I guess Boeing doesn't really expect to sell that many conversion.. As there were only 48 of the PAX (-8i) models built. I am surprised they even took the time to put together an offering.

I suppose you could convert one of the 107 Freighters, but by the time you made the modifications to support the PAX version of the Enviromental Control System, it might be prohibitively expense..

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

I guess Boeing doesn't really expect to sell that many conversion.. As there were only 48 of the PAX (-8i) models built. I am surprised they
even took the time to put together an offering.

Whatever ... The news comes straight from the horse's mouth ...

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: AVIATION ECHO HQ (2:292/854)

On Sat 18-Oct-2025 12:36a, Aviation Hq@2:292/854.0 said to Rug Rat:

Whatever ... The news comes straight from the horse's mouth ...

Sounds like you are taking my response rather personally. I was not doubting it's validity nor your. Simply questioning the wisdom of such an offering by BBJ.

I mean, there were only 17 747 BBJs ordered when the frame was still in production, 8 of them are believed to still be in service.

The -8i frames will most likely be gobbled up by cargo companies wanting BCFs once the 4 remaining carries start putting their fleets out to pasture long before they are bought as BBJs.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

Aviation HQ wrote to Rug Rat <=-

I guess Boeing doesn't really expect to sell that many conversion.. As there were only 48 of the PAX (-8i) models built. I am surprised they even took the time to put together an offering.

Whatever ... The news comes straight from the horse's mouth ...

Some part of the horse, anyway. Bv)=

... Some days you're the dog -- some days you're the hydrant.
=== MultiMail/Win v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.30-Linux
* Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (1:124/5016)

The -8i frames will most likely be gobbled up by cargo companies wanting BCFs once the 4 remaining carries start putting their fleets out to
pasture long before they are bought as BBJs.

Very likely with minor doubts about the BBJ's suitability for conversion.

Plus there are the 2 VC25s that eventually become available ... laugh with it if you want, but they are relatively low time and low number of cycles. Of course they will be turned into a museum ... one for Udvar-Hazy and the other for Paine Field/Museum of flight ... (just guessing)

Plus, I think, we'll see 747-8 frames as freighter for at least another 20 years.

A valid question could be ... if the 747-8 can be converted to a freighter, why couldn't all these parked A380s ... ?

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: AVIATION ECHO HQ (2:292/854)

On Sat 18-Oct-2025 11:46p, Aviation Hq@2:292/854.0 said to Rug Rat:

A valid question could be ... if the 747-8 can be converted to a
freighter, why couldn't all these parked A380s ... ?

\%/@rd

Aganin, not pinking on you, but the question about an A380 conversion has been asked, and covered adnauseum.

The B747 was actually designed from the ground up to be converted into a freighter. Boeing thought with the indtroduction of SST (Super Sonic Transport) that the future of subsonic transportation was limmited. When Juan Tripp approached Mr. Boeing to build the 747, Boeing figured they would sell a few frames to Pan Am, then contiue selling the frames as Frieghters, and when the originally sold Pax frames became available, convert and sell those as well.

While airbus did initially offer a Freighter version, they ran into a problem of underengineering the floor of the second story, so it could not be used to carry freight. The structur could also not support the fuse without the flooring (With the additional problem of there would be no bennifit for the volume of a single floor A380 without a nose loading cargo door.)..

The cost to retrofit was deemed to be prohibitively expensive for either a dedicated freighter or conversion.

Heck the F could not even save the 747-8 program, and the potential of the 777X-F was the final nail in the coffin.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

The B747 was actually designed from the ground up to be converted into a freighter.

The B747-concept actually was for a freighter for the US military and then adapted for civilian use when Lockheed won the contract, becoming a game changer, before primarily becoming a freighter ... again ... a role which suits it very well.

While airbus did initially offer a Freighter version, they ran into a problem of underengineering the floor of the second story, so it could
not be used to carry freight.

That is correct and is the issue with "any" adaptation from passenger to freighter.

The real issue with the A380 is that, even with a strenghtened floor, there is not enough vertical space to accomodate two standard-sized pallets/containers side-by-side in the top cabin.

But ... interesting 'but' ... The A380 could be converted to handle cargo on its main deck and passengers on the upper ... a mixed-freighter. The problem however is that the FAA does not allow any new mixed-freighter operations anymore like for example KLM operated on its EHAM-KLAX route successfully. Too much opposition from US freighter companies, especially Atlas. KLM was interested in a mixed-version of the 777 and that never came to be for that reason.

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: AVIATION ECHO HQ (2:292/854)

Aviation HQ wrote to Rug Rat <=-

Plus there are the 2 VC25s that eventually become available ... laugh
with it if you want, but they are relatively low time and low number of cycles. Of course they will be turned into a museum ... one for
Udvar-Hazy and the other for Paine Field/Museum of flight ... (just guessing)

I would love to be able to walk through a (declassified) VC25 in a
museum somewhere.


--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

I would love to be able to walk through a (declassified) VC25 in a
museum somewhere.

A declassified VC25A is not for anytime real soon. And the question remains where they will end up (if they are not designated some other tasks, remember low miles and low number of cycles). Most likely Donald Trump will want one for his presidential library though a disused and parked 747 still costs a fortune to maintain.

At present there are 3 former Presidential 707s that can be visited.

VC-137B SAM 970, which was used as Air Force One from 1959 to 1962 and remained in the presidential fleet until 1996.
The Museum of Flight (Seattle, Washington

VC-137C SAM 26000, the first jet built specifically for presidential airlift. It served eight presidents and is displayed at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force (Dayton, Ohio). This is the aircraft which carried the casket with the remains of JFK from Dallas back to Washington Nov.22 1963

VC-137C SAM 27000, the other famous 707, which served presidents from Nixon to G.W. Bush. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library (Simi Valley, California). Initially this plane was on display at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library at Yorba Linda in California.

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: AVIATION ECHO HQ (2:292/854)

On Sun 19-Oct-2025 2:08p, Aviation Hq@2:292/854.0 said to Rug Rat:

But ... interesting 'but' ... The A380 could be converted to handle cargo on its main deck and passengers on the upper ... a mixed-freighter. The problem however is that the FAA does not allow any new mixed-freighter operations anymore like for example KLM operated on its EHAM-KLAX route successfully. Too much opposition from US freighter companies, especially Atlas. KLM was interested in a mixed-version of the 777 and that never
came to be for that reason.

Yes an No....

The FAA will not certify additional Combi's without a fixed bulkhead and integrated fire supression, which other combi's like the 737, 747 did not have. Protocol for fighting a cargo file on a combi was to have the cabin crew fight it with portable fire extinguishers. (This came about after the South African Airways fire..)..

So, in this regard the A380, however again. Cost / market, recertification. Isn't going to happen..

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

LOL. to avoid confusion..

I let my train of thought jump..

Let me finnish my last sentence..

In this regard, the A380 would be the only legal candidate for certifcation as a combi. Though you would lose the flexability of a true combi, as you could still not have a movable bulkhead..

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

The FAA will not certify additional Combi's without a fixed bulkhead and integrated fire supression, which other combi's like the 737, 747 did not have. Protocol for fighting a cargo file on a combi was to have the
cabin crew fight it with portable fire extinguishers. (This came about after the South African Airways fire..)..

While you are correct on the South African crash, noteworthy is that it was a 747-200 and subsequently the fire-fighting capabilities in the 747-400 combi's, like they were flown by e.g. KLM, were upgraded. The bulkhead? yes ... that would have been very tricky ...

Nevertheless. the FAA remainded opposed to their usage, not out of safety concern.

As a noteworthy addition, during the Covid19 pandemic KLM was flying full-pax 747s between China and the Netherlands to transport large quantities of medical supplies ... without passengers. The supplies were also stored in the passenger cabin. As a result the full cabin crew was on board just in case of fires.

And Delta flying daily four passenger 767s into Brussels to collect the Covid vaccines which were produced by Pfizer in Puurs (Belgium), also flew with no passengers and a full cabin crew for safety.

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: AVIATION ECHO HQ (2:292/854)

Aviation HQ wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-

At present there are 3 former Presidential 707s that can be visited.

VC-137C SAM 26000, the first jet built specifically for presidential airlift. It served eight presidents and is displayed at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force (Dayton, Ohio). This is the aircraft which carried the casket with the remains of JFK from Dallas back to
Washington Nov.22 1963

VC-137C SAM 27000, the other famous 707, which served presidents from Nixon to G.W. Bush. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library (Simi Valley, California). Initially this plane was on display at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library at Yorba Linda in California.

Interesting, I remember seeing tail numbers 26000 and 27000 as a kid...



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

On the subject of Combi...

Going in circles.. The primary reason was safety. Even updated fire supression on the main deck carying passengers carries it's own risks. Since the main method of fire supression in to starve the fire of oxygen. What happens if you have a system dump in the portion of cabin with passengers? You either kill your self loading cargo, or in the event of a an actual fire still have O2 being fed into the area (Mask dump).

There was other criteria the airlines and manufactures felt too constly to implement. It usually always comes down to cost. With the surge in dedicated cargo company's there was no longer a need for combi's. They were a nice tool for airlines to adjust their loads during seasonal passenger flux, but companies can do that by carrying cargo in the holds anyway (Just limmited by size).

The main reason remains. Airbus engineered themselves into a corner. It's main purpose was a to develope a passenger aircraft, which they did. The 747 was designed with a future role as a cargo aircraft in mind. There is already a certified after market conversion process for the 747, doing so with the A380 would be starting from scratch as far as the conversion process goes. As a business which road are you going to take? The cost effective one, or the one that makes you the first to do so?

** Yes I am aware of the fully staffed "Preighter" flights. While it seems like a waste of money, you are keeping your fleets active without having to pay for the cost of storage prep, storage, then prepping them to return to the line. You are keeping your pilots in regs with flight time, you are keeping your crew in regs with training and flight time, and making money moving cargo, and with the vacines... a good public image. The regs for FA staffing comes from how the aircraft is certified for evacuation, and the number of seats it is certified with. (Even in the case of Korean Air, which removed seats to be able to strap packages to the floor, where some airlines just placed the packages in the seats..). You also have a crew with a new side hustle of cargo loaders (I bet they were not paid extra for that!). If it didn't help the airlines bottoms line during the pandemic, you know they would not have done so.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

Rug Rat wrote to All <=-

On the subject of Combi...

Going in circles.. The primary reason was safety. Even updated fire supression on the main deck carying passengers carries it's own risks. Since the main method of fire supression in to starve the fire of
oxygen. What happens if you have a system dump in the portion of cabin with passengers? You either kill your self loading cargo, or in the
event of a an actual fire still have O2 being fed into the area (Mask dump).

That would be a selling point for some airlines.

"Our premium plus passengers enjoy our state of the art fire suppression system. For our Premium Economy and Business Minus passengers, we offer industry standard oxygen depletion systems for your safety."

"Ask your gate agent about upgrades..."

There was other criteria the airlines and manufactures felt too constly
to implement. It usually always comes down to cost. With the surge in dedicated cargo company's there was no longer a need for combi's. They were a nice tool for airlines to adjust their loads during seasonal passenger flux, but companies can do that by carrying cargo in the
holds anyway (Just limmited by size).

The main reason remains. Airbus engineered themselves into a corner.
It's main purpose was a to develope a passenger aircraft, which they
did. The 747 was designed with a future role as a cargo aircraft in
mind. There is already a certified after market conversion process for the 747, doing so with the A380 would be starting from scratch as far
as the conversion process goes. As a business which road are you going
to take? The cost effective one, or the one that makes you the first
to do so?

** Yes I am aware of the fully staffed "Preighter" flights. While it seems like a waste of money, you are keeping your fleets active without having to pay for the cost of storage prep, storage, then prepping them
to return to the line. You are keeping your pilots in regs with flight time, you are keeping your crew in regs with training and flight time,
and making money moving cargo, and with the vacines... a good public image. The regs for FA staffing comes from how the aircraft is
certified for evacuation, and the number of seats it is certified with.
(Even in the case of Korean Air, which removed seats to be able to
strap packages to the floor, where some airlines just placed the
packages in the seats..). You also have a crew with a new side hustle
of cargo loaders (I bet they were not paid extra for that!). If it
didn't help the airlines bottoms line during the pandemic, you know
they would not have done so.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)