Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747-8 Same Airport Restrictions As A380?  
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4756 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I was stunned to see in this weeks AWST that the 747-8 may have the same airport restrictions as the A380 (page 53 of the print edition and in the Time To Deliver article and http://www.aviationweek.com/search/A...01.xml&searchAction=display_result for those with on line access.)
Boeing is appranetly trying to change this but so far unsuccesfully.

Anyone know more about this issue, is the wingspan that much greater that it is now a Code F runway aircraft???

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4733 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Trex8 (Thread starter):
Anyone know more about this issue, is the wingspan that much greater that it is now a Code F runway aircraft???

I guess the 747-8 wingspan is 68.5m (vs 64.4 on a 747)(Boeing website) and Code F applies to 65-80m wingspans .

could this be one(of many reasons ) the 747-8I orders have been slow in coming in?
darn, the 747 is my favorite plane (after the 727!)


User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4672 times:

Wait a second, Boeing has stated that the 748 can go to any airport that currently serves the 744. When did this come about?

User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4523 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 2):
Wait a second, Boeing has stated that the 748 can go to any airport that currently serves the 744. When did this come about?

Marketing is one thing, truth is another...

Maybe they had planned to use the same facility as class E aircraft, but why should an exemption be made for them ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4503 times:

Well, the question is, how many airports are strictly limited to code E aircraft and the 65m wingspan? Just because there is a classification doesn't mean that there is automatically a restriction. Show me airports that regularly operate 747-400's inside of Code E boxes...and ONLY Code E, and you'll have a point. (I'm not saying there are not, I just don't know any off the top of my head.)


There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21516 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4476 times:

There are some 748i limitations.

It doesn't fit in a 744 gate. The airport planning brochure shows how to compensate for this by shifting an adjacent aircraft, but if you want to line a bunch of 748is in a row at gates, you can't do so with minimum spacing.

Also, the wingspan is wider for taxiing and such.

BUT, the engines haven't moved. So unlike the A380 which has engines overhanging grass and dirt areas, the 748i engines remain over the same asphalt/concrete that the 744 hang over.

The real question is going to be the wake. Will the longer wings and engine changes be enough to keep the wake profile low? The 744 has a slightly lower profile than the 747 classics, so it's not impossible. The noise footprint will be much smaller, either way.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4430 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
The real question is going to be the wake. Will the longer wings and engine changes be enough to keep the wake profile low? The 744 has a slightly lower profile than the 747 classics, so it's not impossible. The noise footprint will be much smaller, either way.

Well it is a bit bigger and somewhere between the 744 and the 380 must either be (yet) another category, or the break to the 380. So it seems possible it will end up in the same category as the 380.

Wings and wake seem to be a topic that remains to be explored more. There was a post a while ago on another thread on the results of radar tests on various aircraft. It would be great to see more on what the actual wake characteristics of these large planes really are (sorry to whoever it is I have forgotten, it was a great post, that much I do remember!).


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4403 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 3):
Maybe they had planned to use the same facility as class E aircraft, but why should an exemption be made for them ?

We are talking about two totally different things here. Airports rate airplanes by two different catagories, wingspan (aircraft design group, or ADG, for FAA it is ADG I-VI, ICAO it is class A-F, currently) or fuselage lenght (FAA and ICAO ARFF Index A-F, currently). The ADG is all about what size runway and taxiway safety areas need to be protected, thus this directly effects airport design. Simply put, the larger the wingspan, the larger the safety areas. ARFF Index is all about the fire fighting capability of the airport. ARFF means Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting. The assumption has always been the longer the fuselarge, the more passenger and fuel carrying capability of the aircraft. Cargo only is in this equasion if it is classified as hazardous cargo.

The new B-747-800F/I will be an ADG VI (class F) aircraft, but is currently suppose to be able to make a 90 degree turn on the same taxiway configueration as the current B-747-400/F/ER/ERF, even though it has a longer wheel base. Here the limiting factor is when and where the main landing gear wheels leave the full strenght pavement, onto the shoulders using either the judgemential oversteer method, or the cockpit over centerline method to manuver while taxiing. The B-747-800 is suppose to be able to stay on the current 75' wide taxiway system, according to what Boeing has already told airports around the world. The A-380-800, by comparison, does have a longer wheelbase and needs intersecting taxiway fillets installed on all 75' wide taxiways, in order to make a 90 degree turn. But, in this respect, simply because the wingspan of both exceeds 220', both aircraft will be classified as ADG VI, or class F aircraft.

Now when it comes to ARFF Index, the current design of the B-747-800 is still an ARFF Index E aircraft (201'-240' long), while the A-380-800 is an ARFF Index F (a new catagory) aircraft (241' +). The ARFF Index referrs to a combination of the number and types of fire trucks, amount of water, and amount of fire fighting foam initially carried to the scene of a on airport crash of this lenght of aircraft. ARFF Index also has timing requirements for the airport's fire fighters, from their normal fire stations. The FAA requires the first rescue/fire fighting capable truck to arrive within 3 minutes, and all trucks (to meet the minimum index) within 4 minutes. Additional fire fighters that arrive that exceed the ARFF Index, are not timed.

So, when comparing the B-747-800 to the A-380-800, from an airport position, they are two different classes of aircraft.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4369 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
It doesn't fit in a 744 gate. The airport planning brochure shows how to compensate for this by shifting an adjacent aircraft, but if you want to line a bunch of 748is in a row at gates, you can't do so with minimum spacing.

That actually depends on the type of aircraft the gate was designed for. Currently the maximum aircraft box is 260' X 260', but not all gates have been designed to that standard. Aircraft like the A-330-200/-300, A-340-200/-300/-500/-600, MD-11, DC-10-30/-40, all L-1011s, B-747-100/-200/-300/-400-800, B-767-300/-400, B-777-200/-300, A-350XWB-800/-900/-1000, B-787-300/-800/-900/-1000, and A-380-800/-900 are all designed to fit inside the 260' X 260' box for large wide body gates.

There are gates designed to have smaller aircraft, like the A-320 series, B-737NGs, and B-757-200/-300. There are also gates that can only handle RJs.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21516 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4295 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
That actually depends on the type of aircraft the gate was designed for.

I suggest you look at the 748 airport compatibility brochure drawings from Boeing before you correct me. Thank you.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21516 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4276 times:

Those pages have now been removed from the document, and other pages read: "... will be available soon."

This confirms all the rumors that Boeing has yet to publicly confirm. The 748i is now the same length as the 748F, and this document was revised in August.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7478brochure.pdf



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4249 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 3):
Marketing is one thing, truth is another...

Yes, to a certain extent. Saying this would be flat out misleading.

Eh, what do I know, I just work here.


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...
Funding For US Airport Mods For A380 Questioned posted Mon Jun 26 2006 21:08:12 by KarlB737
747 To Be Used As A Home In LA posted Fri Jan 13 2006 06:48:17 by Geoffthomas
Changi Airport Ready For A380 posted Tue Aug 16 2005 09:17:17 by Sq212
Lufthansa Eyes Gander As A380 Mntc Bace posted Sat Jul 16 2005 17:42:57 by JETSET
Atlanta Airport Boss: No A380 Here posted Tue Feb 1 2005 13:20:38 by N328KF
Father Of The 747 Chimes In On The A380 posted Sat Jan 22 2005 21:37:40 by ClipperHawaii
Airport Adjustments For A380 posted Mon Jan 10 2005 23:01:46 by Junior1970
CPQ And VCP - Same Airport? posted Fri May 28 2004 21:29:10 by Heinz
HNL/OGG Airport Question As Well As AQ Question. posted Sun Jan 4 2004 17:20:57 by I LOVE EWR
747's Fuel / Payload Restrictions posted Tue Feb 25 2003 01:42:08 by Qantaspower