747-400SF details
 

***
for those who might be interested here is the article
(c) Aircraft Commerce
***

New conversion programmes for 747-400 & 767-200 launched by Bedek Aviation 8t Aeronavali.

With a continuing fail in aircraft values, new passenger-to-freighter programmes have been launched for the 747-400 & 767-200.

First converted aircraft should enter service in 2005.
Bedek Aviation has released details of its 747-400 freighter conversion programme. Bedek expects to induct the first aircraft before the end of 2004, and deliver the first aircraft by the third quarter of 2005. Once production has stabilised, Bedek estimates it can convert six to nine aircraft per year.
Timing of a freighter conversion programme relies on values of passenger-configured aircraft falling to a level that makes the total eost of preparing a 747-400SF for service low enough to make operation economic for target freight airline customers. Estimates are that the 747-400SF could command lease rates of up to $600,000 per month. With a lease rate factor of 1.2%, total eost of preparation for service could not exceed much more than $50 million.
Bedek's conversion has a price of about $18 million for a passenger-configured aircraft, and is less than $20 million including a cargo handling system. Conversion would be more efficient when combined with a D check, but this would add to the eost. Downtime for a passenger aircraft when combined with a D check is expected to be about 120 days once production has reached maturity. Downtime and conversion eost will be less for combi- configured aircraft, although replacement of 80 floor beams is stiil required.
Bedek estimates that 747-400 market values will have dropped to about $32 million by 2006, when demand for
conversions will have pick,ed up. Aircraft acquired at this value will have a total eost of preparation to freighter of about $54 million, making the lease rate just about acceptable to airlines.
According to Bedek there are several internal container and pallet configurations for the main and lower decks.
The first option for the main deck is 30 96/100/125-inch containers. The second is for the same number of 88/100/125-inch containers and the third is for 21 10-foot lõng containers.
The first option provides an internal võlume of 20,600 cubic feet. The lower deck can accommodate 32 LD-1 containers, as can the factory-built -400F. Each container has an internal võlume of 175 cubic feet, providing a total of 5,300 cubic feet.
Overall, the aircraft has an internal container volume of 26,100 cubic feet.
The basic weight configuration of the aircraft is for maximum take-off weight (MTOW) to be upgraded from the various passenger aircraft weights to 875,000 lbs.
The maximum zero fuel weight (MZFW) can be upgraded to 610,0001bs from the passenger aircraft 535,000 lbs, 545,000 lbs or 565,000 lbs.
Bedek will encourage customers to upgrade the maximum landing weight (MLW) of their aircraft to 652,000lbs.
The maximum structural payload of the aircraft is MZFW less operating empty weight (OEW). OEW is lower for PW4000- and CF-80C2-powered aircraft than for those with RB211-524 engines, which will therefore have a lower maximum structural payload.
Bedek estimates the OEW aircraft with PW or GE engines will be in the region of 357,000 lbs, thereby giving a maximum structural payload of about 253,000 lbs. This is about 3,000 lbs higher than the payload of a RB211-524-powered aircraft.
The OEW and structural payloads of the factory-built -400F are 361,100 lbs and 248,900 lbs. The converted aircraft are therefore expected to have a small payload advantage.
The -400SF's payload is therefore about 15,000 lbs higher than the -200SF's. This maximum structural payload can be accommodated in a total cubic võlume of 21,600 cubic feet; generating a maximum packing density of 11.7 lbs per cubic foot. This is high compared to the densities of most freight. A packing density of 7 lbs per cubic foot will generate a volumetric payload of 151,200 lbs.
Bedek says the candidate aircraft for conversion are line numbers 726 and higher. About 20 -400s, with line numbers lower than 726, have a lower wing number and so make poor conversion candidates. Removing factory-built -400Fs, this leaves about 426 conversion candidates. About 102 of these have RB211-524 engines, leaving about 320 with PW and GE engines.
Bedek expects about 75% of these, or 240 aircraft, to be converted over an extended period. Bedek will convert the aircraft at a new facility in Rome, New York state.
Boeing has also recently announced its conversion programme for the 747-400. This will have a structural payload, including container tare weight, of about 250,000 lbs. Boeing expects to launch its conversion programme by the end of 2004, with the first aircraft expected to enter service in läte 2005. Boeing will provide the engineering, while conversions for the first three aircraft will be performed by TAECO, Xiamen in China.
Container configuration and internal võlume will be similar to Bedek's conversion. Although not confirmed, Boeing's conversion is expected to have a list price of $22-24 million.
Boeing estimates that about 980 aircraft will be required in the large freighter category, including DC-10s and MD-11s, up to 2022. About half of these will be converted aircraft. This implies a higher expected demand for 747-400 conversions than Bedek's estimate.
Now that Boeing is trying to launch its 747-400 passenger-to-freighter conversion programme it remains to be seen whether it will continue 747-400 production, since the majority of sales in recent years have been for freighter-configured variants.
One launch customer for 747-400 conversions is Cathay Pacific, which may convert some passenger-configured aircraft.

Interesting article. Is there a similar one for the 767-200?

Daysleeper
yep. here it is.

(c) Aircraft Commerce

Boeing & Aeronavali launch 767-200SF

Boeing and Aeronavali have launched the 767-200SF passenger-to-freighter conversion programme. Boeing, in fact, executed the exclusive license, granting to the Italian company all the rights for the conversions of the passenger 767-200 aircraft to freighter. Aeronavali is currently focusing its marketing effort in order to announce a launch customer for the conversion before the end of 2003. It has already said the first aircraft will be inducted for conversion by the second half of 2004. This will be followed by certification and entry into service of the first aircraft the middle of 2005.

The 767-200 passenger fleet has 16 different maximum take-off weight variants of the 767-200/-200ER, and a varying number of each were built. MTOWs vary between 279,900 lbs and 395,000 lbs. The most numerous are the 351,000 lbs version, of which there are 55.

In addition to a large number of different weight variants, there are also several different wing numbers, engine types and landing gear specifications. The configuration of the original passenger aircraft determines what weight upgrades can be performed on the aircraft during conversion.

Aeronavali is offering two basic models of -200 converted aircraft; the baseline model with a MTOW of 320,000 lbs and a high weight variant with a MTOW of 351,000 lbs.

The baseline aircraft has a maximum zero fuel weight of 258,000 lbs and structural payload of 93,400 lbs (see table, this page). The aircraft can carry its maximum payload of 93,400 lbs up to about 2,000nm.

The baseline aircraft compares to the A310-300 with a MTOW of 330,700 lbs and MZFW of 249,100 lbs. This has a structural payload of 86,200 lbs, which can be carried about 2,900nm.

A higher weight model of the -200 is offered. Aircraft with the standard MZFW of 258,000 lbs have a structural payload of 93,400 lbs, and can carry this about 3,200nm.

A MZFW increase to 266,000 lbs during modification is under study, and a structural payload would be raised to 101,400 lbs (see table, this page). This payload can be carried up to about 2,800nm.

These two versions compares to the A310-300 with MTOWs of 346,125 lbs and 361,560 lbs, both of which have a MZFW of 251,320 lbs and structural payload of 88,400 lbs. These aircraft can carry their full payloads about 3,000nm and 3,300nm.

Higher weight models of the -200ER aircraft will range performance longer than the highest weight A310-300 variants. There are more than 90 767-200ERs with MTOWs of 351,000-395,000 lbs.

There are two main types of internal container configurations. The first uses 20 88-inch by 125-inch containers, although are modified to go at the front and rear of the aircraft. These have an internal volume of 410 cubic feet. The other 18 standard containers each have an internal volume of 502 cubic feet, providing a total of 9,856 cubic feet for the main deck.

The lower deck has 22 LD-2 containers, each providing 124 cubic feet, taking total underfloor volume to 2,728 cubic feet. Bulk volumes provides a further 430 cubic feet, taking total for the aircraft to 13,014 cubic feet.

This compares to a standard structural payload of 93,400 lbs, which would this allow a maximum packing density of 7.21bs per cubic foot.

The higher specification payload of 101,400 lbs allows a maximum packing density of 7.81bs per cubic foot.

The alternative variant of accommodates 22 88-inch by 108-inch containers. Each has an internal volume of 355 cubic feet. With underfloor LD-2 containers and bulk volume, total volume is 10,968 cubic feet. Maximum packing density is thus 8.5 lbs per cubic foot for an aircraft with a standard payload. Aircraft with a higher payload capacity will have a maximum packing density of 9.2 lbs per cubic foot.

These two configurations compared to the A310-300 which has a maindeck internal volume of 8,160 cubic feet and underfloor LD-3 volume of 2,044 cubic feet. Total volume on the A310-300 is 10,814 cubic feet; allowing a maximum packing density of 8.l lbs per cubic foot.

Aeronavali says price of the conversion will be less than $10 million, including cargo handling system ,but actual cost will vary with required weight upgrades. The process of conversion will standardise aircraft to one of the two specifications offered by Aeronavali. The cargo handling system may be offered by Ancra.

In addition to freight conversion, cost of aircraft acquisition of maintenance during conversion has to be considered. Market values of older 767-200s are now less than $8million, and it is likely the total production cost will be less than $20 million. A monthly lease rate factor of 1.2% means a lease rental of about $240,000 would be required to justify investment.

The actual market lease rate airlines are expected to bear are in the region of $220,000-240,000, indicating values are now at the right level for conversions to start. The market for medium widebody freighters is expected to be strong, since these should replace a large percentage of large narrowbody types. The 767-200's range capability also strengthens its position. The 767 freighter is already operating with the four airlines in the Lan Chile Group and Tampa Airlines Cargo has selected it to replace its ageing fleet of DC-8s. One of the 767-200SF's main targets is DC-8 replacement.

Very interesting, particularly with BA's 767 fleet coming up for renewal soon and the UK's FSTTA programme looking likely for new A330's.

Thanks Cargo1.

Lot of conversions to come from the looks of things.

Daysleeper
 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the BA 763s are somewhat orphans, what being equipped with Rolls donks. The -524 something version, if memory serves me right. Also limited to M 0.79, and with a very high DOW, compared to GE and PW versions. I both sit and stand to be corrected.

And don't bank on them entering service with us; it's a crap aeroplane for integrators. Even UPS are quitely ditching theirs in favour of new build A300-600Fs. The 76 is too narrow, not enough volume, too heavy and too expensive to operate - when compared to the A300-600F. Yes, it can carry a lot of weight, but we usually run out of volume way before we reach the MZFW. As you probably know from flying the 75; it rarely happens that we reach max payload on intra-European flights, bur regularly run out of volume and have to dump freight. Enter the bean counters, who only looks at the underload, and then asks silly questions.

It's only bean counters who focuses on max "theoretical" payload - the guys and gals in operations are looking for volume first.

We are looking at the 762, again the issues are lack of volume and a high DOW compared to the A310. And you can get a converted A300-600 at around the same price as a 762. No contest, really.

Now this should spark a nice Boeing vs Airbus debate. Well, it has been a while hasn't it ? :E

Caught me then flopster. Just thinking out loud! The BA ones could be going for a real bargin price if the tanker contract goes to Airbus.

The side by side 88x125 container issue is a real problem for the 767. Although common cockpit with the 75 helps offset crew costs. Interesting about UPS ditching them for the A3-600F.

400sf conversion:
seems that carriers who have 400 pax planes are keen to retain the low hull values by converting their own fleet types CX/SQ/OZ
for eg are interested to convert some pax hulls and combi's to SF

however a dedicated 400f operator will see that purchasing an aging airframe conversion with a reduced payload 10000 kgs and higher maint costs for a price of 50-60mio and range reduction 250 miles -300 miles makes little economic sense. second hand 400f's required send s.a.e and price

Flopster and all,

UPS is not ditching the 767-300. In fact it is one of the most important aircraft in our fleet. Used both domestically and internationally. Most of our west coast inbounds/outbounds use the 757/767 because the A-300 is just too slow.

Rumor was that the “price was right” on our A-300’s. Plus the untold political advantage of buying European while expanding in Europe. Aircraft had a bumpy introduction – lots of broken airplanes (with pilots and mechanics new to the airplane).
Because of reliability problems, they are just starting to use them on multiple leg inbound/outbounds, something they have been doing on the 757/767 for years.

Look for our 727 fleet to dwindle, a few more DC-8’s to the desert, and some 747’s to disappear as we acquire more MD-11’s. (I think) 9 A-300’s to be delivered this year.

Shore Guy:

Do I take it from your response that some diesel eights won't be going to the boneyard? Beautiful airplanes. Although I spent many a hand numbing night pushing containers down that unheated deathtube, I have to say I appreciate the aesthetics.

I was always curious, though: Why does UPS seem to have a "feast or famine" attitude toward aircraft acquisition? What are the operating economies of flying near-40 year old eights and classics from the same operation as fleets of brand spanking new PF variants? I imagine the reasons must be pretty good...UPS was never one to waste much money (at least not on the hired help, ask my pay stubs).

Also, what is it about UPS's route structure that won't support an "indigenous" light aircraft fleet (a la FedEx), rather than what I imagine to be the unconcionably expensive 100-150 leased Lear nights we used to have at SDF during peak?

Regards,
TRF.

TRF and all,

To my knowledge, there is no stated date on retirement for the DC-8 fleet. Some are going/have gone to the desert. A wonderful airplane. Built like a tank (how many 707’s do you see flying). And the new paint scheme looks like it was designed for it.

http://!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/open.file/484071/S/

As for acquisition strategy, I agree. We now have Tay 727-100, 727-200, A-300, B-757 (two different motor types), B767, DC-8, B-747-100, B747-200, and MD-11 aircraft (two different motor types). A logistics nightmare.

UPS used to own (and contract out operation of) some Metro’s, but sold them a couple of years ago. They rely on contract operations for “feeders”. My guess is we have over 100 feeder aircraft a night working our system (domestically). There have been quite a few accidents in the last couple of years involving UPS and FEDEX feeder aircraft.

The “Lear Launches” are history. They use other means to recover the sort from late inbound volume. It was not unusual to see 40-50 aircraft arrive in Louisville to deliver late volume. Cost was high, service was still not made, and the wave of inbound Lears, etc. would slow down the outbound flow of main line aircraft. ”Hot spare” aircraft recover volume….every night there are approximately ten “hot” airplanes spread around the system to recover volume (“hot” aircraft block out within 30 minutes of phone call…pre-flighted, fueled, crewed, ready to go).

There is not much “service” in most service industries in the states any more. But UPS (and FEDEX) go to great lengths to deliver. Over 99% of air volume gets to where it is supposed to when it is supposed to.

Shore,

your classic 747's are on the way out according to the UPS sustainability report.

http://www.sustainability.ups.com/presentation.htm

have a dig around, interesting site.

(of course I prefer www.dhl.com or www.dpwn.com ) :ok: