacity, simulated a descent velocity of 12 fps at design landing weight, assuming airplane life not greater then the airplane weight acting during the landing impact.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2089
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:05 pm

tomcat wrote:
I don't understand how you can conclude that with 10t more OEW the 778F could still have 4t more payload than the 772F. If the MZFW/MLW are identical for both aircraft, then the max payload of the 778F would be 10t lower than the 772F max payload.

Of course.

I suppose landing gear could be strengthened.
Nice info about it, thanks.
Though I didn't understand the remark about airplane life. But I did understand that it's not related to landing speed.

What about tyres?
Is take off speed or MLW the limiting factor?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
tomcat
Posts: 609
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:35 pm

Sokes wrote:
What about tyres?
Is take off speed or MLW the limiting factor?


I don't know about that.

One has to consider the brakes as well. All other things being equal, a higher takeoff speed and/or a higher MTOW and MLW and/or a higher landing speed will require more braking power. In the case of the 777X, its bigger wing should lead to reduce the takeoff and landing speed which will relief the brakes (and the tyres by the way). On the other hand, a higher MLW will take away part of this benefit.
 
gloom
Posts: 490
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:27 am

Sokes wrote:
I suppose landing gear could be strengthened.


Not really.

This aircraft is already at the pavement load limit, and you certainly don't want to limit this only to a couple of airports where they'd go even further with taxiway/runway strengthening, like it was with A380 gates.

Adding a third landing gear like it happened with A346, is certainly an option, however expensive one.

So, no, it doesn't probably have any reserve for significant MTOW increase. Likely, not even a small one.

Airbus
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3710
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:37 am

When running a simple analysis of the 77W vs 77L vs 77F to correlate the aircraft to derive a weight difference it can be seen that, as mentioned above there is approximately a 2.2t/m difference between the 77W and 77L. This is very crude but publicly available data shows the 77L and 77F to be about equal in terms of OWE.

If we take the 2.2t/m figure to be true (it will be less as the wing on the larger aircraft will be heavier and take some of this out but we would expect on the freighter model for this figiure to be almost as comparable) then we would expect a 778X derived freighter to be a similar weight to the 778X itself and that to be approximately 16t lighter than the 779X.

Assuming the 778X and proposed 778XF would have the same engine and aero performance I can see no reasonable way that the 778XF will bea able to beat the payload range performance of the 77F. It will do lower fuel use per kg but not payload at range.

Fred
Image
 
Sokes
Posts: 2089
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:27 am

gloom wrote:
Sokes wrote:
I suppose landing gear could be strengthened.


Not really.

This aircraft is already at the pavement load limit, and you certainly don't want to limit this only to a couple of airports where they'd go even further with taxiway/runway strengthening, like it was with A380 gates.

Adding a third landing gear like it happened with A346, is certainly an option, however expensive one.

So, no, it doesn't probably have any reserve for significant MTOW increase. Likely, not even a small one.

Airbus

Very interesting.
I struggle to believe that that new engine was designed only for 5% improvement in thrust specific fuel consumption.
Maybe this way:
-hot and high airport 350 t MTOW, low engine maintenance cost. Beside Lufthansa which has a habit to be Boeing's launch customer it's an Arabian Gulf plane so far.
-other airports 380 t MTOW, with third landing gear.
But hard to imagine that no rumor about it should have escaped the development team.

Unless thrust specific fuel consumption has more than 5% improvement?
I just read this number once, I believe Wikipedia.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
744SPX
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Tue Aug 18, 2020 2:22 pm

Yep, it would seem adding a third gear is the only way the 778F has any chance of beating the 777F on payload, and that increase in payload will need to be substantial, like at least 10-12 tons. I think that would require a 360+ ton MTOW.
 
gloom
Posts: 490
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:59 pm

Sokes wrote:
-other airports 380 t MTOW, with third landing gear.


Still, no. Too much an investment, too much risk, not enough numbers to justify.

I think if 77x-f ever happens, it will probably be 95% of the weight for 75 (or 80, or whatever the final plane will be) percent cost. After all, how often is 77F weight limited, and how often it is volume (or fuel) limited?

Perhaps we're talking 5% missions, where you'd need to leave 5% of cargo weight. Certainly not a problem killing more efficient machine.

Cheers,
Adam
 
amdiesen
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:05 am

correcting the link... (if the mods would consider deleting my previous post.... thank you)

This is a link to a working spreadsheet that attempts to create a table of global wide-body freighters and their operators.
B744CF and MD11Fs frames are the most vulnerable for replacement, an 'UpgradePath' column may inspire thought/responses
~Ranked using https://www.cargonewswire.com/top-25-ai ... -rankings/ plus manually added carriers.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WthVAC ... sp=sharing

B778F: It is difficult ascertain a logical B778F buyer/ordering airline until at least the back half of the decade or a dramatic increase in global price of oil. Current heavy freight aircraft are comparatively young and expected economic lives are ~<31-37>? years for a factory built model.
B773ERSF: While expensive and still a paper airplane needing a significant certification process, the B773ERSF promises to displace B744CFs and MD11s and possibly provide for marginal growth in lower density freight operations. FedEX, Atlas and Kalitta appear to represent a market of ~40 replacement frames. Amazon's aggressive growth strategy could be a plus.
A359F: Airbus could inspire an A359F toe-in-the-water launch with Singapore,Asiana or... A mid-decade launch would demonstrate a long-term freighter commitment versus a near term profit center. Airbus taking this action would signal to the market an additional commitment to ensuring the A350 has a robust life-cycle.
puzzling over:
1) proper amortization of long-lived assets where costs and revenue are complex, in a technologically evolving environment.
2) the economics of gate real estate
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Topic Author
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Future Heavy Freight Aircraft (777X)?

Wed Aug 19, 2020 5:53 pm

gloom wrote:
Still, no. Too much an investment, too much risk, not enough numbers to justify.

I think if 77x-f ever happens, it will probably be 95% of the weight for 75 (or 80, or whatever the final plane will be) percent cost. After all, how often is 77F weight limited, and how often it is volume (or fuel) limited?

Perhaps we're talking 5% missions, where you'd need to leave 5% of cargo weight. Certainly not a problem killing more efficient machine.

Cheers,
Adam


Again, the 777XF, if it happens, won't need the payload of the 777F, because it will beat the 777F's economics only at long ranges where it wouldn't be able to carry as much payload anyway. It would be just fine with the ~95 t payload it would be likely to have.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

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