Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747-8I First Flight Points To 3/20  
User currently offlineIAD787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 502 posts, RR: 44
Posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10537 times:

Hey guys,

Looks like Boeing is closing in on a first flight date for RC001 on or around March 20, just 11 days from now.

Flight line gauntlet and taxi testing still coming.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ith-first-engine-start-747-8i.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...march-for-747-8i-first-flight.html

Onward,

IAD787


Former FlightBlogger turned Wall Street Journal Aerospace Beat Reporter
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinejayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1027 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10070 times:

Great News! Hope they dont keep pushing the dates like they did for the 787.


Keep flying, because the sky is no limit!
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9903 times:

Thanks for the heads up! Ten days left.   

I hope there will be many pictures from those who are lucky enough to be there, IAD787  

If Boeing is able to get the 747-8i so quick into the skies, they might be able to pull off certifying three aeroplanes in one year.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9637 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Thanks for the news! Looking forward to the first flight. I hope I can see it...

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineslcguy From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7990 times:

">Quoting jayeshrulz (Reply 1):
Quoting jayeshrulz (Reply 1):
Great News! Hope they dont keep pushing the dates like they did for the 787.

Doubt there would any major push back for the -8i, after all this is the same basic plane as the -8F differring mainly in the hump length and internal floor structures that were needed for the -8F. The -8F has been in flight test for some time now and most if not all aerodynamic/systems issues have been addressed already.

[Edited 2011-03-10 09:22:15]

User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2489 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5852 times:

Quoting IAD787 (Thread starter):
Looks like Boeing is closing in on a first flight date for RC001 on or around March 20, just 11 days from now.

Excellent - here's hoping it lands at BFI instead of back at PAE - that way I don't have to drive as far to get photos. Put in a good word for me with the boys at Boeing, will ya?  


User currently offlinePlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5498 times:

In terms of flying is there really a difference in between the passenger and cargo versions? Since the F is already flying it seems, perhaps superficially, that the I should have no problem. What am I missing?

User currently offlineeraugrad02 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5190 times:

Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 6):
In terms of flying is there really a difference in between the passenger and cargo versions? Since the F is already flying it seems, perhaps superficially, that the I should have no problem. What am I missing?

They'll need to do evacuation tests for one as far as flight tests thats beyond me. Maybe doing tests of O2 masks etc.

Desmond in ILM,



Desmond MacRae in ILM
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5089 times:

It has very different dynamics and loading. The CG of the freighter will be higher and further to the rear, it would seem.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30540 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4976 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting eraugrad02 (Reply 7):
They'll need to do evacuation tests for one as far as flight tests thats beyond me.

The 747-8, as with all 747 passenger derivatives that entered service, is grandfathered in under the original 747-100 passenger evacuation test and new test is not required for certification purposes.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1358 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4858 times:

The 747-8i has the stretched upper deck, the 747-8F does not.

User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9489 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4587 times:

Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 6):
In terms of flying is there really a difference in between the passenger and cargo versions? Since the F is already flying it seems, perhaps superficially, that the I should have no problem. What am I missing?

There is a lot of certification that is involved in interiors. Every seat cushion, curtain, galley oven, piece of carpet, seat track, floor unit has to be qualified and certified as acceptable hardware and meet fire requirements. The interior is using many 787 parts, but also some 747 parts. That's a lot of work.

Furthermore, the basic structure has had changes and some things as simple as cables to flight controls and wire bundles have to be moved. That requires all new gauntlet testing since the system is changed. The reason is that the stretched upper deck, addition of windows/doors etc requires rerouting cables, ducts, electrical wiring etc. Structural components don't really get the bulk of the certification work since they are approved by analysis, so it is the impact on the systems and interiors that really drive a lot of testing.

With all that said, it is a lot easier to certify a converted airplane since it is not a new type design or airplane.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineflyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4471 times:

Quoting eraugrad02 (Reply 7):
They'll need to do evacuation tests for one as far as flight tests thats beyond me. Maybe doing tests of O2 masks etc.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
The 747-8, as with all 747 passenger derivatives that entered service, is grandfathered in under the original 747-100 passenger evacuation test and new test is not required for certification purposes.

Plus the evacuation tests were run with the high density seating configurations used for the Japanese domestic version. I seriously doubt Boeing has any intention of increasing the maximum seating for the 747-8I over the already certified levels.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2421 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4040 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
The 747-8, as with all 747 passenger derivatives that entered service, is grandfathered in under the original 747-100 passenger evacuation test and new test is not required for certification purposes.

I'm as big a 747 fan as there is - a bold statement to make here on A.net - but will that limit the max passenger limit on the 748 with the grandfather claus? Clearly, if a carrier wanted to max out the number of people it could carry on the 748 vs. the 741 or even the 744, there would be some maneuvering to do.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7048 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3651 times:

How about the issue discovered with the inboard flaps or ailerons on the 748-F test, has that been resolved and the mods placed on the i, something about a flutter, have to go back to google.

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12860 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3521 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 12):
I seriously doubt Boeing has any intention of increasing the maximum seating for the 747-8I over the already certified levels.

I found a link stating the limit was 550 passengers. At first, that seemed low to me... (pg. 30 of the pdf, labeled page 24)

http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/9306.pdf

The only seat map I could find of a 744D was 546 seats, so I guess 550 would be correct:
http://www.seatmaestro.com/airplanes...ines-jal-boeing-b747-400d-r41.html

So if Boeing keeps the 550 seat limit... I see no reason to recertify. As long as the 60' rule doesn't rear its ugly head again.   (I refer back to the 744 being limited by the 60' rule but not the L1011.)

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinePlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

Thanks for an explanation of the differences between F & I.

User currently onlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1783 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2999 times:

I hope the Tsunami warning from the earthquake in Japan doesn't derail anything.

User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2992 times:

Quoting rj777 (Reply 17):
I hope the Tsunami warning from the earthquake in Japan doesn't derail anything.

Sorry, but what on earth would an earthquake/Tsunami in Japan have to with the 748i's first flight, let alone 'derail' anything? What exactly are you talking about?


User currently onlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1783 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2944 times:

Because the tsunami waves are headed for Washington.

User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2084 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2908 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
found a link stating the limit was 550 passengers

According the 747 Type certificate A20WE the limit for the 747-400 is 660 passengers with 5 pair of Type "A" exits on main deck plus one pair of Type "A" exits on the upper deck. (Main deck limited to 550 and upper deck limited to 110 if in compliance with the requirements of modified Special Condition Number 25-71-NW-3, transmitted to Boeing by FAA letter dated August 3, 1981.)
See page 14 of following PDF document : http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...d9862576b100706f78/$FILE/A20we.pdf

The 747-8I will be certified under "grandfather rights" to the same passenger limit.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5308 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2869 times:

Quoting rj777 (Reply 19):
Because the tsunami waves are headed for Washington.

And Paine Field (Boeing Everett) is at the top of a nice hill (the view is great!), and both Boeing Field and Renton Boeing are inland.

More likely, he was referring to the prospect of Japanese suppliers being disrupted by the earthquake. If they are, oh well -- a few delayed airplane parts is far less important than locating survivors, cleaning up rubble, and getting affected Japanese cities back on their feet.

[Edited 2011-03-11 08:35:23]

User currently onlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1783 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2859 times:

Actually I was wondering about the position of the Boeing facilities, but now that I know they are safe.... SEND SOME 777-300ER'S OVER TO HELP OUT THE JAPANESE!

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2582 times:

Quoting rj777 (Reply 19):
Because the tsunami waves are headed for Washington.

Puget Sound is protected from the open Pacific. Tsunami height in the sound was predicted at 3" or less.

Tom.


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...
747-8F First Flight - FEB 8 posted Wed Feb 3 2010 16:05:09 by Vivavegas
787 First Flight Delayed To 1Q2009 posted Wed Oct 8 2008 17:09:31 by Observer
CRJ1000 First Flight Slips To "later This Year" posted Tue Aug 26 2008 10:32:14 by IAD787
LHR T5 First Flight - BA302 To CDG? posted Thu Feb 7 2008 13:28:52 by Thowman
787 First Flight Delayed To Mid-Nov/mi-Dec posted Thu Sep 6 2007 06:36:23 by UAEflyer
747 LCF First Flight Date? posted Sun May 28 2006 04:54:01 by NRA-3B
When Is The 787's First Flight Likely To Be? posted Wed Apr 6 2005 13:42:09 by Art
2 Days To Go..to My First Flight On A 747 posted Fri Jul 6 2001 20:42:50 by GF-A330
First Boeing 747-8i Passenger Takes Shape posted Fri Oct 15 2010 11:56:21 by propilot83
First FedEx 757 To CDG In Flight Now! posted Tue Jul 20 2010 09:03:22 by fxramper