http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...tudies-for.html

The 772CBF will make a great DC-10-30CF replacement for FX with 25% more volume and better fuel burn.

The 77ECBF would not be a bad MD-11F replacement down the road, either. Similar volume and the slightly (10t) lower payload won't impact package ops.

Sounds like a good idea. Granted, I don't exactly see too many 77Es being retired, even in the next decade, due to the overall age, and the still existant demand in the face of 787 (and soon A350 :devil2) delays. Though with close to 100 A-market 772s out there, that's already a decent start potential.

Of course, the Real Deal will only be once Boeing'll offer 773 freighter conversion .

I would think that would be only good as a package freighter.

Perhaps, but it would still be a more economical package freighter than the A380F .

If a package freighter needs volume more than weight maybe Boeing should reconsider a commercial version of the 747LCF? Fully three times the cargo volume of the 777 Freighter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_La...Cargo_Freighter

Similar to a USAF purchase of the AN-70 it comes down to certification and Boeing decided that the market would not support the cost of the paperwork to certify the LCF. Too bad, it would be a capable commercial aircraft. Buy then to do it right they should refine the design better than the quick mod they did to get the the LCF safely in the air. This would cost even more. All money better spent on the next generation of freighter. Oh well. Not the first time a good aircraft could not be brought to market.

2nds Stitch's assessment.



Though I doubt that's a fair (or even accurate) claim... I'm starting to wonder which has a better chance of actually coming to fruition: the A380F or the 783?


In what ways?

Alas, such a plane is totally unworkable in that role. Even if they could get a load-bearing floor into it, it would be a nightmare to load and unload as well as load-balance plus be very time consuming. And it would need to be pressurized and heated. The 787 shells and wings are designed to operate in an unpressurized environment with temperatures well below Zero Celsius. A good deal of package freight isn't.




I don't think either will ever see the light of day in their original configurations.

If I had to hazard a guess, the 787-3 will be replaced by the "787-8D" or the "787-8 Regional" using the 53k engines and upturned wingtip extensions, but otherwise being mostly a 787-8 with a paper de-rated MTOW and very similar OEWs (since the original 787-3 was only some 10t lighter to begin with).

As for the A380-800F, I'd be surprised if it ever enters service, even as a pax2freight conversion.

Sorry for the delayed response, been busy at work.

Just comparing the relatively large changes the LCF program accomplished on a 747, and how it was done as a footnote to the 787 effort. Also how Boeing has added R/D money to find more ways to shave off 787 weight and similar scale of engineering efforts for the A350 program. For the LCF size enlargement to a 747 to be the most the efficient and lightest weight design and to make it better for commercial use it would likely benefit from further design and analysis.

Quick designs can be fully airworthy and fatigue resistant for their intended mission but quick is usually at the expense being a little heavy. Optimizing the weight usually comes with engineering cost because by its nature it requires that you get well acquainted with the last percent of margin of safety.

I am just reminding myself why Boeing will not make a commercial version of LCF.