Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Considers Lengthening 747-8I  
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 21260 times:

Flight International, 20 June 2006 by Andrew Doyle

FI is reporting that: "Boeing is studying the possibility of lengthening its 747-8 Intercontinental aircraft in response to requests from some airlines [primarily Asian carriers also evaluating the A380] for additional capacity.

The article doesn't report how much of a "stretch/lengthening" is being contemplated.

Perhaps the A350/370 design imbroglio means the basic concepts and specifications of "launched" programs will be routinely challenged by customers henceforth?

144 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 21198 times:

They may lengthen it to the length of the 747-8F. That would make sense though.


Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
User currently offlineDAL767400ER From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 21171 times:

Quoting DeltaWings (Reply 1):
They may lengthen it to the length of the 747-8F. That would make sense though.

Indeed, that would be the most logical thing to do, as that would probably also simplify production.


User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 21171 times:

Even if they lengthened it to the length of the cargo version, would it be enough? Would they have to extend the hump more?

[Edited 2006-06-19 13:34:31]


Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineSFORunner From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 20953 times:

Maybe Boeing could re-configure the "Sky Suites" area as a day care / seating area for small children. This crowd wouldn't care at all about headroom / legroom .

This would open up more space for "full sized" pax on the main deck.

 stirthepot   stirthepot   stirthepot 


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 20778 times:

Changing the length to match the size of the freighter would be logical. But how many more seats would it really add to the aircraft? What kind of CASM would it have ve the A-380 800 & 900 then??


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineZone1 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1034 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 20720 times:

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 4):
Maybe Boeing could re-configure the "Sky Suites" area as a day care / seating area for small children. This crowd wouldn't care at all about headroom / legroom .

This would open up more space for "full sized" pax on the main deck.

I don't think they can use the sky suites as seating during take off and landing. There are no exit doors in this area.



/// U N I T E D
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21417 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 20697 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 5):
Changing the length to match the size of the freighter would be logical. But how many more seats would it really add to the aircraft?

25.

Would make a standardized spec of 475.

In real world applications, you would see 410-425 seats on most 3 class carriers, with a BA having less.

But what does that do to range...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMush From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 20548 times:

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 4):
Maybe Boeing could re-configure the "Sky Suites" area as a day care / seating area for small children. This crowd wouldn't care at all about headroom / legroom .

This would open up more space for "full sized" pax on the main deck.

hahaha...also, it would get rid of the pain-in-the-butt kid that's always kicking my seat.

Would it make sense for Boeing to offer the 747 in two sizes? What I mean is should Boeing offer a 747-8i sized the same as a 747-400 and also offer a 747-8i sized as it currently is or bigger? I can't beleive that all 747-400 operators want a plane that is stretched compared to their current fleet. What other four engined choice do these operators have?

Thanks for the replies...



Sprung from cages out on highway 9
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21417 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 20461 times:

Quoting Mush (Reply 8):
What I mean is should Boeing offer a 747-8i sized the same as a 747-400 and also offer a 747-8i sized as it currently is or bigger?

It might. I thought they might do this from the start. 415 seat 747-7 and 475 seat 747-8 both with the same wing and engines and other interior enhancements.

At that point the 787/777/747 range covers: 220 seats, 260 seats, 305 seats, 360 seats, 415 seats, 475 seats...

The only issue is the CASM of the 747-7 wouldn't be so great, same as the problem they are seeing now with the 772ER compared to the 787 and 773ER.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCM767 From Panama, joined Dec 2004, 649 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 20401 times:

Quoting Mush (Reply 8):
Would it make sense for Boeing to offer the 747 in two sizes? What I mean is should Boeing offer a 747-8i sized the same as a 747-400 and also offer a 747-8i sized as it currently is or bigger? I can't believe that all 747-400 operators want a plane that is stretched compared to their current fleet. What other four engined choice do these operators have?

Thanks for the replies...

Initially I had the same fought , but I believe that Boeing promised the same operational cost for the 8I that they have with the 400. I only see a problem with lengthening the 8I , it probably would need a engine different to the 8F.

Something for sure would be that the gap between the 787-9/10 would be filled in the future with Y3, I can't wait to see the largest twin ever!

Boeing redefined the industry, and I have the strong believe that the name of the Game for now on would be called CASM, a similar version of the 8i, probable would not be as attractive because of this.



But The Best Thing God Has Created Is A New Day
User currently offlineMptpa From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 541 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 20289 times:

They will need to wait and see what the available engine choice(s) would be and the associated fuel burn. Unless they opt to go with composite structures a la B787, but this would be a huge developmental expenditure as well as tooling. The current autoclave would need to be much bigger mainly for the humped areas incl Section 41.

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 20162 times:

Quoting CM767 (Reply 10):
Initially I had the same fought , but I believe that Boeing promised the same operational cost for the 8I that they have with the 400. I only see a problem with lengthening the 8I , it probably would need a engine different to the 8F.

New engines should not be necessary unless they are planing on increasing MTOW. Airlines may want better capacity rather than range in this high fuel cost environment. But the GEnx engines for the 748 are not at the top of the thrust levels for the family so they might be able to uprate it.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 20043 times:

The question is, will there be two versions of new 747 or only just only stretched B748I ?

Probably they are not facing demand from asian customers only, but also would like to improve the operating cost with that little trick...

Never mind, that is a good idea, because it really shows two things:

1. Boeing can build a real 450-seater with comparable comfort with the A380 and B773ER in 550 and 350 config.

2. Boeing was wrong in its thinking that airplanes will be smaller in average than today on longhaul-flights.The opposite seems to be true.More and more airlines are either ordering B773ER, the bigger version of the B787 or are showing interest in airplanes like a stretched B748I.

I think that airplane could be damn interesting and could cause Airbus a huge headache...


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 19944 times:

It doesn't necessarily make sense to lengthen the B747-8I to the same length as the B747-8F. The reason is that even if they were the same length overall, the B747-8I would be longer aft of the wing and the B747-8F would be longer forward of the wing due to balance requirements.

This may be a response to Boeing's announcement that the B747-8I will have 8300nm range rather than the earlier predicted 8000nm range. Airlines in Asia may prefer to give up some range in order to lower CASM. They may also desire closer competition between the SuperJumbo and the WhaleJet in order to put more price pressure on both.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12325 posts, RR: 35
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 19517 times:

Frankly, I never could understand why they didn't do this in the first place. It always seemed a bit odd that they could stretch the freighter, not the pax acft (yes, I know it is stretched versus the -400, but not to the same extent).

The capacity gain over the -400 could be offset by larger capacity in F or J Class. It's really not a big gain at all.

A longer -8I would really make like difficult for the 380. I'm just wondering which Asian carriers are interested: CX would be one, I'm sure, possibly CI and JL.


User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 19412 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
But what does that do to range...

Wouldnt it just negate the 300nm range improvement they were talking about a month or two back? So back to 8000nm and have 25 more pax. Definately sounds good from a CASM perspective (how many more routes would be offered with that extra 300nm?)


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21417 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 19300 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 12):
But the GEnx engines for the 748 are not at the top of the thrust levels for the family so they might be able to uprate it.

True, but the GEnx engine for the 748 is not the same as the 787. It has fewer stages and a smaller fan. It still may have room to grow, and maybe Boeing is getting good results from GE that point to the ability to offer greater thrust on the engine which would also mean the F version could have greater range...

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 16):
Wouldnt it just negate the 300nm range improvement they were talking about a month or two back?

Who knows? It's not that simple. and the 8300nm range is on an awkward part of the range curve anyway, so the impact might be much steeper.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 19300 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 15):
A longer -8I would really make like difficult for the 380.

The maximum possible stretch to the B747-8I that would still fit in the 80x80 box would be another 11 frames (220 inches). Most likely 5 forward and 6 after the wing. That would have a cabin floor area of about 460 sq meters. For comparison:
B747-400: 372.0
B747-8I: 406.8
A380-800: 552.5

So, a maximally stretched SuperJumbo would be almost exactly midsize between the current JumboJet and the WhaleJet. To cope with the greater MTOW, the larger fanned engines from the B787 might be needed but, even still, CASM would be lower than with the B747-8I. Could it beat the B787-10 in CASM? Maybe.


User currently offlineCXB744 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 19189 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter):
Perhaps the A350/370 design imbroglio means the basic concepts and specifications of "launched" programs will be routinely challenged by customers henceforth?

This has been happening, at Boeing, since the B777 program began back in the late 80's. They call it "Working Together."



What is it? It's A 747-400, but that's not important right now.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12064 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 19099 times:

I wonder if the stretch would also increase interest from BA, NW, UA, LH, VS, and AF?

Decreasing the range from 8300nm to 8000nm, with an increase in 25 (or so) seats might not make sense, as this puts it at exactly the same range as the Whale-Jet.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
It doesn't necessarily make sense to lengthen the B747-8I to the same length as the B747-8F. The reason is that even if they were the same length overall, the B747-8I would be longer aft of the wing and the B747-8F would be longer forward of the wing due to balance requirements.

No, it does make sense, both from a design/engineering and production position. BTW, the wing will be in the same location on both the "I" and "F" versions. Designing the wing location in different positions for both versions would be very expensive. It may be cheaper just to design a new airplane all together.

Bring the seating capacity up to 475 makes the B-747-800I much closer to the A-380-800. It could cause some future A-380 customers to consider the B-747 as a cheaper, more fuel effecient altermitive.


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 18925 times:

Quoting CXB744 (Reply 19):
They call it "Working Together."

My impression was that the "working together" part was, for the most part, to take place before "launch," to avoid costly and time-consuming "rethinks?"


User currently offlineMush From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 18719 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
It might. I thought they might do this from the start.



Quoting CM767 (Reply 10):
Initially I had the same fought ,

Thanks for the replies, seems like a couple of us were thinking the same thing...Great minds think alike  Wink

Quoting Mptpa (Reply 11):
They will need to wait and see what the available engine choice(s) would be and the associated fuel burn. Unless they opt to go with composite structures a la B787, but this would be a huge developmental expenditure as well as tooling. The current autoclave would need to be much bigger mainly for the humped areas incl Section 41

Would it make sense to change the wings and certain structural members from aluminum to composite? This would negate the need to develope bigger autoclaves... Also, would the new wing need to undergo static testing? And would this testing make it cost prohibitive to switch to composites?

Thanks for the replies and patience with all of my questions...

mush



Sprung from cages out on highway 9
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1546 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 18444 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
Bring the seating capacity up to 475 makes the B-747-800I much closer to the A-380-800. It could cause some future A-380 customers to consider the B-747 as a cheaper, more fuel effecient altermitive.

Maybe cheaper but i highly doubt it will be more fuel efficient thats wishful thinking.
Imo if they stretch it more the plane will have a higher ZFW and no way it can outperform the a380 in terms of casm.   
Btw i would prefer more spacious A380 then a cramped flight on 747-8 every day.
Thats natural only an opinion  

[Edited 2006-06-19 20:27:05]

[Edited 2006-06-19 20:29:49]


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 18444 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
No, it does make sense, both from a design/engineering and production position. BTW, the wing will be in the same location on both the "I" and "F" versions. Designing the wing location in different positions for both versions would be very expensive. It may be cheaper just to design a new airplane all together.

Sorry, no. The center of gravity needs to be very close to the center of lift. Because the I version has the long hump and the F version has the short hump (without any payload up there), the F version is relatively longer before the wing and the I version is relatively longer after the wing. Production considerations must give way to airworthiness.  Wink


25 Tod : And the further aft of the wing you go, the more tailstrike becomes an issue. Tod
26 Ikramerica : But might they stretch the 748i so there is an identical wheel base? Would that decrease design costs? That would be 7 ft 4in more length of the 748i
27 Tod : Not really. Tod
28 Post contains links Leelaw : The full text of the FI article in now available online: "Boeing considers lengthening 747-8I" http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...+considers+lengt
29 SunriseValley : For some Asian carriers should this change be considered in the context of a 2-class configuration ?
30 Steeler83 : I think that a longer 747-8i would be a better competitor to the A380 than the original 748i design. It won't have quite as many pax as the A380, but
31 Lnglive1011yyz : Wow.. sounds cool.. Some observations: 1) As noted by someone early on in the thread, the design concepts of launched programs seem to be dictated mor
32 Post contains images MCIGuy : Now that's the first time I've heard anyone describe a trip on a 747 of any kind as "cramped".
33 JAAlbert : In other words . . . . Don't count on any orders for the 748-I anytime soon
34 MCIGuy : I did think that, but now I don't know. Maybe the decision has already been made and we'll get a surprise next month.(?)
35 Adria : So it looks like Boeing is doing the same Airbus did with the A350/A370. Considering the fact no one ordered the pax version(obviously CASM is not so
36 PlaneHunter : Closer competition? What has happened to the so-often claimed CASM advantage of the B747-8? PH
37 DfwRevolution : The difference being the A350/A370 is losing ground to the 787 on a daily basis while nearly all potential 747-8 customers are in observation mode. N
38 Adria : Yes so are the A380 potential customers. But fact is that compared to the 787 the 748 has no yet won a single battle in a segment where there is no c
39 Post contains links Keesje : I think this is a good idea & even suggested this modification 8 months ago (before launch): B747 Adv Passenger, Should Boeing Adjust Design? http://w
40 Singapore_Air : What all this means is another few months of expletive delays, this time for the 748I. Who knew that Airbus and Boeing could be so slow.
41 PlaneHunter : That remains to be proven...and my question was rather rhetoric, btw. Oh, I know well CASM alone doesn't matter - but certain members seem to be conv
42 Atmx2000 : Keesjie-weejie, I didn't say anything about your 747 proposal in that thread. I only commented on your implication that the increased capacity of the
43 Keesje : I think the 450 seat B747-8i vs 555 seat A380-800 comparison cannot be taken serious by people that look at the numbers like Boeing product developme
44 Ikramerica : There's no delay in the 748F as it is so far on schedule, and there's no delay in the 748i since nobody has any contracts signed for any specific dat
45 KC135TopBoom : After a max gross TO weight, the current B-747-400 burns some 20,000lbs to 22,000lbs of fuel per hour. The A-380, under the same conditions burns som
46 DfwRevolution : Nor has it lost a battle... so comparisons to the A350 are invalid. There is a single 747-8I customer... However, you cannot assume that the 748I has
47 KC135TopBoom : There is no airline schedule (that I know of) for the EIS of the B-747-800I, so there is no delay. As far as I know, the design for the B-747-800I is
48 AvObserver : Almost needless to say, again, as Planehunter reminded us, this remains to be seen. I remember and agree with you, even given a small range penalty.
49 Post contains images DfwRevolution : Actually... the 747-8I hasn't been launched yet
50 Zkpilot : I think its an excellent idea to have a common size for the aircraft and to make the passenger version just that little bit longer than the current 74
51 Zvezda : My recollections are: a) the B747-400 and B747-400F are indentical in length, b) the B747-8I adds 80 inches before and 60 inches after the wing, c) t
52 AirFrnt : I will assume you have just not read my posts on most of the 747-8i topics. I have been a very outspoken opponent of this program, mentioned in the t
53 PlaneHunter : That's a convincing beginning of a fair-tale, but that's all. The "commercial environment" is not the same everywhere. PH
54 Post contains images Brendows : No, and that won't happen for some time (I guess it will be firmed up next year.) No, that won't happen until October (if everything goes as planned.
55 Singapore_Air : I agree about your points about no customers, however it's better to shfit a target forward than back. Airlines need this aircraft now.
56 Post contains images Johnny : @Zkpilot "On a LAX-LHR flight for example the trip time could be 30 minutes less in a 747..." It is the first time a hear that the B748I will be faste
57 ComeAndGo : No ! They said - Make it in Japan !
58 ZSOFN : I'd bet my house (if I had one) that BA are working closely with Boeing on this proposal and have more than likely been the clearest voice out of tho
59 Post contains links Zkpilot : "Long range cruising speed M 0.85" for the A380 http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=29 right off A.net a/c stats. Ok so its not as much of a
60 Post contains images Tod : This has me a bit confused. If STA 0.0 was 240 inches forward of the plane, then wouldn't STA 240 be at the tip of the plane? Just taking a gander at
61 DeltaDC9 : Boeing planes usually have higher cruising speeds and weaker takeoff performance, Airbus usually is the opposite. Never have I heard the 747 would ce
62 Tod : That is why airlines such as QF and KE have included "social zones" in there interior configurations. Tod
63 CM767 : I am one, and for me here is why: DeltaDC9 calls it downsizing, I call it follow the lower CASM even if you have lower your capacity.
64 PlaneHunter : That's no general rule for any carrier. PH
65 DeltaDC9 : It is also adding frequency and flexability.
66 DfwRevolution : Johnny, the 747-8 has always had a projected cruise speed slightly higher than the A388. You're figures are incorrect... it is most definitly not slo
67 PlaneHunter : Where it's possible, yes. PH
68 Keesje : The 35% is useable floor space, absolute floor space is about 45% larger. And don´t fool yourself all floor space on the 747´s is useable..
69 Post contains images Tod : Just ask Corsair Tod
70 Rheinbote : As the A380 is far from being all crap and performance turned out to be better than expected during flight testing, word is that it might cruise at M
71 Steeler83 : Yet, I believe that on some A380 ad site it said that the A380 would do a JFK-LHR flight some 40 minutes quicker than the 748... or were they compari
72 ODwyerPW : Let's see a photoshop of the 747-8i with the 747-8f fuselage.
73 Ikramerica : I thought Airbus bumped it up to .855 and their was PR about this. One reason the 748 will cruise at .86...
74 Trex8 : won't a lengthened 748I need changes to the wing or tail that would make it distinct structurally from the 748F and cost $$??? wish someone would buy
75 Glacote : Thank you for this claim. I guess it might be useful on other topics discussing other, smaller airplanes in permanent redesign...
76 DfwRevolution : Then there's no way that ad was based in fact.. On a route as short as JFK-LHR, shaving 40 minutes would require a substantial improvement in cruise
77 Zkpilot : Thats a load of bull... considering that the 744 and the 748 both have a higher cruise speed than the A380... Airbus has always made slow planes... t
78 Post contains images WingedMigrator : I remember this as well. It'll even do 0.96 if you've got gas to guzzle The difference in cruise speeds is 0.005 Mach, or in more conventional terms,
79 Zvezda : No. The wing wouldn't change at all as a result of a change to length. The tail surfaces could be made smaller (and thus reduce drag a bit) but it wo
80 BoomBoom : So far this is just happy talk from Airbus, they have provided no proof, no solid data more than one year after the A380s first flight. Makes you won
81 Adria : well airlines didn't order so they have to change something. And where is the point-to-point PR anyway... at first they say no hub to hub but now the
82 Post contains images PlaneHunter : What would be point of publishing any figures - you would question them anyway. PH
83 Post contains links SunriseValley : Correct ! The answer is more likely to be found in the actions of the future operators. There have been a number of threads on the subject . One of t
84 PolymerPlane : 747-8 flies 8270nm with 450 seats on it, while the 555 seats A380-800 can only fly 8000nm. Even though it has smaller floor area, the comparison is v
85 Post contains images Ikramerica : Keesje does not care about these facts. He has shown this in the past. Sure, 475/375 is only 127% and 500/382 is 131%, he'll insist that the 133% num
86 Post contains images Zvezda : Airlines haven't ordered any WhaleJets either during the same period, so we cannot deduce anything about the relative preference yet. All we can say
87 Post contains images Johnny : it is all just speculation from us how much seats fit in a B748 and how much in a A388. Just wait until an airline has ordered both - then we can comp
88 Post contains images Zvezda : Yes, I agree, though I caution that such an airline may choose to operate the different VLAs on different routes representing different sorts of mark
89 Post contains images Johnny : Have to agree with LH.The new idea of stretching the B748I puts in really in the middle of A346 and A388. Could be a good option in combo with the -8F
90 Columba : Farnborough will be interesting..............
91 Keesje : Reality & PP basicly are basicly confirming my estimations. So now for Ikramerica outright lies (145%?!) have now become neccesary to discredit them.
92 F14ATomcat : And Airbus was wrong when they projected the the A-380 to be the fastest selling plane in history. I don't think you find either manufacturer quoted
93 Ken777 : I think that Boeing can take a somewhat relaxed stance with the 748i sales - the plane is basically a replacement for the 744. Orders will flow in as
94 Post contains links Leelaw : Boeing is coming under growing pressure to boost capacity on the 747-8 Intercontinental by two seat rows as airlines start to look at it as a possible
95 Trex8 : will they increase MTOW to maintain the same range as the original proposal or let that drop to allow the increased capacity/weights? anyone know how
96 Zvezda : That doesn't seem to have been decided yet. It depends on when and at what development cost. Yes. However, I expect there is enough space under the S
97 Aither : Ah Ah that's the other way around now ! Airbus was accused the same way of not believing in "point to point" because they were building the A380.
98 Zvezda : ... and that was equally false. Two wrongs don't make a right.
99 Post contains links NYC777 : ATW Online (Geoff Thomas) is reporting this morning that Boeing is looking to add 50 more seats to the standard 3 class seating of the 747-8. 20 will
100 DeltaDC9 : This is VERY interesting! It would seem that the 748 is evolving into something that may rival the success of the 744 relatively speaking.
101 Zvezda : Moving a galley into the crown -- even just galley carts -- adds a lot of weight. Might still be a good move, but the weight should not be overlooked.
102 CM767 : I do believe that Boeing would make a mistake on increasing the size of 8i, it seems to me that Airlines are playing Boeing into building a plane tha
103 NYC777 : Thing is development costs of the 478I are small (actually tiny) compared to that of the A380. Boeing can more than breakeven on a 500 pax 748I befor
104 Zvezda : Galley carts are very heavy. A very strong (heavy) floor would need to be installed.
105 NYC777 : Ok so they would have to reinforce the floor of the crown area. Were they going to have to do that given the proposed use for the crown areea that Boe
106 Post contains links NorCal : Did any one catch this blurb from the same article? "The company also is well underway with trade studies that may see the Intercontinental with the s
107 Zvezda : This has no effect on MTOW. It has an effect on OEW. I believe you are correct, it must be a typo.
108 Post contains images Boeing nut : So does 50 people!!
109 Stitch : If the 748I does end up with a lower CASM then the A380, I would think this could help support such a "two fleet" scenario. The A380 with it's greate
110 SunriseValley : But would all potential buyers of the type need this upgrade? Not likely.Would Boeing offer two versions?
111 Post contains images Ikramerica : Maybe Boeing will have to go back to my (and theirs, and other peoples') idea of two 747 sizes. One with the current fuselage at 420 seats, and one wi
112 Zvezda : Certainly not. All probably buyers? Maybe. Maybe. Recall the B747-500X/600X proposals.
113 SunriseValley : From the publication, they confirm that it is a typo.
114 DreamsUnited : Why would they need to stretch it? That seems stupid, Boeing has been king of the long range aircraft forever and I don't see why they need to stretch
115 Zvezda : No. The A340-500 was the long-range king from its EIS to that of the B777-200LR.
116 DreamsUnited : I didn't mean it that way, I was asking why they are stretching a product that they already have ridden circles around the A-380 fuel wise for? They
117 Zvezda : First, I don't think it's clear that Boeing will stretch the SuperJumbo beyond the original plan of 7 frames over the current JumboJet. There are jus
118 DreamsUnited : touche
119 Art : Or airlines are waiting to see how the newest VLA actually performs and what the 748-I turns out to be? Excuse my ignorance but is it practical to ha
120 Trex8 : DC10s and L1011s were I believe the first to have such.
121 Ikramerica : Absolutely. Not a new concept. You put the storage and prep facilities on another deck, and the service facilities can be smaller. There are elevator
122 Stitch : That is how I see it. I understand 773ER orders continue to steam ahead, which does impact the need for VLAs a bit, but the largest A380 customers (E
123 CM767 : Could composites be used to lighten this floor?, the 777 already uses composite materials on the floor beams of the passenger cabin.
124 Zvezda : Of course composite floor beams would be used, but they would add a lot of weight relative to not having a floor in the crown.
125 CM767 : Not having a floor on the crown also means that you will not have the space for 30 extra passengers, theoretically the galley on the crown makes room
126 Zvezda : CM767, I agree that moving a Y galley and galley cart storage to the crown in order to free up space for passenger seating would weigh less than stret
127 JayinKitsap : A bar/snack bar/gift shop/travel office. Also besides for the std lavs, a bit more premium lav where you could change/sponge bath etc for a small (lik
128 Zvezda : Probably too heavy. Also, it would be expensive to collect fees and figure out who's next, etc. I don't think we'll see an onboard gym. People can go
129 Art : I'm very suspicious about these figures. At 400 pax for a 744 and 555 pax for an A380, the existing 744 burns 15% less fuel per pax according to thes
130 Zvezda : My suspicion is that they only apply to cruise, not to climb. Airbus wings are more optimized for efficient climb. Boeing wings are more optimized fo
131 Art : You think that $US10+ billion was committed to building an aircraft "pour la gloire de l'Europe" (to use an expression that I have not heard in Franc
132 Post contains images Zvezda : I think your second description is much more likely to be true than your first. Well put.
133 Stitch : Perhaps because some of the A380's business case was that slot restrictions would not allow two more efficient planes to fly the route, so one less-e
134 Zvezda : Right, but with oil at $70/bbl, it's relatively cheaper to buy another slot.
135 PlaneHunter : Which of the restricted longhaul carriers have done so in order to increase frequencies? PH
136 Stitch : BA bought a few from UA, and VS has recently leased a few from UA. UA still has a few extras they could get rid of (JFK-LHR, for example, and one of
137 Zvezda : Loads of slots have been changing hands at LHR recently. In addition to those mentioned by Stitch, I seem to recall that BD have been giving up slots
138 SunriseValley : I believe NZ probably got one of these.
139 Tod : Carts would create floor loads much higher than pax. Not enough headroom for much stand up area above door 4. Further forward you would have to both
140 Zvezda : Isn't that ducting near door 3? Probably one lift accomodating two carts.
141 Post contains links CM767 : Quoting Tod (Reply 139): Also, how many cart lifts would be required to avoid hampering inflight service? That's more lost floor space that could be u
142 Tod : Yep and that unfortuately is the only other lowered ceiling area where you might get headroom without giving up main deck center stow bins. If the ca
143 Zvezda : I was assuming that there would need to be smaller center stow bins. I imagined a stepped down aisle like on most bizjets. Is that not the plan?
144 Tod : You can replace the center bins with blanks that match the profile of the bins. Boeing already does that for some 744 to accomidate the door 5 overhe
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...
Boeing Considers A New 747 Niche posted Wed Nov 17 2004 14:03:57 by Nyc777
Article: Boeing Considers New 747 Model _ Again posted Sat May 15 2004 22:05:35 by Psa188
Boeing 747-8I Operating Empty Weight posted Sun Nov 12 2006 15:18:58 by TomB
Boeing Sees No Interest In 747-8I Upper Deck Sleep posted Tue Oct 31 2006 20:21:24 by NYC777
Qantas, Airbus A380 Delays & The Boeing 747-8i posted Wed Aug 9 2006 21:09:47 by Keesje
Boeing Considers Options For 747-8 posted Sun Jun 4 2006 20:20:53 by Leelaw
747-8I May Go On Diet First posted Mon Nov 13 2006 07:05:41 by Jimyvr
Boeing Completes Firm 747-8F Configuration posted Tue Oct 31 2006 09:22:44 by PanAm_DC10
BBJ Orders 747-8I And 787-9 posted Mon Oct 9 2006 02:39:22 by AeroplaneFreak
Any 'Crown Space' Use On Revised 747-8I? posted Sat Sep 30 2006 01:22:30 by JAM747