Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Reduces 747-8 Weight By 2.5tons  
User currently offlineWaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 339 posts, RR: 3
Posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 18664 times:

I didn't see this posted anywhere yet.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ght-tweaks-aileron-setting-379799/


The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31375 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 18561 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

747classic pegged the OEW excess for the earlier-built frames at between 1.8 and 2.7 tons, so this 2.5 ton reduction should pretty much bring the 747-8 on-target.

So with the 7.7 ton increase in MTOW, that should help recover a fair bit of payload for the freighter. And once the GE PiPs are in place to address the SFC miss...   


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 18407 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
747classic pegged the OEW excess for the earlier-built frames at between 1.8 and 2.7 tons, so this 2.5 ton reduction should pretty much bring the 747-8 on-target.

So with the 7.7 ton increase in MTOW, that should help recover a fair bit of payload for the freighter. And once the GE PiPs are in place to address the SFC miss

Agree. Cargolux seem to think the improvements get the plane pretty much to its original spec

Quote:
"The performance, with [the improvements] all in mind, is quite close to what Boeing had in mind," Germeaux added.

Rgds


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 18351 times:

Nice to see the grand old lady still has some improvement in her. Will the freighter ever be eclipsed? The passenger model will fade with time, but will the freighter model live on?

User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10816 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 18063 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 3):

Nice to see the grand old lady still has some improvement in her. Will the freighter ever be eclipsed? The passenger model will fade with time, but will the freighter model live on?

The suggested A380F, if it ever becomes reality, is a different concept that apparently doesnt work for most customers. I dont think it´ll fly. The same is the case for a possible re-engineered and vastly modernised AN124.

There is no serious competition, nothing even remotely visible on the horizon to take the 747Fs place so I say chances are high that will see new Jumbo Jet freighters rolling of the line after 2025. Even another new 747F variant with more efficient engines seems possible beyond the mid-20s. Chances are the 747 will become the aircraft type with the longest production run ever.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17996 times:

The A380 has no nose loading possibility, sure it could carry heavier weights but it could not do what the 747 does. It will probably be the only civilian freighter with a nose cargo door. A unique feature so far for civilian freighters?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31375 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17971 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I know some pundits like to point out that "nobody" uses the nose door for cargo handling (even though the Photo database continues to add new pictures of operators using the nose door for cargo handling), but if that was truly the case, one would think Boeing would not have engineered it into the 747-8F as it adds weight and complexity.

[Edited 2012-12-05 10:57:47]

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17883 times:

Yeah the pictures of the first 748F delivered had it loaded through the nose. I would guess a nose loading is faster?

User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2828 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17858 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
A unique feature ?

Nope, Bristol 170


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31375 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17799 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 7):
Yeah the pictures of the first 748F delivered had it loaded through the nose. I would guess a nose loading is faster?

Yes.

The disadvantage to nose loading is pallets cannot be dimensioned as high as those loaded through the side door.


User currently offlineExtra300 From Sweden, joined Sep 2011, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17764 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
A unique feature so far for civilian freighters?

Don´t forget the utterly cool ATL-98 Carvair


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17766 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 7):
I would guess a nose loading is faster?

The main reason for using the nose door is for cargo which cannot go through the cargo door. Often it is very long items.


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17736 times:

And the Me-323 Gigant  


Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9228 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17432 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
I know some pundits like to point out that "nobody" uses the nose door for cargo handling (even though the Photo database continues to add new pictures of operators using the nose door for cargo handling), but if that was truly the case, one would think Boeing would not have engineered it into the 747-8F as it adds weight and complexity.

A very small percentage of our freighter flights use nose loading in HKG, and that is normally for long items like yacht masts. The shape of most freighter aprons does not cater for nose loading, often these bays have structures for guidance onto the bay erected in-front of the pilots to tell them left/right and when to stop. Wingtip clearance is the issue.

With the longer length of the 747-8F again, nose loading takes up taxi/apron space, or the vehicular access road. As previously mentioned, the pallets if nose loaded are restricted to 8' high due to the cockpit, where they can go to 10' high with a larger footprint via the main door.

Quoting sweair (Reply 7):
Yeah the pictures of the first 748F delivered had it loaded through the nose. I would guess a nose loading is faster?

I have never seen any of the express carriers load via the nose at HKG, they would not most time sensitive carriers. Loading/unloading only via the nose would not be that smart from a W&B point of view, sounds like a good way for this to potentially happen


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Morris Biondi

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 8):
Bristol 170

Armstrong Whitworth Argosy, Antonov (various), Beluga, Super Guppy are some others. For long bulky items, an aircraft the size of a 747 in most cases is an overkill for the payload length, volume, or mass.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5787 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17366 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 13):
For long bulky items, an aircraft the size of a 747 in most cases is an overkill for the payload length, volume, or mass.

Like airlines using long haul aircraft on regional routes, some operators would probably prefer to have the capability built into their 747's and have it when needed. Or, I guess, they could tell the customer to pound sand. I'm sure if someone is loading through the nose that no one is holding a gun to their head - they could always turn the business away if it isn't profitable, so I'm guessing that it's a least a useful feature at times.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17326 times:

The nose door would be gone if customers did not want it, I am sure it is a benefit for many operators other than Zekes employer.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20333 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17198 times:

Returning to the OT (heaven forbid   ), what did Boeing to do shave off 2.5T of weight? And what did they do to the ailerons? Is it the same slight downward deflection to improve the wing twist as on the 77L/W vs the 772?

Is the 748i now fully FBW or are only some surfaces FBW?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31375 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17134 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
What did Boeing to do shave off 2.5T of weight?

As I understand it, the airframe was over-engineered / over-built - especially the parts handled by the Moscow Design Center ( they must have been building to Soviet spec.   ). This was why they could raise the MTOW almost 8 tons. So I expect they have subsequently engineered out some of that extra structure.

I believe only the spoilers and outboard ailerons are FBW. They do droop the ailerons to allow for low speed performance and tune low-speed roll response. They also are used to counter the flutter effect generated by certain flight conditions.

[Edited 2012-12-05 12:24:23]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9228 posts, RR: 76
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 17076 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 15):
The nose door would be gone if customers did not want it, I am sure it is a benefit for many operators other than Zekes employer.

There is a benefit, however it is small.

Have a look for yourself at the worldwide freighter fleet (all sizes) and see how many aircraft have nose loading, and ask yourself if there was a considerable benefit, why the majority of freighters do not have it.

Ask yourself what sort of customer needs to send something by air that cannot fit on a standard pallet, and how often that demand would arise. The answer is not zero, however it is not as great as the the demand for shipping engines, or electronics. Airlines survive by having consistent loads which are boxes and pallets, ad-hoc charters for over size items are great of you can get them, and if the spare capacity is there in your fleet at the time.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5787 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 16922 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
Airlines survive by having consistent loads which are boxes and pallets, ad-hoc charters for over size items are great of you can get them, and if the spare capacity is there in your fleet at the time.

True. But you can't get those needing a nose-loading capability if you don't have nose-loading capability. You don't need every freighter in your fleet to have the ability but having it on one type will benefit some operators. I guess the question is if it would make sense to have it only be an option, but apparently Boeing decided that it wasn't. Thus, a moot point.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 16779 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
There is a benefit, however it is small.

This depends highly on the operator. There are some 747F operators with contracts to carry goods which require the nose door (again, primarily because of length). The 747 is the only viable freighter with this capability and many carriers would have been hurt by a 747F which did not offer it. The weight of the nose door easily buys its way onto the airplane for these operators; they often charge up to a 50% premium for this cargo (as I am sure CX does for carrying masts, etc).


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5787 posts, RR: 28
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 16628 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 20):
The weight of the nose door easily buys its way onto the airplane for these operators; they often charge up to a 50% premium for this cargo (as I am sure CX does for carrying masts, etc).

If they didn't, I'm sure they wouldn't be carrying it. Unless, of course, they have two much capacity, but then why take additional 748F's?

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 16456 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
There is a benefit, however it is small.

Small, but commercially viable from an aircraft manufacturing standpoint. Which says it all.

And that's all that really matters.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5787 posts, RR: 28
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 16415 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 22):
And that's all that really matters.

Somehow I think it will never really matter.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1392 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16225 times:

Quoting na (Reply 4):
Chances are the 747 will become the aircraft type with the longest production run ever.

Will be interesting to see if it can/will surpass the C-130 Hercules which has been in continuous production since 1954, which has 14 or 15 years on it......



Treat others as you expect to be treated!
25 columba : Can existing planes be retrofitted so that they benefit from that weight reduction as well. I believe LH will be very keen to get some lighter planes.
26 kl671 : And the Airbus A300-600ST Beluga.
27 flightsimer : The beluga is NOT nose loading. It's forehead loading.
28 Post contains images Viscount724 : And the Bristol 170 Freighter.
29 Speedbird128 : Quite... I worked at an airport supporting 3 or 4 cargo airlines which used their 747s there... not once in 4 years did i see the nose opened... all
30 parapente : Quoting zeke (Reply 18): There is a benefit, however it is small. Quite... I worked at an airport supporting 3 or 4 cargo airlines which used their 74
31 na : Perhaps that impression is influenced because many of the 747Fs you see are BCFs? In FRA I regularly see 747Fs with open nose. If airlines wouldnt ne
32 DarkSnowyNight : My office happens to be adjacent to a cargo loading bay at LAX. We see mostly Southern, Asiana, CX, & NCA on this side. Discounting the ones that
33 Stitch : I fully believe that the lack of nose-loading played zero impact in the A380-800F not finding strong interest in the general cargo market. And the A3
34 na : If I remember right the only interest in the A380F came from package carriers, Fedex etc. I doubt that Airbus would ever build it for just a handful
35 Stitch : EK ordered the first two in 2001 (my joke was they were to carry back all the shopping that wouldn't fit in the hold of the passenger A380s). ILFC al
36 zeke : You might think so, even with our large 747F fleet, working out of the airport with the most amount of international air freight in the world, we wou
37 Post contains images astuteman : The big one was the schedule slippage, which caused 2 customers to convert to pax models. The freight specialists (FX and 5X) insisted that Airbus gi
38 747classic : It all depends what kind of freight your sales department is able to attract and also how flexible your flight scheduling department is . Having opera
39 airbazar : So what's keeping the "twin engine revolution" from eventually making its way to the freighter business? It's not like range is a benefit in this bus
40 Post contains images Stitch : That certainly explains why the package carriers walked, but we both know that Airbus didn't develop the A380-800F to only appeal to package carriers
41 CM : I'm not sure this is really a fair assessment of the situation. Every competitor casts doubt on the competition (see past Leahy comments about the 78
42 PlanesNTrains : Really? Carriers didn't buy the freighter model because of misinformation? That was the biggest problem? What a sad and awkward statement about the t
43 KC135TopBoom : Boeing has had the design for the nose door since the B-747-200F, and continued through the B-747-400F/-400ERF. Cargo airlines use it a lot at DFW. Y
44 JoeCanuck : I bet that if someone was willing to put a down payment on a few, Boeing would be willing to make a 748F without the nose door. I doubt they would ha
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...
Ipads Help Reduce Scoot Aircraft Weight By 2 Tons posted Sun Jun 3 2012 13:55:26 by LAXDESI
Boeing Raises 748F Mtow By 13000lb posted Wed Jan 18 2012 00:46:13 by art
Boeing: Passengers To Space By 2015 posted Thu Sep 16 2010 09:05:57 by voar
Boeing Assembles 747-8I Forward Fuselage posted Tue Sep 14 2010 08:19:49 by OyKIE
Boeing Completes 747-8F Factory Gauntlet posted Fri Nov 6 2009 09:51:55 by IAD787
Tui Reduces 787 Order By Ten Aircraft posted Tue Sep 29 2009 02:52:15 by BestWestern
Boeing Targets 747-8 Payload/range Boost posted Wed Jun 17 2009 02:49:38 by Aviationbuff
747 Followed By Fighter Jet Near Manhattan posted Mon Apr 27 2009 07:10:59 by Curiousflyer
Emirates Seeks A380 And 747-8 Weight Control posted Sat Oct 27 2007 07:24:40 by EI321
Northwest B-747 Hit By Lightning posted Tue Aug 14 2007 11:43:04 by SIBILLE