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.
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2225 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5468 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?
PlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 530 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5114 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?
eraugrad02 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1227 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4806 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.
ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4705 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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26720 posts, RR: 83 Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4592 times:
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.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8746 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4203 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!
flyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 621 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4087 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.
PC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2239 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3656 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'!
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3267 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.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10687 posts, RR: 100 Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3137 times:
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)
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.)
PlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 530 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3003 times:
Thanks for an explanation of the differences between F & I.
AirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2608 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?
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1786 posts, RR: 11 Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2524 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.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2485 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]
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
rj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1472 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2475 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!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 501 posts, 
From India, joined Apr 2007, 1000 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8476 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2225 posts, 
, 21029 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, 
(I refer back to the 744 being limited by the 60' rule but not the L1011.) 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1786 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
