A350F vs 777XF vs 777ERSF

morrisond · Sat Aug 07, 2021 11:51 am

I am starting this new thread as apparently we need to keep the A350F thread pure and not discuss it's competition.

While there is very limited information on a potential A350F many people in here have made pretty good guesses on what it's capabilities will be.

One interesting point is that 777ERSF seems to be quite light at about 152T OEW losing about 16T in the conversion to a freighter. This is only about 9T more than an 777F. One would have to assume that it does not need as much structural reinforcement as it can only lift about 101T in about 25% more volume than an 777F. For reference the OEW weight of an 777LR and 777F are about the same at 145T and 144T respectively.

777ERSF specs https://www.iai.co.il/drupal/sites/defa ... ochure.pdf

If you are going to build a clean sheet freighter to compete in the package space - the 777ERSF is going to be tough to beat on a lifetime cost due to it's low capital cost.

The question becomes where do you position an A350F or 778XF? Personally I think you need to position them with as much flexibility and capability as you can possibly give them.

For the 778XF I assume this includes boosting the MTOW to 360T as rumoured with the 777-10. The 777X does have a new stronger wingbox and new stronger gear. It's Achilles heel will be empty weight. At about 70M it would have about 15% more Volume than an 77F. An 778 passenger model of this length will probably be about the weight of an 77W - so lets call the 778XF about 168T Empty. This leaves 192T for fuel and Cargo. 10 Hours of fuel at about 6.5T per hour plus reserves should be about 72T - call it 75T ton total which leaves 117T for cargo. That seems about right and roughly the same density as 77F.

So how does Airbus counter both?

An 319T A350-950F of similar volume at 70M should have an OEW weight at around 140T. That leaves 179T for Fuel and Cargo it should burn less but not that much less on long missions. It doesn't have as big and efficient a wing and it's engines are half a generation behind. Lets say it burns 70T leaving 109T for cargo. However 109T of cargo would put MLW at 260T with some reserves. That is way about the capabilities of the current structure and may be why some of the rumoured MTOW's are not 319T. The 140T OEW weight may have to grow a bunch if it wants to carry any density.

Hence why I think A350F OEW and MTOW weight have to grow. It will be efficient but won't be able to compete with 777ERSF for packages or 778XF for flexibility.

How heavy will an A350F structure need to get to lift 110-120T and would it work better in an -1000 length if you one decides density is not as important.

Sorry I have to run - so probably lots of typos above.

Revelation · Sat Aug 07, 2021 4:34 pm

https://cargofacts.com/airbus-nears-lau ... r-program/ has been posted already, and IMO has an interesting if perhaps flawed chart.

Would be nice to see payload vs range rather than payload vs volume, IMO. Range would be impacted by OEW whereas volume is not. Of course all of these numbers are subject to manipulation, and there has been some pushback that some are incorrect, yet it's a good visualization so if stuff is wrong ideally it would be corrected. Perhaps the nice thing about volume is that it is not subject to manipulation, but it's not as informative as range IMO.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... rsion-a350 says:

Faury provided scarce technical details, other than that the A350 F will feature a payload capability of at least “90-plus tonnes” and be a derivative of the larger A350-1000.

Unfortunately that doesn't tell us much about where to put the A350F dot on the chart other than somewhere above the 90T line. Knowing it's a "derivative" of the A350-1000 doesn't tell us much about its volume, since it could be a shorter derivative.

We also don't know where to put 77XF's dot, other than knowing 778 is longer than 772 and there was a statement about favoring volume over max range since most cargo is low density.

VV · Sat Aug 07, 2021 4:56 pm

Why is the title "A350F vs 777XF vs 777ERSF"?

THe A350F has to be compared to the 777-8F.

Revelation · Sat Aug 07, 2021 5:02 pm

VV wrote:
Why is the title "A350F vs 777XF vs 777ERSF"?

THe A350F has to be compared to the 777-8F.

Because (a) we aren't sure the freighter coming out of the 777X program will be the same length as the 777-8 and (b) one can make a good argument that the 777-300ERSF undermines the business cases of both new freighters since you should be able to buy two of them for each of the new ones.

Okcflyer · Sat Aug 07, 2021 5:05 pm

VV wrote:
Why is the title "A350F vs 777XF vs 777ERSF"?

THe A350F has to be compared to the 777-8F.

Because the 77W is directly competitive.

744SPX · Sat Aug 07, 2021 6:55 pm

What doesn't seem to add up here is that the 777F is only 1 ton lighter than the 200LR whereas the non-purpose-built 777-300ERSF drops 16 tons from the 300ER.

That implies that a 200LRSF could drop at least 10-12 tons from the 200LR and be superior to the 777F, at least in payload capability.

keesje · Sat Aug 07, 2021 7:20 pm

At an estimated OEW of 150t and the -1000's MTOW of 316t, a 100t+ payload seems likely for a A350-950F.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-07-29/

Okcflyer · Sat Aug 07, 2021 7:58 pm

744SPX wrote:
What doesn't seem to add up here is that the 777F is only 1 ton lighter than the 200LR whereas the non-purpose-built 777-300ERSF drops 16 tons from the 300ER.

That implies that a 200LRSF could drop at least 10-12 tons from the 200LR and be superior to the 777F, at least in payload capability.

The 77F uses a ridiculously heavy all aluminum floor and beam system. It was not highly weight optimized as additional payload is/was not needed, and it supposedly provides lower maintenance for spills, house/animal pee, etc that accidentally happen.

The special freighters are keeping the passenger composite beams with, supposedly anyway, some targeted reinforcements to allow usual densities.

I feel the general consensus is IAI will come in a bit overweight, but that an SF -200LR will still be significantly lighter than an a factory fresh F.

Big question mark on the SF is how well do they hold up structurally, and how much repair work is required during heavy visits. If they perform well, then Boeing was probably overly cautious with the 77F.

morrisond · Sat Aug 07, 2021 8:54 pm

keesje wrote:
At an estimated OEW of 150t and the -1000's MTOW of 316t, a 100t+ payload seems likely for a A350-950F.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-07-29/

That article had some interesting numbers and statements.

"Calhoun also said on Wednesday exemptions may be allowed for deliveries of current freighters that result in 40% lower emissions compared to the planes they replace."

Could they be allowed to produce 77F and 763F longer than 2028?

and

"Industry sources said the A350 freighter would carry 109 tonnes compared with the projected 115-117 tonne capacity of the 777X version, though Boeing has yet to finalize any plans.

That's funny on the capacities - my guess was about 109T for A350F and 117T for 778XF, as well above. I had not read that article before.

It still makes me think that a 340T A351F with a thrust bump is the way to go.

744SPX · Sun Aug 08, 2021 12:24 am

117T is a perfect 744 replacement. Volume should about match the 744 as well.

morrisond · Sun Aug 08, 2021 12:06 pm

744SPX wrote:
117T is a perfect 744 replacement. Volume should about match the 744 as well.

Yes it and that is far above the guesses some were speculating for the 777xf and the A350F seems more capable as well.

However the A350F could be sticking with a lower MTOW which would put it in the mid 90T range. Maybe they don't want to do the changes necessary to increase the MLW weight. That much.

To allow 109T in an A350F may require significant strengthening that is not there in the base design. There is a reason the passenger designs are so efficient and that may be due to there being so light for there volume compared to the 777 Series.

VV · Sun Aug 08, 2021 7:08 pm

Revelation wrote:
VV wrote:
Why is the title "A350F vs 777XF vs 777ERSF"?

THe A350F has to be compared to the 777-8F.

Because (a) we aren't sure the freighter coming out of the 777X program will be the same length as the 777-8 and (b) one can make a good argument that the 777-300ERSF undermines the business cases of both new freighters since you should be able to buy two of them for each of the new ones.

And do we have anything on the A350F??????

VV · Sun Aug 08, 2021 7:09 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
VV wrote:
Why is the title "A350F vs 777XF vs 777ERSF"?

THe A350F has to be compared to the 777-8F.

Because the 77W is directly competitive.

Come on man, one is around since many years and the other has just been offered.
THere is a difference of ONE generation between the two.

Revelation · Sun Aug 08, 2021 7:18 pm

VV wrote:
And do we have anything on the A350F??????

As per #2 above:

Faury provided scarce technical details, other than that the A350 F will feature a payload capability of at least “90-plus tonnes” and be a derivative of the larger A350-1000.

Almost nothing.

VV wrote:
Come on man, one is around since many years and the other has just been offered.
THere is a difference of ONE generation between the two.

Right, but the chart in #2 suggests they will be very similar in payload and volume.

Being a generation newer than 77W and having lower fuel burn and emissions is a plus for A350F, but purchase cost presumably 2x or greater with similar payload and volume is a big plus for 77W.

reidar76 · Sun Aug 08, 2021 10:27 pm

If we stich together what "industry sources" have told Reuters, and what information Leeham news is reporting, we can place the A350F and 777XF in the same chart that Revelation posted earlier.

Reuters's sources say the maximum payload for the A350F will be 109t, while the 777XF might be between 114t and 117t. Leeham reports that the A350F will be a shortened A350-1000, halfway between the -900 and -1000 in lenght. They estimate that the A350F will be 230ft long (just over 70 meters). They also report that the 777XF will be longer than the 777-8, and estimate it will be 227ft (about 69 meters).

Since the A350 has a slightly narrower fuselage, the total volume for the 777 would be higher, even though the 777 fuselage tapers significantly more towards the rear. The 777 fuselage is circular shaped with a diameter of 6.2 meters, while the A350 is slightly taller than wide; 5.96 wide and 6.09 tall. (In inches the difference between the two fuselages are between 4 to 9 inches.)

Considering the fuselage dimensions, it looks like the A350 will be able to handle the same pallets in the same configuration as the 777. The contours will be very similar. Since there will be a little bit less clearance for the pallets in the A350F, the slightly longer fuselage could help when it tapers towards the rear. It could be that the A350F and the 777XF can handle the same number of 96 x 125 x 118 pallets. I can't see any reason why 777F ground equipment couldn't be used on the A350F.

The one thing we don't know much about is range. I will guess that the lower OEW of the A350F might give it more range, especially when carrying less than maximum payload.

An important advantage for 777XF would be commonality with the 777F, including a shared pilot pool. Maybe single pilot cruise would be an important advantage for the A350F, an advantage that can't be copied by Boeing without possibly breaking commonality with the 777F.

I also will guess that the A350 family will have a higher total production rate than the 777X family. Production costs for the A350F and 777XF might not be all that different.

It looks like we will have a bloodbath. ;-)

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

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-07-29/

Revelation · Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:08 pm

reidar76 wrote:
If we stich together what "industry sources" have told Reuters, and what information Leeham news is reporting, we can place the A350F and 777XF in the same chart that Revelation posted earlier.

Not sure why the 'img' tags in your post didn't work for me as intended. but when I put the full url into my browser:

https://am3pap005files.storage.live.com/y4mi7t2JHx59Ai24cuUalSa76NvhBzV1PyImtoILdU2PIurqzHI8CUC897z1ePKbHVqwnlyIKab31D9qfdlKIuKcEZGnuRHayEBN7wPqKJUxqBDsOb71F0K2MQVp3wGdAgoNM3bjNqddPjfVpYsB_ztRn_B8zkecJnDOQzs7ljn4Js?width=793&height=493&cropmode=none

... a PNG file was downloaded and I could view it.

I guess morrisond's comment stands, if they can get this much more payload out of an A350 either the 'F' is going to be a very different model structurally, or they have really an amazing amount of margin left in the base A350 after doing several MTOW bumps already.

flipdewaf · Mon Aug 09, 2021 11:30 am

My take on the freighters compared here is as below in the chart.

if we assume the 4000nm trip is about 10hrs use and then assume that the fuel burns are associated with that usage as seen above then the A35F is about 6.1t/hr the ERSF 8.3 and the 777XF is 6.8.

at the current fuel price of $613 per ton and 10hrs per day utilisation over 22years the A35F costs 300m in fuel, the ERSF 409m and the 777XF 335m.

The ERSF would appear to be better on low utilisation models the 777XF would be best for the traditional 747 heavy lift scenario and the A35F on the scheduled low density package work as I have described here.

Fred

Revelation · Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:34 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
My take on the freighters compared here is as below in the chart.

For A350F payload we have Faury saying 90T+, you saying 95T, Reuters saying 109T. I'm not criticizing, but I am looking forward to the time when we have better information. Hopefully this happens by end of 2021, or my comparisons to NMA become more valid! :biggrin:

744SPX · Mon Aug 09, 2021 4:44 pm

My guess is that a 117T payload 778F will be at 778 passenger length. Any longer and I think it will start sacrificing payload. It would have plenty of volume at that length so I don't see any need to make it longer (and have a third fuselage length)

oschkosch · Mon Aug 09, 2021 5:30 pm

Leehamnews confirms that potential customers have seen the details. And even more surprisingly (or maybe not?) Airbus is now offering an A321F. Most part requires a subscription though!

[quote]
When announcing the program launch, Airbus didn’t reveal customers. Nor did officials reveal specifications, beyond saying payload will be “in excess of 90 tons.” But information obtained by LNA and analysis by our Bjorn Fehrm revealed the fundamentals in previous paywall articles. And, we know potential customers have seen the specifications under Non-Disclosure Agreements.
.

It’s also unlikely the Airbus Board would have authorized the program launch without customers ready to go. LNA believes Airbus needed 50 orders to launch the program. With an installed base of combination carriers already operating the A350, these would be target launch customers. Nw LNA can reveal, Airbus is talking with key customers about potentially offering a new-build A321neo freighter.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/08/09/exclu ... more-37246

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

flipdewaf · Mon Aug 09, 2021 7:49 pm

Revelation wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
My take on the freighters compared here is as below in the chart.

For A350F payload we have Faury saying 90T+, you saying 95T, Reuters saying 109T. I'm not criticizing, but I am looking forward to the time when we have better information. Hopefully this happens by end of 2021, or my comparisons to NMA become more valid!

Couldn’t agree more, it’s all a bit “everyone says they want a new freighter” and not “here’s what the thing actually is” the biggest thing I got from the numbers that I put together was probably that 360t may well be required. The empty weight of these things is the real unknown(as it always is).

744SPX wrote:
My guess is that a 117T payload 778F will be at 778 passenger length. Any longer and I think it will start sacrificing payload. It would have plenty of volume at that length so I don't see any need to make it longer (and have a third fuselage length)

I think if they got to 360t MTOW then the 778x doesn’t exist as a pax variant. The 779x at 360t would have a pad and bags range of getting on for 8knm leaving no real room for the 8X

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

744SPX · Mon Aug 09, 2021 10:01 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Revelation wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
My take on the freighters compared here is as below in the chart.

For A350F payload we have Faury saying 90T+, you saying 95T, Reuters saying 109T. I'm not criticizing, but I am looking forward to the time when we have better information. Hopefully this happens by end of 2021, or my comparisons to NMA become more valid!

Couldn’t agree more, it’s all a bit “everyone says they want a new freighter” and not “here’s what the thing actually is” the biggest thing I got from the numbers that I put together was probably that 360t may well be required. The empty weight of these things is the real unknown(as it always is).

744SPX wrote:
My guess is that a 117T payload 778F will be at 778 passenger length. Any longer and I think it will start sacrificing payload. It would have plenty of volume at that length so I don't see any need to make it longer (and have a third fuselage length)

I think if they got to 360t MTOW then the 778x doesn’t exist as a pax variant. The 779x at 360t would have a pad and bags range of getting on for 8knm leaving no real room for the 8X

Fred

I don't know. I think if they went with 779 length, payload would drop to below 109T. Way too much extra structural weight.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

graceintheair · Tue Aug 10, 2021 1:58 am

VV wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
VV wrote:
Why is the title "A350F vs 777XF vs 777ERSF"?

THe A350F has to be compared to the 777-8F.

Because the 77W is directly competitive.

Come on man, one is around since many years and the other has just been offered.
THere is a difference of ONE generation between the two.

But that doesn't mean it's not competitive. There are several airlines that can afford new airplanes but buy used ones because the economics still work out.

flipdewaf · Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:03 am

744SPX wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Revelation wrote:
For A350F payload we have Faury saying 90T+, you saying 95T, Reuters saying 109T. I'm not criticizing, but I am looking forward to the time when we have better information. Hopefully this happens by end of 2021, or my comparisons to NMA become more valid!

Couldn’t agree more, it’s all a bit “everyone says they want a new freighter” and not “here’s what the thing actually is” the biggest thing I got from the numbers that I put together was probably that 360t may well be required. The empty weight of these things is the real unknown(as it always is).

744SPX wrote:
My guess is that a 117T payload 778F will be at 778 passenger length. Any longer and I think it will start sacrificing payload. It would have plenty of volume at that length so I don't see any need to make it longer (and have a third fuselage length)

I think if they got to 360t MTOW then the 778x doesn’t exist as a pax variant. The 779x at 360t would have a pad and bags range of getting on for 8knm leaving no real room for the 8X

Fred

I don't know. I think if they went with 779 length, payload would drop to below 109T. Way too much extra structural weight.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I meant the 778 would only exist in the freight version, the pax version isn’t needed if the 779x has 360t MTOW.

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

morrisond · Wed Aug 11, 2021 9:12 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
My take on the freighters compared here is as below in the chart.

if we assume the 4000nm trip is about 10hrs use and then assume that the fuel burns are associated with that usage as seen above then the A35F is about 6.1t/hr the ERSF 8.3 and the 777XF is 6.8.

at the current fuel price of $613 per ton and 10hrs per day utilisation over 22years the A35F costs 300m in fuel, the ERSF 409m and the 777XF 335m.

The ERSF would appear to be better on low utilisation models the 777XF would be best for the traditional 747 heavy lift scenario and the A35F on the scheduled low density package work as I have described here.

Fred

So in your opinion does the 350F need an MTOW and MZFW bump? it seems like it should be within the abilities of the design.

flipdewaf · Thu Aug 12, 2021 6:50 am

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
My take on the freighters compared here is as below in the chart.

if we assume the 4000nm trip is about 10hrs use and then assume that the fuel burns are associated with that usage as seen above then the A35F is about 6.1t/hr the ERSF 8.3 and the 777XF is 6.8.

at the current fuel price of $613 per ton and 10hrs per day utilisation over 22years the A35F costs 300m in fuel, the ERSF 409m and the 777XF 335m.

The ERSF would appear to be better on low utilisation models the 777XF would be best for the traditional 747 heavy lift scenario and the A35F on the scheduled low density package work as I have described here.

Fred

So in your opinion does the 350F need an MTOW and MZFW bump? it seems like it should be within the abilities of the design.

If it’s within the capabilities of the already designed components then yes, if not then it depends on the figures that the market demands. I would see the MTOW increasing in line with the sunrise requirements (~323t) and the upping of the MZFW to 100 or 105t. In my estimates I have based the aero performance on the A351 so there is a little margin in there but probably not much.

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

morrisond · Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:13 am

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
My take on the freighters compared here is as below in the chart.

if we assume the 4000nm trip is about 10hrs use and then assume that the fuel burns are associated with that usage as seen above then the A35F is about 6.1t/hr the ERSF 8.3 and the 777XF is 6.8.

at the current fuel price of $613 per ton and 10hrs per day utilisation over 22years the A35F costs 300m in fuel, the ERSF 409m and the 777XF 335m.

The ERSF would appear to be better on low utilisation models the 777XF would be best for the traditional 747 heavy lift scenario and the A35F on the scheduled low density package work as I have described here.

Fred

So in your opinion does the 350F need an MTOW and MZFW bump? it seems like it should be within the abilities of the design.

If it’s within the capabilities of the already designed components then yes, if not then it depends on the figures that the market demands. I would see the MTOW increasing in line with the sunrise requirements (~323t) and the upping of the MZFW to 100 or 105t. In my estimates I have based the aero performance on the A351 so there is a little margin in there but probably not much.

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did not know about the 323T Sunrise requirements. That seems like an easy one as a minimum.

What length are you using for 350F? What happens if you use A351F and put effort into increasing it's abilities vs spending money on shortening it. That seems to be the Airbus way.

Reportedly XWB-97 have room for a thrust bump.

What happens when you bump MTOW up to say 340T with a thrust bump and use A351 Length? What does your model tell you? The weight penalty should not be that bad - maybe 5-8T for the extra length and some more strengthening.

With the numbers that are falling out of your model it just seems like an A350F will have really hard time with 777ERSF, and if it had more volume but maybe not quite as much capacity and still superior fuel burn that would allow it do well against 778XF.

flipdewaf · Thu Aug 12, 2021 6:39 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

So in your opinion does the 350F need an MTOW and MZFW bump? it seems like it should be within the abilities of the design.

If it’s within the capabilities of the already designed components then yes, if not then it depends on the figures that the market demands. I would see the MTOW increasing in line with the sunrise requirements (~323t) and the upping of the MZFW to 100 or 105t. In my estimates I have based the aero performance on the A351 so there is a little margin in there but probably not much.

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did not know about the 323T Sunrise requirements. That seems like an easy one as a minimum.

What length are you using for 350F? What happens if you use A351F and put effort into increasing it's abilities vs spending money on shortening it. That seems to be the Airbus way.

Reportedly XWB-97 have room for a thrust bump.

What happens when you bump MTOW up to say 340T with a thrust bump and use A351 Length? What does your model tell you? The weight penalty should not be that bad - maybe 5-8T for the extra length and some more strengthening.

With the numbers that are falling out of your model it just seems like an A350F will have really hard time with 777ERSF, and if it had more volume but maybe not quite as much capacity and still superior fuel burn that would allow it do well against 778XF.

The model I used is just based on a simple Breguet of the A35k specs with an estimation on the empty weight of 140t, I guess you would say the length I assumed was the same as the A35k, if you were to shorten the A35k for the -950F as has been mentioned then assessing that becomes a lot harder than just copying specs which is what I did for this. Likewise with the ERSF and 778X. We know the ERSF will have the same range factor as the 77W as it is geometrically identical and IAI mention both the empty weight and the payload, the rest just falls out of the Breguet equation.

Fred

morrisond · Fri Aug 13, 2021 2:14 am

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
If it’s within the capabilities of the already designed components then yes, if not then it depends on the figures that the market demands. I would see the MTOW increasing in line with the sunrise requirements (~323t) and the upping of the MZFW to 100 or 105t. In my estimates I have based the aero performance on the A351 so there is a little margin in there but probably not much.

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did not know about the 323T Sunrise requirements. That seems like an easy one as a minimum.

What length are you using for 350F? What happens if you use A351F and put effort into increasing it's abilities vs spending money on shortening it. That seems to be the Airbus way.

Reportedly XWB-97 have room for a thrust bump.

What happens when you bump MTOW up to say 340T with a thrust bump and use A351 Length? What does your model tell you? The weight penalty should not be that bad - maybe 5-8T for the extra length and some more strengthening.

With the numbers that are falling out of your model it just seems like an A350F will have really hard time with 777ERSF, and if it had more volume but maybe not quite as much capacity and still superior fuel burn that would allow it do well against 778XF.

The model I used is just based on a simple Breguet of the A35k specs with an estimation on the empty weight of 140t, I guess you would say the length I assumed was the same as the A35k, if you were to shorten the A35k for the -950F as has been mentioned then assessing that becomes a lot harder than just copying specs which is what I did for this. Likewise with the ERSF and 778X. We know the ERSF will have the same range factor as the 77W as it is geometrically identical and IAI mention both the empty weight and the payload, the rest just falls out of the Breguet equation.

Fred

Interesting - I like the idea of an 351F a lot better than an A350-950. From the articles the 950 apparently has a capacity of about 109T. Then yours at 95T in a longer length makes sense.

Say 5T extra for a bump in MTOW from 319T to 240 T and that would capacity right about 110-111T for 351 length - about perfect and something more than 777ERSF with a lot better fuel burn. That might have a market.

flipdewaf · Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:55 am

After a little modelling and some work to derive a suitable formula I have put together the following table in excel. You are free to download and use.

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AiAyKIX6pnf6ij6DcBY ... h?e=bg5WNr

You will see that I have put some areas in there for a user to be able to change (in yellow) and locked some cells but you can change the OWE and the payload and for two aircraft (new builds) it gives a better indication of what would be required. The initial models are based on external geometry of the A35F being 5 frames shorter in the front than the A351 and the B77XF is the 240ft version.

Fred

JonesNL · Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:13 am

flipdewaf wrote:
After a little modelling and some work to derive a suitable formula I have put together the following table in excel. You are free to download and use.

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AiAyKIX6pnf6ij6DcBY ... h?e=bg5WNr

You will see that I have put some areas in there for a user to be able to change (in yellow) and locked some cells but you can change the OWE and the payload and for two aircraft (new builds) it gives a better indication of what would be required. The initial models are based on external geometry of the A35F being 5 frames shorter in the front than the A351 and the B77XF is the 240ft version.

Fred

So, at 349t MTOW the 777xf uses 2681kg more fuel at same payload and range…

Though nut to crack…

zeke · Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:18 am

Revelation wrote:
For A350F payload we have Faury saying 90T+, you saying 95T, Reuters saying 109T. I'm not criticizing, but I am looking forward to the time when we have better information. Hopefully this happens by end of 2021, or my comparisons to NMA become more valid!

Airbus has updated their website saying the A350F will carry 3 tonnes more than the 77F, that is where the 109 tonnes comes from

https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft ... ters/a350f

Example of 77F payload from real world operator

https://www.atlasair.com/wp-content/upl ... 012418.pdf

flipdewaf · Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:35 am

JonesNL wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
After a little modelling and some work to derive a suitable formula I have put together the following table in excel. You are free to download and use.

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AiAyKIX6pnf6ij6DcBY ... h?e=bg5WNr

You will see that I have put some areas in there for a user to be able to change (in yellow) and locked some cells but you can change the OWE and the payload and for two aircraft (new builds) it gives a better indication of what would be required. The initial models are based on external geometry of the A35F being 5 frames shorter in the front than the A351 and the B77XF is the 240ft version.

Fred

So, at 349t MTOW the 777xf uses 2681kg more fuel at same payload and range…

Though nut to crack…

Yes, I guess, but the big unknown here is the 77XF empty weight.

Fred

keesje · Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:17 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
After a little modelling and some work to derive a suitable formula I have put together the following table in excel. You are free to download and use.

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AiAyKIX6pnf6ij6DcBY ... h?e=bg5WNr

You will see that I have put some areas in there for a user to be able to change (in yellow) and locked some cells but you can change the OWE and the payload and for two aircraft (new builds) it gives a better indication of what would be required. The initial models are based on external geometry of the A35F being 5 frames shorter in the front than the A351 and the B77XF is the 240ft version.

Fred

So, at 349t MTOW the 777xf uses 2681kg more fuel at same payload and range…

Though nut to crack…

Yes, I guess, but the big unknown here is the 77XF empty weight.

Fred

We know the OEW difference between 77W and 777-9, using that for a 777F vs 777XF should give a reasonable indication..

tommy1808 · Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:40 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
After a little modelling and some work to derive a suitable formula I have put together the following table in excel. You are free to download and use.

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AiAyKIX6pnf6ij6DcBY ... h?e=bg5WNr

You will see that I have put some areas in there for a user to be able to change (in yellow) and locked some cells but you can change the OWE and the payload and for two aircraft (new builds) it gives a better indication of what would be required. The initial models are based on external geometry of the A35F being 5 frames shorter in the front than the A351 and the B77XF is the 240ft version.

Fred

So, at 349t MTOW the 777xf uses 2681kg more fuel at same payload and range…

Though nut to crack…

Yes, I guess, but the big unknown here is the 77XF empty weight.

Fred

which leads to the question how low it needs to be to get the same fuel burn with the same payload over the same distance.

best regards
Thomas

flipdewaf · Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:16 pm

keesje wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
JonesNL wrote:

So, at 349t MTOW the 777xf uses 2681kg more fuel at same payload and range…

Though nut to crack…

Yes, I guess, but the big unknown here is the 77XF empty weight.

Fred

We know the OEW difference between 77W and 777-9, using that for a 777F vs 777XF should give a reasonable indication..

Whilst I would initially be inclined to agree with you the issue as I see it is that the 777F appears to be an outlier in its unusually high empty weight. It is similar to the pax version and one would expect it to be significantly (10t or so) lighter if it were a freighter. We know the floor of the 777 was not particularly good for the freight operations and I think there is a fair chance that the mods required were fairly substantial in terms of weight (equivalent to the weight of a pax cabin). It would be useful to assume a band of weights I think from somewhere between about 156t up to about 166t and dependent on how well the conversion goes.

tommy1808 wrote:
which leads to the question how low it needs to be to get the same fuel burn with the same payload over the same distance.

There are I believe 2 parts to it, 1 what is the equivalent fuel burn and the second is about the raw payload range performance, in the case of a freighter i would say the second is higher weighted than it is on a pax frame. If the 77XF is at the higher weight end of the spectrum in terms of OWE then I would expect that it needs the MTOW boosts mentioned elsewhere to meet the P/R performance of the A35F. If it is towards the lower end then it will be higher than the A35F.

Fred

mig17 · Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:28 pm

keesje wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
JonesNL wrote:

So, at 349t MTOW the 777xf uses 2681kg more fuel at same payload and range…

Though nut to crack…

Yes, I guess, but the big unknown here is the 77XF empty weight.

Fred

We know the OEW difference between 77W and 777-9, using that for a 777F vs 777XF should give a reasonable indication..

Do we know the OEW or DOW of the 777-9?

reidar76 · Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:33 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
After a little modelling and some work to derive a suitable formula I have put together the following table in excel. You are free to download and use.

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AiAyKIX6pnf6ij6DcBY ... h?e=bg5WNr

You will see that I have put some areas in there for a user to be able to change (in yellow) and locked some cells but you can change the OWE and the payload and for two aircraft (new builds) it gives a better indication of what would be required. The initial models are based on external geometry of the A35F being 5 frames shorter in the front than the A351 and the B77XF is the 240ft version.

Fred

If I'm understanding your spreadsheet correctly, this doesn't necessarily look good for the A350F.

For example, Singapore airlines might be looking for new-built freighters. If we look at the distance from SIN to Europe (FRA, LHR, AMS and CDG), it is almost 6000 nm. If we assume the following:

1) The A350F will accually get the announced 317 t MTOW (not 319 t as for the A35K, and not the rumoured 323 t)
2) The B77XF will get the rumoured MTOW increase to 365 t (which can only be utilised in airports that can handle it)

The A350F can carry 91 t freight, while using 89 t fuel. That is .98 t fuel for every t carried.

The 77XF can carry 107 t freight, while using 97 t fuel. That is only .91 t of fuel for every t carried.

The 77XF would be significantly more efficient given these assumptions at this long haul route.

If we assume 323 t for the A350F and no MTOW increase for the 77XF, than both can carry about 96 t from Singapore to major European hubs.

flipdewaf · Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:57 pm

reidar76 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
After a little modelling and some work to derive a suitable formula I have put together the following table in excel. You are free to download and use.

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AiAyKIX6pnf6ij6DcBY ... h?e=bg5WNr

You will see that I have put some areas in there for a user to be able to change (in yellow) and locked some cells but you can change the OWE and the payload and for two aircraft (new builds) it gives a better indication of what would be required. The initial models are based on external geometry of the A35F being 5 frames shorter in the front than the A351 and the B77XF is the 240ft version.

Fred

If I'm understanding your spreadsheet correctly, this doesn't necessarily look good for the A350F.

For example, Singapore airlines might be looking for new-built freighters. If we look at the distance from SIN to Europe (FRA, LHR, AMS and CDG), it is almost 6000 nm. If we assume the following:

1) The A350F will accually get the announced 317 t MTOW (not 319 t as for the A35K, and not the rumoured 323 t)
2) The B77XF will get the rumoured MTOW increase to 365 t (which can only be utilised in airports that can handle it)

The A350F can carry 91 t freight, while using 89 t fuel. That is .98 t fuel for every t carried.

The 77XF can carry 107 t freight, while using 97 t fuel. That is only .91 t of fuel for every t carried.

The 77XF would be significantly more efficient given these assumptions at this long haul route.

If we assume 323 t for the A350F and no MTOW increase for the 77XF, than both can carry about 96 t from Singapore to major European hubs.

Yes, Assuming the B77XF gets the ~15t MTOW boost and has a 155t OWE.

Clarity on what Boeing would propose is whats missing.

Fred

tommy1808 · Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:42 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
After a little modelling and some work to derive a suitable formula I have put together the following table in excel. You are free to download and use.

https://1drv.ms/x/s!AiAyKIX6pnf6ij6DcBY ... h?e=bg5WNr

You will see that I have put some areas in there for a user to be able to change (in yellow) and locked some cells but you can change the OWE and the payload and for two aircraft (new builds) it gives a better indication of what would be required. The initial models are based on external geometry of the A35F being 5 frames shorter in the front than the A351 and the B77XF is the 240ft version.

Fred

If I'm understanding your spreadsheet correctly, this doesn't necessarily look good for the A350F.

For example, Singapore airlines might be looking for new-built freighters. If we look at the distance from SIN to Europe (FRA, LHR, AMS and CDG), it is almost 6000 nm. If we assume the following:

1) The A350F will accually get the announced 317 t MTOW (not 319 t as for the A35K, and not the rumoured 323 t)
2) The B77XF will get the rumoured MTOW increase to 365 t (which can only be utilised in airports that can handle it)

The A350F can carry 91 t freight, while using 89 t fuel. That is .98 t fuel for every t carried.

The 77XF can carry 107 t freight, while using 97 t fuel. That is only .91 t of fuel for every t carried.

The 77XF would be significantly more efficient given these assumptions at this long haul route.

If we assume 323 t for the A350F and no MTOW increase for the 77XF, than both can carry about 96 t from Singapore to major European hubs.

Yes, Assuming the B77XF gets the ~15t MTOW boost and has a 155t OWE.

Clarity on what Boeing would propose is whats missing.

Fred

I would sort of suspect Airbus will use its dynamic weight changes on the A350F just like on its passenger versions... less payload/ZFW, higher TOW available.

best regards
Thomas

zeke · Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:12 pm

reidar76 wrote:
If I'm understanding your spreadsheet correctly, this doesn't necessarily look good for the A350F.

I guess that is why Airbus has not launched the A35F, and Boeing has launched the 77XF, no one has ordered the A35F and there are orders for the 77XF.

reidar76 wrote:
For example, Singapore airlines might be looking for new-built freighters. If we look at the distance from SIN to Europe (FRA, LHR, AMS and CDG), it is almost 6000 nm. If we assume the following:

SQC dont fly to Europe non stop with freighters, they will go via somewhere like India or UAE.

reidar76 wrote:
If we assume 323 t for the A350F and no MTOW increase for the 77XF, than both can carry about 96 t from Singapore to major European hubs.

The comparison SQC would make is referenced to their current fleet and network, the 744F would only be able to carry around 80 tonnes over 6000 nm, with significantly higher fuel burn. That is why they don’t fly non stop.

Atlas which would have to be the largest 744F operator states the aircraft is a 112 tonne payload aircraft ( https://www.atlasair.com/wp-content/upl ... 012418.pdf ), it can only carry that payload out to around 4300 nm. The A35F will likely be able to carry the 109 tonne maximum payload out to 5500+ nm, that is where the A35K MZFW range sits. It will be able to do that with a reduction in fuel burn by about 40%, and 25% reduction in airways and airport charges compared to the incumbent 744F.

With the same cargo volume capability as the 744F, similar maximum payload mass, it seems Airbus is positioning the A35F as a drop in 744F replacement, and Boeing is developing the 77XF that would be a 748F replacement.

flipdewaf · Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:28 pm

zeke wrote:
The A35F will likely be able to carry the 109 tonne maximum payload out to 5500+ nm, that is where the A35K MZFW range sits.

Not a sniff it’ll do 5500nm at 109t, that’s ridiculous. It will be somewhere around 4700.

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

zeke · Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:36 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
zeke wrote:
The A35F will likely be able to carry the 109 tonne maximum payload out to 5500+ nm, that is where the A35K MZFW range sits.

Not a sniff it’ll do 5500nm at 109t, that’s ridiculous. It will be somewhere around 4700.

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The A35K in passenger configuration does MZFW payload (over 70 tonnes) out that far which includes a longer fuselage and passenger configuration.

Revelation · Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:38 pm

The A350F has no orders, it has a letter of intention from a leasing firm.

They could become firm orders, or they could be smoke and mirrors, Amedeo V2.

Polot · Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:53 pm

zeke wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
zeke wrote:
The A35F will likely be able to carry the 109 tonne maximum payload out to 5500+ nm, that is where the A35K MZFW range sits.

Not a sniff it’ll do 5500nm at 109t, that’s ridiculous. It will be somewhere around 4700.

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The A35K in passenger configuration does MZFW payload (over 70 tonnes) out that far which includes a longer fuselage and passenger configuration.

According to Leeham Airbus is targeting a payload ~45t higher than the A350-1000 while being 30t lighter. So no, it won’t fly as far as the A350-1000 at MZFW.

flipdewaf · Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:08 pm

zeke wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
zeke wrote:
The A35F will likely be able to carry the 109 tonne maximum payload out to 5500+ nm, that is where the A35K MZFW range sits.

Not a sniff it’ll do 5500nm at 109t, that’s ridiculous. It will be somewhere around 4700.

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The A35K in passenger configuration does MZFW payload (over 70 tonnes) out that far which includes a longer fuselage and passenger configuration.

109t is ~35t greater than the A35K payload. With a lower MTOW. Yes there is no cabin furniture which gives about 16t back. Airbus even state 13t lower than 77F so it’s fairly safe to assume about 132t OWE and 241t MZFW. Also the stated MTOW is 2t lower than the A35k maximum. A 5frame (~3m) shrink in the fuselage does not equate to a 17t fuel requirement change.

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

tomcat · Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:17 pm

The OEW of the A350F seems just above 130t per Airbus not-so-clear-presentation on which they don't state the actual OEW. Together with the supposed 109t max payload (I say "supposed" because Airbus is only claiming +3t vs 777F but if we only look at Boeing's website, the 777F is only good for 102t), the MZFW would stand at circa 240t. How does this compare with the MZFW of the A351?

Payload of the 777F as seen on Boeing.com:
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/freighters/#/777f-highlight/characteristics/777f/

T4thH · Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:32 pm

Revelation wrote:
The A350F has no orders, it has a letter of intention from a leasing firm.

They could become firm orders, or they could be smoke and mirrors, Amedeo V2.

Sorry as I have understood, it already far beyond a LOI, so all negotiation work is done.
But...now they are working on the contracts...with two Airbus companies, Airbus Canada and Airbus Europe, so with an EU and one non EU company, several engine companies in and outside of the EU, so all mayor jet engine companies, who are in the western world in business, for several different products, where for one, it is still in development (Xlr) and for one, the design is not even completed (A350F), and do not forget, for the Xlr and the A350F, we will see new upgraded engine versions, still in development....and for the A350F, ALC is the first customer, so no contract version available and pretty sure many ad on/exception/penalties/benefits e.g. in the contract, as all design elements are still not fully final....and with a big well established lessor...and this for a high number of planes in total and a high number of different versions and planes (and as lessor, likely also for some, there are already some agreements from some airlines, so already special requests of the versions e.g.....). An every of these companies involved has big team of lawyers already working on their part of this contract/s...

This is not a small airline from somewhere in Europe/Africa/Asia, where Airbus will just take a standard contract out of a pile as it regular done.

This is ALC, they have own contracts.

By luck, we are (especially now with COVID) in the age of electronic signatures and Teamspeak e.g., still to finalize the contract/s will spend likely several month.

Revelation · Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:12 pm

T4thH wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The A350F has no orders, it has a letter of intention from a leasing firm.

They could become firm orders, or they could be smoke and mirrors, Amedeo V2.

Sorry as I have understood, it already far beyond a LOI, so all negotiation work is done.
But...now they are working on the contracts...with two Airbus companies, Airbus Canada and Airbus Europe, so with an EU and one non EU company, several engine companies in and outside of the EU, so all mayor jet engine companies, who are in the western world in business, for several different products, where for one, it is still in development (Xlr) and for one, the design is not even completed (A350F), and do not forget, for the Xlr and the A350F, we will see new upgraded engine versions, still in development....and for the A350F, ALC is the first customer, so no contract version available and pretty sure many ad on/exception/penalties/benefits e.g. in the contract, as all design elements are still not fully final....and with a big well established lessor...and this for a high number of planes in total and a high number of different versions and planes (and as lessor, likely also for some, there are already some agreements from some airlines, so already special requests of the versions e.g.....). An every of these companies involved has big team of lawyers already working on their part of this contract/s...

This is not a small airline from somewhere in Europe/Africa/Asia, where Airbus will just take a standard contract out of a pile as it regular done.

This is ALC, they have own contracts.

By luck, we are (especially now with COVID) in the age of electronic signatures and Teamspeak e.g., still to finalize the contract/s will spend likely several month.

All well and good, but still it's not an order till it gets those signatures, regardless of intentions.

zeke · Fri Nov 19, 2021 12:58 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
With a lower MTOW.

The 5500+nm Airbus quote at 316 tonnes, 319 tonnes represents an increase.

flipdewaf wrote:
Yes there is no cabin furniture which gives about 16t back.

I think that number will be higher. The side panels on todays A350s are made without any cutouts, and then a waterjet is used to make cutouts for windows and doors after it have been in the autoclave. I see them not cutting out the windows and doors not needed on the freighter, and the not needing all that additional hardware to mount the windows/doors.

flipdewaf wrote:
Airbus even state 13t lower than 77F so it’s fairly safe to assume about 132t OWE and 241t MZFW.

That is for a 4000 nm sector ANC-PVG, so none of the aircraft, the 747F, 77F, or A35F would be at MTOW, they all would be MZFW limited. They also state OWE of 37 tonnes less than the 747F, and 13 tonnes less than the 77F, therefore I see the A35F OWE to be in the range of 128-129 tonnes based off those figures, which puts MZFW at around 238 tonnes.

For the 77F OWE I used the Polar payload of 105,233 kg (https://www.polaraircargo.com/wp-conten ... 319-v2.pdf) and MZFW of 248115 kg, OWE of 142882 kg. That also fits with the A35F payload being 3 tonnes more than the 77F.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net