Why doesn't the 777F have a swing tail? Wouldn't a swing tail 777F be able to carry oversize cargo and can be a perfect replacement for the swing nose 747F? Any thoughts?

There's limited demand for such a product, and development costs would be very significant. The cabin would be pressurised unlike the DreamLifter, which adds to the complexity involved.

The 747F does have a nose door, and while it is convenient, AFAIK it isn't strictly necessary for the majority of cargoes. A nose door is a much simpler proposition than a swing tail since you're not disconnecting and reconnecting hydraulics, electrics, signaling and so forth every time, never mind the structural implications.

Between the existing 747Fs, the An-124s, the An-225 and various other transports that can take oversize cargo, there seems to be ample supply of freighters capable of taking oversize cargoes.

Starlionblue wrote:

Between the existing 747Fs, the An-124s, the An-225 and various other transports that can take oversize cargo, there seems to be ample supply of freighters capable of taking oversize cargoes.

And the A330-700.

And also there is no Apu in the dreamlifter, you know to avoid a fuel line running in the open door, and this means the 777F with a swing tail might not have an Apu either. So what do they do if all engines totally fail?

Boeing757100 wrote:

And also there is no Apu in the dreamlifter, you know to avoid a fuel line running in the open door, and this means the 777F with a swing tail might not have an Apu either. So what do they do if all engines totally fail?

The all engine failure scenario is not that much improved by an operative APU. All you get is a bigger relight envelope. You can still do a windmill relight. None of this addresses the cause of the all engine failure in the first place.

Aircraft dispatch with inop APU all the time.

Starlionblue wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

And also there is no Apu in the dreamlifter, you know to avoid a fuel line running in the open door, and this means the 777F with a swing tail might not have an Apu either. So what do they do if all engines totally fail?

The all engine failure scenario is not that much improved by an operative APU. All you get is a bigger relight envelope. You can still do a windmill relight. None of this addresses the cause of the all engine failure in the first place.

Aircraft dispatch with inop APU all the time.

Yeah I would imagine that all engines failing would likely mean all fuel gone, in which case the APU isn’t going to help much.

Zeke2517 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

And also there is no Apu in the dreamlifter, you know to avoid a fuel line running in the open door, and this means the 777F with a swing tail might not have an Apu either. So what do they do if all engines totally fail?

The all engine failure scenario is not that much improved by an operative APU. All you get is a bigger relight envelope. You can still do a windmill relight. None of this addresses the cause of the all engine failure in the first place.

Aircraft dispatch with inop APU all the time.

Yeah I would imagine that all engines failing would likely mean all fuel gone, in which case the APU isn’t going to help much.

Volcanic ash is a more likely scenario than fuel starvation.

Either way having the APU won't likely change the final outcome. Certainly, you can relight at a higher altitude than just windmilling, but in context that's not your biggest problem.

I think not having an APU would limit your ETOPS as well.

It’s shocking how overestimated the need for a nose door is on this site. The overwhelming majority of freight can be carried through a SCD. A swing tail is a design for a problem that largely doesn’t exist

jetblueguy22 wrote:

It’s shocking how overestimated the need for a nose door is on this site. The overwhelming majority of freight can be carried through a SCD. A swing tail is a design for a problem that largely doesn’t exist

The only time I ever saw freight that absolutely needed a nose door was when we were moving Paul McCartney’s set around the country in the early 90’s. He had some really outsized stuff that couldn’t be loaded from the side. At least I think it was Paul McCartney...

That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot of it out there, just that I’ve been in the business for decades, and that’s the only thing I’ve seen that HAD to be loaded that way. The current capacity is probably more than enough.

extender wrote:

I think not having an APU would limit your ETOPS as well.

Maybe I'm missing something because I still haven't had my morning coffee, but why would an inop APU preclude EDTO/ETOPS?

Checking the A330 and A350 MELs, there's no mention of an EDTO/ETOPS limitation if the APU is inop.

Starlionblue wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something because I still haven't had my morning coffee, but why would an inop APU preclude EDTO/ETOPS?

Checking the A330 and A350 MELs, there's no mention of an EDTO/ETOPS limitation if the APU is inop.

Our B767's are restricted from 180 to 120 with an APU INOP.

fr8mech wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something because I still haven't had my morning coffee, but why would an inop APU preclude EDTO/ETOPS?

Checking the A330 and A350 MELs, there's no mention of an EDTO/ETOPS limitation if the APU is inop.

Our B767's are restricted from 180 to 120 with an APU INOP.

I suppose it might have to do with electrical power generation redundancy. If you lose an engine and don't have the APU, and then lose the running engine's IDG, you're not having a good day.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

It’s shocking how overestimated the need for a nose door is on this site. The overwhelming majority of freight can be carried through a SCD. A swing tail is a design for a problem that largely doesn’t exist

Yet no one seems to question what exactly is being shipped around that needs the nose door. They just know we desperately need it.

A few years back my company got a contract to fly some long/lightweight cargo that required the whole deal. Multiple loaders, cranes, etc. They flew out damn near the entire cargo department just to watch because it was such a novelty. I didn't even work in cargo and they still invited me and my boss.

We had another loadmaster who refused to even open it because too many ramp tourists would want to look.

FGITD wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

It’s shocking how overestimated the need for a nose door is on this site. The overwhelming majority of freight can be carried through a SCD. A swing tail is a design for a problem that largely doesn’t exist

Yet no one seems to question what exactly is being shipped around that needs the nose door. They just know we desperately need it.

A few years back my company got a contract to fly some long/lightweight cargo that required the whole deal. Multiple loaders, cranes, etc. They flew out damn near the entire cargo department just to watch because it was such a novelty. I didn't even work in cargo and they still invited me and my boss.

We had another loadmaster who refused to even open it because too many ramp tourists would want to look.

I was in network planning for one of the major cargo companies. We were redoing our ramp to be able to take a 748. We planned space to be able to load through the nose door as a contingency if the SCD was inop. Could we also take oversized freight through the nose? Absolutely. But it was such a small part of the plan that we didn’t even worry about it.

What about a drop down ramp in the back of the lower cargo hold? If the 777XF was based on the -9 that space is 57'9" long. Not as high as up top but would that have some utility?
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... X_RevB.pdf

morrisond wrote:

What about a drop down ramp in the back of the lower cargo hold? If the 777XF was based on the -9 that space is 57'9" long. Not as high as up top but would that have some utility?
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... X_RevB.pdf

I can't see the point. There are already loaders that do the job fine.

It would involve lots of weight, yet another hole in the pressure vessel, and probably cut through all sorts of electric and hydraulic, and signaling stuff.

Starlionblue wrote:

morrisond wrote:

What about a drop down ramp in the back of the lower cargo hold? If the 777XF was based on the -9 that space is 57'9" long. Not as high as up top but would that have some utility?
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... X_RevB.pdf

I can't see the point. There are already loaders that do the job fine.

It would involve lots of weight, yet another hole in the pressure vessel, and probably cut through all sorts of electric and hydraulic, and signaling stuff.

What is the maximum length at what width can you get through one of the side doors?

This could potentially allow items like longer pieces of industrial equipment to be loaded.

Remove the lower rear cargo hold door to save weight. Same number of holes in the pressure vessel - yes it could involve moving a number of systems - but how many are actually in the bottom of the rear fuselage? I would have to guess not many as you wouldn't want them harmed by a trail strike.

morrisond wrote:

What is the maximum length at what width can you get through one of the side doors?

This could potentially allow items like longer pieces of industrial equipment to be loaded.

Remove the lower rear cargo hold door to save weight. Same number of holes in the pressure vessel - yes it could involve moving a number of systems - but how many are actually in the bottom of the rear fuselage? I would have to guess not many as you wouldn't want them harmed by a trail strike.

But, is there a market for it that can’t be filled by the existing capacity?

Not to mention that you’ll be limited in length by the fuel tank that is immediately forward of the rear cargo compartment.

fr8mech wrote:

morrisond wrote:

What is the maximum length at what width can you get through one of the side doors?

This could potentially allow items like longer pieces of industrial equipment to be loaded.

Remove the lower rear cargo hold door to save weight. Same number of holes in the pressure vessel - yes it could involve moving a number of systems - but how many are actually in the bottom of the rear fuselage? I would have to guess not many as you wouldn't want them harmed by a trail strike.

But, is there a market for it that can’t be filled by the existing capacity?

Not to mention that you’ll be limited in length by the fuel tank that is immediately forward of the rear cargo compartment.

No idea if there is a market. You would probably have to take a look at how many things need a 747 to swing open a nose for it to fit.

The space is 57'9" before the tank. Conceivably a few cars could fit and easier to load than through the side door if that is a big market.