Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5719769/

Topic: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: SCAT15F
Posted 2013-03-20 20:14:24 and read 17890 times.

As most of us remember, last year 747 program head Elizabeth Lund hinted at the possibility of a stretch. Given the lack of orders and 779X economics, why not do a "simple stretch" (ala 787-10) of the -8i to a full 80 meters? Call it a last ditch attempt...

~510 passengers (~520 with the upper deck galley storage option)

-6800 to 7000 nm range at same MTOW as 747-8

-minimal use of Boeing resources compared to a "complex stretch" like the -8 (mandatory given focus on 787 and 777x programs)


And PLEASE people, don't bring up the floor area argument about the 747 unless you are talking about the A380!!!

The floor area for the 747 and 777 per seat are essentially identical (all variants)!!! (pulling hair out in frustration)

747-8i floor area = 418 m2 467 pax (Boeing config)
747-400 floor area = 380 m2 416 pax " "
777-9X floor area = 364.7 m2 406 pax " "
777-300ER = 343.4 m2 386 pax " "

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: phatfarmlines
Posted 2013-03-20 20:41:06 and read 17791 times.

I don't think a stretch is the answer - the 77W 3x4x3 coach seat cram now being quickly adopted by airlines help drive a lower CASM. Perhaps a new coach seat arraignment 3x5x3 for the 748 is in order?  crowded 

[Edited 2013-03-20 20:43:14]

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: phxa340
Posted 2013-03-20 20:47:12 and read 17758 times.

As much as I would love to give the 748i a fighting chance , the passenger version has run its course. Hopefully a few orders here and there but I wouldn't worry as the 748F has another couple decades left in her.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: airlinebuilder
Posted 2013-03-20 23:30:11 and read 17349 times.

I suggest the thought of even resurrecting a topic re the B7478i or whatever Boeing eventually can come up with re salvaging what it can on the B748i be discouraged. Its a dead product line.

This is very sad but factual. There are no orders of significant figure, they (boeing) have tossed their queen in its own frying pan of the 777 series.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-03-20 23:35:18 and read 17331 times.

With the 748 in a forward loss position and VLA sales almost non-existent, I really don't see Boeing spending another cent on the 747.   

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: TWA772LR
Posted 2013-03-20 23:47:43 and read 17272 times.

As much as I'd love to see the 747 have yet another last breath of life, I think it's time we let her go in peace. The 747 is just an airliner that has done a damn good job at what it did and is now being superceded by more efficient and less costly aircraft.

Here's to an almost 50 year production of the most beautiful aircraft to grace the skies!      
Long live the Queen!

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-03-21 00:10:46 and read 17190 times.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 5):

I think for many it is the icon of modern jets, graceful lines, I actually like the 748i, it looks more powerful with larger suckers. I have traveled more long haul on 747s than any other WB, as I did most travel in the 90´s there were less options. My favorite was AF via Singapore on to SYD, AF used to be a super airline in the good old days.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: superjeff
Posted 2013-03-21 12:10:19 and read 12692 times.

Quoting phatfarmlines (Reply 1):
the 77W 3x4x3 coach seat cram now being quickly adopted by airlines help drive a lower CASM. Perhaps a new coach seat arraignment 3x5x3 for the 748 is in order?

Don't forget the original 747 coach configuration was 3-4-2; they only crammed in the other row to make it 3-4-3 about 1972/1973, or three or so years after the airline went into service. If they tried to go 3-5-3, it would be more painful as the seat width would end up about 15" (or less).

Jeff

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: TWA772LR
Posted 2013-03-21 12:12:52 and read 12666 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 6):
I think for many it is the icon of modern jets, graceful lines, I actually like the 748i

It really is the icon for modern air travel. The 747-8 is the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft ever designed, IMO. No aircraft will even come that close.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: woodsboy
Posted 2013-03-21 12:21:33 and read 12515 times.

I remember reading (maybe in Flight International?) prior to the 748's first flight that the stretch represented the limit of not only a serviceable CG envelope but also as long as it could be and not pose a heightened risk of tail strike on take-off. Of course the mail reason Boeing wont do this is because of a total lack of interest in the 748i, I agree, the days of a new 747 end with the 748. All the action these days in with larger narrowbody segment and the medium sized widebody segment.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-03-21 12:24:24 and read 12435 times.

Boeing has two widebody frames that can be stretched for world-beating results.

Neither of them is the 747.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: jayunited
Posted 2013-03-21 14:04:08 and read 10935 times.

How would Boeing be able to justify the cost associated with stretching the 747 again especially seeing that the airlines have made their choice by choosing the A380, 77W, A350-1000 and showing great interest in the 777-x program? I'm a 747 fan as well and would love to see the passenger version with a lot more orders than what it currently has but the reality is Boeing's own product the 77W killed the 747 and the A380 buried it. Airlines are just not interested in what the 748i has to offer.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: AirlineCritic
Posted 2013-03-21 16:01:17 and read 9415 times.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 8):
The 747-8 is the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft ever designed, IMO. No aircraft will even come that close.

Well. Out of the slow ones, perhaps. You can't beat Concorde.

But I'd give that honor in the 747 family to 747-400, personally. I think the 747-8 is very nice indeed, but a bit too long for my aesthetic eye at least.

FWIW I think the 380 is actually a very big contender in this race as well. The nose is starting to look like aircraft should be, after getting used to it, and the wings and just perfect.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: AADC10
Posted 2013-03-21 16:32:54 and read 9039 times.

I think it is all smoke to imply a long term future for the 747 to reassure buyers, limited as they are. Boeing never wants to say that the 748 is the end of the line, even if it is. They want to give the impression that it will go on indefinitely, keeping future resale value up, although in reality value will quickly decline once the 747 program is clearly at its end. If greater capacity is a goal, then they have really reached the point where Boeing needs to go a clean sheet design. The current seating is less than ideal and airports will not be willing to redesign again to go beyond the 80m x 80m standard, after just moving from 75m x 75m, not to mention the many airports that are not laid out for 80m x 80m aircraft now.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: airlinebuilder
Posted 2013-03-21 16:36:05 and read 9000 times.

Based on the turn of events re the B748i, I seriously believe that Boeing has moved on to the larger twins, and there are just a few left inside their fences who were able to justify but to give the queen one last shot.

But as we see it with the introduction of the planned 777x, I think this is where Boeing is trying to chart their market lead since they have missed the bubble on the A380 big time! now their lagging in the NB race with the ceos and neos...... Wheels of Fortune I must say........... I dont think it will be in my lifetime that these will be reversed but for sure that break for boeing is somewhere down the road but not in the proximate future yet.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: steeler83
Posted 2013-03-21 18:04:00 and read 8167 times.

Wasn't the Triple-7 supposed to replace the DC10/MD11? And if I recall, that initially was designed to be a triple-jet. Given that, Boeing killed two large birds with one flexible design.

I, too, have grown to love the Jumbo Jet, but I also have to say that I think its days are numbered. I would love to have an opportunity to fly on one though -- to say, "hey, I actually flew on that!"

To think that this plane was first designed to be a military aircraft, one that the US government passed on to select Lockheed IIRC. Then a guy by the name of Juan Tripp comes along and says, "hey, I think this could be of use for my airline and the international/transatlantic market..."

^^ my sincerest apologies if I have that wrong, btw...

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: woodsboy
Posted 2013-03-21 19:17:34 and read 7527 times.

Its seems to me that the VLA market was simply misunderstood back in the early 2000s when the A380 was launched. Just like so many predictions for future need for a particular aircraft size, the orders and viability of a high volume VLA just never materialized. Even now we remember the market predictions for the 100-120 seat segment to be something in the thousands...and now as there are several clean sheet designs nearing first flight, airlines just arent interested in them in any kind of volume. Same for the VLA, the A380 got the bulk of the interest, as luke warm as it was and the 748 came along much too late to make an impact on that market. Obviously the future of large widebody aircraft is for twin-jets, not quads, simple operating economics.
Airbus predicts 28,198 passenger and freighter aircraft deliveries to 2031, that seems awfully optimistic, of course that would be for all manufactures and only a fraction of those are predicted to be widebody aircraft, around 20%.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: hz747300
Posted 2013-03-21 19:49:48 and read 7173 times.

Why don't they make a civilian Globemaster III, a triple decker. I would put a gas tank the size of a four car garage in the centre by the undercarriage, make the wings, and full t-tail all additional tanks. Flatten out the back to make more room for seats since you don't need to be able to drive cars in and out.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: rwessel
Posted 2013-03-21 22:27:37 and read 6686 times.

Quoting hz747300 (Reply 17):
Why don't they make a civilian Globemaster III, a triple decker. I would put a gas tank the size of a four car garage in the centre by the undercarriage, make the wings, and full t-tail all additional tanks. Flatten out the back to make more room for seats since you don't need to be able to drive cars in and out.

To accomplish what? It's a very expensive aircraft, fairly short range, and considerably smaller than a 77W.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: drgmobile
Posted 2013-03-22 06:05:14 and read 6271 times.

Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
As most of us remember, last year 747 program head Elizabeth Lund hinted at the possibility of a stretch. Given the lack of orders and 779X economics, why not do a "simple stretch" (ala 787-10) of the -8i to a full 80 meters? Call it a last ditch attempt...

You've answered your own questions by providing several reasons to abandon the project and none to sustain it. Airplanes are not cupcakes. Successful manufacturers don't follow strategies in which words like "last ditch" get thrown around like chocolate sprinkles.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: VC10er
Posted 2013-03-22 06:09:22 and read 6256 times.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 8):

When I saw a couple of 748i's at Frankfurt I was breathless over her beauty. The extra length is just right and the dove-like wings give her even more grace. I just can't see another stretch, it would then do what the A340-600 did...a long hot dog with tiny little wings.

While she does seem close to the end of her pax life, we could see a sleeper come to life if there were major changes in the global economy. Probably just wishful thinking. The last 30 years of my life will probably be defined by 777 variants!

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: hannahpa
Posted 2013-03-22 18:12:09 and read 5682 times.

As much as I LOVE the 747-8, unfortunately I think that is was "too little, too late". Boeing was too slow to respond to the A380. As much as I hate to see the 747 go, I think it is time to let her go. The only thing that will save it is if the Global Economy rebounds significantly within the next 2-3 years.....

  

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: TWA772LR
Posted 2013-03-23 01:16:02 and read 5356 times.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 20):

I consider it a blessing when I see the CX 748F's fly into IAH. I remember seeing one take off over my friends neighborhood, I was so shocked how quiet it was and graceful.

The long body with the excellent proportioned wings, with the huge GENx engines, Boeing got it right!

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-03-23 02:05:19 and read 5275 times.

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 16):
Airbus predicts 28,198 passenger and freighter aircraft deliveries to 2031, that seems awfully optimistic

Have you had a check as to how many deliveries Boeing are predicting in the same period?

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/cmo/index.page

Rgds

[Edited 2013-03-23 02:31:28]

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-03-23 04:05:41 and read 5133 times.

790 large aircraft until 2031..not a whole lot compared to what they call twin aisles. Maybe the big money was not in the large aircraft but having made the investment A should hope to gain most of those 790.

All depends really on the price of energy, will the economy crash or will it rebound another cycle. Synthetic hydro-carbon has to be viable for air travel to keep growing. The giant leap of mankind is to produce cheap synthetic fuel.

Much can and will happen in the coming years I am sure of.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: hannahpa
Posted 2013-03-23 16:06:26 and read 4997 times.

Just remembered, Air Force One (x 3) will be replaced in 2017, 2019, and 2021. I firmly believe and hope that it remains a 747 variant. I think Air Force One would look great as a 747-8...... Guess we'll have to wait and see.....

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-03-23 16:17:43 and read 4945 times.

Quoting hannahpa (Reply 25):
Just remembered, Air Force One (x 3) will be replaced in 2017, 2019, and 2021.

Why x 3? They get by fine with 2 now.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-23 16:24:06 and read 5044 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 26):
Why x 3? They get by fine with 2 now.

I expect the third will be used by the Secretary of Defense (who currently uses an E-4B).



Boeing's original length for the 747-8 was 74m, but LH asked for more so they went to 76m like the 747-8 freighter. The 747-500X would have been 78m, the 747X Stretch would have been 79m and the 747-600X would have been 85m, so Boeing could go longer if they wanted, but I expect they would have made the 747-8 79m or 80m if they felt it was appropriate.

[Edited 2013-03-23 16:31:29]

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: airlinebuilder
Posted 2013-03-23 18:46:44 and read 4822 times.

I really have this impression that Boeing people havent been visiting their situation room nor took a peek at their panic room, the company seem to me very complacent, there is something really wrong with the Head manning the company. They must seriously learn from Airbus the marketing techniques and bargaining talents.

Most of the time as I look at the airlines order trends, there seem to be just one aircraft manufacturer as having two........ The B748i i totally agree to a post here, came in way way way too late, and a freighter statistics does not really get much credit as compared to a passenger aircraft sales. COLD TRUTH.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-23 19:56:17 and read 4746 times.

Quoting airlinebuilder (Reply 28):
The B748i i totally agree to a post here, came in way way way too late, and a freighter statistics does not really get much credit as compared to a passenger aircraft sales. COLD TRUTH.

Boeing has been trying to launch a new and larger model than the 747-400 since the 1990s. The 747-500X and 747-600X of 1996. The 747-400X and 747-400X Stretch of 1999. The 747X and 747X Stretch of 2001. The 747-400XQLR of 2002. The 747 Advanced of 2004.

They finally found the right mix with the 747-8 to get an airline other than LH to agree to buy it.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: airlinebuilder
Posted 2013-03-24 02:26:13 and read 4506 times.

Exactly my point STITCH, with so many variants of the B747xs and what have you, they were not able to market it to look attractive for the airliners specs, otherwise they would have beat the A380 way ahead of its launch, again, there is a deliberate lounging around going on at the Boeing office. To much chit chats at the executive pantries and not at the situation room or maybe so at the situation room but they have been listening to their own voices for a long time that actual real outside input fell on deaf ears..............

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-24 08:52:39 and read 4190 times.

Quoting airlinebuilder (Reply 30):
Exactly my point STITCH, with so many variants of the B747xs and what have you, they were not able to market it to look attractive for the airliners specs, otherwise they would have beat the A380 way ahead of its launch...

Well if not for the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, it is conceivable that the 747-500X and 747-600X would have been launched. If so, they could have entered service about five years before the A380-800 did (2002 vs. 2007) and might have stopped Airbus from developing the A380 as MH and TG agreed to order the 747 and I am sure BA and LH would have, as well.

As to why Boeing finally launched the 747-8? My opinion is that just as the 777-300ER rendered the 747-400 passenger airframe obsolete, so the 777 Freighter rendered the 747-400 freighter airframe obsolete. As such, the only way to keep the 747 line open was to offer a larger, higher-capacity model to lower seat-mile and ton-mile costs, respectively. And the efficiency of the GEnx engine reduced those costs even more, which is why I believe the 747-8 finally succeeded where the previous concepts with "conventional" engines failed.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: airlinebuilder
Posted 2013-03-24 19:07:53 and read 3745 times.

Then why the slack on the B748i sales? Seriously, arent there any airlines interested anymore with the B748i? There are no talks not even in the rumor mills...............

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-03-24 19:18:44 and read 3728 times.

Quoting airlinebuilder (Reply 32):
Then why the slack on the B748i sales?

Again, IMO, the 777-300ER is the better option if you need under 400 seats and the A380-800 is the better option if you need more than 400 seats.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2013-03-24 19:22:31 and read 3692 times.

I wonder what the cost of keeping the passenger version available for purchase is when orders are a trickle. Is it much? Or is Boeing its own supplier for most of the parts?

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: Asiaflyer
Posted 2013-03-24 20:18:32 and read 3599 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 27):
Boeing could go longer if they wanted, but I expect they would have made the 747-8 79m or 80m if they felt it was appropriate.


If 80 meters would work as well for the 748F, then I think it was Boeing's mistake not to do that. Current 748i is too close to the 77W and not competitive with the A380. Why build a plane that competes with your own existing product line?

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: airlinebuilder
Posted 2013-03-25 18:03:50 and read 3018 times.

again, does anyone really believe that there is still something to talk about re the B748i? Given the entry of the B777x, i think the story is seriously over.

By any chance there is a boeing ranking officer member of the forum here, can we be enlightened of course discreetly so he or she can keep ones job at boeing but.......be the epiphany of the real deal on the queen of the sky. Lets not talk about the frieghter since not even airbus is arguing about it, the latter has somehow conceded to that part of the field.

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: dennys
Posted 2013-03-27 21:11:10 and read 2502 times.

Sorry guys , i cannot understand all your intersting litterature . I am a 747 and FOUR Engined aircraft Lover .
Why shoudn't Boeing seriously take the MD12X project again ? And reactulize it to compete the 388 ?or even take the 747-500X project and sale it to strong international carriers in order to FILL UP the 747 or Boeing 4 Holler VLA art of flying !

Sorry guys , i really feel no more interests for toys like 350 787 330 and really do not like 773 and 388 ... Too many Boring planes for me !

Topic: RE: 747-9X Simple Stretch?
Username: homSar
Posted 2013-03-27 21:31:02 and read 2491 times.

Quoting dennys (Reply 37):
Sorry guys , i cannot understand all your intersting litterature . I am a 747 and FOUR Engined aircraft Lover .
Why shoudn't Boeing seriously take the MD12X project again ? And reactulize it to compete the 388 ?or even take the 747-500X project and sale it to strong international carriers in order to FILL UP the 747 or Boeing 4 Holler VLA art of flying !

Sorry guys , i really feel no more interests for toys like 350 787 330 and really do not like 773 and 388 ... Too many Boring planes for me !

While the planes may be "boring" to you, Boeing and Airbus are not in the business of keeping aviation fans entertained. They sell airplanes to airlines, who buy them based on economics and not on how cool they look.

The "strong international carriers" have mostly already made their choices, and with few exceptions, the 747 doesn't fit into their plans.

To build a four-engine double-deck airplane (like the MD-12X, or the old Boeing VLA design) to compete with the A380 would be to throw tens of billions of dollars into a very limited market, while diverting needed resources away from projects that could sell thousands over a few years, rather than hundreds over a couple decades.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/