Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3570 times:
Cathay Pacific Airways is considered a prime candidate for Boeing's 747 Advanced.
Cathay is considered a prime candidate 747 Advanced.
Sources at the airline told ATWOnline that Cathay is impressed by the new offering, "which represents a significant improvement on previous upgrades."
Takeoff weight of the 747-400 Advanced is put at 928,048 lb. with two plugs of 5 ft. aft and 6.63 ft. forward of the wing. In a typical three-class configuration it will carry 448 passengers to a range of 9,400 nm.
Boeing presented Cathay and Qantas with a new interior that features the 777 style as fitted to the 747-400ER operated by Qantas plus a new arrangement at entry door No. 2 that sets out to emulate the A380 entry with more space. Also, the stairs to the upper deck will be moved to the far side of the cabin.
Key to the design are the 7E7 engines, and while Boeing maintains that the 747 Advanced will follow the 7E7, insiders said airlines such as Cathay will force the pace of development and the new 747 will appear before the 7E7.
For the freighter version, Boeing will add extra length to try and tap the package market. With a 16.7-ft. stretch, the freighter will have a maximum takeoff weight of 957,990 lb. Both new models will feature raked wingtips, a speed increase to Mach 0.86 and meet the most stringent noise requirements.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4385 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3329 times:
This is good news! It would definately be nice to see new 747s operating in Cathay's colors. I wonder how many they would order? Is this seen as a 747-400 replacement? Also, it is interesting to read that airlines may force Boeing to come out with the 747 Advanced before the 7E7!
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9605 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3226 times:
Its hardly understandable why it would take longer to develop this 747 variant than the 7E7.
That airlines push in that direction is no wonder and clearly shows that there´s interest in the 747 and that airlines need the new version when it comes to phase out early-built 744s in large number towards the end of this decade. 2009 is a bit late and would cost Boeing some business.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3176 times:
I think the 400-500 seat market is definately there.
Airbus has a gab here. A380 is now ~ 550 seats, a shortened version would probably a smaller plane at the same cost, just like A318 and B736 .... A340-600 is limited to ~ 400 seats.
Still lots of 747-200/300's flying around. Technology has progressed since 747-400 came around 17 yrs ago.
An aircraft that take 10% more capasity, uses 10% less fuel, makes less noise and flies further is attactive.
Bkkair From Thailand, joined Aug 2001, 408 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3165 times:
Looking at it from a passenger's view ( not a technical view) , I hope they stick to the A345's and A346's for longhaul which are much more comfortable on a 15- 17 hour flight with their 2-4-2 configuration than the 3-4-3 seating on the 744's/777's.
Anyone stuck in a window seat on a 744/777 ( 2 seats from the aisle) will agree!
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 981 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3148 times:
I think Na's question regarding the timetable for the advanced 747 taking longer than the 7E7 has to do with priorities for Boeing. Boeing needs to dedicate it's resources to the new ground breaking aircraft and then can give some attention to the advanced 747. If there were no 7E7, the advanced 747 likely would be here more quickly. This is just my guess though.
Teahan From Belgium, joined Nov 1999, 5264 posts, RR: 63 Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3087 times:
Interesting news but lets not forget that Cathay was also considered a prime candidate for the numerous previous updated 747 versions. And well know what happened there.
Jeremiah
Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4385 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3066 times:
That is true, but I think Boeing is demonstrating a greater willingness to see this aircraft through to production than the other earlier models. The other models were more "warm overs" than something that really had great gains in efficiency, # of pax and overall economics.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
DIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 30 Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2965 times:
Let me try to get this straight. The 747 Advanced will have a couple plugs increasing the overall length of the 747? Then the freighter version will have another plug added onto that making it even longer than the pax version 747 Advanced?
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4385 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2925 times:
I concur. The 747 Advanced Freighter will be longer than the 747 Advanced Passenger Model. As they stated, they are trying to tap into the package market. Maybe Fedex or UPS?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9605 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2877 times:
Exactly, CX747.
To replace then almost 20 year old early 744s airlines would certainly expect something that is a big step forward (like the 744 was in 1989) rather than a warm-over with less than 5% increase in economics.
And to respond to Navion, yes, Boeings priority might be the 7E7 now, but that this should bind the whole workforce at Boeing sounds a bit alarming.
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7631 posts, RR: 28 Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2804 times:
As has been mentioned, for this to be worthwhile to Boeing and current 744 customers, a significant increase in performance and systems is required. Flight deck/flight control redesign, some aerodynamic improvements, and quite obviously, new engines will be key here. Though, I think it's safe to say a new wing would seem unlikely.
The 744 has proven a remarkable performer in every respect and it's no secret why airlines are proud to have them in service. Time for Boeing to keep the ball rolling on the most celebrated jetliner line.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 981 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2660 times:
I'll bet the reason for the longer stretch on the Freighter version than the pax version is due to the fact freighters often "cube out" before they "gross out". This means freighters often use up their available space before they reach their maximum cargo weight, thus more volume means more revenue.
As for a new wing, there are treatments to the existing wing which will make it virtually as efficient as a newer wing. These treatments include the raked wingtips and the trailing edge "wedge" which has proven to be very effective at reducing drag. This may be the reason for a further increase in the cruising speed for an already fast airplane.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 1982 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2550 times:
The reason for the longer freighter is to balance the fuselage.
The streched 744 will have two plugs: one behind the wing, and one in front of the wing. Obviously the length of both plugs need to balance each other out [weight wise, including payload], relative to the center of gravity point. The pax version will have its upper deck streched as well [which is now becoming seriously long!]. The freighter will still have the short upper deck. The rearward plug of the freighter and the pax version are exactly the same. So in order to balance the freighter, the forward plug must be longer. The additional cubic feet cargo volume is a bonus.
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2552 times:
Cathay is considered the everything to everything by everyone. Unless I read a statement from a CX official indicating interest, I'd chalk this up to further nonsense.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2450 times:
Thanks, Keesje, for posting this, saved me the trouble of transcribing an article in the 7/29-8/4 Fright International on page 4. I'll add, however, that they say "Combined with changes already outlined for the former -400XQLR study, the use of 7E7 technology is expected to give the 747 the best, and possibly LAST chance to be stretched and to continue in production into the next decade." That to me, hints that if this latest scheme falls through, the Jumbo's days are numbered. I also think that Teahan's skepticism is warranted, seeing how many 747 upgrade plans have fallen by the wayside in the last few years. Nevertheless, it gives us 747 lovers reason to hope. I'm don't see, however, why they don't stretch the passenger version to the same length as the freighter, taking advantage of the extra capacity and lowering seat-mile costs unless it incurs significant weight gain and lost range. I also share others' concern that Boeing's declaration it will come after the 7E7 might be a mistake. If Airbus can run concurrent development programs, why can't BCA? Exploratory talks with Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines, in addition to Cathay Pacific and Quantas, are just getting underway. One last footnote in the article was on Boeing's first public warning that it's considering closing the 757 program-CEO Phil Condit confirmed the possibility, though no decision was yet made. Some optimism here but a bit of gloom as well.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8418 posts, RR: 13 Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2315 times:
If the 747's upper deck is stretched, does that mean that they might add more doors on that deck? If it's any longer, just having two doors might be prohibitive.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2315 times:
"The reason for the longer freighter is to balance the fuselage."
Thanks PW100-didn't see that before I posted but it makes sense. Don't know why the official sources didn't mention this.
"Cathay is considered the everything to everything by everyone. Unless I read a statement from a CX official indicating interest, I'd chalk this up to further nonsense."
Because talks are underway it's not completely nonsense however you are correct to be skeptical, as Teahan and I are, on whether this will go anywhere. Much as I love the 747 and hope the best for it, I'm still dubious on the actual prospects for it. Guess I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2293 times:
In a typical three-class configuration it will carry 448 passengers to a range of 9,400 nm
No one else caught this? If they do what they say here (I have my doubts), then the 747Advanced will exceed the 772LR as longest ranged commercial aircraft!
Buckfifty From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1314 posts, RR: 21 Reply 22, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2225 times:
No one else caught this? If they do what they say here (I have my doubts), then the 747Advanced will exceed the 772LR as longest ranged commercial aircraft!
Such a goal isn't far fetched at all, considering that this is still a design study.
But these are only design goals that may be refined by customer input, and must be met on a technical basis. At this point, I won't get too excited.
And I share Gigneil's sentiment in regards to all this. Haven't heard anything from the company yet. Though it would be a nice addition (if it ever does happen, which is 50/50), considering that the 744's are starting to show their signs of age now.
Travellin'man From United States of America, joined May 2001, 530 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2130 times:
The best incentive to develop this plane is to move further into the 400+ pax market, away from the 773 and A346, and towards the A380, which can't really shrink a lot. A 747-500 would be in a market all by itself. I think that if the 7E7 goes, this very likely will too.
It is not enough to be rude; one must also be incorrect.
NWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2102 times:
Looking at it from a passenger's view ( not a technical view) , I hope they stick to the A345's and A346's for longhaul which are much more comfortable on a 15- 17 hour flight with their 2-4-2 configuration than the 3-4-3 seating on the 744's/777's.
Anyone stuck in a window seat on a 744/777 ( 2 seats from the aisle) will agree!
Passenger comfort depends on the AIRLINE, not the aircraft itself, especially on widebodies. Only exception to that is how loud it is.
For example, there are some airlines who set up widebodies with a 2-5-2 setting, but most carry the "normal" 3-4-3 a breast setting.
-NWA742
25 Ba319-131: NWA742, I think the point being made was the preferance for 2-4-2 layout.I know of no 777 or 747 operators who operate the main 'Y' cabin in a 2-4-2 l
26 Jbangert: The best argument for the 747 Advanced is, in my view, the fact that it is a low risk development, unlike the Airbus 380. But it should be difficult,
27 Navion: The 747 can be relatively easily updated in many areas other than the engines and wing to bring about increased efficiency. The 747 designs have all e
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4385 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9605 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 5057 posts, 
From Thailand, joined Aug 2001, 408 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Nov 1999, 5264 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7631 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 46 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
