View Full Version : First Singapore Cargo 744BCF coming soon
1st Jun 2011, 16:37
SIA engineering are converting two Singapore Airlines birds to freighters, one of which 9V-SPA done see below, they previously had decided not to go for converted versions.
correct me if i'm wrong, but for the BCF, they do not have the distinctive nose loading door?
Would it be possible if they did that? or it would not be financially feasible to carve the nose door out.
The freight outlook must be looking good as TG have also sent 2 B744s to Boeings for similar conversions. Understand up to another 4 will also be converted .
5th Jun 2011, 09:30
Boeing predicted this shortfall of freighters a while ago already.
With the current recovery in the freight market, there are just not enough 747F´s to go around and the companies that do have them are holding on to them.
This has created a surge in requests for 747BCF´s.
Retro-Nose door is not a viable option for them and they have a lower MZFW and MTOW, and they carry less freight.
They need to get a move on with that 747-8F !!!!
5th Jun 2011, 12:03
Surprised everyone flying 744 are not turning them into freighters. Dinosaurs that are best served lugging freight on reasonably short routes. Noisy buggers too.
5th Jun 2011, 21:48
Did you have a suitable replacement in mind for all the 744 operators out there ?
6th Jun 2011, 00:53
Wasn't really baiting. Just opining.
The 747 WAS revolutionary....in 1970. The 777-300 ER and, unfortunately, even the A380 are revolutionary in this day and age. The 744 is best served being changed into a freighter. Even SQ has figured this out. They said they wouldn't operate the BCF but with more A380s than 744s in the fleet, they made the smart decision and are converting a couple of the remnants to BCF.
As for the noise, the BCF is horribly loud and has all sorts of pressurisation issues compared to the ERF. It's likely because of all the speed tape holding the conversion together. :eek:
6th Jun 2011, 00:58
"Reasonably short routes". 5-6 hours-ish. Longer than that and the ERF is much more efficient.
11th Jun 2011, 15:55
Heard that them conversion fellas in Israel can fix you with a nose door for a measly additional US$1.6 million - they even guarantee it won't fall off as long as u keep going above mach 0.2 ;) ... Kidding aside, I have yet to see a BCF with a retro-fitted nose door. There are enough 'genuine' 747F around to cover the nose-load-only cargo market, so I guess it's not worth the investment.
11th Jun 2011, 16:04
Heard them fellas in Israel can fix you with a nose door for the measly fee of US$ 1,6 mill on top - they even guarantee it won't fall off as long as you go faster than mach 0.2 ;) ... Kidding aside, I have yet to see a BCF with a retro-fitted nose door. There are enough 'genuine' 747F around to cover the nose-load-only segment of the cargo market, so I figure it's just not worth it investing that kind of money.
18th Jun 2011, 17:42
Flying the 744ERF you'll find that the nose door is an encumberance that's hardly used. Forwarders create trains of freight that pull up to the aft door. Then it's a case of unload onto empty dollies and load the ongoing freight. This can be done in well under 45mins.
The nose door merely ruins the flow of things. Once, just as we were leaving we found a pallet that was just aft of the flight deck ladder that should have been offloaded. Easy, open the nose door and get it out quickly...'cept it wouldn't go under the flight deck (this is an ERF remember) so the all the cargo was offloaded, the offending pallet removed and everything reoloaded. Time 38 mins.
No need for the nose door, certainly not at $1.6. That's why all the conversions are so popular, even with a (slightly) lower MTOW/MLW.
18th Jun 2011, 18:44
BCF's far less fuel efficient than ERF's, can't take temperature sensitive cargo, noisy. Nose door on erf's and f's gives capability of specialist cargo (high rates).:)
19th Jun 2011, 01:46
???? BCF's can't take temperature sensitive cargo??? Since when?
Same LLCCAFR switch on factory "F", BCF and IAI?ElAl conversion from what I have seen flying the 3 types.
19th Jun 2011, 07:51
So many incidents of cargo fire warnings and other probs when configuring to take temp sensitive cargo that CX stopped carrying it on BCF's only use F's and ERF's for those cargo's.:hmm:
19th Jun 2011, 17:46
As far as MTOW differences go for a 400F vs. BCF it all depends on the operator.
SQ for example have the same MTOW on both.
The factory built freighters came with 394,626Kgs(870,000Lbs) and the BCF before conversion all had the 396,894kgs(875,000Lbs) but were lowered to 394,626Kgs(870,000Lbs) (as is standard for BCF conversions)
Any idea why they would have ordered the freighters with the second highest MTOW option and the pax with the highest MTOW?
Does this have anything to do with maxing out volume before weight?