Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747-8 Information Update  
User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12987 times:

I thought some here may find this information useful so here are some excerpts from the latest 747-8 Planning Manual augmented by my own cast-down data.

Original Boeing document here:

Boeing 747-8 Airport Compatibility Brochure


General Arrangements:

747-8

747-8F

Interior Arrangements:

747-8

747-8F


Payload Range Capability:

Payload Range Chart 747-8

http://theaviationspecialist.com/748f_prc.gifPayload Range Chart 747-8F[/url]


Airplane Characteristics:

747-8 Airplane Characteristics

747-8 Airplane Characteristics


747-8 Airplane Cast Down Data

747-8 And A380-800 Family Data


This stuff is free people. There are no warranties expressed or implied. Actual mileage may vary...Now talk amongst yourselves. But on a personal note those GEnX's on the 747-8 look pretty cool.



-widebodyphotog

[Edited 2005-12-19 20:34:06]

[Edited 2005-12-19 20:35:48]


If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12953 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Thread starter):
But on a personal note those GEnX's on the 747-8 look pretty cool.

Agreed.

*good compilation of info - thanks.



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3587 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12881 times:

Why does the 748 seem to have a higher cruise thrust, even though it is lighter?

Interesting figures, thank you for sharing.


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3243 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12880 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Thread starter):
But on a personal note those GEnX's on the 747-8 look pretty cool.

Yeah, I second this.

BTW, the link for the range chart of the B747-8F looks wrong (I think you didn't bracket it properly). You might want to do a bit of editing in the HTML...

But thanks for posting! This is very interesting indeed!

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3243 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12796 times:

BTW, something that I noticed in the data you provided is that the cruising altitude of the B747-8 is 35,000ft (as opposed to 39,000ft for the A380; the B737NGs reach 41,000 I think, right?). Is the lower cruising altitude for the B747-8 inherited from the current B747s? Any reason why it can't fly higher?

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12737 times:

Widebody,

As usual, excellent post.  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12719 times:

Quoting SNATH (Reply 4):
BTW, something that I noticed in the data you provided is that the cruising altitude of the B747-8 is 35,000ft (as opposed to 39,000ft for the A380; the B737NGs reach 41,000 I think, right?). Is the lower cruising altitude for the B747-8 inherited from the current B747s? Any reason why it can't fly higher?

The A380-800 has an enormous wing for an aircraft of its weight and therefore much lighter loading than the 747, so it should have higher cruise altitudes at any given stage. I would be very surprised if the 747-8 isn't certified up to 41,000 feet, which (IIRC) is the current ceiling for the -400.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineGorbidog From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 151 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12714 times:

This plane rocks big time!

I think the stretch will do this design perfectly, as the plane will be longer, sleeker, and with the extended wingtips, will truly give the plane a cooler look, much more attractive than the ungainly A380.

Don't flame me anyone, but IMHO (as a former automotive designer), when comparing the 747 vs. the A380 from strictly a design analysis standpoint, it's like The Beauty and the Beast.

[Edited 2005-12-19 21:12:51]


Sticks and stones may break my bones, but please don't throw stuff 'cause our bamboo floor is delicate!
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12696 times:

wbp, is there a place where we can find all these cool tables and charts you produce?

User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12633 times:

I note in the Boeing document, that the raked wingtip spills over the edge of the stand. Wouldn't this affect the compatibility advantage it has over the A380?

Quoting SNATH (Reply 4):
BTW, something that I noticed in the data you provided is that the cruising altitude of the B747-8 is 35,000ft (as opposed to 39,000ft for the A380; the B737NGs reach 41,000 I think, right?). Is the lower cruising altitude for the B747-8 inherited from the current B747s? Any reason why it can't fly higher?

I don't think that was reflective of ceiling. I think it was reflective of the optimal cruise altitude (whatever). IIRC, the service ceiling of the 744 is 450.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12588 times:

Wow! Boeing are already claiming an 8270nm range with 450 passengers -- up from earlier claims of 8000nm. Given Boeing's history of extremely conservative performance predictions, it seems likely that actual range will be even greater. The range advantage over the WhaleJet may be enough to sway some sales to the JumboJet. Of course, CASM will be a more important factor than range for most airlines.

User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12584 times:

widebodyphotog..once again, thanks for the great info... thumbsup 


"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12538 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
Of course, CASM will be a more important factor than range for most airlines.

On that note, can anyone figure out how to calculate the seat mile fuel burn for each of the two aircraft. First Boeing claimed to be able to beat the A380, then they published figures that looked unlikely to do that, and depended on reducing the Airbus estimate to maintain that position. What's the verdict now?


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12357 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11):
widebodyphotog..once again, thanks for the great info...

Agreed.  yes  I'm thinking of starting a widebodyphotog chart fan club.  praise 



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26487 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12298 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
Why does the 748 seem to have a higher cruise thrust, even though it is lighter?

I don't see how the 748I can really be lighter than the 744, or especially the 744ER. It is larger and doesn't make much of a change in current building techniques. It needs higher thrust to achieve the same performance.

Quoting SNATH (Reply 4):
BTW, something that I noticed in the data you provided is that the cruising altitude of the B747-8 is 35,000ft (as opposed to 39,000ft for the A380; the B737NGs reach 41,000 I think, right?). Is the lower cruising altitude for the B747-8 inherited from the current B747s? Any reason why it can't fly higher?

I think he based the information on a middling crusie altitude of FL350, not withstanding a higher cruise. Remember, as it is, to get maximum efficiency, the 744 flies lower (FL290-FL320 or something of the sort) at high speed to burn off fuel, then glides up to a higher altitude at a slower speed to end the flight. Hence you take an average of that. I am betting a fully loaded 748I would have trouble getting to FL350 until fuel was burned off. I sincerely doubt that Boeing would certify it that low.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 6):
I would be very surprised if the 747-8 isn't certified up to 41,000 feet, which (IIRC) is the current ceiling for the -400.

I believe the 744 is certified to FL430

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
Agreed. I'm thinking of starting a widebodyphotog chart fan club.

Can I be the President?

BTW, I find it very interesting that the 748I will be so efficient that it will use 3000 gallons less fuel to fly 500-700nm farther than the 744ER while carrying more passengers and cargo.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 12247 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
BTW, I find it very interesting that the 748I will be so efficient that it will use 3000 gallons less fuel to fly 500-700nm farther than the 744ER while carrying more passengers and cargo.

That's really cool! Thanks for pointing this out for us, N1120A. Thanks also to WBP for the info...


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 12108 times:

Corrected link:

Payload Range Chart 747-8F

Quoting Glom (Reply 12):
On that note, can anyone figure out how to calculate the seat mile fuel burn for each of the two aircraft. First Boeing claimed to be able to beat the A380, then they published figures that looked unlikely to do that, and depended on reducing the Airbus estimate to maintain that position. What's the verdict now?

Boeing has claimed a 6% seat/mile cost advantage vs A380. That was before a few tweaks to the design, namely a higher MTOW for the 787-8 Intercontinental. Initially it seems that the 747-8 will build on that by another 1% or so. The increased range, payload and overhead space options really gives the passenger airplane some competitive advantages that will be hard to match by the A380 despite it's capacity advantage. For the freighter, dramatically lower tonne/mile costs are already proving very attractive for the general cargo operators who can't utilize the higher volume of A380-800F. All told, if you don't need absolute capacity in your network the 747-8 looks like a very competitive alternative to the Airbus offering.

I have had my own personal misgivings about 747-8, but it seems like the response is right along what Boeing has hoped for. They have been able to offer some very attractive enhancements to the aircraft using 787 technology and that has made all the difference in the world. It's too bad that this product could not have been developed five years ago...



-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26487 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 12090 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 16):
For the freighter, dramatically lower tonne/mile costs are already proving very attractive for the general cargo operators who can't utilize the higher volume of A380-800F.

Not to mention the payload/weight advantages that give heavy lifters like Cargolux and perhaps soon Lufthansa Cargo a major advantage over the A388F



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 12040 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
Wow! Boeing are already claiming an 8270nm range with 450 passengers -- up from earlier claims of 8000nm. Given Boeing's history of extremely conservative performance predictions, it seems likely that actual range will be even greater. The range advantage over the WhaleJet may be enough to sway some sales to the JumboJet. Of course, CASM will be a more important factor than range for most airlines.

Now if they were only able to make the fuselage all composite we could have a 787 on steroids!



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26487 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11964 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 16):

Question, why has Boeing designed the 748F with less range than the 744ERF?

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 18):
Now if they were only able to make the fuselage all composite we could have a 787 on steroids!

Unfortunately, that would require more money than Boeing wants to spend and a likely full recertification and new type certificate, which Boeing wants to avoid.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11906 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
Can I be the President?

Well, I suppose we would have to have some by-laws and a nomination process followed by an election first.

I suppose since you are a legal eagle, you could draft the by-laws. And if you put in a clause in their that makes would make you President-for-life, I won't raise a fuss.  Wink

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 16):
It's too bad that this product could not have been developed five years ago...

Of course, if that had been the case, the A388 might have a higher thrust version of the same engines on it.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineJeffry747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 963 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11870 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Thread starter):
Widebodyphotog

Thank you for satisfying my voracious appetite for info on my favorite airplane

Delicious stuff man!
 Big grin



C'mon Big B, FLY!
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4515 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11773 times:

The 747-400 is certified to 45000 feet, as was the classic.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6449 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11707 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
Question, why has Boeing designed the 748F with less range than the 744ERF?

The ERF was launched when crude oil was $15/barrel. At $60/bl it makes little sense to haul along a hundred thousand lbs of fuel long distance when you can take a hundred thousand lbs more cargo instead and make an extra fuel stop.

A fuel stop with a cargo plane is much simpler than with a pax plane simply because you don't have to wake up hundreds of sleeping passengers.

Very little cargo has such a hurry that it cannot take a fuel stop on a 4,000+ nm sector when there is a significant price incentive. At least there isn't enough to warrent the design of such a plane. If you have got such cargo, then go and buy your own Gulfstream.

You see the same trend on the 380. The 380F has a much shorter range than the 380 pax plane.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13111 posts, RR: 100
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11701 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
Agreed. yes I'm thinking of starting a widebodyphotog chart fan club.

Sign me up. If there was a higher tier RU list, widebodyphotog would be on mine. Let's see President is already taken... I want to be in the founder's circle!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
I don't see how the 748I can really be lighter than the 744, or especially the 744ER. It is larger and doesn't make much of a change in current building techniques. It needs higher thrust to achieve the same performance.

Good question. I believe the flaps are being redone, but that wouldn't cover the 11.7 foot stretch... There is quite a drop in fuel required due to the engine/wingtip improvements where much of the range comes from.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
BTW, I find it very interesting that the 748I will be so efficient that it will use 3000 gallons less fuel to fly 500-700nm farther than the 744ER while carrying more passengers and cargo.

Gotta love it.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
25 Trex8 : can you put the galleys above the main cabin and free up space for more seats rather than using it for those skylofts???
26 Zvezda : I know there has been consideration of putting galley cart storage upstairs. I'll bet most of the Economy lavs also could be put upstairs.
27 F27XXX : Will the wings really swish upwards that way while inflight? Not sure how i feel about that quite yet .. it looks kinda effeminate to me ..
28 SunriseValley : Operators like SQ will be less likely to "misuse" the A380 with this alternative being available Here here ! I am not sure about on a seat mile basis
29 SunriseValley : OOPS , these fuel useage figures should show "per nm."
30 Atmx2000 : Well, that's 4 prospective members. Maybe we need an official place to meet, like a dedicated thread, to engage in adulation. We could link and embed
31 SunriseValley : I have been bookmarking many of them and trying to print them out but my old HP printer is limited to a meg and those color ones take much more than
32 Atmx2000 : I would try that except I use different computers and accounts at home and at work and don't want to spend time sync-ing them. Unfortunately, widebod
33 Kaitak744 : Well, looking at the drawings, it seems the flaps will no longer be tripple slotted. It will be 777 style. (1 sloted outside flaps and 2 sloted inside
34 DfwRevolution : Yes, flaps will be redesigned to help meet QC.2 requirements. This was part of the 747-400XQLR offering. Pitch is a function of what the opperator in
35 Post contains images Ikramerica : Yes, galley can go upstairs, not just cart storage, as well as crew rests and crew only lavs. It would be like having an entire length and width of a
36 Molykote : And here we have the reason behind the 748 CASM advantage over the A388 - It doesn't need engines to climb!
37 Post contains images StuckInCA : Well, you must understand the pickle I'm in. He's the only one on my RU list. I haven't quite felt that anyone that deserves his company yet. If ther
38 Aircellist : May I join as the fifth member?
39 N1120A : It am well aware of how cargo economics work, but it makes absolutely no sense that the 748F, an aircraft that is more efficient and that is built to
40 SunriseValley : I thought step cruise was a standard operating proceedure for all types.
41 Zvezda : Length and width, yes, but not the height. The ceiling will be about a foot lower than in the B737.
42 Art : The "Queen of the Skies" looking effeminate... Doesn't seem too wrong to me!
43 TinkerBelle : ...and I wanna be the sixth member. What would we ever do without widebodyphotog's technical charts and links?
44 Ikramerica : The ERF has 400 gallons more fuel, and a 50,000lb lower MTOW. But I would assume that if you loaded the ERF with 400 less gallons and the same actual
45 BlueSky1976 : They're both ungainly ugly. A380 does have a better looking wing when viewing directly from the front. 777 and 787 eat both of those for lunch in loo
46 Zvezda : No. Given equal fuel and equal payload, the B747-8F has much better range than the B747-400ERF -- mainly due to the efficiency of the GEnx engines, t
47 Post contains images MKandiah : While aesthetics may be a matter of personal tastes, the 747 deserves better than to be called an 'old fat lady'.
48 Post contains images MIAMIx707 : I don't like those wings either for the 747-8, will take a while to get used to them if they'll have this much of a bend. Would like to hear from a B
49 NA : Whitebodyphot, thanks for this collection of data on the world´s greatest airliner! Ahemm... You better don´t mess with the world´s favorite aircra
50 SpeckSpot : My question is, if the 748 wing is essentially the same as the 744's wing, except for new flaps and wingtips, why should it bend more than the 744's ?
51 N328KF : I was under the impression that were were some degree of materials and design changes with the wing. Not a complete redesign, but a rejiggering to sa
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Another LH 747 Classic Update posted Wed Dec 5 2001 08:21:36 by TriStar500
BAe & Boeing/747-400X Update posted Sun Apr 9 2000 17:45:13 by DeltaAir
Information Needed Asap On 747 Factory Help Please posted Wed Mar 9 2005 21:12:51 by Bmi330
Update On Refit Of WBC 747-400's posted Wed May 5 2004 21:09:19 by Jetjack74
Qantas To Update Their B 747-300s As Well? posted Tue Jan 29 2002 04:37:26 by United Airline
SAA Fleet Information (747) posted Mon Sep 3 2001 08:08:17 by Airways
Delta 777, 747 & MD-11 Schedule Update posted Wed Feb 9 2000 03:50:02 by DeltaAir
Update - Blowing Up A 747 Live posted Thu Oct 21 1999 10:13:48 by Bruce
United's 747-400's posted Wed Nov 22 2006 17:52:40 by Qantas744ER
It Looks Like It's Goodbye To Korean Air's Pas 747 posted Wed Nov 22 2006 15:47:45 by KE086