Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747-8 And 747-600  
User currently offlineSpeedmarque From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 684 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 22709 times:

Hi

Was remembering the never-biult 747-600 model I saw at Farnborough a few years back and was wondering if the new-size 747-8 is as long?

Cheers

66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHeliflyerPDC From Belgium, joined Sep 2006, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 22631 times:

do you have more details about the 747-600. (that way its easier to compare the 2 models)  Wink

grtz PDC



grtz PDC
User currently offlineSpeedmarque From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 22458 times:

No I dont I'm afraid. Just remember it looking like a really long -400. Sorry.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 22330 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Speedmarque (Thread starter):
Was remembering the never-built 747-600 model I saw at Farnborough a few years back and was wondering if the new-size 747-8 is as long?


I do not believe Boeing ever formally defined the dimensions of the 747-600X or 747-500X. The closest I can find is the 747-X Stretch of 2000, which was planned to be 242.5 ft in length with a wingspan of 240ft. It was to hold 525 passengers.

The 747-8I is 250.75 ft with a 224.5ft wingspan.

[Edited 2007-01-02 14:09:38]

User currently offlineHarrisAir From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 59 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 22264 times:

Quoting HeliflyerPDC (Reply 1):
do you have more details about the 747-600. (that way its easier to compare the 2 models)

B747-600 Preliminary length 278' 11" (85.01m) wingspan 255' (77.72m)

source
Burns and McDonnell - Aircraft Characteristics - 7th Edition

harris


User currently offlineTriple Seven From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 530 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 22170 times:

The 747-600X was to measure 85m in length and feature new wing based on the 777. MH signed an order for 10 -600X and 5 -500X in 1996 but Boeing preferred a blue chip carrier (no one showed interest) and thus does not constitute a launch order.

Main features of interest for 500X/600X:
- New wing of 777 design - less swept
- 6 wheel truck for outer main landing gear
- 4 wheel nose gear
- Taller vertical fin - like SP
- 777-like flight deck
- RR or GP powerplant
- Brand new horizontal tail-plane

The -500X/-600X was far more capable (riskier/costlier too) than the current 748i.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 22093 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks, HarrisAir. That's a nifty sourcebook and now I can finally get the stats for the 747-500X and 747-600X to go with the stats I have for the 747-X and 747-X Stretch.  thumbsup 

User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 21659 times:

Here is some data I've collected over the years. These may not be exact or final for the -500X/600X and 747X/Stretch programs as their specs varied over time. The "747-7I" is the original shorter -8I model:


 747-400747-400ER747-7I747-8I747-500X747-600X747X747X Stretch
Pax (3-class)416416450467462548430522
Range7,260 nm7,670 nm8,300 nm8,000 nm8,700 nm7,750 nm8,975 nm7,600 nm
MTOW875,000 lbs.910,000 lbs.970,000 lbs.970,000 lbs.1,166,000 lbs.1,186,000 lbs.1,043,000 lbs.1,043,000 lbs.
Length231 ft. 10 in.231 ft. 10 in.244 ft. 1 in.250 ft. 8 in.250 ft.279 ft.213 ft. 10 in.263 ft.
Span213 ft.213 ft.224 ft. 7 in.224 ft. 7 in.251 ft.251 ft.229 ft.229 ft


--B2707SST

[Edited 2007-01-02 17:56:53]


Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently onlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1244 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 21643 times:

Does anyone have any pics of this proposed 746? I can't imagine what this would look like?


Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineShamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6331 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 21619 times:

The 747X and 747XF


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21499 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 21567 times:

So it was actually the 745 that is similar in length to the 748i. Notice how the 745 was nearly 200klbs heavier at MTOW to go 700nm further, and had a longer wingspan that would require A380 style airport redesigns.

No wonder it was hard to sell...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 21516 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
So it was actually the 745 that is similar in length to the 748i. Notice how the 745 was nearly 200klbs heavier at MTOW to go 700nm further, and had a longer wingspan that would require A380 style airport redesigns.

At Boeing's initial press release at Farnborough 1996, the range of the 747-600X was given as 8,900nm and the 747-500X had a range in excess of 10,000nm, so I imagine as those designs firmed-up, the ranges came down for both models.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21499 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 21494 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
so I imagine as those designs firmed-up, the ranges came down for both models.

Yep, reality is a bitch...  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offline747727 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 21420 times:

Such a shame they didn't do the 747x I would love to have had a much bigger 380 beating 747.

User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2366 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 20294 times:

This is from Guy Norris's and Mark Wagner's book, Modern Boeing Jetliners

http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...6610&filename=1167767609HVZJIO.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...6610&filename=1167767071wMgamC.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...6610&filename=1167766845G3lNxl.jpg

Shows the 747-400X, 747-400Y, 747-500X, 747-600X, and 747-700X side by side with the 747-400.

[Edited 2007-01-02 21:03:59]

User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 20205 times:

Quoting Shamrock350 (Reply 9):
The 747X and 747XF

Those look like the wings and tailplane from the 747... 37.5 degree sweep, as opposed to the roughly 32 degrees of the 777 wing.

I think when all is said and done, 748i will be the most efficient solution for 747.. if something else would have worked better, they would have done it.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 20040 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 15):
I think when all is said and done, 748i will be the most efficient solution for 747.. if something else would have worked better, they would have done it.

Yes... only thing that will match/exceed that is the 747-9i down the road.  Wink



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 19662 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 15):
Those look like the wings and tailplane from the 747... 37.5 degree sweep, as opposed to the roughly 32 degrees of the 777 wing.

The 747-500X/600X would have had a brand-new wing derived from the 777, which by itself was going to cost billions to develop and build. The 747X/Stretch program was more conservative with a reprofiled wing built on the existing structural frame, similar to what the 747-8 will have.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 15):
I think when all is said and done, 748i will be the most efficient solution for 747.. if something else would have worked better, they would have done it.

True, but the big difference now is the availability of 787 engines. If Boeing had had those powerplants in hand ten years ago, the 747-500X/600X would be ruling the skies today.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineBrettFromCLT From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 19413 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 14):
This is from Guy Norris's and Mark Wagner's book, Modern Boeing Jetliners

http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...6610&filename=1167767609HVZJIO.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...6610&filename=1167767071wMgamC.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...6610&filename=1167766845G3lNxl.jpg

Shows the 747-400X, 747-400Y, 747-500X, 747-600X, and 747-700X side by side with the 747-400.

Re: those pictures - nice! Looks like the 747-700X would have been a stretch and a widen? Cool.

Brett


User currently offlineBeech19 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 936 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 19302 times:

Quoting BrettFromCLT (Reply 18):
Looks like the 747-700X would have been a stretch and a widen? Cool.

The 747-700X was in fact a 100% completey new aircraft. Taking aspects of the 747 (over all styling) and the basic wing from the 777 (modied to be MUCH larger) and using basically 4 x GE-90 size motors...

It only looks like a 747... it would have been a new model.



KPAE via KBVY
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30855 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 19300 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BrettFromCLT (Reply 18):
Looks like the 747-700X would have been a stretch and a widen? Cool.

Yes. It was designed to hold 650 people and would have had a fuselage wider then the current 747 family. It would have retained the existing wing, systems, engines, struts and landing gear of the 747 family and had a design range equal to the 747-400.


User currently offlineCJAContinental From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 19274 times:

Do you think it would be better for Boeing if they offered an 80 metre version of the 747-8 as well, that would surely hurt the A380 program.


Work Hard/Fly Right.
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 17861 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 17):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 15):
I think when all is said and done, 748i will be the most efficient solution for 747.. if something else would have worked better, they would have done it.

True, but the big difference now is the availability of 787 engines. If Boeing had had those powerplants in hand ten years ago, the 747-500X/600X would be ruling the skies today.

I don't know, Airbus seems to have built a ground up aircraft in this size class, using what were the most advanced turbofans available, and which are the closest thing to GEnx levels of efficiency currently, and it is hardly ruling the skies, delays or not.

I simply don't think there is the largest market for aircraft of such size. I think airlines who are not tightly slot controlled in their hubs will follow the model of the american airlines in offering greater frequencies and more city connection pairs, as opposed to just running larger and larger aircraft between their hub and other major centers.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21499 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 17358 times:

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 21):
Do you think it would be better for Boeing if they offered an 80 metre version of the 747-8 as well, that would surely hurt the A380 program.

No, because it wouldn't fit at current gates due to length.

Part of the selling point of the 748i is it is no longer than the longest planes for sale now (77W and 346) and only 6ft wider per side than the 744, so it can operate from most existing airports with only very moderate tweaking of each pair of 744 gates (no rebuilding), assuming those gates are long enough to hold the 346 and 77W (some aren't).

The Boeing planning document used to have a diagram (can't find it now) that explains a basic way of fitting the 748i in existing gates with 787s, but I'll take it one step further below to make operations less restricted (in my design, any plane can go anywhere except 2 748i next to each other in the same gate "pair"...)

Taking one 744 gate and drawing a 748i box 12ft wider (to the right) and taxi line 6ft off center from the "212ft" wingspan aircraft (744+77W/L+345/6) line to right for the "225ft" 748i and a line 6ft off center to the left for the "200ft" aircraft (772ER+777A+330+342/3+788/9), and doing the same thing in a mirror image on the gate to the right.

Airports would then routinely park 185ft to 200ft aircraft on the 200ft line, 212ft aircraft (+185ft and smaller birds) on the 212ft line, and the 748i on the 225ft line. You'd draw the areas in 3 different color/patterns to prevent mistakes, but it is one of the main reasons that the 748 was limited to 225ft during this design process (as opposed to the 745/6/X designs with wider wingspans). It's also why the 77W/77L are 212ft birds, to fit in existing 744 boxes.

The A380 can't be fit this way in general because it's wingspan is so much greater, you can't shift it enough at most airports and still have the jetways reach. You must shift gates to either side and limit the aircraft to 175 ft, or spread the gates out more and decrease spacing at the terminal, or put them on the corners where there is more room.

And there will be some gates at some airports where the jetways will need to be modified to accomodate the 748i, but it would be as simple as relocating the "withdrawn" safety box for the jetway in most cases. If there is a gate that would involve major construction, the airport could designate it 212ft only, and skip it in the sequencing.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1244 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 17242 times:

That 700X has one blunt ass nose! Those are some incredible models.


Sic 'em bears
25 Deputydawghere : Hey bud, you and zvezda are always good information sources. Thanks
26 Thrust : To be honest I'm shocked Boeing never considered stretching the 747 before the A380 was even announced. They only had 27 years to think about it....su
27 Stitch : The 747-500X and 747-600X preceded the bulk of the A3XX program, which Airbus was just starting serious work on. However, the "Asian Economic Flu" hu
28 Ikramerica : Part of the problem was wingspan. The proposals always had an A380 type span, and that was problematic (still is). Even the 748i has a stretched wing
29 Beech19 : Not completly true... The current and ordered 748i design is over 8ft longer than a 773 and about 5ft longer than a A346. So your logic is slightly f
30 ERAUgrad02 : Im sure noone knows but will the MTOW of the 747-8i warrant it having a set of tripple boggie main gear?
31 Beech19 : Many of us know. And no it won't. It will just need to be strengthened but no more wheels need to be added.
32 Tsnamm : The 747-700X proposal is fantastic...perhaps Boeing may reconsider the project in light of the obvious market desire of such large aircraft(ie the A38
33 Zvezda : Airlines are far more concerned about operating economics per passenger than they are about the amount of cabin space. There are rumblings of a possi
34 Stitch : So far, the market hasn't been very obvious in it's desire with only 156 A380 and 36 747 (744 and 748I) sales after seven year's worth of active mark
35 N328KF : Clearly being 160+ sales over 7 years versus 80 sales over 1 year? I'm not so sure that's "clear."
36 Stitch : "Clear" in that in every competition between a 500+ seat 747 proposal and the A3XX or A380, the A380 has won each of those RFPs. The closest Boeing c
37 FlyDreamliner : They considered it on a number of different occasions, McDonnell Douglas designed MD-12, which is very similar in concept to A380, no airlines ever w
38 Beech19 : It does require a new wing... it would be using the wing from the A380F which honestly looks like a dud.
39 Zvezda : Neither a 747-9 nor an A380-900 would require a new wing, but both would require strengthening of the wing.
40 Ikramerica : But the 748i design as proposed by Boeing was NOT longer than these aircraft. The F model was, but the F model did not have to fit at gates. It is on
41 Beech19 : Um... last time i checked the A380F was using a different wing than the A380 and the A389 would be using the F wing. Made out of different material,
42 Zvezda : Aerodynamically, I understand it's the same wing, no? Of course it has to be stronger.
43 Post contains images Khobar : Everything depends on ROI - so far there doesn't appear to be a huge market for the A380, and given the headstart of the A380, I doubt any such Boein
44 AA777223 : I think this is unlikely as the A388 wing was designed to be oversized, and over engineered, so that a stretch could be made with out major redesign.
45 Zvezda : That's total cabin floor area. I'll let others argue about what is useable and what is not.
46 Beech19 : Oh yes... that is correct. The aerodynamics are the same... i guess its the same "wing" different version.
47 TeamAmerica : The A380 wing was sized to handle the 650 metric ton MTOW of the -900. The -800 version is a weaker/lighter version of the design, with a strengthened
48 Post contains images Beech19 : Oh the cruel irony... "One hit Wonder WhaleJet".
49 Zvezda : It's really a shame. If Airbus had engineered the WhaleJet for its original size, it would be much lighter in weight and the operating economics woul
50 Khobar : Eh? Just as the airlines have told Boeing what they prefer (in the case of the 748i, the majority of serious airlines wanted the larger version), the
51 Zvezda : It seems so. I meant the size of the model now in production. It could have been built with a smaller wing and a lot less weight. Instead, it was ove
52 Stitch : But Airbus intentionally followed that track, did they not? They expected to make a longer model and a freighter model and a long-range model so they
53 Zvezda : Yes, it was intentional but, in retrospect, it appears to have been a serious mistake.
54 Stitch : But would a smaller plane have fared as well? Boeing certainly had the credibility amongst airlines when it came to building VLAs, and I wonder if Ai
55 Zvezda : With the same size fuselage and passenger capacity, Airbus could have used a smaller wing, smaller empennage, and saved at least 10,000 lbs. Probably
56 Ikramerica : He's not talking about a smaller plane. He's talking about the current size A388, but with wings that are designed for the A388LR MTOW and nothing mo
57 Post contains images Stitch : Well that would drop OEW 2% which is something, but I'm still a bit skeptical this would have dramatically improved the A388's operating numbers... C
58 Zvezda : A 2% difference in weight is the difference between profit and loss on many flights. Perhaps even most flights, though I doubt that. Certainly not on
59 Ikramerica : I know what they were thinking, and come 2020, we will start to see a trend toward larger planes if the world hasn't sunk into a dark ages brought on
60 Stitch : True, though I'm more inclined to agree with the person (Zvezda?) who noted that RLA's more generous terms allowed Airbus to pursue more riskier proj
61 Ikramerica : Oh, absolutely. I think it's both: they had a proven record up the that point, or so it seemed. So they could ask for the moon and get it. But since
62 Tsnamm : I was considering the widening of taxiways,greater tarmac space for wing tip spacing...bridge strengthning , more so than jetways which are the least
63 Zvezda : In 1998, a jetway cost $50K.
64 Post contains images Kaitak744 : All the runway, taxiway, and tarmac pavement costs more. A little note about using A380 gates: A380 gates don't always have to be A380 or 747. In Lon
65 Ikramerica : I expected it to be more. 5 flights a day, that's $27 a flight. Probably $35 now, to pay off a new jetway in one year. And I agree that the 3 jetway
66 Kaitak744 : Well, If you have 3 jetways, you can board and unboard faster. When you do so, you can handle more flights per day at that gate, thus spreading the c
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...
747-8I Best Fit Above 777-300ER And A340-600 posted Mon Dec 4 2006 09:28:03 by Eureka
747 - Trent 600 posted Tue Jan 15 2002 00:37:39 by Vinovalentino
747x Is New 747-500/600? posted Mon Feb 19 2001 21:50:27 by Sm92
747x/747x-stretch: Same As 747-500/600 Plans? posted Fri Jul 28 2000 17:29:02 by Surf
A318 And 737-600 Popularity posted Sat Jul 29 2006 05:54:25 by COERJ
AA Replacement For The MD80's And A300-600. posted Sat Oct 8 2005 10:08:14 by CV990
Air France And A340-600.Why Not? posted Mon Feb 23 2004 10:10:30 by Anxebla
AF And 340-600 posted Wed Jul 9 2003 10:36:37 by Jobalas
JFK Concord And A340-600 Sched posted Sun May 11 2003 18:45:15 by YWG
A340-500 And A340-600 posted Mon Sep 23 2002 02:26:01 by EGFF