Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Randy T Says 748-F Better Than Expected  
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2510 posts, RR: 7
Posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 25844 times:

From his blog today

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/

Good news for the program, it seems

127 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2649 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 25833 times:

PR BS or truth?

Anyone with airline ops exposure care to comment?



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 25778 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 1):
PR BS or truth?

Anyone with airline ops exposure care to comment?

Take a look at pprune.org it seems to be right.


User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 3012 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 25681 times:

Quoting ER757 (Thread starter):
From his blog today

I'm 46 years old, and I still chuckle to myself when I see the name of the guy who just signed the 1000th airworthiness certificate for the 777...  

I'm actually surprised that the B748F is exceeding goals. Which I weren't now trained to be so skeptical of what they say anymore...



Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 25668 times:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new...h-six-months-in-service-2012-04-04

Hello,

Here is some validation of that the program is going smoothly and performing up to par or beyond.


User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2649 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 25635 times:

Quoting 4holer (Reply 3):

I'm 46 years old, and I still chuckle to myself when I see the name of the guy who just signed the 1000th airworthiness certificate for the 777...

Do share, do share



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 25535 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 1):
PR BS or truth?

Anyone with airline ops exposure care to comment?

Here's one from ABC...

"We're so excited to take this airplane,” said Tatyana Arslanova, executive president, AirBridgeCargo Airlines. “We have been very pleased with the performance of our first 747-8 Freighter, and we are eager to have the second join our fleet."

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2194



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3745 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 25381 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 2):
Take a look at pprune.org it seems to be right.

I doubt you'll find any less biased information in there than here, to be honest.
The true picture of the aircraft's performance will be painted by the operators and the order book, as usual.

There's no reason it will be bad though. It was developed off an excellent platform and it will only get better with time.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 25363 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 1):
PR BS or truth?

Cathay reported publicly (Australian Aviation Magazine, IIRC) that fuel burn on their freighters is better than spec. Apparently enough better they were anticipating Boeing would need to release a FMC software roll in order to more closely reflect actual fuel burn in the performance tool.


User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 25265 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So if they are beating expectations by a full percentage point now, i'm sure with the engine PIP coming from GE and weight reductions due from Boeing, later models will see another 1-3% improvement on top of what they have now. That should make the 747F and i that much more desirable to have. Hope this entices follow up orders from existing customers and new ones from those who have not signed up for one yet.

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 25266 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 7):

I doubt you'll find any less biased information in there than here, to be honest.
The true picture of the aircraft's performance will be painted by the operators and the order book, as usual.

I agree that it is very bias coming directly from him, but the order book right now likely does not necessarily reflect the airplane. Air Cargo is way down, so the market for freighters has shrunk. Very few airlines right now are ordering freighters at all.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 25191 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 5):
Do share, do share

His name is Dick Bender.


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3745 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 25030 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 10):
but the order book right now likely does not necessarily reflect the airplane.

Actually, when I mentioned orders, I meant follow up orders, and I also believe the 748F did very good on sales so far.
In a difficult cargo market, it has proven that airlines still swear by the 747 when it comes to hauling boxes. And the noise so far does seem to be on the positive side regarding reliability and performance.

However I don't know the details and I did hear about payload/range performance shortfalls at first but I don't know how that translated to real life either.

The fact is: it's burning as much or less than a 744 for more payload, and since most operators are also 744 users, they can't feel unhappy about that!



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 24969 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 1):

It's no longer about marketing promises or some rigged comparison between competitors, but in service performance. For Randy to claim something false would be stupid.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 24970 times:

Wouldn't 12,000 lb higher GTW cut the payload gap between the 748 and the A380 in half? Or was that increase only for the F?


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12448 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 24862 times:

Quoting 4holer (Reply 3):
I'm 46 years old, and I still chuckle to myself when I see the name of the guy who just signed the 1000th airworthiness certificate for the 777...
Quoting garpd (Reply 5):
Do share, do share

Randy sez:

Quote:

Boeing employee Dick Bender seems to have special relationship with the number 1,000. His job is to sign the certificate of airworthiness on our airplanes. He did just that for the 1,000th 777—as well as the 1,000th 747 in 1993 and the 1,000th 767 in 2011.

Bender joined Boeing in 1957 and guesses that he’s signed the final delivery document for a couple hundred airplanes. When his co-workers discovered that he’d signed for the 1,000th 747, they gave him the honor of signing the 1,000th 767’s final paperwork. So it was only fitting that he sign the 1,000th 777 paperwork too.

Damn, giggly name or not, if that's correct, the guy's been with Boeing for 55 years!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2649 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 24686 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 6):

Thanks. Good news then  
Quoting CM (Reply 8):

Hadn't caught that. Excellent.

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 11):

HAHAHAHAHA, seriously?!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 13):

I was just being cautious. But so far, the evidence supports Randy's claims.
All the better for Boeing.  



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2104 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 24489 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
Damn, giggly name or not, if that's correct, the guy's been with Boeing for 55 years!

He would be one of those guys who's "paying Boeing to work here" (would be earning more money retired than working) . . . or so they say.   

I've met two or three of those guys. My father in law in Everett told me about a gal who makes more money through interest, and stock dividend than her salary at one of Boeing's shop . . . but she's working on . . . into her 80's. They say that she goes to the share holder meeting in a limosine  Wow!

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5407 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 24401 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 8):
Cathay reported publicly (Australian Aviation Magazine, IIRC) that fuel burn on their freighters is better than spec.

Interesting. That clashes with the viewpoint expressed by a Cathay pilot who is prominent on this forum, who complained that the aircraft wasn't meeting promised payload-range because of high fuel burn.

It's nice, but I'm not sure that a 1% improvement is something that can change the disadvantage the passenger 748 currently suffers compared to the 388.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12136 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 24371 times:

Just 6 months ago everyone was saying the B-747-8F wasn't meeting specs. Even Cargolux delayed their first delivery with a dog and pony show.

But, now that CX has some B-747-8 initial numbers I am wondering if it will help them consider the B-747-8I, over the A-380, when they order their VLA.


User currently offlinejohnclipper From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2005, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 23917 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):
Interesting. That clashes with the viewpoint expressed by a Cathay pilot who is prominent on this forum, who complained that the aircraft wasn't meeting promised payload-range because of high fuel burn.

It's funny, I have heard the opposite from another Cathay pilot...


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 23919 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):

That should explain why I dismiss most of the claims made by that member. It's 77W v A346 all over again.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13008 posts, RR: 100
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 23504 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From the link: And in every category - from in-service reliability, to fuel burn, to payload capability - the 747-8F is performing as well or better than we predicted.

While good news, it should say 'better than we promised.'

While this is great news, 'dispatch reliability targets' for year one are not the same as for a mature airframe.  


All of that said, I hope this means that the 748I proves to be a popular airframe.

Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 9):
i'm sure with the engine PIP coming from GE and weight reductions due from Boeing, later models will see another 1-3% improvement on top of what they have now. That should make the 747F and i that much more desirable to have. Hope this entices follow up orders from existing customers and new ones from those who have not signed up for one yet.

The PIPs will come down the line, if only because the 787 direly needs them and the 748 will get them as a 'side effect.'

I hope the ol' Queen of the skies has enough life left to sell over a hundred passenger models. That is the minimum number for myself to have a good chance of flying one.    Well, I have a better chance, depending on what LH sends to LAX.   

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 23294 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 2):
Take a look at pprune.org it seems to be right.
http://www.pprune.org/freight-dogs/4...7085-747-8f-does-match-hype-2.html
"Most importantly......it makes money.
I've been flying it since November and it's burning 2-3% less fuel than Mr Boeing promised...and its my understanding that Boeing are taking more weight out of it?"


User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3615 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 23031 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 17):


I've met two or three of those guys. My father in law in Everett told me about a gal who makes more money through interest, and stock dividend than her salary at one of Boeing's shop . . . but she's working on . . . into her 80's. They say that she goes to the share holder meeting in a limosine  

My father worked for 51 years at Boeing and ended up a millionaire. Never did make management.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Reply 25, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 23430 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 17):
My father in law in Everett told me about a gal who makes more money through interest, and stock dividend than her salary at one of Boeing's shop . . . but she's working on . . . into her 80's. They say that she goes to the share holder meeting in a limosine

It's true.. Thai she used to work in the Delivery center.. There's another that installs blankets in the 737,


User currently offlinenicoeddf From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 19417 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
But, now that CX has some B-747-8 initial numbers I am wondering if it will help them consider the B-747-8I, over the A-380, when they order their VLA.

Which is in this thread of course your only concern!  
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 22):
All of that said, I hope this means that the 748I proves to be a popular airframe.

But yes indeed, that is what I am hoping for, too!

Good for Boeing and their customers (at least for the -F variant) and truly another nice achievement from the fellow Seattle engineers.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 27, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 18888 times:

Quoting johnclipper (Reply 20):
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):
Interesting. That clashes with the viewpoint expressed by a Cathay pilot who is prominent on this forum, who complained that the aircraft wasn't meeting promised payload-range because of high fuel burn.

Presumably the same CX pilot who posts prominently on this forum who is very pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing?


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 18476 times:

What I’m a little confused about is what expectations it has bettered, as didn’t Boeing “revise” what was to be expected due to under-performing engines and the frame being over-weight?

User currently offlineairproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 634 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 18381 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):

Interesting. That clashes with the viewpoint expressed by a Cathay pilot who is prominent on this forum, who complained that the aircraft wasn't meeting promised payload-range because of high fuel burn.

If this guy takes fuel for 2hours holding every time he flies, for sure he will find his plane doesn't meet expectations... But it will happen on every plane he flies!!
  



If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
User currently offlineFocker From Netherlands, joined Jan 2011, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 17711 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 28):
What I’m a little confused about is what expectations it has bettered, as didn’t Boeing “revise” what was to be expected due to under-performing engines and the frame being over-weight?

Without being biased this is definitely the thing I am interested in. Better than what prediction?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12136 posts, RR: 51
Reply 31, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 16920 times:

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 26):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):But, now that CX has some B-747-8 initial numbers I am wondering if it will help them consider the B-747-8I, over the A-380, when they order their VLA.
Which is in this thread of course your only concern!

That is true, but isn't CX one of the next airlines expected to order new VLAs?


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10699 posts, RR: 9
Reply 32, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 16869 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
That is true, but isn't CX one of the next airlines expected to order new VLAs?

Yes, its high time for them if they want A380s. If they choose the 748I though they´ll still be on time to receive them as replacements for their aging 744 fleet which were all built between 1989 - 94.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 33, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 16682 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
That is true, but isn't CX one of the next airlines expected to order new VLAs?

A recent magazine article quoted CX's CEO as saying "Later this year" they will have another look at ordering VLAs. Pretty vague but something to go on.


User currently offlinejonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 16436 times:

"Better than expected"... but where is the reference?
The MTOW is a full 13 tonnes higher than when the 747-8F was first marketed, with insignificant payload range improvement, which means that most of that weight increase is to cover higher than "expected" empty weight.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...eases-747-8-family-weights-367030/

So the 747-8F may be marginally better than what Boeing expected it to be six months ago when Atlas Air rejected the first three aircraft it had on order (any idea by the way where these aircraft are going?) but it certainly can't be better than what Boeing had expected it to be four years ago.

As far as customer quotes, you will hardly ever hear a CEO who made a multi-billion dollar investment in an aircraft type say "We f***ed up, this aircraft is no good and we're plane-disappointed", especially if some sort of compensation is involved.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 35, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 16367 times:

Quoting jonathan-l (Reply 34):
So the 747-8F may be marginally better than what Boeing expected it to be six months ago when Atlas Air rejected the first three aircraft it had on order

There is speculation that the excuses given by Atlas as to the cancellation of those 748Fs were simply excuses in an economic climate where those new planes were simply not needed. Below-par performance and delivery delays were the perfect excuse to wriggle out of their commitment.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12136 posts, RR: 51
Reply 36, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 16388 times:

Quoting na (Reply 32):
If they choose the 748I though they´ll still be on time to receive them as replacements for their aging 744 fleet which were all built between 1989 - 94.
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 33):
A recent magazine article quoted CX's CEO as saying "Later this year" they will have another look at ordering VLAs. Pretty vague but something to go on.

Well, CX has about 20 B-747-467s then that will need replacing, the oldest being about 23 years old now. If they ordered 20 B-747-867Is they could have the first one a little over 2 years after they place an order.

Doesn't CX also still have about 10 A-343s that need replacing, too? Or are those already scheduled to be replaced by the A-359s and B-77Ws?


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 37, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 16225 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
Well, CX has about 20 B-747-467s then that will need replacing, the oldest being about 23 years old now. If they ordered 20 B-747-867Is they could have the first one a little over 2 years after they place an order.

Doesn't CX also still have about 10 A-343s that need replacing, too? Or are those already scheduled to be replaced by the A-359s and B-77Ws?

Aircraft purchase plans are very fluid. The strategy these last few years that CX have made public, is to fly more frequent services with smaller aircraft. Over the last few years, a few aircraft have been retired (A346s, a couple of 744s, four A343s) but 26 777-300ERs and several A330s have been delivered. The 744s were all supposed to have left by this year according to plans drawn up afew years back but high demand means that only two 744 passenger aircraft have been retired thus far. The overall strategy has not changed and more frequent services is still the goal. We currently have the 2nd largest 777-300ER fleet in the world and have nearly 30 more on order. Some of these will be replacing the 744s as they are eventually retired (By 2017 is the latest). The A340-300s will all be gone shortly after that. By then, all the 77Ws on order will be here and the first few A358s will be around as well.

CX probably does need larger aircraft. The 77W with the new 4 class config only carries around 275 and although the 3 class one carries a bit more, there is demand in the network in both long and shorthaul for more capacity. Whatever VLA is chosen, I would be very very surprised if they order them as a one-for-one replacement to the 744s. Instead I expect to see a smaller fleet of perhaps 10 aircraft filling a niche need within the CX network.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10699 posts, RR: 9
Reply 38, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 16031 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 37):
Over the last few years, a few aircraft have been retired (A346s, a couple of 744s, four A343s)

Most 744s being "retired" so far were BCFs which now are flying for Air China. Which is the second pax-aircraft they retired? Must have been very recently.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 37):
Whatever VLA is chosen, I would be very very surprised if they order them as a one-for-one replacement to the 744s.

I do not expect that, too, but I think they´ll go and buy about a dozen for the main routes easily filling a 744 and requiring more than a 77W, or requiring something better to stand the competition. LHR, maybe FRA among them.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15984 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 35):
There is speculation that the excuses given by Atlas as to the cancellation of those 748Fs were simply excuses in an economic climate where those new planes were simply not needed. Below-par performance and delivery delays were the perfect excuse to wriggle out of their commitment.

Was that the case with Cargolux too? I guess it would make sense that if the freight market was down then none of the operators would want to invest in more capacity.

Quoting Focker (Reply 30):
Without being biased this is definitely the thing I am interested in. Better than what prediction?

I’ve been searching for a while to try and find out what figures they are actually referencing, so far no luck at all.


User currently offlinenicoeddf From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 16021 times:

Quoting jonathan-l (Reply 34):
So the 747-8F may be marginally better than what Boeing expected it to be six months ago when Atlas Air rejected the first three aircraft it had on order (any idea by the way where these aircraft are going?) but it certainly can't be better than what Boeing had expected it to be four years ago.

Indeed.

If the 748I is anything to go by as comparison to the freighter, fuel burn for the -2B is several percent below spec and promise according to my information. The engine is the same on -F and -I, so "if" the 748 as performance package is better than anticipated that means

a) that the aircraft outperfoms spec (whichever spec from whichever point in time that is)
b) that the frame overcompensates for the engine (which wouldn't be the first time Boeing delivers a splendid wing)
c) that there is room with the upcoming and promised PIPs to close the gap on fuel burn and further strengthen the performance of the aircraft

Bring it on, Cincinatti.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 41, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15903 times:

Quoting na (Reply 38):
Which is the second pax-aircraft they retired? Must have been very recently.

B-HKE left the fleet to fly for Orient Thai and B-HOO was scrapped last year in VCV.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 39):
I guess it would make sense that if the freight market was down then none of the operators would want to invest in more capacity.

Every carrier is different. For CX, the freight market is a very important one. The airline is cash rich (relatively) and has invested a lot of money in a new CX-owned cargo terminal in HKG. The BCFs in the fleet are leaving to Air China Cargo and Air Hong Kong and need to be replaced so the 748Fs are needed. Perhaps for Atlas, they were eyeing the 748Fs as vehicles for growth of their business and simply with the US economy as it is, did not see the need for them, especially as the 2nd hand market for 744Fs is down at the moment meaning they might have had trouble selling them for a decent price. Again, just speculation.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10699 posts, RR: 9
Reply 42, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15747 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 35):
There is speculation that the excuses given by Atlas as to the cancellation of those 748Fs were simply excuses in an economic climate where those new planes were simply not needed.

As much as I know it has been confirmed that this played a major role, it wasnt just a rumour. Atlas did get the 3 744Fs back from BA, and they received 2 744BCFs recently. They have retired very little in the past 12 months, just one 743SF as I remember. They still have four or so 742Fs which are older than 30 years, but I assume those will be replaced one by one by the 748Fs coming in soon.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 43, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15449 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Even if it's not as good as originally projected, the reports of double-digits reductions in fuel burn and increases in payload compared to the 747-400F still must be something to celebrate as a 747-8F operator.

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 44, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 14588 times:

Quoting jonathan-l (Reply 34):
As far as customer quotes, you will hardly ever hear a CEO who made a multi-billion dollar investment in an aircraft type say "We f***ed up, this aircraft is no good and we're plane-disappointed", especially if some sort of compensation is involved.

An airplane really has to fall short for that to happen. However CX kind of did that with the A346s.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 45, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12788 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 44):
An airplane really has to fall short for that to happen. However CX kind of did that with the A346s.

They leased 3 for a few years, before 77Ws were available, and found out later the 77W was better for them though by all accounts the A346 did exactly as CX wanted of it, hardly a f... up.


User currently offlinesolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 46, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12596 times:

A340 league:

340-200
340-200F
340-300
340-500
340-600

B777 league:

772A
773A
772ER
773ER
772L
772F

Did I miss any ?

//Mike   



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlinesolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12432 times:

Sheiz, it should be 340-200, the freighter version is 332F

Mea Culpa



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 48, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12428 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting solnabo (Reply 46):
340-200F

an A340 freighter?? maybe one day but not yet!


User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1612 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 11371 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Just 6 months ago everyone was saying the B-747-8F wasn't meeting specs. Even Cargolux delayed their first delivery with a dog and pony show.

But, now that CX has some B-747-8 initial numbers I am wondering if it will help them consider the B-747-8I, over the A-380, when they order their VLA.

I'd wager so.   



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12136 posts, RR: 51
Reply 50, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10965 times:

Quoting solnabo (Reply 46):
340-200F
Quoting trex8 (Reply 48):
an A340 freighter??

As far as I know, no one is talking about an A-342F. There is some talk about an A-343F, with no side cargo door installation, elevators will lift cargo to the main deck from the two lower cargo holds. I believe the airplane proposed is called the A-340-300LCF, for low cost freighter.

Hasn't Boeing trademarked the "LCF" designation, as in their B-747-400LCFs for the B-787 program?


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 51, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10931 times:

Quoting Focker (Reply 30):
Better than what prediction?
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 28):
What I’m a little confused about is what expectations it has bettered
Quoting jonathan-l (Reply 34):
So the 747-8F may be marginally better than what Boeing expected it to be six months ago when Atlas Air rejected the first three aircraft it had on order (any idea by the way where these aircraft are going?) but it certainly can't be better than what Boeing had expected it to be four years ago.

Randy's comments are great for pumping up the fan base, but the only spec which matters is what is promised to an airline. When you read CX saying publicly the 747-8F fuel burn is better than spec, then they are claiming it is better than the airplane they agreed to at the time of purchase. Those are the comments I would look to for an indication the 747-8F is beating expectations for fuel burn.

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 40):
If the 748I is anything to go by as comparison to the freighter, fuel burn for the -2B is several percent below spec and promise according to my information.

Not to nitpick, but engines don't have fuel burn, they have TSFC. When we talk about fuel burn, we are by definition talking about the airplane as a whole. A 2% engine miss on TSFC may or may not result in a 2% fuel burn miss by the aircraft.

Quoting nicoeddf (Reply 40):
b) that the frame overcompensates for the engine (which wouldn't be the first time Boeing delivers a splendid wing)

Exactly, which is why we try to be precise in our terms when differentiating between the performance of an engine vs the performance of an aircraft.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10834 times:

Quoting glideslope (Reply 49):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):Just 6 months ago everyone was saying the B-747-8F wasn't meeting specs. Even Cargolux delayed their first delivery with a dog and pony show.

But, now that CX has some B-747-8 initial numbers I am wondering if it will help them consider the B-747-8I, over the A-380, when they order their VLA.
I'd wager so.

I wouldn’t.

They showed no interest in it before Boeings downwards revision of the fuel burn, so why would they want it now when they know that it’s still not achieving the figures Boeing/GE promised?


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 53, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10734 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 52):

They showed no interest in it before Boeings downwards revision of the fuel burn, so why would they want it now when they know that it’s still not achieving the figures Boeing/GE promised?

Wait a second. Where did you find the information that it is not achieving the figures Boeing/GE promised? What figures are you talking about?



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3615 posts, RR: 3
Reply 54, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10725 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 52):
They showed no interest in it before Boeings downwards revision of the fuel burn, so why would they want it now when they know that it’s still not achieving the figures Boeing/GE promised?

Do you know what Boeing/GE promised CX?


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 10598 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 53):
Wait a second. Where did you find the information that it is not achieving the figures Boeing/GE promised? What figures are you talking about?
Quoting mham001 (Reply 54):
Do you know what Boeing/GE promised CX?

Why would I need such information?

Prior to the 748 entering service the only data available to potential customers would be Boeings projections, which we know they were unable to meet. If CX, along with the vast majority of the worlds airlines had no interest in the 748i with these “best case” fuel burn projections then why would they be interested now?


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10574 times:

Lots of sour grapes   Sweet!

User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2649 posts, RR: 4
Reply 57, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10513 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 52):

I wouldn’t.

They showed no interest in it before Boeings downwards revision of the fuel burn, so why would they want it now when they know that it’s still not achieving the figures Boeing/GE promised?

Yet here is Randy and his customers telling us otherwise.
I think you need to take your anti-Boeing shades off for a minute and properly explain your evidence and provide some hard facts.

[Edited 2012-04-05 14:42:09]


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 58, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10497 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 55):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 53):
Wait a second. Where did you find the information that it is not achieving the figures Boeing/GE promised? What figures are you talking about?
Quoting mham001 (Reply 54):
Do you know what Boeing/GE promised CX?

Why would I need such information?

Prior to the 748 entering service the only data available to potential customers would be Boeings projections, which we know they were unable to meet. If CX, along with the vast majority of the worlds airlines had no interest in the 748i with these “best case” fuel burn projections then why would they be interested now?

The thread provided an article from Boeing stating that the 747-8 has better fuel burn than expected.

You then make a statement that you know that Boeing was unable to meet projections.

Those statements contradict each other. Usually someone has a reason to contradict an article other than just knowing. Without saying anything to support that statement or at least explaining it, I see it as just unfounded criticism from a Boeing critic. I can find more articles supporting the claim that 747-8s are performing better than expected with additional quotes:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing...47-8-freighter-hits-135300858.html

The first 747-8 Freighters delivered are operating even more economically than predicted.

"We knew these first airplanes would give our customers double-digit improvements in fuel burn over the 747-400," said Bruce Dickinson, vice president and chief project engineer for the 747-8. "But our in-service performance numbers show that these airplanes are a full percentage point more efficient than even we predicted. That might not sound like much, but that can save an airline millions of dollars a year."

The airplane also is giving great improvements to airlines in capacity, allowing them to carry more – 16 percent more – revenue-producing freight than the 747-400 Freighter, while still retaining such advantages as the 747-400's nose door, which allows the airplane to carry outsized loads no other commercially produced airplane can carry.



[Edited 2012-04-05 14:48:36]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10487 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 57):
Yet here is Randy and his costumers telling us otherwise.
I think you need to take your anti-Boeing shades off for a minute and properly explain your evidence and provide some hard facts.

I’m not being anti-anything, why does everything have to be a war on here?

All I am saying is that I don’t understand what all the fuss is about, all that this blog states is that the 748F isn’t as bad as they first thought. This does not make it better than the original 748 that Boeing have been unable to sell for the last few years, in fact, it’s worse.

So, why would an airline which rejected the original “on spec” 748 now want one which they know isn’t able to meet spec? Just because it isn’t quite as bad as Boeing first said it was? It doesn’t make any sense at all to me.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 60, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10427 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 59):


All I am saying is that I don’t understand what all the fuss is about, all that this blog states is that the 748F isn’t as bad as they first thought. This does not make it better than the original 748 that Boeing have been unable to sell for the last few years, in fact, it’s worse.

So, why would an airline which rejected the original “on spec” 748 now want one which they know isn’t able to meet spec? Just because it isn’t quite as bad as Boeing first said it was? It doesn’t make any sense at all to me.

I assume you are referring to the speculated 2.7% shortfall that was behind the Cargolux delivery delay.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ehind%20747-8%20Delay&channel=comm

It appears from the article that they are now 1% better than projections, so it appears that the speculated short fall has been addressed.

I'm not sure if any of these numbers will help sell additional airplanes but I think it definitely makes the sales picture better.

Boeing also claims that the performance shortfalls of early airplanes versus early projections will be addressed by 2014, and it appears they are headed in that direction.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...oeing-weight-idUSL2E8DSG7020120228

"The early deliveries are short of our commitment on fuel burn" but "with the improvements we have committed on the airplane, we will do that" (meet performance goals), 747-8 vice president and general manager Elizabeth Lund said on Wednesday.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10358 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 58):
The thread provided an article from Boeing stating that the 747-8 has better fuel burn than expected.

You then make a statement that you know that Boeing was unable to meet projections.

Those statements contradict each other. Usually someone has a reason to contradict an article other than just knowing. Without saying anything to support that statement or at least explaining it, I see it as just unfounded criticism from a Boeing critic. I can find more articles supporting the claim that 747-8s are performing better than expected with additional quotes

Very simply, my understanding was that the 748 upon introduction did not meet its design specification, both in terms of fuel burn and weight. The weight I understand will be reduced as production matures; the fuel burn however would require a PIP from GE that wouldn’t be available until 2013 at the earliest.

I have assumed, perhaps incorrectly that because of this performance shortfall that upon delivery Boeing had made a new set of promises about what the frame they were delivering would be able to achieve and it is this promise that has been improved upon. - If the 748 has now achieved and bettered its design specification then I have miss-understood, and yes this is fantastic news for Boeing and all its customers. And further to that, then yes, perhaps this would encourage further orders as to be able to make up the shortfall without an engine PIP is incredibly impressive and means that in a year or two’s time when the PIP is available then there is going to be another significant fuel burn improvement.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 62, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 10212 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 52):
Quoting glideslope (Reply 49):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):Just 6 months ago everyone was saying the B-747-8F wasn't meeting specs. Even Cargolux delayed their first delivery with a dog and pony show.

But, now that CX has some B-747-8 initial numbers I am wondering if it will help them consider the B-747-8I, over the A-380, when they order their VLA.
I'd wager so.

I wouldn’t.

They showed no interest in it before Boeings downwards revision of the fuel burn, so why would they want it now when they know that it’s still not achieving the figures Boeing/GE promised?

Where did you get that CX is not interested in the 748i? CX have been delaying a decision on buying VLAs because they are not needed in our fleet yet, and for the last few years do not fit into our fleet strategy. There are plenty of rumours amongst the pilot group here that the 748i is actually the preferred machine by our managemenent, partly because of the lack of cargo capacity of the A380. All rumours only, but certainly you cannot say that CX "Showed no interest". That is a blatant lie.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 9947 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 62):
Where did you get that CX is not interested in the 748i? CX have been delaying a decision on buying VLAs because they are not needed in our fleet yet, and for the last few years do not fit into our fleet strategy. There are plenty of rumours amongst the pilot group here that the 748i is actually the preferred machine by our managemenent, partly because of the lack of cargo capacity of the A380. All rumours only, but certainly you cannot say that CX "Showed no interest". That is a blatant lie.

A blatent lie? Why is everyone so worked up over this?

By interest i meant an order or MOU - id imagine all airlines are "interested" in all new aircraft as they have to assess its suitability, so yeah, perhaps a bad choice of words on my part.

I have no idea what CX are going to order, over the years i've read articles stating that they consider the A388 to be too small for them, so I guess it makes perfect sense for them to order something smaller still.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13008 posts, RR: 100
Reply 64, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9743 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 748 was missing payload/range at EIS. So I do wonder what changed. However, I'm not surprised. I have friends who transferred over to 748 flight testing for programs to improve the aircraft. They mentioned dozens of little fixes that were going to be tried. Did some work? I would assume so (note: I do *not* know any facts, I'm speculating). At the time, the focus was on the engine nacelle interior features, but other changes were to be tested.

I fully expect GEnX-1 improvements to make their way into the GEnX-2. With some delay (due to higher penalties and also sales volume on the GEnX-1... ok, GEnX-1B. Why the 'B?' Sigh... (I'm not in marketing for a reason...)

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 60):
Boeing also claims that the performance shortfalls of early airplanes versus early projections will be addressed by 2014, and it appears they are headed in that direction.

You recall correctly. So it is fair to ask, which numbers are being beaten by 1%? Is that 1% better than projected if one ignored the early frames are going out heavy? Probably.  

One of the early articles on the issues:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-highly-unlikely-this-week-362260/

"Boeing acknowledged the gap in the 747's performance, calling the first airplanes "somewhat short of initial specifications for fuel burn".

GE is ready for 2013 EIS for the 2nd PIP for the 787. So they should easily meet a 2014 timeline for the 748 (which was a 2013 timeline... more improvements?):
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...Tests%20Show%20Fuel%20Burn%20Gains

I have sources on 787 weight loss numbers... How is the 748 doing? I hope well. (My sources are doing aerodynamic tweaks to the existing prototype... So they are 'out of the loop' for in process improvement that involve weight.)

Lightsaber

Late edit:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...oeing-weight-idUSL2E8DSG7020120228


"Boeing said on Wednesday its stretched 747-8 jumbo jet would be able to meet pledges contained in its original catalogue by 2014 after shortfalls in performance affected the earliest models."

And the above link notes the 1% improvement. It looks like Randy 'move the bar.'  Wink

[Edited 2012-04-05 18:39:20]


Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9617 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 64):
Late edit:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...oeing-weight-idUSL2E8DSG7020120228


"Boeing said on Wednesday its stretched 747-8 jumbo jet would be able to meet pledges contained in its original catalogue by 2014 after shortfalls in performance affected the earliest models."

And the above link notes the 1% improvement. It looks like Randy 'move the bar.'

Thank you.

So going on the information in this article my original assumption was correct, in that the 748 has not managed to beat its original specification and isn’t even expected to reach its targets for another two years, let alone beat them.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 60):
It appears from the article that they are now 1% better than projections, so it appears that the speculated short fall has been addressed.

Obviously from the information above this is incorrect. Or as CXFlyboy would say "a blatent lie"  


User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9598 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 63):

Cx have said the A380 is too small for their cargo needs... The 747-8 will carry more cargo than the a380 will with full pax which is why the smaller plane would be the better option for their larger aircraft needs.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 67, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9614 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 66):
Cx have said the A380 is too small for their cargo needs... The 747-8 will carry more cargo than the a380 will with full pax which is why the smaller plane would be the better option for their larger aircraft needs.

The trick is, the 777-300ER does better in cargo volume than both the A380-800 and 747-8 and the 777X will allow more of that volume to be used as trip fuel weight is reduced.


User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 831 posts, RR: 14
Reply 68, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9528 times:

CX flight plans like all airlines in various forms have a drag factor and a fuel flow factor, it's a percentage like +2.8(%) to be reflected in the FMS during the setup. Boeing gave CX figures for the A/Cs performance which are then entered into the A/C flight plan database and are constantly updated as the performance department collect information, the figure usually goes up as the A/C get older and drop a bit with overhauled engines and following maintenance, but also get adjusted with a new A/C type as there is no base line, it starts on the delivery flight collecting performance information.

CX has been adjusting the -8 performance figures constantly over the last 5 months, the flight plans for the -8F currently sit at........

Drag 0.0 Fuel Flow 0.0

ie better than what Boeing said to use! There is talk of going to negative figures such as -0.5 but they are still collecting data.

I don't know what they started at but it may have been something like 2.0 & 1.0.

So once Boeing gets the performance from the A/C that they promised all airlines will have to adjust their performance baseline down again. For all we know the A/C are meeting the promised figures and they can only get better with the GEnx PIP and weight being removed from the A/C in the future.

And this is why Randy can say the A/C are performing better than expected.

[Edited 2012-04-05 19:26:35]


C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 69, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9166 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 60):
I assume you are referring to the speculated 2.7% shortfall that was behind the Cargolux delivery delay.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ehind%20747-8%20Delay&channel=comm

It appears from the article that they are now 1% better than projections, so it appears that the speculated short fall has been addressed.

I think the question that some of us (quite objectively) are struggling with is "does that mean the 748 is now only 1.7% off spec, as it was previously expected to be 2.7%

Please feel free to pin a fanboy label on me for asking that, as some others undoubtedly will, but it's a genuine question that does not seem to be addressed anywhere in Randys hot air.

As Lightsaber says...

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 64):
And the above link notes the 1% improvement. It looks like Randy 'move the bar.'


As for this..

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 27):
Presumably the same CX pilot who posts prominently on this forum who is very pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing?

Presumably the same CX pilot who, like me, will get labelled a fanboy for doing nothing more than trying to level some of the huge slices of anti-Airbus slant which result in completely inaccurate statements about some particular Airbus products becoming A-net fact.
Does he get the balance right all the time? Show me someone on here who does..

As can be seen above, it's entirely plausible that the 748F's currently delivered are performing better than the customer airlines were led to believe, and yet might STIll be missing spec.

Bias, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.
There are far more biased individuals on this forum who you will never see present the same level of argument or evidence as he does for their apparent hatred of all things Airbus.
But hey. If that's what floats people's boats..

For what its worth, like all pretty much all of the other programmes from the big two, like the A380, 787, and soon-to-be A350, I have no doubts at all that the 748 will meet its specs within a few years of EIS, and eventually beat them.

That's what good engineering delivers, and, like Airbus, Boeing are good engineers.   

Rgds


User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1718 posts, RR: 8
Reply 70, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9101 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69):
Presumably the same CX pilot who, like me, will get labelled a fanboy for doing nothing more than trying to level some of the huge slices of anti-Airbus slant which result in completely inaccurate statements about some particular Airbus products becoming A-net fact.
Does he get the balance right all the time? Show me someone on here who does..

Amen

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69):
Bias, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.
There are far more biased individuals on this forum who you will never see present the same level of argument or evidence as he does for their apparent hatred of all things Airbus.
But hey. If that's what floats people's boats..

Amen

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69):
For what its worth, like all pretty much all of the other programmes from the big two, like the A380, 787, and soon-to-be A350, I have no doubts at all that the 748 will meet its specs within a few years of EIS, and eventually beat them.

That's what good engineering delivers, and, like Airbus, Boeing are good engineers.   

Amen


User currently offlineQfflyer From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9095 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69):
I think the question that some of us (quite objectively) are struggling with is "does that mean the 748 is now only 1.7% off spec, as it was previously expected to be 2.7%

Eloquently and clearly put......with no slant....

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69):
Presumably the same CX pilot who, like me, will get labelled a fanboy for doing nothing more than trying to level some of the huge slices of anti-Airbus slant which result in completely inaccurate statements about some particular Airbus products becoming A-net fact.

No, unlike this CX pilot whose dislike of Boeing products is very clear, your posts are equally clear, in my opinion, of looking at (questioning) facts irrespctive of manufacturer.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8882 times:

Quoting Qfflyer (Reply 71):
No, unlike this CX pilot whose dislike of Boeing products is very clear, your posts are equally clear, in my opinion, of looking at (questioning) facts irrespctive of manufacturer.

It is sad if someone spreads false information just because they dislike a company and its products. One just have to learn to take everything with a pinch of salt.

Well anyway it looks as the 40 year old product will be hard to beat for many years to come   The 747 almost bankrupted Boeing once, but with time it grew into a very successful product. Maybe it will take a BWB freighter to replace the queen.


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2117 posts, RR: 14
Reply 73, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8825 times:

Some History of the 747-8 program :

- Early in the 747-8 program a usual issue was noticed : Operating Empty Weight (OEW) was above design target. The exact amount is stil a well kept secret, but somewhere between 4000 and 6000 lbs in the early built airframes will be a good guess. This figure is also in line with the later published plans of Boeing to remove 5000lbs of the OEW gradually in later produced airframes. OEW is believed at the moment to be around 470.000lbs, so the extra fuel consumption caused by the present overweight is approx around 0.5 -1%, depending on the average actual total aircraft weight (OEW, payload and fuel)

- On top of that a more serious problem emerged : the TSFC of the GEnx-2B67 engine was 2.7% above specification.

- Consequently the aircraft was below the payload range performance, promised by Boeing to the airlines.

- As a bonus several publications mentioned a better than expected airframe drag performance, but this was never specified or confirmed by Boeing.

- To restore the payload range of the aircraft the maximum operating weights were increased, after evaluation of the actual flightloads during the test flights showed that it was possible to increase these maximum structural weights, without structural reinforcement. The Max Zero Fuel Weight (MZFW) was increased to keep the maximum design payload the same. The Maximum T/O Weight (MTOW) was increased from the design 970.000 lbs to 987.000lbs. The increase of 17.000 lbs was used to restore the max. range at max payload by allowing an increase in fuel qty ( 11.000-13000 lbs) at MTOW. (The 747-8F is not fuel limited at MTOW with max payload) .

The result was from the start (EIS) an aircraft with an exactly or even better payload-range than designed.
However the promised fuel consumption target was not met, due heavier aircraft weights (0.5-1.0%) and under performing engines(-2.7%).

The exact performance of this IGW-aircraft was now calculated and measured during the final stages of the flight test program and used as a zero reference for the FMC data base and performance calculations used for flightplanning.

After evaluation of the actual fuel consumption during the first months of airline operation, Boeing (the messenger : Randy Tinseth) now states in Randy's Journal that the actual performance is 1% better than the zero refence. This is very good news, aerodynamically the aircraft must be better than expected (lower drag).

Seen the future improvements of the GEnx-2B engines (PIP, aircraft/engine certification scheduled before the end of 2013) with a target TSFC improvement of approx. 2% , further OEW reductions and (small)aerodynamic tweaks, this will produce an aircraft exactly (or even sligtly better) than the design fuel consumption target, but with a much better than expected payload-range performance due the higher than original designed maximum operating weights of the aircraft.

See ; http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...12_p40-431226.xml&channel=comm

And : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ade-package-for-787-engine-367680/

[Edited 2012-04-06 04:17:20]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 882 posts, RR: 14
Reply 74, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8631 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 73):
Some History of the 747-8 program...

Bravo, 747classic! Thank you for that!

yeo



Yokoso! to my world
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3195 posts, RR: 5
Reply 75, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8563 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 11):
His name is Dick Bender

Giggidy.



AA-AC-AQ-AS-BN-BD-CO-CS-DL-EA-EZ-HA-HP-KL-KN-MP-MW-NK-NW-OO-OZ-PA-PS-QX-RC-RH-RW-SA-TG-TW-UA-US-VS-WA-WC-WN
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 76, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8337 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Qfflyer (Reply 71):
No, unlike this CX pilot whose dislike of Boeing products is very clear,y

I think it would be more accurate to say his dislike of any 777, he seems very attached to the 744!


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8384 times:

Quoting yeogeo (Reply 74):
Quoting 747classic (Reply 73):
Some History of the 747-8 program...

Bravo, 747classic! Thank you for that!

No kidding. One post of actual facts in several pages of semantics, blind speculation and conclusion pulled out of darkness. Along with Ferpe on the A350 side, there are no better examples unbiased reporting in this asylum.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69):
Presumably the same CX pilot who, like me, will get labelled a fanboy for doing nothing more than trying to level some of the huge slices of anti-Airbus slant which result in completely inaccurate statements about some particular Airbus products becoming A-net fact.

You don't "level" things by being biased in the opposite direction. Accuracy isn't a scale. Balance is objective presentation of facts.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8388 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 66):

Cx have said the A380 is too small for their cargo needs... The 747-8 will carry more cargo than the a380 will with full pax which is why the smaller plane would be the better option for their larger aircraft needs.

Unless the A380 is payload limited then this is incorrect; Boeing states that the 748I has a total cargo volume of 161.5 Cu M, Airbus lists the A380’s cargo volume as 184 Cu M.

So if it’s cargo space CX require, then the A380 is better suited.

Quoting sweair (Reply 72):
It is sad if someone spreads false information just because they dislike a company and its products. One just have to learn to take everything with a pinch of salt.

I think that's incredibly unfair. There have been multiple posts to this thread by the Boeing brigade which have contained false, or miss-leading information, yet I don't see you posting the same derogatory rubbish about them.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 79, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8294 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 78):
Unless the A380 is payload limited then this is incorrect; Boeing states that the 748I has a total cargo volume of 161.5 Cu M, Airbus lists the A380’s cargo volume as 184 Cu M.

So if it’s cargo space CX require, then the A380 is better suited.

I believe the issue is available cargo space after pax baggage space needs and as the A380 carries more pax, it eats into the available space for cargo. I recall threads where people have calculated using real and projected pax seating on both planes and how much space will be left for cargo and there isn't as much on the A380 as total underfloor capacity would make you think. At the time I recall looking at the A380 underfloor layout and it was strange that in one hold by the wing you have only space for a few single LD3s as the hold narrows which gives up even more volume than the total length might suggest


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12136 posts, RR: 51
Reply 80, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8024 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 63):
I have no idea what CX are going to order, over the years i've read articles stating that they consider the A388 to be too small for them, so I guess it makes perfect sense for them to order something smaller still.

The airplanes they currently have on order are, for the most part smaller than either the A-388 or the B-748, they are B-77Ws and A-358/9s.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 65):
So going on the information in this article my original assumption was correct, in that the 748 has not managed to beat its original specification and isn’t even expected to reach its targets for another two years, let alone beat them.

See 747classic's reply #73

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 78):
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 66):
Cx have said the A380 is too small for their cargo needs... The 747-8 will carry more cargo than the a380 will with full pax which is why the smaller plane would be the better option for their larger aircraft needs.
Unless the A380 is payload limited then this is incorrect; Boeing states that the 748I has a total cargo volume of 161.5 Cu M, Airbus lists the A380’s cargo volume as 184 Cu M.

So if it’s cargo space CX require, then the A380 is better suited.

More pax means more baggage, which means less space available for cargo. CX's current B-744s carry 359-379 pax, which means if they use the same type of configueration for a B-748, they will carry about 375-405 pax. Using the same type configueration for an A-388, it will carry about 435-475 pax. That's a lot of baggage. Like most airlines, it is cargo that pays most of the bills. The more cargo you can lift, the more money you make. Shipping freight on a pax airplane is almost free space (it costs very little for the airline) as the airplane is going to the destination anyway. But, you must load the pax baggage first, which will take up some of your cargo space, at least half of it for a decent load factor. So, what gets left behind? That's right, the freight is left on the ramp.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2606 posts, RR: 5
Reply 81, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8025 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 63):
A blatent lie? Why is everyone so worked up over this?

By interest i meant an order or MOU - id imagine all airlines are "interested" in all new aircraft as they have to assess its suitability, so yeah, perhaps a bad choice of words on my part.

By that definition, then CX weren't at all interested in the A380 either.

The fact of the matter is that CX Flyboy is right. To my knowledge, CX will be making a decision on their VLA purchase later this year, so whether or not they will get one - and if so, which one (or both) is something that's yet to be decided. If the fact that they haven't decided means that they had "showed no interest", then by that logic they've "showed no interest" in either VLA - which is not true, as they are, as I understand it, in the process of evaluating them both.

The better than expected fuel burn figures for the 748F discussed in this thread will undoubtedly help the 748i's cause as well. An aircraft that burns less fuel per trip and carries more revenue cargo might be attractive to airlines whose cargo operations contribute a significant portion to their overall revenue.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 63):
over the years i've read articles stating that they consider the A388 to be too small for them, so I guess it makes perfect sense for them to order something smaller still.

Not in terms of physical size, but in terms of cargo carrying capabilities when both aircraft are loaded with pax and bags. The 748i beats the A388 hands down in that department. The A380, by virtue of the fact that it carries more passengers, uses up more space for bags, thus leaving less space for cargo.

As Stitch mentioned, though, the 77W beats them both, as will the 777-9X, which makes me wonder whether CX will order either the A380 or the 748i at all ...

Quoting trex8 (Reply 79):
I believe the issue is available cargo space after pax baggage space needs and as the A380 carries more pax, it eats into the available space for cargo.

  

Not only that, but having the crew rest below deck, rather than above the main passenger deck as on the 748i eats further into the already limited revenue cargo space.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10699 posts, RR: 9
Reply 82, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7930 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 73):

Thanks for the short summary.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 81):
The better than expected fuel burn figures for the 748F discussed in this thread will undoubtedly help the 748i's cause as well.

Fully agreed.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 81):
Not in terms of physical size, but in terms of cargo carrying capabilities when both aircraft are loaded with pax and bags. The 748i beats the A388 hands down in that department. The A380, by virtue of the fact that it carries more passengers, uses up more space for bags, thus leaving less space for cargo.
As Stitch mentioned, though, the 77W beats them both, as will the 777-9X, which makes me wonder whether CX will order either the A380 or the 748i at all ...

Cargo space in pax planes isnt everything, also CX has a nice dedicated cargo fleet. Fact is, the A380 and 747 are superior to the 77W in passenger appeal and cost less per pax on the routes they can be filled. Also the 77X is a long way from reality, and CX needs a new flagship earlier to compete. The 777 is, technologically, a great plane, but it isnt the answer for everything.

Anyway, great to hear the 748F overdelivers on its initial figures. Good for the future, and promising that with slight improvements ahead it´ll remain the world´s no.1 freighter for more than a decade to come.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7830 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 80):
See 747classic's reply #73

I have, it confirms what I suspected was the case all along in that the 748 has not met its original fuel burn targets, it just hasn’t missed them by quite as much as Boeing expected.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 80):
More pax means more baggage, which means less space available for cargo. CX's current B-744s carry 359-379 pax, which means if they use the same type of configueration for a B-748, they will carry about 375-405 pax. Using the same type configueration for an A-388, it will carry about 435-475 pax. That's a lot of baggage. Like most airlines, it is cargo that pays most of the bills. The more cargo you can lift, the more money you make. Shipping freight on a pax airplane is almost free space (it costs very little for the airline) as the airplane is going to the destination anyway. But, you must load the pax baggage first, which will take up some of your cargo space, at least half of it for a decent load factor. So, what gets left behind? That's right, the freight is left on the ramp.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 81):
Not in terms of physical size, but in terms of cargo carrying capabilities when both aircraft are loaded with pax and bags. The 748i beats the A388 hands down in that department. The A380, by virtue of the fact that it carries more passengers, uses up more space for bags, thus leaving less space for cargo.

From the figures I posted above we can work out that the A380 has approximately 14% more cargo volume than the 748 so in theory at least this should equate to it being able to accommodate 14% more passengers and still have the same amount of space available for cargo. As an example, if we assumed CX installed 400 seats on a 748i then to maintain the same cargopassenger ratio the A380 would have 464 seats – which would be similar to what SQ is already operating very successfully.

I also find it difficult to believe that such a small cargo advantage is able to compensate for the significant loss in cabin space and the increased levels of passenger comfort associated with the A380. The recent controversy over EK paying compensation to passengers after their service was downgraded from the A380 proves that passengers are aware of aircraft type, and not only do they have a preference for the A380, they are willing to pay a premium for it.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 84, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7724 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 60):
I assume you are referring to the speculated 2.7% shortfall that was behind the Cargolux delivery delay.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ehind%20747-8%20Delay&channel=comm

It appears from the article that they are now 1% better than projections, so it appears that the speculated short fall has been addressed.

I think the question that some of us (quite objectively) are struggling with is "does that mean the 748 is now only 1.7% off spec, as it was previously expected to be 2.7%

Please feel free to pin a fanboy label on me for asking that, as some others undoubtedly will, but it's a genuine question that does not seem to be addressed anywhere in Randys hot air.

I think that you proposed a very valid question rather than making statements that are confusing. The information from the Boeing press releases a few months ago indicate that the 747-8 was improving as it is getting established and production is ramping up. This latest press release is indicating they are continuing to move towards getting the initially proposed figures.

Basically no airplane meets its original design objectives with the first few airplanes. That's why launch customers get such significant discounts. They are betting on a plane that has performance criteria that are not well defined and every airplane is overweight upon entry into service. If it wasn't overweight, then the manufacturer set the bar too low or spent too long refining the design before entry into service. It appears that any orders today would meet the original specs despite the evolution of the design.

I like to think of myself as trying to be objective and have a reasonable respect rating like yourself, but I have a slant and bias. I haven't spent much of my career working around the Airbus models, so I am less familiar with them. A lot of the A vs B wars are by members making claims that are not based on fact or any reliable information. I don't understand why cargo volume of the A380 is being debated a thread about 747-8 meeting fuel burn expectations.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 85, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7739 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A380-800 offers 38 LD3 positions compared to the 36 of the 747-8 and 32 of the 747-400.

The A380-800 and 747-400 should generally offer a similar number of available LD3 positions for revenue cargo, but the 747-8 is closer to the A380-800 in terms of LD3 positions than it is in passenger seating, so the 747-8 will have more available positions:

LH, for example, allows all classes of service to take two bags per passenger on TATL flights to North America. Assuming each passenger did that, then you'd have the following number of bags per plane (assuming 100% load factor):

747-400: 690
747-8: 772
A380-800: 1052

LD3s are said to be able to take between 40-50 bags per container. We'll use the 50 bag figure, which gives us the following number of LD3 positions for bags (rounded up for the 747s and rounded down for the A380):

747-400: 14
747-8: 16
A380-800: 21

This would leave the following positions available for revenue cargo:

747-400: 18
747-8: 22
A380-800: 17


And yes, I am aware that many airlines calculate passenger baggage allowance by weight, not by number of pieces. Still, I would expect the 747-8 to still have the advantage in such situations.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12448 posts, RR: 25
Reply 86, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7626 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 72):
It is sad if someone spreads false information just because they dislike a company and its products. One just have to learn to take everything with a pinch of salt.

How about someone who loves a company and its products?

I'm speaking of Randy T.

I'm quite unhappy with the dissembling he's doing here.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 77):
One post of actual facts in several pages of semantics, blind speculation and conclusion pulled out of darkness. Along with Ferpe on the A350 side, there are no better examples unbiased reporting in this asylum.

  



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7522 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 84):
I think that you proposed a very valid question rather than making statements that are confusing. The information from the Boeing press releases a few months ago indicate that the 747-8 was improving as it is getting established and production is ramping up. This latest press release is indicating they are continuing to move towards getting the initially proposed figures.

The confusion was a consequence of a lack of information provided by Boeing. “Proof of Performance” with follow up comments such as “the in-service performance numbers show fuel burn is a full percentage point more efficient than we expected” make great reading for the fans. The problem was, intentional or not, they failed to provide details on what those “expectations” actually were.



Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 84):
Basically no airplane meets its original design objectives with the first few airplanes. That's why launch customers get such significant discounts. They are betting on a plane that has performance criteria that are not well defined and every airplane is overweight upon entry into service. If it wasn't overweight, then the manufacturer set the bar too low or spent too long refining the design before entry into service. It appears that any orders today would meet the original specs despite the evolution of the design.

I fully agree with all of this, which is why I doubted that Boeing had been able to overcome the performance shortfall so quickly, especially without any engine PIPs

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 84):
I like to think of myself as trying to be objective and have a reasonable respect rating like yourself, but I have a slant and bias. I haven't spent much of my career working around the Airbus models, so I am less familiar with them. A lot of the A vs B wars are by members making claims that are not based on fact or any reliable information. I don't understand why cargo volume of the A380 is being debated a thread about 747-8 meeting fuel burn expectations.

Excellent points. I think the vast majority of members have a bias one way or another and I see nothing wrong with that. The only problem I have is when this bias combined with inaccurate information leads to the creation of an “A.net Fact”


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12448 posts, RR: 25
Reply 88, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7264 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 88):
I think this is at the heart of the confusion in this thread. What do you mean when you say "spec"?

A) I know you said you ignore Randy T, but I think his dissembling is doing Boeing a disservice.

B) According to the 2nd article Lightsaber linked to in #84, about a week ago Boeing (but not Randy T) is using the term "catalogue commitment" that I feel you should factor into the logic of your excellent post:

Quote:

"The planes delivered so far have been performing very well in service, about 1 percent better than we thought," said Boeing spokesman Jim Proulx.

"They are giving double-digit gains in fuel burn (compared with the models they replace) and are on a path to getting back to catalogue commitments in 2014."

He was speaking shortly after Boeing delivered its first 747-8 Intercontinental passenger version to a secret VIP customer, thought by industry insiders to be the state of Qatar.

In this context everything is clear: there's a "catalogue" fuel burn number that Boeing still doesn't meet and doesn't expect to meet till 2014, regardless of what planning value Boeing told its initial 747-8F customers to use, or any value that is in specs or in contracts.

And of course it's up to the customer to determine if any or all of this makes them unhappy or not. Personally, I'm happy to find out things are improving for the 747-8.

[Edited 2012-04-06 11:11:02]


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 89, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6892 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 89):
about a week ago Boeing (but not Randy T) is using the term "catalogue commitment"

Yes, an interesting term. Particularly since the word "commitment" is attached. By definition, catalog performance is not a commitment.

25 years working in engineering and in customer-facing roles has provided pretty good insight into how airplane performance data is created and communicated. Knowing what data you are looking at is key - here's a summary of how it works: Assuming you have a flying airplane, aero and performance engineers create an airplane performance database using real airplane performance data from flight test. This database becomes the foundation for all performance calculations, regardless of whether it is used for marketing or engineering purposes. Using this database, things like airplane fuel burn are calculated and shared external to the company in a number of ways:

Brochure Level Performance - This is the generic performance data which is discussed with a customer. It uses generic routes, generic performance rules and a generic configuration for the airplane. The data is presented at nominal levels (how the average airplane rolling off the assembly line will perform). This "brochure" data is good for relative comparisons between aircraft, but it does not necessarily reflect the actual performance any single operator will experience. Think of this as what is in the brochure a sales person will give you when you visit the BMW dealer to inquire about the new 5 Series - their brochure says 32 MPG / 13.6 km per litre,which is based on their testing. However, it is clear at the bottom of the brochure "Fuel mileage is dependent on road conditions and the driver. Your results may vary".

Public Level Performance - This is what is discussed with media or at a public presentation, such as a conference. It is representative of "brochure level" nominal performance, but is typically dumbed down in the sense that little or no assumptions are included with the number. For example: "The new Super-Liner burns 30% less fuel than competing products". That's great, except we may not be told important details such as what the competing products are, what mission length is used, how many pax and with what baggage allowance, what winds, how much revenue cargo, etc.

Airline Nominal Performance - This data is similar to what is in the brochure, but now it is tailored to a set of operational rules defined by the airline. Their configuration, their assumptions for passenger and bag weights, their routes, their rules for winds, fuel reserves, alternates, redispatch, engine degradation, etc. This is the performance which will most closely reflect what the operator will see in actual operations.

Airline Guarantee Performance - This data is the same as nominal performance, but with a tolerance added. This tolerance is to help account for the fact not every airplane rolling off the assembly line has exactly the same fuel burn, with some aircraft falling on the lower end of the performance distribution bell curve - that might sound like a bad thing, but an equal number of airplanes end up on the positive end of the curve and exceed nominal performance.

I have no personal knowledge of what is happening on the 747 program. However, when Boeing says fuel burn is improved relative to "catalog commitments", I would expect that means engineering has revised the 747-8 aero performance database and the improvement will cascade through everything from brochure data to future airline guarantees. That's all great news. Still, I'm mostly interested in hearing airline customers say the airplane is beating expectations - a claim I would take to be relative to airline nominal performance, since pilots and the average airline employee have no visibility of guarantee levels.

Cheers!

CM


User currently offlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1808 posts, RR: 2
Reply 90, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6645 times:

Let's just hope that the -8I will do just as good with Lufthansa when it enters service.

User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 831 posts, RR: 14
Reply 91, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6456 times:

Remember the crew rest area needs to be considered for the A380 when considering cargo space, it doesn't affect the 748I


C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13008 posts, RR: 100
Reply 92, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5835 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69):
Bias, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.

Unfortunately, it rears its ugly head too often (not you, in discussions).

Quoting 747classic (Reply 73):
Some History of the 747-8 program

Bravo. Well said.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 83):
it just hasn’t missed them by quite as much as Boeing expected.

That is my impression.

However, I know of significant work being done to reduce the 748 fuel burn. What I do not know is if any significant airframe side PIPs made it into the fleet. I also know of work being done to create a nacelle PIP (not engine...) that would reduce fuel burn. But what I don't know is if anything happened.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 85):
This would leave the following positions available for revenue cargo:

747-400: 18
747-8: 22
A380-800: 17

Your study actually makes the A380 look better than my estimates... The only thing I can think of is crew rest as noted by CCA:

Quoting CCA (Reply 97):
Remember the crew rest area needs to be considered for the A380 when considering cargo space, it doesn't affect the 748I

Does anyone have a link to the 748I crew rest? I'd would also love a 'CATIA' tour of the A380 to see why a small (say 6 bunk) crew rest wasn't incorporated.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5387 times:

The GENX2b engine is very good compared to the old one on the 744. I can imagine what it would do for a A330neo as well. Within a year or so it should be close to spec as well.

I actually read about a third PIP for GENX1 and a third PIP for T1000, these would trickle down to the 2b model as well?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 94, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5123 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 108):
I actually read about a third PIP for GENX1 and a third PIP for T1000, these would trickle down to the 2b model as well?

The GEnx2B shipped with the changes GE incorporated into PIP1 for the GEnx1B. GE has subsequently produced PIP2 for the GEnx1B and is working on PIP1 for the GEnx2B. Depending on what is in PIP3 for the GEnx1B and when it becomes available, GE might integrate some or all of them into PIP1 for the GEnx2B.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12136 posts, RR: 51
Reply 95, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5077 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 83):
From the figures I posted above we can work out that the A380 has approximately 14% more cargo volume than the 748 so in theory at least this should equate to it being able to accommodate 14% more passengers and still have the same amount of space available for cargo. As an example, if we assumed CX installed 400 seats on a 748i then to maintain the same cargopassenger ratio the A380 would have 464 seats – which would be similar to what SQ is already operating very successfully.
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 78):
Boeing states that the 748I has a total cargo volume of 161.5 Cu M, Airbus lists the A380’s cargo volume as 184 Cu M.

No, the baggage loading is not linaer. Bags are loaded into LD3s for international traffic. The A-380 requires more LD3s with just baggage than the B-747-8I does.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 83):
it confirms what I suspected was the case all along in that the 748 has not met its original fuel burn targets, it just hasn’t missed them by quite as much as Boeing expected.

You cannot pick and choose what specs you want to use to make your case. Boeing's original specs on everything for the B-747-8I was based on a 970,000 MTOW. However, we know now the airplane is capable of a higher MTOW, some 2% higher, now at 987,000 lbs. We also know the new fuel burn numbers are based on the 987K MTOW, not the lower 970K MTOW. So the actuall improvement numbers, based on the original 970K MTOW (since you insist on using the original specs) is much closer to a 3% gain in fuel burn, range increase, etc. Or it is a 1% imprtovement based on the new MTOW of 987K. Your choice.

Quoting CM (Reply 88):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 69):it was previously expected to be 2.7%
I'm pretty sure this number was quoted as a TSFC miss, which may or may not correlate directly with an airplane fuel burn miss.

Correct, the 2.7% missed specs is in TSFC. That is a problem for the GEnx-2B engines and not for the airframe design. Infact, it now appears the design is so good, it actually made up for some of the missed TSFC by the engines.

Quoting CM (Reply 88):
Quoting 747classic (Reply 73) MTOW) was increased from the design 970.000 lbs to 987.000lbs.
I believe the original MTOW was 975K.

No sir, the original specs were for a 970K MTOW. Boeing now shows the new MTOW of 987K lbs.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/747-8_fact_sheet.html

I am now hoping for CX to announce their B-747-8I order during this year's Farnborough Air Show. Also, since BA is using wet leased B-747-8Fs from 5Y, maybe they will revisit the B-747-8Is. The same question could be asked of QR, since they now have B-747-8F experience through CV. EK, which has not received their first B-747-8F, yet, may also find the B-747-8I to be more attractive. The "I" model should probably have its max advertised range to about 8,500 miles, since it carries some 22,000 lbs more fuel than the "F" model does. That is the range EK wanted for the B-747-8I all along.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 96, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4905 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 110):
No sir, the original specs were for a 970K MTOW.

Not true. I know there is a lot of bad information on the web from non-official sources (I found 960k and 970K when I Googled "747-8 MTOW"), but the MTOW bump to 987K in late 2011 was from 975K. Not 970K...

From Boeing (see pages 5 and 62): http://aci-na.org/static/entransit/B...tion_B-747-8%20Webinar_21Apr09.pdf

Flightglobal has it right in their piece on the MTOW change: According to its latest airport planning document, Boeing has increased the aircraft's MTOW to 448t (987,000lb), an increase of 6t (13,000lb) from 442t (975,000lb)." http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...eases-747-8-family-weights-367030/

[Edited 2012-04-07 08:52:28]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 97, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4842 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

When Boeing was pitching the 747 Advanced, the MTOW was 930,000 pounds (as of August 2004). I have not found an official Boeing statement, but I do believe the 747-8 launched with a 970,000 pound MTOW since I see no reason for the older sites that list that MTOW to make it up if Boeing announced a higher one.

Also, the 747-8 was originally shorter than the 747-8F, so it's not inconceivable that the 747-8 had a lower MTOW than the 747-8F and when the 747-8 was lengthened to match the 747-8F, the MTOWs were equalized, as well.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13008 posts, RR: 100
Reply 98, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4811 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 110):
I am now hoping for CX to announce their B-747-8I order during this year's Farnborough Air Show.

That is an order we've been waiting a long time here on a.net. While I respect CX's frequency strategy, they will eventually benefit from VLAs on certain routes. The issue is, are there enough.routes to justify a new fleet type?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 110):
Infact, it now appears the design is so good, it actually made up for some of the missed TSFC by the engines.

More than some... the issue is the 748 airframe being over-weight. As far as I can tell, Boeing is putting *far* more resources in 787 weight reduction.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 99, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4688 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 110):
You cannot pick and choose what specs you want to use to make your case. Boeing's original specs on everything for the B-747-8I was based on a 970,000 MTOW. However, we know now the airplane is capable of a higher MTOW, some 2% higher, now at 987,000 lbs. We also know the new fuel burn numbers are based on the 987K MTOW, not the lower 970K MTOW. So the actuall improvement numbers, based on the original 970K MTOW (since you insist on using the original specs) is much closer to a 3% gain in fuel burn, range increase, etc. Or it is a 1% imprtovement based on the new MTOW of 987K. Your choice.

How have I “picked and chosen” specifications? My point was simply that the 748F has not managed to meet its original fuel burn specification, and I was right. If you want to play games with numbers, go ahead, I’m not sure you can translate a % increase in MTOW directly to a % increase in fuel efficiency though…

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 110):
I am now hoping for CX to announce their B-747-8I order during this year's Farnborough Air Show. Also, since BA is using wet leased B-747-8Fs from 5Y, maybe they will revisit the B-747-8Is. The same question could be asked of QR, since they now have B-747-8F experience through CV. EK, which has not received their first B-747-8F, yet, may also find the B-747-8I to be more attractive. The "I" model should probably have its max advertised range to about 8,500 miles, since it carries some 22,000 lbs more fuel than the "F" model does. That is the range EK wanted for the B-747-8I all along.

I don’t think there is a CX order to announce, unless I missed it? - BA have made it very clear that they are not interested in the 748I, and have already placed an order for the A380. QR have also ordered the A380, and finally EK have cancelled their order for the 748F and with 100 A380’s on order you would have to be insane to think they are going to order the 748i.

[Edited 2012-04-07 10:24:14]

User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2117 posts, RR: 14
Reply 100, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4659 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 116):
When Boeing was pitching the 747 Advanced, the MTOW was 930,000 pounds (as of August 2004). I have not found an official Boeing statement, but I do believe the 747-8 launched with a 970,000 pound MTOW since I see no reason for the older sites that list that MTOW to make it up if Boeing announced a higher one.

Original the 747-8F (then called 747EXF) started with a target 960.000 lbs MTOW
747-EXF June 2003

After implementing many design changes (mission creep, especially the wing platform was heavily modified for better L/D performance.) the MTOW was raised to 970.000 lbs.

IMO this 970.000 lbs MTOW is the basic design-configuration.(design freeze)

After the discovery of a significant operational empty weight increase after all detailed drawings were completed, the MTOW was again raised towards 975.000 lbs to compensate for this overweight situation.

Finally, after the Load survey flight tests were completed, the MTOW was raised further to 987.000 lbs to compensate for the shortfall in engine TSFC.

Remark : the (shorter body) 747-8I (747EX) started with a target MTOW of 930.000 lbs.

[Edited 2012-04-07 10:45:15]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30900 posts, RR: 87
Reply 101, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4574 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 118):
and finally EK have cancelled their order for the 748F...

They actually entered into a sale and lease back with Dubai Aerospace Enterprises. So while they won't directly own them, they will still operate them.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 102, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4531 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 120):
They actually entered into a sale and lease back with Dubai Aerospace Enterprises. So while they won't directly own them, they will still operate them.

I was aware that they were via a leasing company but thought they had cancelled all 10 in favour of the 777F. From a quick search it turns out that the leasing company had initially ordered 15 748F’s and 10 777F’s they have now cancelled 5 of the 748’s to leave them with 10.

I’m not sure if all of these aircraft are destined for EK..


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 505 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4460 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 118):
I don’t think there is a CX order to announce, unless I missed it? - BA have made it very clear that they are not interested in the 748I, and have already placed an order for the A380. QR have also ordered the A380, and finally EK have cancelled their order for the 748F and with 100 A380’s on order you would have to be insane to think they are going to order the 748i.

Uh I don't know about that. 100 A380s already confirms to me that they are crazy, so who's to say they won't extend their crazy streak and buy 100 -8is? I mean they already have a ridiculous fleet of 777s, so why not collect a whole bunch of everything?!?  

Given their track record, it wouldn't surprise me if they ordered 100 A350s, 100 777xs and who knows what else.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 104, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4439 times:

Good news - but I wait for the day that Nico Buchholz says the B748I to be better than expected before I open a bottle of champaign.

User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 105, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4413 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 123):
Uh I don't know about that. 100 A380s already confirms to me that they are crazy, so who's to say they won't extend their crazy streak and buy 100 -8is? I mean they already have a ridiculous fleet of 777s, so why not collect a whole bunch of everything?!?

That's a fair point actually  

What's just as crazy, is although its still very early they do seem to be able to find suitable routes for them all..


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 106, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4190 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 119):
After the discovery of a significant operational empty weight increase after all detailed drawings were completed, the MTOW was again raised towards 975.000 lbs to compensate for this overweight situation.

Thanks for that. I was not aware of the 747-8F ever being offered at 970K. If this change was post-drawing release, as you say, I stand corrected. So this 5K was achieved via margins in the structure, or from design change?

Quoting 747classic (Reply 119):
Finally, after the Load survey flight tests were completed, the MTOW was raised further to 987.000 lbs to compensate for the shortfall in engine TSFC.

As far as I was aware, this was the only MTOW change which was post firm config, done to recover range, and achieved via existing margins in the structure. It seems remarkable there was an extra 17k sitting unused in the 747-8F structure (from 970k to 987K), when the aircraft was designed at zero-margin, with Boeing having no plans for a future stretch version or gross weight bump.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 119):
Original the 747-8F (then called 747EXF) started with a target 960.000 lbs MTOW

I wouldn't link this weight to the 747-8. During the PD phase, design weights move all over the place as competing configurations are studied and tweaked. Essentially, it was a different airplane than Boeing ended up building. The move from 960k to 970k was prior to gate 4 (firm concept in the BCA gated process), which was before the 747-8F program was launched or offered to customers.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 119):
After implementing many design changes (mission creep, especially the wing platform was heavily modified for better L/D performance.) the MTOW was raised to 970.000 lbs.

Again, these weren't design changes, they were configuration changes. This change occurred prior to gate 7 (firm configuration).

Thanks for the detailed post!

CM


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 107, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4162 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 8):
Cathay reported publicly (Australian Aviation Magazine, IIRC) that fuel burn on their freighters is better than spec. Apparently enough better they were anticipating Boeing would need to release a FMC software roll in order to more closely reflect actual fuel burn in the performance tool.

Any quotes that the aircraft is exceeding fuel burn specs is only partially correct. The specs that I referred to are the specs that were guarenteed at time of purchase. What Boeing has done is increased MTOW etc and has a new datum, that datum however is not what airlines like CX signed up for. A new airline making a purchase today would be to the new spec, and yes it will exceed those, however that is not what Boeing promised CX. The aircraft is heavier, and costing more to operate than what they originally guaranteed.

I saw some posts on here saying the 747-8 is burning only 8t/ hr, I had a chuckle at this. Yes it will do that empty, but not with the design payload. If it did it with the design payload, no airline would purchase the 77W.

The books Boeing published are not to the original design goals, they are their revised numbers, hence they have th new weights etc.

The FMS issues are something totally different, a lot of thing still do not work on the aircraft, the most noticeable is the vertical navigation used mainly for arrivals and departures where ATC have published altitude constraints. A number of features on the 747-8 do not work, in our FCOMs this is denoted by areas where text is published like this.

Instead of a follow on order of 747-8s, CX purchased the 77F last year.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4953 posts, RR: 5
Reply 108, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4027 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 126):
I saw some posts on here saying the 747-8 is burning only 8t/ hr, I had a chuckle at this. Yes it will do that empty, but not with the design payload.

The statement I saw in conjunction with this fuel flow said that the aircraft was at 380 or 385t. It was not clear what this weight related to or where in the flight the flow was observed

[Edited 2012-04-07 16:18:31]

User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 109, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4042 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 126):
The aircraft is heavier, and costing more to operate than what they originally guaranteed.

...and just to complete your sentence, costing more to operate but at higher MTOWs, presumably the revenue goes up as well.

Quoting zeke (Reply 126):
Instead of a follow on order of 747-8s, CX purchased the 77F last year.

You make it sound like they purchased 77Fs instead of a follow-on order because they were not happy with the 748F. This after being praised by several people in this topic for thorough replies! You really should add, if you were to say anything at all, that the 77Fs were bought for a different mission. As you know, the 77F and the 748F are in different classes, both carrying different loads in different market segments. It wasn't a 77F order INSTEAD of a 748F, it was a 77F order to compliment the 748F order.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 110, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4015 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 126):
saw some posts on here saying the 747-8 is burning only 8t/ hr, I had a chuckle at this. Yes it will do that empty, but not with the design payload. If it did it with the design payload, no airline would purchase the 77W.

How is it performing in relation to the 744F? Boeing is quoting a “double digit” percentage improvement, do you know if it’s actually achieving this?


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 111, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3987 times:

Quoting CCA (Reply 68):
CX has been adjusting the -8 performance figures constantly over the last 5 months, the flight plans for the -8F currently sit at........

Drag 0.0 Fuel Flow 0.0

ie better than what Boeing said to use! There is talk of going to negative figures such as -0.5 but they are still collecting data.

I don't know what they started at but it may have been something like 2.0 & 1.0..

Out of courosity I went and had a look at the Aircraft Performance Factors & Preference List from ops eng (CFD/Useful links) none of the 747-8 were on it, where are you getting your data ?

Quoting CCA (Reply 97):

Remember the crew rest area needs to be considered for the A380 when considering cargo space,

Not always, ala EK.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 110):
The A-380 requires more LD3s with just baggage than the B-747-8I does.

Only when it carries more passengers, generating more revenue. Passengers, even low fare customers normally on a per kg basis are more profitable than general freight. The true high value freight does not normally take up that much space, it mayb a couple of bags of express mail that can be loaded in the bulk.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 110):
Boeing's original specs on everything for the B-747-8I was based on a 970,000 MTOW. However, we know now the airplane is capable of a higher MTOW, some 2% higher, now at 987,000 lbs. We also know the new fuel burn numbers are based on the 987K MTOW, not the lower 970K MTOW. So the actuall improvement numbers, based on the original 970K MTOW (since you insist on using the original specs) is much closer to a 3% gain in fuel burn, range increase, etc. Or it is a 1% imprtovement based on the new MTOW of 987K. Your choice.

The reason for the increase in weights was to recover the lost payload/range capability of the aircraft due to the heavier airframe, and the aero package not being what they expected. They have recovered most, but not all of the design payload/range.

This is in direct contrast with SQ stating their A380s were exceeding guaranteed performance, even with a heavier airframe. Guaranteed performance is what airlines sign up for when they purchase an airframe, what Randy is talking about is the numbers currently published in heir performance books, however these are above the guaranteed numbers.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12136 posts, RR: 51
Reply 112, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3930 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 130):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 110):Boeing's original specs on everything for the B-747-8I was based on a 970,000 MTOW. However, we know now the airplane is capable of a higher MTOW, some 2% higher, now at 987,000 lbs. We also know the new fuel burn numbers are based on the 987K MTOW, not the lower 970K MTOW. So the actuall improvement numbers, based on the original 970K MTOW (since you insist on using the original specs) is much closer to a 3% gain in fuel burn, range increase, etc. Or it is a 1% imprtovement based on the new MTOW of 987K. Your choice.
The reason for the increase in weights was to recover the lost payload/range capability of the aircraft due to the heavier airframe, and the aero package not being what they expected. They have recovered most, but not all of the design payload/range.

The reason for the weight increase was the engineers found the B-787-8 actually had that much more performance and capability. Boeing only adjusted the MTOW a few months ago, and applied it to both the "F" and "I" models. I also seem to recall that during flight testing, the B-747-8F flew at least twice with a MTOW of over 1,000,000 lbs. I believe one mission was at 1,050,000 lbs and the other was at (or near) 1.1 million lbs. I believe that this is part of the data Boeing based its decision on to increase the MGW. IIRC the flight tests were conducted at EDW, which has a field elevation of about 2300', or 700m and were flown just under a year ago. The FAA flight tests were flown from Rwy 04L/22R, which is 12,000' X 200' (3660m X 60m).

But the B-747-8 was certified at 970,000 lbs MTOW, so Boeing must have applied for a supplement for the higher 987,000 lbs MTOW.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3396 posts, RR: 4
Reply 113, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3937 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 126):
I saw some posts on here saying the 747-8 is burning only 8t/ hr, I had a chuckle at this. Yes it will do that empty, but not with the design payload. If it did it with the design payload, no airline would purchase the 77W.

Proof?

Quoting zeke (Reply 126):
The FMS issues are something totally different, a lot of thing still do not work on the aircraft, the most noticeable is the vertical navigation used mainly for arrivals and departures where ATC have published altitude constraints. A number of features on the 747-8 do not work, in our FCOMs this is denoted by areas where text is published like this.

Proof?

Quoting zeke (Reply 130):
The reason for the increase in weights was to recover the lost payload/range capability of the aircraft due to the heavier airframe, and the aero package not being what they expected. They have recovered most, but not all of the design payload/range.

PROOF???? You best be finding some if you want to directly refute what multiple sources within the industry is saying about thier own aircraft. Don't forget its now a rule on airliners.net that speculation and opinion be clearly stated as such, and factual statements backed up with evidence of thier validity.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 114, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3860 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 132):

PROOF???? You best be finding some if you want to directly refute what multiple sources within the industry is saying about thier own aircraft. Don't forget its now a rule on airliners.net that speculation and opinion be clearly stated as such, and factual statements backed up with evidence of thier validity.

I understand that one source is an article written by an Australian magazine which had a reporter on board a 748F flight, but what are the other “industry sources”?

The Boeing blog is obviously not proof of anything and doesn’t contain any actual data, I did see some speculation in regards to a CX pilot posting over at PPRune – has he posted any proof to back up his claims ?


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 115, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3814 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 132):
Quoting zeke (Reply 126):
The FMS issues are something totally different, a lot of thing still do not work on the aircraft, the most noticeable is the vertical navigation used mainly for arrivals and departures where ATC have published altitude constraints. A number of features on the 747-8 do not work, in our FCOMs this is denoted by areas where text is published like this.

Proof?

That one's easy...it's right in the FCOMs.

Tom.


User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 116, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3772 times:

This is the one and only warning that will be given.

Please stay on topic in this thread and do not take this thread off-topic or it will be locked. If users continue to violate the Forum Rules by making personal attacks against other members of the site, they risk deletions and possible ban. If the participants cannot post within a manner that conforms to the Forum Rules, this thread WILL BE LOCKED.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 117, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3695 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 127):
The statement I saw in conjunction with this fuel flow said that the aircraft was at 380 or 385t. It was not clear what this weight related to or where in the flight the flow was observed

I have difficulty believing this number, that represents about 190t of payload and fuel. I just pulled up one flight plan and looked at the fuel flow that would correspond to that weight, it was 11.4t/hr, that would be the sort of weight at 1:30 after takeoff on a HKG-ANC flight.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 128):
...and just to complete your sentence, costing more to operate but at higher MTOWs, presumably the revenue goes up as well.

The real benefit will only present itself when it takes payloads that it is designed to carry, I do not follow your logic if it is lifting a normal 744F load, remember the 747-8F has a 30t heavier OEW than the 744ERF.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 128):
As you know, the 77F and the 748F are in different classes, both carrying different loads in different market segments.

The 77F will fly regional and long haul flights, just like the 747-8F. The 777F is very close to the same payload capabiliy as a 747BCF.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 117):
How is it performing in relation to the 744F? Boeing is quoting a “double digit” percentage improvement, do you know if it’s actually achieving this?

The actual metric I believe Boeing was saying is 16% more volume than the 744F, it has nothing to do with performance really, and it is an improvement they met without question.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 119):

That was the latest of many updates, http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...eases-747-8-family-weights-367030/

Go back to the 2005 launch you will see different weights.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 120):

I do not know the recent thread where they were discussing CX purchasing the 747-8i, I was away and did not have time to participate, a reference was made in there to 8t/hr which made me giggle.

As for the proof you are seeking, as Tom indicated it is in the FCOMs, you can get a copy of them when you order your own aircraft. Flight global addressed a number of issues around the time Cargolux was refusing to accept the first aircraft including the performance and FMC.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 118, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3615 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 117):
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 128):
...and just to complete your sentence, costing more to operate but at higher MTOWs, presumably the revenue goes up as well.

The real benefit will only present itself when it takes payloads that it is designed to carry, I do not follow your logic if it is lifting a normal 744F load, remember the 747-8F has a 30t heavier OEW than the 744ERF.

Well yes IF it is lifting a 744 load but why compare it to a 744? If a company operates DHC-8-100s then buy DHC8Q-400s, you cannot really compare the two of them anymore. They are different. They weigh different and carry different loads. The 748F replaces the 744F and gives more than the 744F ever could and yes it weighs more in order to provide that benefit. This is normal for any larger aircraft...not even sure why it is a discussion point. I am sure you did not compare our A346s to the A343s when they were around, but it is what you are doing with the 748F vs 744F.

Quoting zeke (Reply 117):
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 128):
As you know, the 77F and the 748F are in different classes, both carrying different loads in different market segments.

The 77F will fly regional and long haul flights, just like the 747-8F. The 777F is very close to the same payload capabiliy as a 747BCF.

Exactly....and the 747BCF and 748F are very different in themselves. Again, not comparable and not in the same class as each other. As you know, the range/payload of the 748F is much different to the 777F and they will be flying different longhaul markets. The 748F flies (long haul) almost exclusively to North America and the 777F's long hauls will be almost exclusively to Europe. Different missions for two different aircraft carrying different payloads. They are not comparable and they compliment each other in our fleet. It was never an either/or decision when ordering these planes.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 119, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3467 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 118):
Well yes IF it is lifting a 744 load but why compare it to a 744?

Because that is the payload being lifted, normally in the 100-110t range.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 118):
As you know, the range/payload of the 748F is much different to the 777F and they will be flying different longhaul markets. The 748F flies (long haul) almost exclusively to North America and the 777F's long hauls will be almost exclusively to Europe. Different missions for two different aircraft carrying different payloads. They are not comparable and they compliment each other in our fleet. It was never an either/or decision when ordering these planes.

I think you are understating the capability of the 777F somewhat, have a look at this link to compare it to the 744F. The typical payload mass being carried today in the 748F would fit in a 77F, the volume would not.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/freighters/777f_range.pdf



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 120, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3378 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 119):
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 118):
Well yes IF it is lifting a 744 load but why compare it to a 744?

Because that is the payload being lifted, normally in the 100-110t range.

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 118):
As you know, the range/payload of the 748F is much different to the 777F and they will be flying different longhaul markets. The 748F flies (long haul) almost exclusively to North America and the 777F's long hauls will be almost exclusively to Europe. Different missions for two different aircraft carrying different payloads. They are not comparable and they compliment each other in our fleet. It was never an either/or decision when ordering these planes.

I think you are understating the capability of the 777F somewhat, have a look at this link to compare it to the 744F. The typical payload mass being carried today in the 748F would fit in a 77F, the volume would not.

As you know, there are a limited number of choices to an airline like CX in terms of future freighters. The choice they have made in terms of new freighters makes good sense to me. To replace the 744 fleet, they have gone for some bigger more capable planes and some, as you put it, comparable planes. With the new cargo terminal coming and plenty of growth opportunities it makes perfect sense to me to get a more efficient freighter, capably of flying more freight. Remember, according to the company this is a tough year with lesser demand and plenty of freight flights being cancelled every week. So what happens when the market is good? Every ounce of space will be used in those 748Fs up to MTOW to carry beyond what the 744F was every capable of carrying.

I'm not really sure, but are you implying that CX should have stayed away from the 748Fs and only got a fleet of 777Fs?


User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 831 posts, RR: 14
Reply 121, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3200 times:

Here are some stats for the -8 on a 9 hour flight the -8 flight was actually 5min longer.

-400ERF vs -8F both had exactly the same fuel burn for the trip but the -8F was just over 50T (metric) heavier, I understand it's not 50T of freight, however it shows how much more efficient the -8F is.

Had the ERF been able to takeoff at the same weight as the -8F it would have burned 17T more fuel.

[Edited 2012-04-08 00:43:44]


C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 122, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2940 times:

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 120):
I'm not really sure, but are you implying that CX should have stayed away from the 748Fs and only got a fleet of 777Fs?

No I think we need both ! And maybe also something smaller, and better air/road/rail/sea cargo access, that is for another thread. I think the 77F will allow us to open up some impressive new city pairs, while the 748F can continue on the backbone. My objection to you comments was in relation to the suggestion that the 748F will only do North America, and the 77F will only do Europe. I can think of a few routes west of HKG where the -8F would be better, and some direct services in the USA and beyond that could that could use the 77Fs range.

Quoting CCA (Reply 121):
You're clearly not a pilot with CX if you don't know where the figures are.

I know exactly where the fleet figures are, I have posted the location in CFD above. You can read my PM to see more detail.

Quoting CCA (Reply 122):
Had the ERF been able to takeoff at the same weight as the -8F it would have burned 17T more fuel.

I just sent yourself and CX flyboy two flights with almost identical payloads of around 119 t over HKG-ANC sector. Despite the 744ERF having 55 kt less tailwind, being airborne for close to an hour longer, the total fuel differance (that is assuming you mean total fuel when you posted "more fuel") was less than 7t.

No idea where the 17t figure was dreamed up from, perhaps the same place the 8t/hr comes from.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2896 times:

Maybe the 747-8F was underestimated and the 787-8 was overestimated? If they get the engines to spec and get some weight out of the 748 it will shine in its role.

The passenger model will have a much harder future, despite being much better than the 744, it has more competition than the F.

As Boeing will upgrade the current 777 there is no Y3 to replace the 747+777.


User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 831 posts, RR: 14
Reply 124, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 123):
No idea where the 17t figure was dreamed up from, perhaps the same place the 8t/hr comes from.

I still don't think you are a pilot with CX, you may have a pilots licence but doubt you fly wide body A/C.



C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 812 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2783 times:

This is an interesting topic, please don't get it locked.

User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 126, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2726 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 123):
My objection to you comments was in relation to the suggestion that the 748F will only do North America, and the 77F will only do Europe. I can think of a few routes west of HKG where the -8F would be better, and some direct services in the USA and beyond that could that could use the 77Fs range.

Oh I agree there are places both east and west of HKG suited to both the 777F and 748F and other carriers from other countries fly both these types in both directions. I was more stating what CX intends to do with the aircraft, initially anyway, rather than what they would be best suited for and this is from the fleet offices themselves.

CCA, I know Zeke has a pro-Airbus bias, but I do think it is unfair to say what you have said. His posts although sometimes a bit biased are thoroughly researched, his points backed up and it is clear that he is an Airbus pilot at CX!


User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 127, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2708 times:

Since some of you do not want to follow the requests made by a Head Forum Moderator, this thread is now locked. From the Forum Rules:

Quote:
1a. Please respect the opinions of others and choose your words wisely. Each user has their own point of view, and these views must be respected.

1b. Please word all criticism, whether of another user's opinion, a photograph, crew member, a political topic, etc., in a constructive manner. Criticism which serves no purpose other than to incite or insult other members will be deleted and your account possibly suspended.

1c. If a topic becomes a debate, you may debate the subject itself but not the credibility or intellect of other members.

1e. Do not post a message on how you find a topic or user irrelevant, boring, childish or stupid.

1f. Do not provoke other users or incite trouble. Do not allow others to provoke you.

1g. Should a user antagonize, slander or intimidate you, DO NOT retaliate. All members are expected to comply with forum rules even if they have been provoked by another member. Bring this to our attention by suggesting the offending post for deletion (see below).

It's extremely troubling that some of the participants who are clearly violating the above Forum Rules are longtime members of this and should be well aware of what sort of behavior is allowed in these Forums. If you want personally attack users, you will not do 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...
767 Winglets Better Than Expected posted Thu Oct 15 2009 15:34:06 by Tommytoyz
748 Better Than Spec posted Wed Sep 23 2009 09:36:11 by Cosmofly
AW&ST: B747-8F - Better Than Expected Fuelburn posted Sat Nov 29 2008 14:31:00 by OyKIE
ATWOnline: GTF Better Than Expected Test Results posted Sun Jun 22 2008 23:53:46 by OyKIE
Boeing Reports Better-Than-Expected 2Q Results posted Wed Jul 25 2007 18:59:02 by Bbobbo
Randy Says: 748 To Have Lowest Casm Period posted Wed Nov 16 2005 00:55:32 by Lumberton
FR Posts 'better Than Expected' Profit. posted Tue Aug 2 2005 13:07:34 by 7LBAC111
Leahy Says A350's Better Than 787 Or 777 posted Fri Jun 3 2005 12:32:19 by Kalakaua
A380 Fuel Burn Better Than Expected posted Wed May 25 2005 08:41:11 by Jacobin777
Snba Posts Better Than Expected 1st Q Results posted Fri Jun 11 2004 13:35:28 by Scorpio