Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
texl1649
Posts: 1797
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Mon Jun 07, 2021 8:55 pm

emre787 wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Turkish also. None of these airlines have ever operated a RR powered freighter, to my knowledge.


Only Turkish operates 10 A330-200F with RR engines https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Turkish-Airlines


I didn’t know this, good catch. Thx.
 
tomcat
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:29 pm

Opus99 wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
One more interesting thing to add. Which I did not know.

But apparently the 8F actually sits in size between the -8 and in the -9.

"The 777 Classic line is sustained by the 777-200LRF. The 777-8F concept is a couple of frames longer than the -8P but shorter than the 777-9."

https://leehamnews.com/2020/06/04/hotr- ... he-777-8f/


This is very interesting.... you know what else sits in size between the -8 and the -9? The 300ER.

Might the 778F end up the same length as the 300ER? Does that help them with production jigs and so forth? That would be intesting... buyers would have the choice of a used 200F, a used P2F 300ERF or a new build 778F. The latter two would be be realtively the same size.... just one would be much more capable and efficient.

Oh wow. That is actually true. I didn’t think about that. But how would the payload work on that. It would have to be slightly higher. We’ve heard an MTOW bump to 788,000 lbs. I don’t know how that would work out from a payload perspective


It's funny, it's a one year old article and I don't remember that we ever discussed the possibility of the 8F sitting between the lengths of the -8 and -9.

If the -8F would indeed be longer than the expected -8, it would reinforce my conviction that Boeing has planned a substantial MTOW increase compared to the 77F, way beyond the 788klbs that we have heard of. This looks more like a 747F replacement with the 777X efficiency, placing it in a different payload category than the proposed A350F. Something like 120 tonnes vs 95 tonnes.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2221
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:36 pm

tomcat wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

This is very interesting.... you know what else sits in size between the -8 and the -9? The 300ER.

Might the 778F end up the same length as the 300ER? Does that help them with production jigs and so forth? That would be intesting... buyers would have the choice of a used 200F, a used P2F 300ERF or a new build 778F. The latter two would be be realtively the same size.... just one would be much more capable and efficient.

Oh wow. That is actually true. I didn’t think about that. But how would the payload work on that. It would have to be slightly higher. We’ve heard an MTOW bump to 788,000 lbs. I don’t know how that would work out from a payload perspective


It's funny, it's a one year old article and I don't remember that we ever discussed the possibility of the 8F sitting between the lengths of the -8 and -9.

If the -8F would indeed be longer than the expected -8, it would reinforce my conviction that Boeing has planned a substantial MTOW increase compared to the 77F, way beyond the 788klbs that we have heard of. This looks more like a 747F replacement with the 777X efficiency, placing it in a different payload category than the proposed A350F. Something like 120 tonnes vs 95 tonnes.

That makes tremendous sense seeing as the 747 is heading out the door. They need to find a middle ground for 747 and 777 customers
 
744SPX
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:30 pm

I don't think it can get anywhere near 120 tons if its longer than the -8 passenger version, even if the MTOW is higher than 788k. The -8 passenger version is already basically as long as the 744 so its not volume-limited. A further stretch would be sacrificing payload plus adding more structural weight. You also lose commonality with the 777-8. Bad idea IMO. They should stay at 777-8 length and maximize payload.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2221
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:33 pm

744SPX wrote:
I don't think it can get anywhere near 120 tons if its longer than the -8 passenger version, even if the MTOW is higher than 788k. The -8 passenger version is already basically as long as the 744 so its not volume-limited. A further stretch would be sacrificing payload plus adding more structural weight. You also lose commonality with the 777-8. Bad idea IMO. They should stay at 777-8 length and maximize payload.

That’s assuming they are still interested in offering a passenger version. They very well might be but it’s on ice. Freighter is continuing without it
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2221
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:11 am

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/06/boein ... hreatened/

Okay here are the fuselage lengths.

“The 777-8F, if developed, faces its own challenges.
The freighter is slightly longer than the 777-8 but shorter than the -9. The fuselage lengths are:
777-300ER: 239.75 ft
777-8P: 224 ft
777-8F: 227.5 ft
777-9: 246.75 ft
Boeing is pondering a cargo version of the 777-9, according to market sources.
On its face, having three fuselage lengths on the 777X assembly line seems unnecessary. Why not simply build a freighter version of the 777-8P?
The choice came down to favoring payload or range, said a former Boeing salesman who was assigned to the X program. A freighter based on the -8P maximized payload. A slight stretch maximized range.
In an era of e-commerce, a freighter tends to max out by volume before weight, favoring range.”
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26279
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:55 am

Opus99 wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/06/boeings-freighter-dominance-threatened/

Okay here are the fuselage lengths.

“The 777-8F, if developed, faces its own challenges.
The freighter is slightly longer than the 777-8 but shorter than the -9. The fuselage lengths are:
777-300ER: 239.75 ft
777-8P: 224 ft
777-8F: 227.5 ft
777-9: 246.75 ft
Boeing is pondering a cargo version of the 777-9, according to market sources.
On its face, having three fuselage lengths on the 777X assembly line seems unnecessary. Why not simply build a freighter version of the 777-8P?
The choice came down to favoring payload or range, said a former Boeing salesman who was assigned to the X program. A freighter based on the -8P maximized payload. A slight stretch maximized range.
In an era of e-commerce, a freighter tends to max out by volume before weight, favoring range.”

To me it indicates a fairly detailed model must exist for all these variants.

Airbus will also end up with 3 lengths if they go forward with A350F, -900 pax, -950 freight, -1000 pax.

They also at one point sold -800s too, so it seems length is not that big a problem.

Leeham today published:

The news report said Boeing was showing the 777-8F concept around. This isn’t new, either. Despite putting development of the 777-8 and -8F on hold as cash flow cratered during the MAX and COVID crises, salesmen continued to chat with the market about the 777-8F. Boeing better be doing so.

We reported way back on April 6 that Boeing’s dominance in freighters, dating to the 707 in the 1960s, is under real threat for the first time. Airbus produced an OK freighter in the A300-600RF and a mediocre Combi in the A310. It foul-tipped on the A330F, although the A330-based KC-330 MRTT is a winner. Airbus completely dropped the ball on an A380F. Airbus also is showing a concept of the A350F and industry reaction is this time, Airbus could actually get it right. It’s a real threat to Boeing.

Furthermore, the Boeing 767-300ERF and 777-200LRF don’t meet ICAO’s 2027 CO2 standards. These airplanes can’t be produced from 2028. With the production of the 747-8F ending next year, Boeing must bring the 777-8F to market.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/07/ponti ... nd-aerion/

It's just his opinion, but still, it suggests we will see a 777-8F.

As for the competition, your link said:

Airbus has time to launch the program for a 2027 EIS. But officials also want to be sure they build into the schedule plenty of margin. So, the prospect of a launch “is pretty good.” It could come this year, but one insider says Airbus isn’t in a particular rush to do so.

Maybe AAB's negotiating through the media is accelerating their time line, who knows...

As usual, Leeham's lack of a professional editor shows, his articles ramble on with so much redundant content.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2221
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:28 am

Revelation wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/06/boeings-freighter-dominance-threatened/

Okay here are the fuselage lengths.

“The 777-8F, if developed, faces its own challenges.
The freighter is slightly longer than the 777-8 but shorter than the -9. The fuselage lengths are:
777-300ER: 239.75 ft
777-8P: 224 ft
777-8F: 227.5 ft
777-9: 246.75 ft
Boeing is pondering a cargo version of the 777-9, according to market sources.
On its face, having three fuselage lengths on the 777X assembly line seems unnecessary. Why not simply build a freighter version of the 777-8P?
The choice came down to favoring payload or range, said a former Boeing salesman who was assigned to the X program. A freighter based on the -8P maximized payload. A slight stretch maximized range.
In an era of e-commerce, a freighter tends to max out by volume before weight, favoring range.”

To me it indicates a fairly detailed model must exist for all these variants.

Airbus will also end up with 3 lengths if they go forward with A350F, -900 pax, -950 freight, -1000 pax.

They also at one point sold -800s too, so it seems length is not that big a problem.

Leeham today published:

The news report said Boeing was showing the 777-8F concept around. This isn’t new, either. Despite putting development of the 777-8 and -8F on hold as cash flow cratered during the MAX and COVID crises, salesmen continued to chat with the market about the 777-8F. Boeing better be doing so.

We reported way back on April 6 that Boeing’s dominance in freighters, dating to the 707 in the 1960s, is under real threat for the first time. Airbus produced an OK freighter in the A300-600RF and a mediocre Combi in the A310. It foul-tipped on the A330F, although the A330-based KC-330 MRTT is a winner. Airbus completely dropped the ball on an A380F. Airbus also is showing a concept of the A350F and industry reaction is this time, Airbus could actually get it right. It’s a real threat to Boeing.

Furthermore, the Boeing 767-300ERF and 777-200LRF don’t meet ICAO’s 2027 CO2 standards. These airplanes can’t be produced from 2028. With the production of the 747-8F ending next year, Boeing must bring the 777-8F to market.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/07/ponti ... nd-aerion/

It's just his opinion, but still, it suggests we will see a 777-8F.

As for the competition, your link said:

Airbus has time to launch the program for a 2027 EIS. But officials also want to be sure they build into the schedule plenty of margin. So, the prospect of a launch “is pretty good.” It could come this year, but one insider says Airbus isn’t in a particular rush to do so.

Maybe AAB's negotiating through the media is accelerating their time line, who knows...

As usual, Leeham's lack of a professional editor shows, his articles ramble on with so much redundant content.

Interesting the 227.5 ft fuselage length is about 2 feet longer than the 747-400F. So they’ll have similar internal volume. Wondering what the payload capability will be. Also learning that the 777F did not have MTOW of 775,000 it was actually 766,000. So if they take it to 788 I wonder how the payload would be compared to the 777F.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:13 am

Opus99 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/06/boeings-freighter-dominance-threatened/

Okay here are the fuselage lengths.

“The 777-8F, if developed, faces its own challenges.
The freighter is slightly longer than the 777-8 but shorter than the -9. The fuselage lengths are:
777-300ER: 239.75 ft
777-8P: 224 ft
777-8F: 227.5 ft
777-9: 246.75 ft
Boeing is pondering a cargo version of the 777-9, according to market sources.
On its face, having three fuselage lengths on the 777X assembly line seems unnecessary. Why not simply build a freighter version of the 777-8P?
The choice came down to favoring payload or range, said a former Boeing salesman who was assigned to the X program. A freighter based on the -8P maximized payload. A slight stretch maximized range.
In an era of e-commerce, a freighter tends to max out by volume before weight, favoring range.”

To me it indicates a fairly detailed model must exist for all these variants.

Airbus will also end up with 3 lengths if they go forward with A350F, -900 pax, -950 freight, -1000 pax.

They also at one point sold -800s too, so it seems length is not that big a problem.

Leeham today published:

The news report said Boeing was showing the 777-8F concept around. This isn’t new, either. Despite putting development of the 777-8 and -8F on hold as cash flow cratered during the MAX and COVID crises, salesmen continued to chat with the market about the 777-8F. Boeing better be doing so.

We reported way back on April 6 that Boeing’s dominance in freighters, dating to the 707 in the 1960s, is under real threat for the first time. Airbus produced an OK freighter in the A300-600RF and a mediocre Combi in the A310. It foul-tipped on the A330F, although the A330-based KC-330 MRTT is a winner. Airbus completely dropped the ball on an A380F. Airbus also is showing a concept of the A350F and industry reaction is this time, Airbus could actually get it right. It’s a real threat to Boeing.

Furthermore, the Boeing 767-300ERF and 777-200LRF don’t meet ICAO’s 2027 CO2 standards. These airplanes can’t be produced from 2028. With the production of the 747-8F ending next year, Boeing must bring the 777-8F to market.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/07/ponti ... nd-aerion/

It's just his opinion, but still, it suggests we will see a 777-8F.

As for the competition, your link said:

Airbus has time to launch the program for a 2027 EIS. But officials also want to be sure they build into the schedule plenty of margin. So, the prospect of a launch “is pretty good.” It could come this year, but one insider says Airbus isn’t in a particular rush to do so.

Maybe AAB's negotiating through the media is accelerating their time line, who knows...

As usual, Leeham's lack of a professional editor shows, his articles ramble on with so much redundant content.

Interesting the 227.5 ft fuselage length is about 2 feet longer than the 747-400F. So they’ll have similar internal volume. Wondering what the payload capability will be. Also learning that the 777F did not have MTOW of 775,000 it was actually 766,000. So if they take it to 788 I wonder how the payload would be compared to the 777F.


How much more MTOW can you put into the 777X? The pavement loading will at one point be too high for many airports. The positive on the 747 is that the additional gears enables a much higher MTOW, while the 777X will at one point need new gear but that will definitely not happen as the cost/benefit ratio would be abysmal.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2221
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:15 am

FluidFlow wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
To me it indicates a fairly detailed model must exist for all these variants.

Airbus will also end up with 3 lengths if they go forward with A350F, -900 pax, -950 freight, -1000 pax.

They also at one point sold -800s too, so it seems length is not that big a problem.

Leeham today published:


Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/07/ponti ... nd-aerion/

It's just his opinion, but still, it suggests we will see a 777-8F.

As for the competition, your link said:


Maybe AAB's negotiating through the media is accelerating their time line, who knows...

As usual, Leeham's lack of a professional editor shows, his articles ramble on with so much redundant content.

Interesting the 227.5 ft fuselage length is about 2 feet longer than the 747-400F. So they’ll have similar internal volume. Wondering what the payload capability will be. Also learning that the 777F did not have MTOW of 775,000 it was actually 766,000. So if they take it to 788 I wonder how the payload would be compared to the 777F.


How much more MTOW can you put into the 777X? The pavement loading will at one point be too high for many airports. The positive on the 747 is that the additional gears enables a much higher MTOW, while the 777X will at one point need new gear but that will definitely not happen as the cost/benefit ratio would be abysmal.

That’s the thing. I don’t really know. I’m just going off the fact that Boeing was actually offering that 788 to customers on the 778. So I’m guessing maybe they can do it without adding another gear? But let’s see. 775,000 MTOW is still about about 9,000 lbs above the current 777F. I just want to the 778 to be able to at least have the same tonnage as the 777F
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:36 pm

Opus99 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Interesting the 227.5 ft fuselage length is about 2 feet longer than the 747-400F. So they’ll have similar internal volume. Wondering what the payload capability will be. Also learning that the 777F did not have MTOW of 775,000 it was actually 766,000. So if they take it to 788 I wonder how the payload would be compared to the 777F.


How much more MTOW can you put into the 777X? The pavement loading will at one point be too high for many airports. The positive on the 747 is that the additional gears enables a much higher MTOW, while the 777X will at one point need new gear but that will definitely not happen as the cost/benefit ratio would be abysmal.

That’s the thing. I don’t really know. I’m just going off the fact that Boeing was actually offering that 788 to customers on the 778. So I’m guessing maybe they can do it without adding another gear? But let’s see. 775,000 MTOW is still about about 9,000 lbs above the current 777F. I just want to the 778 to be able to at least have the same tonnage as the 777F


The 777-300ER is with the highest pavement loading of any frame in use as it is. The 777X uses a similar MLG. There is still the possibility of Boeing adding an additional center MLG, that would make increased MTOW not limited by pavement loading. Perhaps it would decrease center tank volume, but tank volume should be plenty.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2221
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:39 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

How much more MTOW can you put into the 777X? The pavement loading will at one point be too high for many airports. The positive on the 747 is that the additional gears enables a much higher MTOW, while the 777X will at one point need new gear but that will definitely not happen as the cost/benefit ratio would be abysmal.

That’s the thing. I don’t really know. I’m just going off the fact that Boeing was actually offering that 788 to customers on the 778. So I’m guessing maybe they can do it without adding another gear? But let’s see. 775,000 MTOW is still about about 9,000 lbs above the current 777F. I just want to the 778 to be able to at least have the same tonnage as the 777F


The 777-300ER is with the highest pavement loading of any frame in use as it is. The 777X uses a similar MLG. There is still the possibility of Boeing adding an additional center MLG, that would make increased MTOW not limited by pavement loading. Perhaps it would decrease center tank volume, but tank volume should be plenty.

I’m not sure adding another MLG would be worth it. They are said to be favouring volume over payload but maybe the payload won’t decrease too much?
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4608
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:26 am

I would think that a 777-8 freighter is inevitable at some point.

SEPilot wrote:
It is way too soon to declare the 777X a failure. Nobody expects it to be the runaway success that the 77W was, but it still has a chance to achieve decent results.


Please tell us the scenario you forsee whereby the 777X is cashflow positive for Boeing.

lightsaber wrote:
The 779 will receive PiPs which will increase range making it less ME3 optimized.


Range is not the 777-9X's problem.

Opus99 wrote:
Akbar says they’ve cancelled the MAX order and will replace it with something else


When was this?
First to fly the 787-9
 
JohanTally
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:48 am

zkojq wrote:
I would think that a 777-8 freighter is inevitable at some point.

SEPilot wrote:
It is way too soon to declare the 777X a failure. Nobody expects it to be the runaway success that the 77W was, but it still has a chance to achieve decent results.


Please tell us the scenario you forsee whereby the 777X is cashflow positive for Boeing.

lightsaber wrote:
The 779 will receive PiPs which will increase range making it less ME3 optimized.


Range is not the 777-9X's problem.

Opus99 wrote:
Akbar says they’ve cancelled the MAX order and will replace it with something else


When was this?

The 779 is only slightly larger than the 77W only 3 frames and will have lower trip costs. Anet acts like it's some behemoth that can't be filled but it's one more row of Y and J. The 77W sized market will return and this aircraft will have a decent share of it. Speculating whether or not it will break even today is pointless.
 
744SPX
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:23 am

To be a true 744F replacement its got to have a payload capacity of at least 112 tons.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2221
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:04 am

zkojq wrote:
I would think that a 777-8 freighter is inevitable at some point.

SEPilot wrote:
It is way too soon to declare the 777X a failure. Nobody expects it to be the runaway success that the 77W was, but it still has a chance to achieve decent results.


Please tell us the scenario you forsee whereby the 777X is cashflow positive for Boeing.

lightsaber wrote:
The 779 will receive PiPs which will increase range making it less ME3 optimized.


Range is not the 777-9X's problem.

Opus99 wrote:
Akbar says they’ve cancelled the MAX order and will replace it with something else


When was this?

Watch his interview with simple flying on YouTube
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:21 am

Opus99 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
That’s the thing. I don’t really know. I’m just going off the fact that Boeing was actually offering that 788 to customers on the 778. So I’m guessing maybe they can do it without adding another gear? But let’s see. 775,000 MTOW is still about about 9,000 lbs above the current 777F. I just want to the 778 to be able to at least have the same tonnage as the 777F


The 777-300ER is with the highest pavement loading of any frame in use as it is. The 777X uses a similar MLG. There is still the possibility of Boeing adding an additional center MLG, that would make increased MTOW not limited by pavement loading. Perhaps it would decrease center tank volume, but tank volume should be plenty.

I’m not sure adding another MLG would be worth it. They are said to be favouring volume over payload but maybe the payload won’t decrease too much?


Here on a.net there are a lot of posters talking about increased payload. The OEW of a 777XF will be higher than of a 777F. To get the same payload and the same range one would expect to need a higher MTOW.
In regards to favoring volume over payload, that would be UPS, FedEx and Amazone, an airline like Qatar is looking for high payload.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2221
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:47 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The 777-300ER is with the highest pavement loading of any frame in use as it is. The 777X uses a similar MLG. There is still the possibility of Boeing adding an additional center MLG, that would make increased MTOW not limited by pavement loading. Perhaps it would decrease center tank volume, but tank volume should be plenty.

I’m not sure adding another MLG would be worth it. They are said to be favouring volume over payload but maybe the payload won’t decrease too much?


Here on a.net there are a lot of posters talking about increased payload. The OEW of a 777XF will be higher than of a 777F. To get the same payload and the same range one would expect to need a higher MTOW.
In regards to favoring volume over payload, that would be UPS, FedEx and Amazone, an airline like Qatar is looking for high payload.

The 777F currently (as I discovered recently) is actually not at the MTOW of what was the original version of the 777-8. MTOW on the 777F is 766,000 lbs. 777-8 is 775,000 lbs. Same as tbe 77w and 779. Now I’m not sure what that extra MTOW can do. Something I will say is that GECAS 77W conversion with a larger frame at the 775 MTOW is giving a payload of 100 tons. That’s just 2 tonnes below the 777F. So let’s see what they can work with when you have a smaller frame. They did manage to increase the MZFW on the 77W as the 77F has higher MZFW than the 77W. Right now 779 has higher MZFW than both those frames. So I’m just thinking if they can use the 778 with 779 MZFW and MTOW which I think they were doing anyway. That could be something? At least that can give the payload of the 777F. Surely? Or no?

https://www.iai.co.il/drupal/sites/defa ... ochure.pdf
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:01 am

Opus99 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I’m not sure adding another MLG would be worth it. They are said to be favouring volume over payload but maybe the payload won’t decrease too much?


Here on a.net there are a lot of posters talking about increased payload. The OEW of a 777XF will be higher than of a 777F. To get the same payload and the same range one would expect to need a higher MTOW.
In regards to favoring volume over payload, that would be UPS, FedEx and Amazone, an airline like Qatar is looking for high payload.

The 777F currently (as I discovered recently) is actually not at the MTOW of what was the original version of the 777-8. MTOW on the 777F is 766,000 lbs. 777-8 is 775,000 lbs. Same as tbe 77w and 779. Now I’m not sure what that extra MTOW can do. Something I will say is that GECAS 77W conversion with a larger frame at the 775 MTOW is giving a payload of 100 tons. That’s just 2 tonnes below the 777F. So let’s see what they can work with when you have a smaller frame. They did manage to increase the MZFW on the 77W as the 77F has higher MZFW than the 77W. Right now 779 has higher MZFW than both those frames. So I’m just thinking if they can use the 778 with 779 MZFW and MTOW which I think they were doing anyway. That could be something? At least that can give the payload of the 777F. Surely? Or no?

https://www.iai.co.il/drupal/sites/defa ... ochure.pdf


Not if the OEW increased by the same amount as the MZFW. As long as we do not know the OEW of the 779 we cant get really anything out of it. It all boils down to the OEW of the 77X platform. The fact that the MZFW had to be increased on the 779 is a hint that the OEW did too to make sure the payload can at least be equal.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2221
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:04 am

FluidFlow wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Here on a.net there are a lot of posters talking about increased payload. The OEW of a 777XF will be higher than of a 777F. To get the same payload and the same range one would expect to need a higher MTOW.
In regards to favoring volume over payload, that would be UPS, FedEx and Amazone, an airline like Qatar is looking for high payload.

The 777F currently (as I discovered recently) is actually not at the MTOW of what was the original version of the 777-8. MTOW on the 777F is 766,000 lbs. 777-8 is 775,000 lbs. Same as tbe 77w and 779. Now I’m not sure what that extra MTOW can do. Something I will say is that GECAS 77W conversion with a larger frame at the 775 MTOW is giving a payload of 100 tons. That’s just 2 tonnes below the 777F. So let’s see what they can work with when you have a smaller frame. They did manage to increase the MZFW on the 77W as the 77F has higher MZFW than the 77W. Right now 779 has higher MZFW than both those frames. So I’m just thinking if they can use the 778 with 779 MZFW and MTOW which I think they were doing anyway. That could be something? At least that can give the payload of the 777F. Surely? Or no?

https://www.iai.co.il/drupal/sites/defa ... ochure.pdf


Not if the OEW increased by the same amount as the MZFW. As long as we do not know the OEW of the 779 we cant get really anything out of it. It all boils down to the OEW of the 77X platform. The fact that the MZFW had to be increased on the 779 is a hint that the OEW did too to make sure the payload can at least be equal.

Right Thanks, okay that makes sense


Edit: I am guessing the same thing applies to the 778. So if we don’t know how much the OEW has increased by we cannot tell wether the MZFW/MTOW increase will actually increase payload?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22383
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:11 pm

Opus99 wrote:
https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/06/boeings-freighter-dominance-threatened/

Okay here are the fuselage lengths.

“The 777-8F, if developed, faces its own challenges.
The freighter is slightly longer than the 777-8 but shorter than the -9. The fuselage lengths are:
777-300ER: 239.75 ft
777-8P: 224 ft
777-8F: 227.5 ft
777-9: 246.75 ft
Boeing is pondering a cargo version of the 777-9, according to market sources.
On its face, having three fuselage lengths on the 777X assembly line seems unnecessary. Why not simply build a freighter version of the 777-8P?
The choice came down to favoring payload or range, said a former Boeing salesman who was assigned to the X program. A freighter based on the -8P maximized payload. A slight stretch maximized range.
In an era of e-commerce, a freighter tends to max out by volume before weight, favoring range.”

Or build the -8P at the -8F length. The freighter will outsell the -8P.

Then again, the cost difference in production is tiny. Whatever makes the most profit.

Lightsaber
7 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
xwb777
Posts: 1137
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:13 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:04 pm

According to SimpeFlying, Airbus is just weeks away of marketing the A350F with the official launch expected at the end of the year.

https://simpleflying-com.cdn.ampproject ... outed/amp/
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2221
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:08 pm

xwb777 wrote:
According to SimpeFlying, Airbus is just weeks away of marketing the A350F with the official launch expected at the end of the year.

https://simpleflying-com.cdn.ampproject ... outed/amp/

Discussing this in the 350F thread. However the original Bloomberg article says it depends on if Airbus can secure enough commitments
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4608
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:04 am

JohanTally wrote:
Anet acts like it's some behemoth that can't be filled but it's one more row of Y and J. The 77W sized market will return


Will it? Depends on the recovery of premium travellers. In any case, the 787-10 is perfectly positioned to fill it, for almost all missions. Each 787 PIP extends it's range further.

Zeke's posts on the 777X's weight issue in the A350-1000ULR thread was quite stark on this. The 777-9 is overbuilt for most airline's missions - too heavy compared to A350 and 787. It has an oversized wing designed so that Akbar and STC can lift a full payload from DXB/DOH/AUH on a hot day all the way to the West Coast of the USA. Like the A380-800 flying with an enormous wing that was optimized for the -900 model. Optimizing for this ME3 market means that it's much less optimized for more regular lengthed missions. Most airlines aren't operating 15+ hour routes.

JohanTally wrote:
Speculating whether or not it will break even today is pointless.


Well no it isn't as Boeing apparently expects to be building two of them a month for multiple years. The 77F is built on the same production line, but there is no way they will be breaking even on those volumes. Remember that the 787 wasn't making positive cashflow until ~LN120, and that is a plane that was being build at a much higher production rate than the 777X.

Opus99 wrote:
zkojq wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Akbar says they’ve cancelled the MAX order and will replace it with something else


When was this?

Watch his interview with simple flying on YouTube


Will do, cheers.
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22383
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:44 am

zkojq wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The 779 will receive PiPs which will increase range making it less ME3 optimized.


Range is not the 777-9X's problem.

It sold, which makes some of the absolute projections in question on the complete failure. It has outsold the competition which Implies there is merit. The 779 is more optimized for long haul missions and PiPs will help. Reducing fuel burn and improving payload at range always helps sell.

Any PiPs will help the chance to sell a 777xF.

This is the widebody competition of the year.

Lightsaber
7 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:14 am

zkojq wrote:
JohanTally wrote:
Anet acts like it's some behemoth that can't be filled but it's one more row of Y and J. The 77W sized market will return


Will it? Depends on the recovery of premium travellers. In any case, the 787-10 is perfectly positioned to fill it, for almost all missions. Each 787 PIP extends it's range further.

Zeke's posts on the 777X's weight issue in the A350-1000ULR thread was quite stark on this. The 777-9 is overbuilt for most airline's missions - too heavy compared to A350 and 787. It has an oversized wing designed so that Akbar and STC can lift a full payload from DXB/DOH/AUH on a hot day all the way to the West Coast of the USA. Like the A380-800 flying with an enormous wing that was optimized for the -900 model. Optimizing for this ME3 market means that it's much less optimized for more regular lengthed missions. Most airlines aren't operating 15+ hour routes.

JohanTally wrote:
Speculating whether or not it will break even today is pointless.


Well no it isn't as Boeing apparently expects to be building two of them a month for multiple years. The 77F is built on the same production line, but there is no way they will be breaking even on those volumes. Remember that the 787 wasn't making positive cashflow until ~LN120, and that is a plane that was being build at a much higher production rate than the 777X.

Opus99 wrote:
zkojq wrote:

When was this?

Watch his interview with simple flying on YouTube


Will do, cheers.

Boeing built a two billion dollar composite factory for the 777X wings. My point is that a bulk of the costs are already sunk and whether or not they will recoup them is uncertain and no crystal ball has that answer. As of today they still have a healthy order book especially with the low build rate that you pointed out. Right now they have 12 years worth of orders with that logic but obviously to make a profit they would have to increase production which is why it sounds like they are attempting to offer a 777XF to justify building 3-5 frames a month in the next few years.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2460
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:06 am

I agree with Revelation, the exact length is not that big of a deal. There's precedent in the 747-8, the freighter and pax versions were initially going to be different lengths for payload/range optimization for Emirates. In the end, LH wanted the payload more than the range, and was willing to cough up the dough.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2221
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:56 am

https://aviationweek.com/forum/aerospac ... ing-boeing

Massive interview with Calhoun here. Touches on all sorts of things but just narrowing in on the 777X freighter here:

“Later this year, you’ll end the production run of the 747. That kind of leaves a gap in the freighter market. Do you think the 777X could represent a new freighter line?

The 747’s time span was amazing, but in some ways I wish we would have been more decisive [in halting production] five or even 10 years ago, because I believe so strongly in the 777 and the 777X. It is the right solution to that big part of the market. The 777X will play on its own, I think, for 50 years. It’s that efficient, that good, and its only two competitors are going by the wayside. The freighter version of it is very powerful, and I am committed to finding a way to get that program launched, and our customers are, too.“
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:12 pm

All this talk of multiple fuselage lengths has me thinking about the certification ramifications. I thought that in the wake of the MAX debacle, certification authorities vowed that they were no longer going to rubber-stamp derivative models. Given the relatively small number of potential freighters (200?), will a full blown certification effort just to get a 3-4 foot stretch be justified? Even a few fuselage frames throws off everything, weight and balance, etc. Then again, the 777 has FBW, not an ancient system like the 737, so maybe it will be much easier.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26279
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing offers 777X Freighter to QR. Eyeing Order for 30

Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:28 pm

Opus99 wrote:
https://aviationweek.com/forum/aerospace-defense/leader-interviews/interview-ceo-dave-calhoun-where-hes-steering-boeing

Massive interview with Calhoun here. Touches on all sorts of things but just narrowing in on the 777X freighter here:

“Later this year, you’ll end the production run of the 747. That kind of leaves a gap in the freighter market. Do you think the 777X could represent a new freighter line?

The 747’s time span was amazing, but in some ways I wish we would have been more decisive [in halting production] five or even 10 years ago, because I believe so strongly in the 777 and the 777X. It is the right solution to that big part of the market. The 777X will play on its own, I think, for 50 years. It’s that efficient, that good, and its only two competitors are going by the wayside. The freighter version of it is very powerful, and I am committed to finding a way to get that program launched, and our customers are, too.“

Thanks for finding this interview.

My comments are off topic so I put them in the new airplane thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1457171&p=22828599#p22828599
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own

Who is online

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