The Mamouth program is discussed in detail here : viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1464623

First flight of IAI's "big twin" 777-300ERSF has been delayed to January 2023, see (paywall) : https://cargofacts.com/allposts/convers ... arly-2023/

747classic wrote:

First flight of IAI's "big twin" 777-300ERSF has been delayed to January 2023, see (paywall) : https://cargofacts.com/allposts/convers ... arly-2023/

Supply chain issues is the new "the dog ate my homework." While probably true, they need to manage through this.

IAI also needs to publish a new plausible timeliness.

I'm excited for these conversions, it just looks like about an 8 month slide to the right. I'm curious on the change in stock value as it seems widebody demand is far higher than 6 months ago.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

747classic wrote:

First flight of IAI's "big twin" 777-300ERSF has been delayed to January 2023, see (paywall) : https://cargofacts.com/allposts/convers ... arly-2023/

Supply chain issues is the new "the dog ate my homework." While probably true, they need to manage through this.

IAI also needs to publish a new plausible timeliness.

I'm excited for these conversions, it just looks like about an 8 month slide to the right. I'm curious on the change in stock value as it seems widebody demand is far higher than 6 months ago.

Lightsaber

Yes. Not to mention that "777X is just around the corner" sees that the corner is actually further away, than expected earlier. Not only current frame values, but also future outlook is somewhat different, compared to "sky is falling, those 77W's are about to meet the chopping block soon" not too long ago.

Phosphorus wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

747classic wrote:

First flight of IAI's "big twin" 777-300ERSF has been delayed to January 2023, see (paywall) : https://cargofacts.com/allposts/convers ... arly-2023/

Supply chain issues is the new "the dog ate my homework." While probably true, they need to manage through this.

IAI also needs to publish a new plausible timeliness.

I'm excited for these conversions, it just looks like about an 8 month slide to the right. I'm curious on the change in stock value as it seems widebody demand is far higher than 6 months ago.

Lightsaber

Yes. Not to mention that "777X is just around the corner" sees that the corner is actually further away, than expected earlier. Not only current frame values, but also future outlook is somewhat different, compared to "sky is falling, those 77W's are about to meet the chopping block soon" not too long ago.

True and supply chain issues will slow both A350 and 787 production too. Those unloved 77Ws and 77Ls have a (temporary) new lease on life and thus higher resale value.

Hi everyone!

Are there any updates on the programme?

I've done a quick Google search and there aren't any recent articles...

Late last year, there was a report on a website named "cargofacts" that the anticipated first flight would be in January 2023. The program is severely late compared to original schedule. Even as I type this, the IAI "big twin" website still says "due to enter service in 2022". So the original plan was to have completed conversion, flown, tested, certified, delivered to a customer and into revenue service all before the end of 2022. As was discussed in last year's thread, there has been no news directly from IAI after the event of cutting the cargo door - everything has been from secondary sources like cargofacts.

Thanks WestWing!

I do wonder what is causing the delay in progress.

This conversion programme has a lot of potential if it meets the advertised specs. However, as with the lack of news on progress, we also haven't seen any new orders being placed.

I guess we will have to remain patient...

The first IAI frame was spotted performing ground tests: https://twitter.com/AeronewsGlobal/stat ... 7590713345

That frame really appears to have a lot less reinforcements relative to for example the EFW A330 conversions. I wonder if it was already painted partially but for the door area?

curious....there's alot of loose wiring all along the fuselage-will they be properly secured before flight,or they're only there for ground testing?

TropicalSky wrote:

curious....there's alot of loose wiring all along the fuselage-will they be properly secured before flight,or they're only there for ground testing?

Are you asking about interior wires or exterior? The interior will have panels installed covering everything you currently see.

JohanTally wrote:

TropicalSky wrote:

curious....there's alot of loose wiring all along the fuselage-will they be properly secured before flight,or they're only there for ground testing?

Are you asking about interior wires or exterior? The interior will have panels installed covering everything you currently see.

i meant the wires outside the aircraft

TropicalSky wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

TropicalSky wrote:

curious....there's alot of loose wiring all along the fuselage-will they be properly secured before flight,or they're only there for ground testing?

Are you asking about interior wires or exterior? The interior will have panels installed covering everything you currently see.

i meant the wires outside the aircraft

I'm sure most are for while it finishes the conversion and ground testing. They may some going through window plugs like you would on testbed aircraft.

Notice : The new 777-300ERSF main deck cargo door was located very close to main entry door 4L, so the entire door 4L plus door frame had to be removed and new stringers and fuselage panels had to be installed fwd of the main deck cargo door.



Original uploaded by Rami Mizrahi, see : https://twitter.com/AeronewsGlobal/stat ... 7242006530

1st flight

https://twitter.com/ILAerospaceIAI/status/1639184577703952387

Due for delivery to Kalitta in second half of this year apparently.

xl0hr wrote:

1st flight

https://twitter.com/ILAerospaceIAI/status/1639184577703952387

Due for delivery to Kalitta in second half of this year apparently.

Are they confident that they will receive certification that quick?

MoKa777 wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

1st flight

https://twitter.com/ILAerospaceIAI/status/1639184577703952387

Due for delivery to Kalitta in second half of this year apparently.

Are they confident that they will receive certification that quick?

AFAIK IAI has to make a lot of test flights to verify the enlarged flight envelope (higher operating weights), also the adapted software (777F - maneuver load allevation system) has to be demonstrated to the authorities, incl. smoke testing of the enlarged maindeck, compared to the 777F.
And on top of that the certifying authorties (particular the FAA !) are short of manpower. (and specialist expertice)

Hi res picture of the First Flight


See IAI Big Twin media page : https://www.bigtwinfreighter.com/media

[photoid][/photoid]

747classic wrote:

Hi res picture of the First Flight


See IAI Big Twin media page : https://www.bigtwinfreighter.com/media

Nice to see it in the air. I wonder how much weight she had aboard. That photo appears as if she’s not empty.

747classic wrote:

AFAIK IAI has to make a lot of test flights to verify the enlarged flight envelope (higher operating weights), also the adapted software (777F - maneuver load allevation system) has to be demonstrated to the authorities, incl. smoke testing of the enlarged maindeck, compared to the 777F.
And on top of that the certifying authorties (particular the FAA !) are short of manpower. (and specialist expertice)

I fail to see how IAI could use Boeing proprietary 777F data for their STC.

The STC would be a stand alone certification process that the STC applicant, not Boeing would be responsible for the continuing airworthiness.

zeke wrote:

747classic wrote:

AFAIK IAI has to make a lot of test flights to verify the enlarged flight envelope (higher operating weights), also the adapted software (777F - maneuver load allevation system) has to be demonstrated to the authorities, incl. smoke testing of the enlarged maindeck, compared to the 777F.
And on top of that the certifying authorties (particular the FAA !) are short of manpower. (and specialist expertice)

I fail to see how IAI could use Boeing proprietary 777F data for their STC.

The STC would be a stand alone certification process that the STC applicant, not Boeing would be responsible for the continuing airworthiness.

I agree, all modification have to be certified by the applicant (IAI) and IAI is resposible for the continuing airworthiness, but the Boeing developed 777-300ER software has to be adapted for the higher operating weights (MZFW/MLW) and a new (or adapted from the 777F, if Boeing is willing to cooperate ) maneuver load allevation system has to be developed and certified, otherwise the max payload will be significant reduced at high aircraft weights (departure near MTOW) .
Seen all above, the process to certification could involve a lot of actual (flight) testing (no paper exercise) to satisfy the (more critical) authorities

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

The manoeuvring loads on this aircraft should be lower than the ER. It should be shorter sectors at lower weights.

From a wing point of view there is little difference between load carried in the fuselage and the load in the centre tank.neither load provides real bending load relief.

The STC would also reduce the overall aircraft fatigue life and cycles as a trade off for load.

The advanced maneuver load alleviation system that redistributes the aero­dynamic load on the wing during non-normal flight conditions, reducing the load on its outboard portion. This allows the 777F to operate in a wide variety of flight environments without compromising payload capability.
Because the 777-300ER, 777-200LR and the 777F (actually a 777-200LRF) share the same wing /center wing structure the same limitation is valid for the 777-300ERSF during operations with high payloads (near MZFW) and max range. (max payload range).

At the 777F the LOV cycle count has already been reduced from 60.000 (777-300ER, 777-200LR, 777-200ER, 777-200 and 777-300) to 37.500.

I wonder how many potential shippers won't like the door in back vis a vis the 330 which has the door in front

SteelChair wrote:

I wonder how many potential shippers won't like the door in back vis a vis the 330 which has the door in front

I'd guess zero.

Shippers are already familiar with the door in the back on the factory 77f7Fas well as the 747.

Spacepope wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

I wonder how many potential shippers won't like the door in back vis a vis the 330 which has the door in front

I'd guess zero.

Shippers are already familiar with the door in the back on the factory 77f7Fas well as the 747.

Door at the back also makes it easier to load/unload without tipping.

There is a reason why Airbus followed the 747F/777F and placed the door there for the A350F.

747classic wrote:

The advanced maneuver load alleviation system that redistributes the aero­dynamic load on the wing during non-normal flight conditions, reducing the load on its outboard portion. This allows the 777F to operate in a wide variety of flight environments without compromising payload capability.
Because the 777-300ER, 777-200LR and the 777F (actually a 777-200LRF) share the same wing /center wing structure the same limitation is valid for the 777-300ERSF during operations with high payloads (near MZFW) and max range. (max payload range).

At the 777F the LOV cycle count has already been reduced from 60.000 (777-300ER, 777-200LR, 777-200ER, 777-200 and 777-300) to 37.500.

So for the B777-300ERSF will it be 60,000 or 37,500?.

bennett123 wrote:

747classic wrote:

The advanced maneuver load alleviation system that redistributes the aero­dynamic load on the wing during non-normal flight conditions, reducing the load on its outboard portion. This allows the 777F to operate in a wide variety of flight environments without compromising payload capability.
Because the 777-300ER, 777-200LR and the 777F (actually a 777-200LRF) share the same wing /center wing structure the same limitation is valid for the 777-300ERSF during operations with high payloads (near MZFW) and max range. (max payload range).

At the 777F the LOV cycle count has already been reduced from 60.000 (777-300ER, 777-200LR, 777-200ER, 777-200 and 777-300) to 37.500.

So for the B777-300ERSF will it be 60,000 or 37,500?.

Probably less than 60.000 , trading higher operation weights against fatigue live. How much less is hard to say, it will be calculated and has to be accepted by the FAA.

The first flight of N778CK can be tracked here, not higher than approx 20.000ft and lasting almost two hours : https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N77 ... /LLBG/LLBG

Some more pics




Original uploaded by Alon Russo at twitter, see : https://twitter.com/AeronewsGlobal/stat ... 2289896448

SteelChair wrote:

I wonder how many potential shippers won't like the door in back vis a vis the 330 which has the door in front

The IAI 777-300ERSF and the Mammoth 777-300ERMF wil have the maindeck cargo door installed at the back
The KMC 777-300ERCF will have the main deck cargo door installed fwd of the wings.

For a detailed comparison of the three 777 conversion programs, incl. all 777 P-F differences and specifications of competing freighters., see : https://www.mammoth777.com/_files/ugd/a ... 497738.pdf

747classic wrote:

For a detailed comparison of the three 777 conversion programs, incl. all 777 P-F differences and specifications of competing freighters., see : https://www.mammoth777.com/_files/ugd/a ... 497738.pdf

That's an excellent article you found in Aircraft Commerce magazine. Well-written, clear, highly-factual! Thank you!!!

From the relevant table in the article, as far as specs go, the IAI version is marginally-better. The idea that KMC (which is, with NAIR, some kind of commercial outgrowth of a university program) is putting the door in the front to mitigate rear fuselage loads is an interesting excuse. Much more likely to tip than to have the tail break off. Where's the side loading door on the 747, btw? Oh, yeah -- in the rear. I think it's a dubious argument, especially given that with all their talk about reinforcing the tail to install the door adding weight, the IAI specs are better than theirs. Given the likelihood of tail-tipping and ramp rash with a front door on a 777, and the fact that the aircraft becomes an anomaly as compared to the factory freighter and other conversions --- good luck, Nerds!

wjcandee wrote:

747classic wrote:

For a detailed comparison of the three 777 conversion programs, incl. all 777 P-F differences and specifications of competing freighters., see : https://www.mammoth777.com/_files/ugd/a ... 497738.pdf

That's an excellent article you found in Aircraft Commerce magazine. Well-written, clear, highly-factual! Thank you!!!

From the relevant table in the article, as far as specs go, the IAI version is marginally-better. The idea that KMC (which is, with NAIR, some kind of commercial outgrowth of a university program) is putting the door in the front to mitigate rear fuselage loads is an interesting excuse. Much more likely to tip than to have the tail break off. Where's the side loading door on the 747, btw? Oh, yeah -- in the rear. I think it's a dubious argument, especially given that with all their talk about reinforcing the tail to install the door adding weight, the IAI specs are better than theirs. Given the likelihood of tail-tipping and ramp rash with a front door on a 777, and the fact that the aircraft becomes an anomaly as compared to the factory freighter and other conversions --- good luck, Nerds!

There must be more in the article because it’s linked in Mammoth’s site and from the chart alone, IAI is better (IMO).

wjcandee wrote:

The idea that KMC (which is, with NAIR, some kind of commercial outgrowth of a university program) is putting the door in the front to mitigate rear fuselage loads is an interesting excuse. Much more likely to tip than to have the tail break off. Where's the side loading door on the 747, btw? Oh, yeah -- in the rear.

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment/comment. But apart from that, I am not properly sure you could even mount a useful side cargo door ahead of the wing on a 747. There is a lot going on structurally there and it seems like trying to make that happen would be a cast iron bitch.

As well, a fwd SCD would probably also interfere with things like fueling, or at least add more complications that way


But yes, rear SCDs are virtually always better for the reasons you mention.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

The idea that KMC (which is, with NAIR, some kind of commercial outgrowth of a university program) is putting the door in the front to mitigate rear fuselage loads is an interesting excuse. Much more likely to tip than to have the tail break off. Where's the side loading door on the 747, btw? Oh, yeah -- in the rear.

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment/comment. But apart from that, I am not properly sure you could even mount a useful side cargo door ahead of the wing on a 747. There is a lot going on structurally there and it seems like trying to make that happen would be a cast iron bitch.

As well, a fwd SCD would probably also interfere with things like fueling, or at least add more complications that way

But yes, rear SCDs are virtually always better for the reasons you mention.

Great points! Thanks for the observations!

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

The idea that KMC (which is, with NAIR, some kind of commercial outgrowth of a university program) is putting the door in the front to mitigate rear fuselage loads is an interesting excuse. Much more likely to tip than to have the tail break off. Where's the side loading door on the 747, btw? Oh, yeah -- in the rear.

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment/comment. But apart from that, I am not properly sure you could even mount a useful side cargo door ahead of the wing on a 747. There is a lot going on structurally there and it seems like trying to make that happen would be a cast iron bitch.

As well, a fwd SCD would probably also interfere with things like fueling, or at least add more complications that way


But yes, rear SCDs are virtually always better for the reasons you mention.

Always found it interesting that the first 747F Classic freighters only had a nose loading cargo door, no side door was installed although these unique aircraft all had one added later

Some 747 Side Cargo Door (SCD) history :
The 747 SCD was initially designed for modification of two Sabena 747-100 aircraft to the combi configuration in 1973.(by Boeing Wichita)
The main deck cargo part of this first combi conversion had to be at the back end, because the first class in the front section (+ (short) upper deck acces) was at that time a major sales advantage for the 747.
Also installation of a fwd SCD would be structurally more complicated.(airconditioning risers and upper deck floor limiting the cargo volume) )

After introducing the Side Cargo Door (SCD) at the Sabena 747-100combi, the same (aft located) SCD was an option on the -200F and -200C, later it was standard at the 747-200F.
At most early built aircraft 747-200F/C the SCD was later added, but not with all aircraft without SCD.
The same SCD was also installed for all full-pax - freighter mods. (747-100/200/300/400) and all factory built 747-200/300/400M and 747-400F/ERF aircraft.
The SCD was (slightly) modified for the 747-8F.

747classic wrote:

Some 747 Side Cargo Door (SCD) history :
The 747 SCD was initially designed for modification of two Sabena 747-100 aircraft to the combi configuration in 1973.(by Boeing Wichita)
The main deck cargo part of this first combi conversion had to be at the back end, because the first class in the front section (+ (short) upper deck acces) was at that time a major sales advantage for the 747.
Also installation of a fwd SCD would be structurally more complicated.(airconditioning risers and upper deck floor limiting the cargo volume) )

After introducing the Side Cargo Door (SCD) at the Sabena 747-100combi, the same (aft located) SCD was an option on the -200F and -200C, later it was standard at the 747-200F.
At most early built aircraft 747-200F/C the SCD was later added, but not with all aircraft without SCD.
The same SCD was also installed for all full-pax - freighter mods. (747-100/200/300/400) and all factory built 747-200/300/400M and 747-400F/ERF aircraft.
The SCD was (slightly) modified for the 747-8F.

That’s very interesting. Thank you!

I don’t want to drift too far from the thread topic, but can you expand on how it was modified for the -8F?

Thanks again!

Hamlet69 wrote:

747classic wrote:

Some 747 Side Cargo Door (SCD) history :
The 747 SCD was initially designed for modification of two Sabena 747-100 aircraft to the combi configuration in 1973.(by Boeing Wichita)
The main deck cargo part of this first combi conversion had to be at the back end, because the first class in the front section (+ (short) upper deck acces) was at that time a major sales advantage for the 747.
Also installation of a fwd SCD would be structurally more complicated.(airconditioning risers and upper deck floor limiting the cargo volume) )

After introducing the Side Cargo Door (SCD) at the Sabena 747-100combi, the same (aft located) SCD was an option on the -200F and -200C, later it was standard at the 747-200F.
At most early built aircraft 747-200F/C the SCD was later added, but not with all aircraft without SCD.
The same SCD was also installed for all full-pax - freighter mods. (747-100/200/300/400) and all factory built 747-200/300/400M and 747-400F/ERF aircraft.
The SCD was (slightly) modified for the 747-8F.

That’s very interesting. Thank you!

I don’t want to drift too far from the thread topic, but can you expand on how it was modified for the -8F?

Thanks again!

Weight reduction : all side cargo doors, installed at the 747-100/200/300/400 series had a belt of window frames installed (to cater for the full pax configuration of a - C or combi), at the -SF's and -F's all windows were plugged execpt one)
At the 747-8F SCD only one window frame is installed.

jbs2886 wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

747classic wrote:

For a detailed comparison of the three 777 conversion programs, incl. all 777 P-F differences and specifications of competing freighters., see : https://www.mammoth777.com/_files/ugd/a ... 497738.pdf

That's an excellent article you found in Aircraft Commerce magazine. Well-written, clear, highly-factual! Thank you!!!

From the relevant table in the article, as far as specs go, the IAI version is marginally-better. The idea that KMC (which is, with NAIR, some kind of commercial outgrowth of a university program) is putting the door in the front to mitigate rear fuselage loads is an interesting excuse. Much more likely to tip than to have the tail break off. Where's the side loading door on the 747, btw? Oh, yeah -- in the rear. I think it's a dubious argument, especially given that with all their talk about reinforcing the tail to install the door adding weight, the IAI specs are better than theirs. Given the likelihood of tail-tipping and ramp rash with a front door on a 777, and the fact that the aircraft becomes an anomaly as compared to the factory freighter and other conversions --- good luck, Nerds!

There must be more in the article because it’s linked in Mammoth’s site and from the chart alone, IAI is better (IMO).

Back to the 777 comparison :

The IAI conversion has indeed (marginal) the highest payload (222.000 lbs, versus Mammoth's 220.000lbs ) , but this is archieved with a far higher OEW (336.000 lbs) versus the Mammoth OEW of 323.000 lbs.

Consequently the IAI conversion must have less payload range.
Another draw back of the IAI conversion is the extension of the flight envelope (MZFW an MLW far higher than the factory built 777F) , resulting in more wear and tear.

If the stated OEW's are correct, I would prefer the Mammoth conversion.

The official IAI B777-300ERSF first flight video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvgSrJL0jLE&t=86s

this is very interesting...looks like some floor beams were changed as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo0Tpe1wtzc

TropicalSky wrote:

this is very interesting...looks like some floor beams were changed as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo0Tpe1wtzc

Most main deck floor beams are changed by composite floor beams or re-enforced with composite material.
For that reason the OEW is relative low, compared to the factory built 777F aircraft, with heavier aluminium floor beams installed.

747classic wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

That's an excellent article you found in Aircraft Commerce magazine. Well-written, clear, highly-factual! Thank you!!!

From the relevant table in the article, as far as specs go, the IAI version is marginally-better. The idea that KMC (which is, with NAIR, some kind of commercial outgrowth of a university program) is putting the door in the front to mitigate rear fuselage loads is an interesting excuse. Much more likely to tip than to have the tail break off. Where's the side loading door on the 747, btw? Oh, yeah -- in the rear. I think it's a dubious argument, especially given that with all their talk about reinforcing the tail to install the door adding weight, the IAI specs are better than theirs. Given the likelihood of tail-tipping and ramp rash with a front door on a 777, and the fact that the aircraft becomes an anomaly as compared to the factory freighter and other conversions --- good luck, Nerds!

There must be more in the article because it’s linked in Mammoth’s site and from the chart alone, IAI is better (IMO).

Back to the 777 comparison :

The IAI conversion has indeed (marginal) the highest payload (222.000 lbs, versus Mammoth's 220.000lbs ) , but this is archieved with a far higher OEW (336.000 lbs) versus the Mammoth OEW of 323.000 lbs.

Consequently the IAI conversion must have less payload range.
Another draw back of the IAI conversion is the extension of the flight envelope (MZFW an MLW far higher than the factory built 777F) , resulting in more wear and tear.

If the stated OEW's are correct, I would prefer the Mammoth conversion.

Historically, each OEM has included different items in their OEW number. Therefore, comparing OEW between vendors (Mammoth vs IAI) is probably not a Apples vs Apples comparison.

Okcflyer wrote:

747classic wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

There must be more in the article because it’s linked in Mammoth’s site and from the chart alone, IAI is better (IMO).

Back to the 777 comparison :

The IAI conversion has indeed (marginal) the highest payload (222.000 lbs, versus Mammoth's 220.000lbs ) , but this is archieved with a far higher OEW (336.000 lbs) versus the Mammoth OEW of 323.000 lbs.

Consequently the IAI conversion must have less payload range.
Another draw back of the IAI conversion is the extension of the flight envelope (MZFW an MLW far higher than the factory built 777F) , resulting in more wear and tear.

If the stated OEW's are correct, I would prefer the Mammoth conversion.

Historically, each OEM has included different items in their OEW number. Therefore, comparing OEW between vendors (Mammoth vs IAI) is probably not a Apples vs Apples comparison.

Also the MZFW of the IAI conversion is substantial higher (558.000.lbs versus 543.000 lbs) than at the Mammoth conversion (IF CORRECT !) , but the Max structural payload of the IAI conversion is only marginal better.(2000 lbs)
That's a clear indication of a higher OEW of the IAI conversion.

ahhh thanks for that insight

747classic wrote:

TropicalSky wrote:

this is very interesting...looks like some floor beams were changed as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo0Tpe1wtzc

Most main deck floor beams are changed by composite floor beams or re-enforced with composite material.
For that reason the OEW is relative low, compared to the factory built 777F aircraft, with heavier aluminium floor beams installed.

747classic wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

747classic wrote:

Back to the 777 comparison :

The IAI conversion has indeed (marginal) the highest payload (222.000 lbs, versus Mammoth's 220.000lbs ) , but this is archieved with a far higher OEW (336.000 lbs) versus the Mammoth OEW of 323.000 lbs.

Consequently the IAI conversion must have less payload range.
Another draw back of the IAI conversion is the extension of the flight envelope (MZFW an MLW far higher than the factory built 777F) , resulting in more wear and tear.

If the stated OEW's are correct, I would prefer the Mammoth conversion.

Historically, each OEM has included different items in their OEW number. Therefore, comparing OEW between vendors (Mammoth vs IAI) is probably not a Apples vs Apples comparison.

Also the MZFW of the IAI conversion is substantial higher (558.000.lbs versus 543.000 lbs) than at the Mammoth conversion (IF CORRECT !) , but the Max structural payload of the IAI conversion is only marginal better.(2000 lbs)
That's a clear indication of a higher OEW of the IAI conversion.

Perhaps Mammoth's modified floor system is much lighter and therefore subject to loading provisions that significantly reduces true revenue potential in real world operations (unless a Amazon/Fedex type operation)? That, or it'll be a durability nightmare?

Max Q wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

The idea that KMC (which is, with NAIR, some kind of commercial outgrowth of a university program) is putting the door in the front to mitigate rear fuselage loads is an interesting excuse. Much more likely to tip than to have the tail break off. Where's the side loading door on the 747, btw? Oh, yeah -- in the rear.

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment/comment. But apart from that, I am not properly sure you could even mount a useful side cargo door ahead of the wing on a 747. There is a lot going on structurally there and it seems like trying to make that happen would be a cast iron bitch.

As well, a fwd SCD would probably also interfere with things like fueling, or at least add more complications that way


But yes, rear SCDs are virtually always better for the reasons you mention.

Always found it interesting that the first 747F Classic freighters only had a nose loading cargo door, no side door was installed although these unique aircraft all had one added later

I certainly agree. Especially when we consider that anything loaded through the nose door is also height restricted owing to the upper deck floor. Adding the SCD was certainly a good decision.

Do you know if they flew revenue that way and had the door added later or was that something customers nixed almost right away and had modded after delivery?

747classic wrote:

The official IAI B777-300ERSF first flight video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvgSrJL0jLE&t=86s

Nice to see this in the air.

I don’t understand how they went through with a 777LR conversion with 62 built. To me the space the MD-10/ MD-11F occupy would be perfectly fit by a 777-200ER conversion. The feedstock is available in good numbers. And they can be bought cheap with low cycles.

DL757NYC wrote:

I don’t understand how they went through with a 777LR conversion with 62 built. To me the space the MD-10/ MD-11F occupy would be perfectly fit by a 777-200ER conversion. The feedstock is available in good numbers. And they can be bought cheap with low cycles.

The 777-200ER has a fairly lower MZFW so a cargo conversion would offer around 70,000kg of usable load (per Boeing comments) which is similar to a DC-10-30F, but over 20,000kg less than an MD-11F and over 30,000kg less than a 777F (which uses the 777-200LR as a foundation).

Boeing, IAI and others have floated 777-200ER passenger-to-freighter conversion concepts, but my guess that low(er) load capacity makes it unpalatable to potential customers for such a conversion.

Stitch wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

I don’t understand how they went through with a 777LR conversion with 62 built. To me the space the MD-10/ MD-11F occupy would be perfectly fit by a 777-200ER conversion. The feedstock is available in good numbers. And they can be bought cheap with low cycles.

The 777-200ER has a fairly lower MZFW so a cargo conversion would offer around 70,000kg of usable load (per Boeing comments) which is similar to a DC-10-30F, but over 20,000kg less than an MD-11F and over 30,000kg less than a 777F (which uses the 777-200LR as a foundation).

Boeing, IAI and others have floated 777-200ER passenger-to-freighter conversion concepts, but my guess that low(er) load capacity makes it unpalatable to potential customers for such a conversion.

The 77W also needed a significant MZFW boost to be a viable freighter. I think this was doable on the 77E, although potentially not quite enough to replace the MD11.

I think age and condition plays a much bigger role. There weren’t very many 77E’s delivered after 2005 when the 77W became available. The average age difference between a 77W and a 77E is nearly 10 years!

The investment to create a 777 freighter program is about the same whether you choose 77E or 77W. The 77W has higher sale price potential thanks to its increased capability, more total feedstock, nearly 10 years newer on average, and with newer, better engine. That same engine is likely to be relevant and not an odd orphan in 15 years, whereas the RR800, PW4090, and first-gen GE90 would only exist for freight applications — a huge risk.

These freighter programs need 10+ years to pay back initial investment. Absent program investment costs, a 77E converted today may make sense. It definitely wouldn’t make sense to convert a 30+ year old freighter in 2033 … you’d have to run it to 40+ years old to make sense!

In this context, I think it’s pretty clear why the 77W gets the nod. The 77L is a much smaller derivative investment as it essentially shares the same age and capacity (weight) benefits of the 77W. 30 frames is enough to make the derivative investment work.