744F nose door - effect on loading times?

[Cyrano]

Folks:

Last week at a conference in Geneva the Cargolux CFO (DA) commented that CLX wouldn't really be interested in operating converted 744 freighters, firstly for commonality reasons with the existing fleet, secondly because without the nose door it wasn't possible to carry large loads (oil rig parts etc), and thirdly because without the nose door, loading/unloading times on scheduled stops were greatly lengthened.

These all seem reasonable points to me, but I was wondering if someone could tell me: what is a typical loading/unloading time for a 744F using the nose door and side door, versus a 744 converted freighter with side door only?

Thanks
C.

[CargoMatatu]

Obviously, it depends on the type of load being loaded/unloaded.

But let's assume that it is a full load of general cargo with no offsize, and a reasonably proficient Handling Agent.

Utilising both ends of the aircraft I have seen it done many times in one hour. But, using the side door only, your are looking at 90 minutes or more.

That is a reasonable rule of thumb, but there is no standard as too many variables come into play.

[CR2]

What we like to do when feasible is to offload through the side door while getting the loading started through the nose.

Matatu's timings are good in my experience.

[Cyrano]

Thanks, guys. That's exactly what I needed to know.

Safe flying
C.

[Daede1]

Assuming the ground handlers have got themselves in the right frame of mind, we used to be able to a full off and on, using only the side door in about an hour and a half.

[CR2]

I should just point out that these timings vary across the continents if you get my drift.

I spent 8 hours loading in Malaga once. They were definately not in the right frame of mind.

24 hours delay in BCN, 'coz they "didn't have time" to palletize the freight...

Then you have places like NBO where the warehouse is a few kms from the aircraft.

[Doctor Teeth]

Not all airports have 2 maindeck loaders available so that you can offload from the nose door and the side door at the same time. Quite often you have the situation where you can have one or the other but not both, so you usually only get the side door and the nose is only opened when it's really necessary.

[Roadtrip]

From my experience in the -200s, nose loaders were not liked except for a very small amount of outsized cargo. The nose mechanisms required maintenance and made the aircraft heavier and burn more fuel, when 98% of the time the nose-loader was not needed.

[turrbntrip]

I would say 9 out of 10 times, the nose door isn't needed...but the few times that it is, having this option enables a significant amount of revenue to be earned.

For example, on a -200F we once unloaded a sailboat mast that was 170 feet long...and often there will be pallets long enough that loading thru the nose is much faster than using the side door and turning the corner there.

Lufthansa had a neat system at JFK where you would taxi the plane right up to a hangar, the nose would actually be inside (or we'd get towed in, can't recall), door would open and they'd shoot all the pallets out the front and right onto big shelves for sorting, or something to that effect...much faster than K-loaders out the side door. I am sure this was pretty expensive to have a building set up this way, though, so likely not often duplicated. And the tall pallets, if aboard, would still need to go out the side door.

Having both doors is the way to go IMHO, though we did well with our -100/-200/-300SFs too. There were a few planes (World Airways was the customer I believe) that ONLY had the nose door...though this would limit you on pallet height for sure...not real popular I imagine. There is a slight weight penalty of course but I am sure this is offset by the increased utility...

TT

[Phil Squares]

Originally Posted by turrbntrip

I would say 9 out of 10 times, the nose door isn't needed...but the few times that it is, having this option enables a significant amount of revenue to be earned.
For example, on a -200F we once unloaded a sailboat mast that was 170 feet long...and often there will be pallets long enough that loading thru the nose is much faster than using the side door and turning the corner there.
Lufthansa had a neat system at JFK where you would taxi the plane right up to a hangar, the nose would actually be inside (or we'd get towed in, can't recall), door would open and they'd shoot all the pallets out the front and right onto big shelves for sorting, or something to that effect...much faster than K-loaders out the side door. I am sure this was pretty expensive to have a building set up this way, though, so likely not often duplicated. And the tall pallets, if aboard, would still need to go out the side door.
Having both doors is the way to go IMHO, though we did well with our -100/-200/-300SFs too. There were a few planes (World Airways was the customer I believe) that ONLY had the nose door...though this would limit you on pallet height for sure...not real popular I imagine. There is a slight weight penalty of course but I am sure this is offset by the increased utility...
TT

I disagree with your first sentence. At SQ, for the most part, the nose and side door are used at the same time. Not only is the nose door useful in outsized cargo, but it also expedites loading/unloading normal sized cargo. Most of our stations have the ground handling equipment to utilize both nose and side door.

60 minutes is a pretty average time to unload/load using both doors, while 90 minutes is pretty accurate for using the side door only.

[ScootCargoOps]

But isn't the nose door basically 244x244 so for any cargo that is wide or 300cm you have the use the rear anyway?

[CargoMatatu]

Originally Posted by ScootCargoOps

But isn't the nose door basically 244x244 so for any cargo that is wide or 300cm you have the use the rear anyway?

Yep! Got it in one

[Buster Hyman]

...Also assuming that the cargo loaded by the "HQ" can be offloaded at your port....

[Dan Winterland]

For several years my company operated only SFs with no nose door. When we bought a original build freighter the nose door hardly got used. I have seen it open only once. The height limit of pallets so that they can pass under the lower ceiling height caused by the upper deck is a big factor.

[H721]

Originally Posted by Dan Winterland

For several years my company operated only SFs with no nose door. When we bought a original build freighter the nose door hardly got used. I have seen it open only once. The height limit of pallets so that they can pass under the lower ceiling height caused by the upper deck is a big factor.

For nose door loading, you are limited to 92" (96"?) pallets. I seen a -200F (original/pure freighter) without a side cargo door!

[WhaleDriver]

Originally Posted by H721

For nose door loading, you are limited to 92" (96"?) pallets. I seen a -200F (original/pure freighter) without a side cargo door!

I believe Evergreen has one. It was a combi built for a US carrier. US rules require the cargo to be in front and Pax in back on a combi, hence, no side door.

[okap]

the nosedoor is an obvious advatange when it comes to offsizefreight. It gives the possibility to carry stuff tht others have to refuse and it can considerably reduce the Load-off load times.

[turrbntrip]

Pretty sure the 'no SCD' planes were built for World in the early 70s.

TT

[SMOC]

JapANEsE love the nose door, use it every time I go there and do a great job, I must admit. Always ahead of schedule.


Edit.
No harm intended, love the country and the food, is it Ok to use Aussie, POM, Canuc & yank still?

[hailstone]

the nose door only 747 F

that would be the famous JL-8132