777F comparison
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: shangri-la
Age: 47
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
777F comparison
Hello all,
I would like to ask to those who fly the 777f the following items;
- Which is the max payload that you can carry, with normal empty weight and with extended (if this possibility exists)?
- How much fuel you would need to make, with full payload, a five to six hours sector?
- With full payload and, let's say a low CI, Can you make Hong Kong Frankfurt, in winter time? With which speed?
- The last one; Anybody nows the operative costs of the 747-400, 777f and the 747-8?.assuming equal crew costs in each scenario.
Please no bull****ting, only data and facts.
I would like to ask to those who fly the 777f the following items;
- Which is the max payload that you can carry, with normal empty weight and with extended (if this possibility exists)?
- How much fuel you would need to make, with full payload, a five to six hours sector?
- With full payload and, let's say a low CI, Can you make Hong Kong Frankfurt, in winter time? With which speed?
- The last one; Anybody nows the operative costs of the 747-400, 777f and the 747-8?.assuming equal crew costs in each scenario.
Please no bull****ting, only data and facts.
Max payload is around 106700 kgs. (empty weight 141400, max zfw 248110).
You mean trip fuel or block fuel?
You won't make HKG/FRA non-stop with a payload of more than about 95000 kgs.
You mean trip fuel or block fuel?
You won't make HKG/FRA non-stop with a payload of more than about 95000 kgs.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 40
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HKG-DXB
This was our yesterdays flight.
Payload: 106.550
ZFW: 248.000
TOW: 326.184
LW: 256.660
Flight Time : 8:02h
TripF : 69.524kg
Min Block: 78.800kg
CI: 170 around .84
Greetings!
Payload: 106.550
ZFW: 248.000
TOW: 326.184
LW: 256.660
Flight Time : 8:02h
TripF : 69.524kg
Min Block: 78.800kg
CI: 170 around .84
Greetings!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: st louis
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weight to pounds burned is the magic number. Use that and the -400, or -800 for tha matter, cannot compete with 777. FedEx flies Memphis Dubai and Memphis Guangzouh non-stop at max zer fuel weight.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: shangri-la
Age: 47
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The next question, then, arrises;
Korean air has received today the 747-8f and the 777f. Upon which fleet size is mandatory to have both fleets?
What are the complexity costs of having both airplanes?
In other wording, Why and when is desirable to have such combination?
Korean air has received today the 747-8f and the 777f. Upon which fleet size is mandatory to have both fleets?
What are the complexity costs of having both airplanes?
In other wording, Why and when is desirable to have such combination?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Up in the air
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volume and nose door would be my guess
I am not sure if the -800 really burns more on a payload/ tripfuel comparison, but I might be wrong. If anyone has the numbers..?
I am not sure if the -800 really burns more on a payload/ tripfuel comparison, but I might be wrong. If anyone has the numbers..?
It's not a question of fleetsize, but rather one of commercial requirements and profits. Unless your business demands the availability of a nose-door, chances are the 777F will make you more money, as the cost vs revenue delta is very much in favour of the twin.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: st louis
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using Boeing numbers the 777 burns 25% less/pound than the -800, depending on the operator's procedures of course. There is no doubt the -800 has the advantage when only volume is considered but the 777 is cheaper by far. FedEx flies HKG-CDG, MEM-HKG, MEM-KIX, and MEM-DBX max loads.
Last edited by 3pointlanding; 9th Feb 2012 at 15:58. Reason: CVG
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U.K.
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B777f
I think a loadmaster should contribute to this as I believe the B777F is probably perfect for Fed Ex packets and such. But there seems to be some restrictions when it comes to heavy and bulky loads. For example engines in stands, pipelines etc.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 777F doesn't have any problems taking engines in stands. Ok, it couldn't take a GE90-110 built up but it can be shippped in fan and propulsor modules. We were also told on training that a 744/748 couldn't take a built-up GE90 nose cowl for transportation also but he aslo came out with some other stuff that we later found out to be "non-factual"
Like you say, pipelines etc are best left to the true nose-loaders like the 744F/748F due to restrictions loading through the side door on others.
Like you say, pipelines etc are best left to the true nose-loaders like the 744F/748F due to restrictions loading through the side door on others.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U.K.
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B777F
But I think that the engines in stands, such as CF6, RRTRENTS, PW4000 ETC have to be on the center line. Unlike B747 where you can have them side by side.
The GENX GE90 can have a special rotating stand which is heavy and costs a fortune, but enables them to go through the side cargo doors.
You can't beat a nose job for special loads and quick turn around.
The GENX GE90 can have a special rotating stand which is heavy and costs a fortune, but enables them to go through the side cargo doors.
You can't beat a nose job for special loads and quick turn around.
The MCD on a 777F is actually the largest in the business, making it quite a bit easier to rotate long/wide objects in and out. The cargo-loading system is computerised, allowing you to place a 16 or 20 footer at a given position, pull a couple of handles and it'll rotate in or out automatically. This goes a long way to reduce interior damage. When it comes to long/thin objects, the CLS can rotate anything up to 9 meters in length in and out of the door.
Here's a picture of a GE90-115 (sans fan) inside a 777F.
Here's a picture of a GE90-115 (sans fan) inside a 777F.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Computers turning your pallets for you??
Ha!
used to work it all out with squared graph-paper & a ruler & pencil.
Then stand in the driving rain & sleet & man-handle the built pallet around & over the in-door ball-mat ( 25% of the balls missing, 25% permanently jammed and 25% damn near rectangular). extra points if you manage to get the pallet run over your foot.
wet & cold, but were we miserable?
yes, of course we flaming were!
Ha!
used to work it all out with squared graph-paper & a ruler & pencil.
Then stand in the driving rain & sleet & man-handle the built pallet around & over the in-door ball-mat ( 25% of the balls missing, 25% permanently jammed and 25% damn near rectangular). extra points if you manage to get the pallet run over your foot.
wet & cold, but were we miserable?
yes, of course we flaming were!
Apart from the 14 twin-track and one centre-line positions remaining on the main-deck, as well as lower-decks able to hold around 50 tons, yes, it's quite full.
There's also the not unimportant matter of the 777F main-deck door being 5 centimeters higher and 41 centimeters wider than that of a 747F to take into consideration. I have my doubts a 747F can take a GE90-115, whereas the picture above clearly shows a 777F can. Even if you can get a -115B through the door of a 747, you would have to load it centre-line anyway.
There's also the not unimportant matter of the 777F main-deck door being 5 centimeters higher and 41 centimeters wider than that of a 747F to take into consideration. I have my doubts a 747F can take a GE90-115, whereas the picture above clearly shows a 777F can. Even if you can get a -115B through the door of a 747, you would have to load it centre-line anyway.