Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
PhilipBass wrote:But they are being loaded and unloaded away from the passenger terminals where space is at a premium so surely if it was worth it in fuel savings you could put longer winglets/sweep on the plane without affecting day to day freight operations.
mxaxai wrote:In addition, winglets not only change the airflow but also the structural loads on the wing. Adding winglets might require strengthened wings, which adds weight and cost. This is the reason why very few A320 have replaced their old wingtip fences with the new sharklets. The old wing wasn't designed for it.
PhilipBass wrote:OK. consensus seems to be that it'd need to be a freighter with a very specific long distance mission from airports with plenty of ramp space where it could possibly make sense. Thanks.
mxaxai wrote:PhilipBass wrote:OK. consensus seems to be that it'd need to be a freighter with a very specific long distance mission from airports with plenty of ramp space where it could possibly make sense. Thanks.
Correct. For true long haul freighters like the 747 or the 777, efficiency matters a lot more and acquisition cost and ramp space matter less. They spend more time in the air. Both the 777F and the 748F are equipped with raked wingtips. Airbus likewise believes that there is a business case for a new-built A350F (which has a similar footprint to the 777F) even though the A332F is selling fairly slowly.
N965UW wrote:mxaxai wrote:PhilipBass wrote:OK. consensus seems to be that it'd need to be a freighter with a very specific long distance mission from airports with plenty of ramp space where it could possibly make sense. Thanks.
Correct. For true long haul freighters like the 747 or the 777, efficiency matters a lot more and acquisition cost and ramp space matter less. They spend more time in the air. Both the 777F and the 748F are equipped with raked wingtips. Airbus likewise believes that there is a business case for a new-built A350F (which has a similar footprint to the 777F) even though the A332F is selling fairly slowly.
The A350F is being positioned as a 777F competitor. The A332F is not on the same level, with its payload and range simply not being competitive especially given its footprint.
SteelChair wrote:To me, the bigger question is for high capacity short range airplanes. UPS and FedEx already operate MD11s on RJ routes. The A330 is already too much airplane for those routes, the A350 would be even moreso.
mxaxai wrote:SteelChair wrote:To me, the bigger question is for high capacity short range airplanes. UPS and FedEx already operate MD11s on RJ routes. The A330 is already too much airplane for those routes, the A350 would be even moreso.
Boeing will sell you a 767F for exactly that kind of high-capacity short range mission. They were developing a short range variant of the 787 a while ago, the 787-3. Perhaps it might come back as a freighter to replace the 767F.
PhilipBass wrote:The wingspan of an A320 is just under 36 metres which seems to be just within the limits of a gatesize as referenced here: viewtopic.php?t=761459
Do freighter operators care about gate size?
If you could whip off the winglets/sharklets and put on longer winglets or create a sweep resulting in 2,3 or more% fuel consumption wouldn't those longer winglets pay for themselves.