Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Huge 748i OEW Increase: Range Reduced To ~7500nm  
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 24874 times:

I can't believe no one has commented on this yet...

Boeing's December 2012 airport planning guide update shows a 15,300 lb increase in OEW to 485,300 lb and a range with 467 pax and baggage reduced to just over 7500nm; and this is WITH the MTOW increase to 987,000 lb.

(remember we were told that 5000 lbs of weight was just removed this past year with 5000 more on the way for 2014)

Original OEW was to be 471,000 lb (and change), and was reduced in the Dec. 2011 planning guide to 470,000 lb.

(OEW for the -8f is increased by the same amount, with range dropping to ~4250 and payload to 292,000 lb at the 987k MTOW)

Something is VERY wrong here!

I will admit I am one of the biggest 747-8i fanboy's of them all, but if this is true, it destroys the business case for this aircraft.          

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3384 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 24861 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

would you post a link to the source data please?

User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 24654 times:

here's the link: (Boeing commercial airplanes home)

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/747.htm

click on the pdf's for 747-8 "description" and "performance" it's all there...


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6527 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 24536 times:

We're learning this now but it has been there all along (or current flying planes are even heavier), right ?


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 24435 times:

That is what is so puzzling... Lufthansa says it is actually getting 1% better fuel burn than expected, given the GEnx-2b fuel consumption shortfall... what were they basing their expectations on in terms of OEW?

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9490 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 24319 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 3):
We're learning this now but it has been there all along (or current flying planes are even heavier), right ?

The airport planning guide is generic and does not reflect actual airline configurations. It's a good starting point, but it isn't exactly what the real numbers are. Weight and balance procedures are provided in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-27. There's a weight and balance program for every airline based on their airplane configuration.

5,000lbs is a big deal as far as fuel burn goes, and this might help explain the popularity of the airplane, however comparing different models exclusively on the airport planning guide results in a lot of assumptions and inaccuracies that can skew the results. Airlines know this.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 24087 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In November 2006, Boeing gave an OEW of 212,000 kilograms | 466,700 pounds.

In January 2008, Boeing gave an OEW of 215,0000 kilograms | 472,900 pounds.

In January 2012, OEW was given as 213,000 kilograms | 470,000 pounds.

In December 2012, OEW was given as 220,128 kilograms | 485,300 pounds.

Range at MZFW in the January 2008 ACAP was 6250nm. This shrank to ~6000nm in the December 2011 and remains that in the December 2012 ACAP.

All figures are for a 467-passenger Boeing OEM configuration.

[Edited 2013-02-05 16:28:49]

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4859 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 24062 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 3):
We're learning this now but it has been there all along (or current flying planes are even heavier), right ?

Clearly some are just catching up , but there are others who have kept abreast of the topic.


Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 4):
what were they basing their expectations on in terms of OEW?

LH knew all along what they were getting, there would be no surprises. What Boeings guarantee to LH is and whether the aircraft meets it we will probably never know.


User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 23165 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):

Thanks for that info Stitch-

I just don't get how the OEW can go down by almost 3000 pounds and then one year later -after a 5000 pound weight reduction- go up by over 15,000 pounds.

Also, going from 466,700 to 485,300 is just incredible, and rather disappointing.


User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 22836 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Thread starter):
I will admit I am one of the biggest 747-8i fanboy's of them all, but if this is true, it destroys the business case for this aircraft.          

The 77W did that, but the 748 is not helping itself by being so porky.

The 777X will finish off the 748. That should be apparent by now.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 22834 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 8):
Also, going from 466,700 to 485,300 is just incredible, and rather disappointing.

Those earlier figures would have been projections since the 747-8 was still in the design stage.

The December 2012 figure could also represent the OEW of the first frames, which would have the full 10,000 pounds of overage. For a time, Boeing listed the 787-8 OEW based on the Block Point when it would be at spec weight. When that Block Point shifted to later frames, Boeing revised the OEW upwards to reflect the current Block Point OEW. So a "fully optimized" 747-8 might have an OEW of 475,000 pounds - close to the January 2008 OEW.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3384 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 21738 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

One think to look is the purpose of the document... airport planning So it should show the maximums of the earliest members of the fleet since you never know which aircraft will arrive. Say you took the most recent and allowed no insurance then the heaviest arrived and sank through the asphalt...

User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 21244 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):

Thanks for that explanation, that makes a lot more sense. So for 2014 we have a 475,000 lb OEW with the GEnx-2b performing at or slightly better than spec, plus the trim drag reduction that comes with an activated tail fuel tank, and range might increase to 8100-8200 nm.

Of course Boeing still has room to increase MTOW as well, I would guess to at least 1,000,000 pounds based on testing to 1,010,000 pounds.

Either way, the 4% thrust bump for the freighter should become standard given that thrust has stayed the same from the start of the program (66,500 lb) while the aircraft was lengthened and MTOW rose from 960,000 lbs to 987,000 lbs.

Quoting kanban (Reply 11):

good point.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7192 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 19573 times:

Ok so in layman's terms, what's going on here, the newer 748i models are going to have a shorter range because its heavier?

What's the point of that? It's like trying to sell a dead dog to a buyer intending on parading that dog at the dog show after the parade.

Quoting brons2 (Reply 9):
The 777X will finish off the 748. That should be apparent by now.

But isn't the 77X still just a hypothesis? I never saw anything at all regarding its production, unless you gentlemen can clue me in.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 611 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 18254 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 4):

Hello
I think that LH means that it's 1% better than boeing revised specs that should include the real weights... Theses revised specs can be less than projected specs at the beginning of the program... (or the same if it's a well run program   )
Also, specs or garantees written in sales contract can be less than projected specs

That's what I understand

Thank you SCAT15F for the link and the news


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 958 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 18058 times:

LH must have made s splendid deak with Boeing. LH seems happy with the 747-8 although all data shows that they should not be happy. I wonder how many performance clauses were not meht and how much discount LH could get becuase of that. I would not be surprised if they got those 747-8i for less money than they would have had to spent on a regular 77W order.

User currently onlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2353 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 17349 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 5):

The airport planning guide is generic and does not reflect actual airline configurations. It's a good starting point, but it isn't exactly what the real numbers are.

If anything, the (OEW) numbers in the ACAP are lighter and (other numbers/charts) more conservative than operator manuals.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
All figures are for a 467-passenger Boeing OEM configuration.

Which operator has anything near a 467 passenger 3-class config? I get tired of these canned manufacturer numbers.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinerlwynn From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 1075 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 17200 times:

How many routes for this plane are over 7500nm?


I can drive faster than you
User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 800 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 16098 times:

Wonder if this will influence CX's much-debated decision on a potential 748i / A380 VLA purchase since it looks like one key route like HKG - JFK won't be doable with a 748i now but should be with post-2015 A380's ??   

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 15726 times:

Quoting TC957 (Reply 18):
it looks like one key route like HKG - JFK won't be doable with a 748i now but should be with post-2015 A380's

The A380 is further along in it's maturity, it started with the same problems as the 748, if you need the frame to fly very long legs in the near vicinity in time this can affect your decision, if it is a decision for the long term the frames true mature potential will decide. I expect the 748 to get back to spec 8000nm just like the A380 did (it has now passed it).

Another thing to have in mind is that the 748 spec pax count is done with an old spec seating standard, more so then the A380. If you load both to the same standard the 748 will have less seats and pax, ie it will be taking more fuel and flying longer. Say the diff is 40 seats, the seat+pax+bags weigh some 6t. Take it away with an average FF of 10.6t per hour this gives you an equalized 748 spec range of 8000nm, the same as the present A380 (the Dec 2012 ACAP spec range is ~ 7700nm not 7500).

I think you can say for equal maturity they have equal range if you seat the 748 and the A380 to the same standard.

[Edited 2013-02-06 02:48:06]


Non French in France
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8202 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14317 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 19):
The A380 is further along in it's maturity, it started with the same problems as the 748

The A380 was a brand new, clean sheet airplane. The 748i is a new version of a 40 year old airplane. The 748i is a far more mature platform than the A380 will ever be, IMO. So that excuse doesn't fly with me. The whole point of the 748i was that it was a very low risk and low cost (for Boeing), airplane. But if Boeing is having to give it away because it can't meet its contractual obligations (not a fact, just a plausible sugestion), then something would be seriously wrong.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 14261 times:

Quoting TC957 (Reply 18):
Wonder if this will influence CX's much-debated decision on a potential 748i / A380 VLA purchase since it looks like one key route like HKG - JFK won't be doable with a 748i now but should be with post-2015 A380's ??

According to GCM, the HKG-JFK route is 7014 nm, well inside the B-747-8i range now.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 19):
The A380 is further along in it's maturity, it started with the same problems as the 748, if you need the frame to fly very long legs in the near vicinity in time this can affect your decision, if it is a decision for the long term the frames true mature potential will decide. I expect the 748 to get back to spec 8000nm just like the A380 did

  


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4859 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13585 times:

Quoting TC957 (Reply 18):
one key route like HKG - JFK won't be doable with a 748i now but should be with post-2015 A380's ??
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
According to GCM, the HKG-JFK route is 7014 nm, well inside the B-747-8i range now.

JFK-HKG is a 16hr flight which gives it an ESAD of ~ 7500nm. The ZFW for this distance from the Dec.2012 load/range chart is ~265t. With OEW at ~220t this gives a 45t payload. or about max passenger load based on Boeings 3-class standard layout.


User currently offlineairlinebuilder From Philippines, joined Nov 2012, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13305 times:

I think we should all sign a paper of consent on DNR (do not resuscitate) so to speak, lets give the B748i a rest.....its one of those aircraft that has served its time. Lets just let her be the aircraft that could have and would have but did not really happen.......   

User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3735 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11256 times:

Isn't the Tail Fuel Tank issue part of the range restriction, or has that been solved already?


Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4859 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11453 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 24):
Isn't the Tail Fuel Tank issue part of the range restriction, or has that been solved already?

In 2.0 airplane description in the ACAP sheets, the max fuel including tail tank is shown as 193.280t. On the load/range table it is shown as 191.656t. So it would appear that a range restriction is still in effect.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11122 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seahawk (Reply 15):
I wonder how many performance clauses were not meht and how much discount LH could get becuase of that.

To the best of my knowledge, the 747-8 is meeting the contractual guarantees (which are written to be less then what the OEM expects the plane to be able to do).



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 16):
Which operator has anything near a 467 passenger 3-class config? I get tired of these canned manufacturer numbers.

They have to put something in there.



Quoting francoflier (Reply 24):
Isn't the Tail Fuel Tank issue part of the range restriction, or has that been solved already?

It is and it has not.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9490 posts, RR: 52
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8994 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 15):
LH must have made s splendid deak with Boeing. LH seems happy with the 747-8 although all data shows that they should not be happy. I wonder how many performance clauses were not meht and how much discount LH could get becuase of that. I would not be surprised if they got those 747-8i for less money than they would have had to spent on a regular 77W order.

First off, Boeing and Airbus don’t make contractual guarantees at the actual projected performance of the airplane. They back off the numbers just in case. Early launch customers have the contractual guarantees backed off even further. As a concession, the manufacturer comes down on price for the early customers.

The 747-8 was launched in the conventional way. The airplane went through the gated design process and after Firm Concept the airplane was offered for orders. At Firm Concept they have a good expectation for what the target weight will be and what risks there are for it being higher. These are built in to the contractual guarantees with an additional buffer.

Late ordering customers almost always get an airplane that is better on paper than the early ordering customers. The consequence is that they have to pay a higher purchase price and they don’t get as desirable production slots.

To this date, I haven’t seen anything from LH or any other 747-8 customer that indicates the performance specifications have not been met. If anyone has this, I’d love to see it.
Just because they don’t meet what was initially anticipated in the media doesn’t mean it doesn’t meet the performance requirements.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 13):
Ok so in layman's terms, what's going on here, the newer 748i models are going to have a shorter range because its heavier?

It’s just the airport planning guide being updated. I don’t think that the airplanes have suddenly gotten heavier. Boeing just finally updated the planning guide to show more realistic numbers.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3384 posts, RR: 26
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7285 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TC957 (Reply 18):
Wonder if this will influence CX's much-debated

Again no.. this is an Airport Planning Document.. not a sales brochure. It's intended audience is airport managers. It identifies the space requirements, maximum passengers that may load and unload, what the service requirements are and where they're located on the plane.. It tells the customer how big the hanger must be and what the maximum load on the floor/tarmac. It has zero to do with any contractual aspects of a sale.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7269 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 27):
Boeing just finally updated the planning guide to show more realistic numbers.

As they finally also did for the 788, I commend them for that. It is better to be straight and take the disappointment once, after that the discussion can focus on the virtues of the frame.

Airbus no longer publicize a spec OEW, to bad.



Non French in France
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6472 times:

Wasn't the A388 overweight initially by a similar amount? something like 5-7 tonnes? I can't recall exactly.

I am also curious as to the oft-quoted sfc numbers by Lufthansa, which as I recall were something like 3.1 gal (or was it liters?) per passenger per mile for the A380 and 3.3 for the 748?

I wonder where those numbers stand now and where they will be once they get the "definitive" 748i of 2014 that has the pip, rear tankage activation for better cruise drag, and full 10,000 lb OEW decrease...


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6157 times:

Wouldn't an airport planning guide be based on the heaviest of the line, or the first ones?


Andy Goetsch
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6203 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 30):
I am also curious as to the oft-quoted sfc numbers by Lufthansa, which as I recall were something like 3.1 gal (or was it liters?) per passenger per mile for the A380 and 3.3 for the 748?

I wonder where those numbers stand now and where they will be once they get the "definitive" 748i of 2014 that has the pip, rear tankage activation for better cruise drag, and full 10,000 lb OEW decrease...

That latest numbers I have seen LH publish (2011) showed:

A388: 3.4 liters per 100km 549 Seats
B748: 3.8 liters per 100km 362 Seats
A346: 4.1 liters per 100km 306 Seats
B744: 4.2 liters per 100km 344 Seats


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12883 posts, RR: 100
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5957 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 31):
Wouldn't an airport planning guide be based on the heaviest of the line, or the first ones?

Yes.  

I suspect these are better numbers to deal with:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
A388: 3.4 liters per 100km 549 Seats
B748: 3.8 liters per 100km 362 Seats
A346: 4.1 liters per 100km 306 Seats
B744: 4.2 liters per 100km 344 Seats

That much more floor area and only 18 more seats... LH went premium with the 748I. It would look a little better with a cabin at the A388 density.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9490 posts, RR: 52
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5945 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
That latest numbers I have seen LH publish (2011) showed:

A388: 3.4 liters per 100km 549 Seats
B748: 3.8 liters per 100km 362 Seats
A346: 4.1 liters per 100km 306 Seats
B744: 4.2 liters per 100km 344 Seats

Thanks for the number. Those are per seat figures if I remember right. That would definitely favor the A380. The A380 numbers are even better in the LH configuration since their configuration has a higher percentage of economy seats on the A380 than on other planes. LH has basically the same number of first and business class seats on the 747-8 as they do on the A380. They use all the extra cabin space on the A380 for economy seats, which makes a big difference when looking at fuel burn per seat or CASM.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5848 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 33):
That much more floor area and only 18 more seats... LH went premium with the 748I. It would look a little better with a cabin at the A388 density.

Yes.

At 386 seats, it drops to 3.7 liters per 100km.

In 2009, LH was planning 405 seats and they projected a fuel burn of 3.5 liters per 100km.



Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 34):
Those are per seat figures if I remember right.

That is correct.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4193 times:

My model tracks both frames very well (within 50 nm on a trip of 7700nm), when I compare them on a kg/knm/m2 cabin I get 50.4 kg/knm/m2 for A380 and 52.5 kg/knm/m2 for the 748. That is a 4% difference, comparing the latest spec A380 (575t) with the 748 as given in the ACAP but with a cabin seating 427 pax (214t OEW for 748 and 275t for A380).

I would think the diff is in the order of less then 5%, it is such that if you can't fill the A380 you are better of with a 748.

The only real difference between the frames IMO is the still present halo effect of the A380, Emirates refer to it often as does other carriers. I haven't yet flown a A380 but flown the 747 zig times, to me the 748 is just another 747, i wouldn't change my travel plan to get on one, I will would for a A380 however if the trip is long.



Non French in France
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 611 posts, RR: 8
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3908 times:

Ferpe, another difference is that the a380 is a 8500nm, and we know for sure that @575t it can do lax-dxb (or the other way)at full pax payload in a heavy emirates layout.
The 747-8 is only a 8000 nm bird. It mighy need another 10t mtow increase.
How much cargo can both take at 7000 nm


User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2349 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 36):
My model tracks both frames very well (within 50 nm on a trip of 7700nm), when I compare them on a kg/knm/m2 cabin I get 50.4 kg/knm/m2 for A380 and 52.5 kg/knm/m2 for the 748. That is a 4% difference, comparing the latest spec A380 (575t) with the 748 as given in the ACAP but with a cabin seating 427 pax (214t OEW for 748 and 275t for A380).

Thanks Ferpe, that actually is much better than I thought. When you add the 2014 improvements such as the PIP, etc., the 748 actually becomes quite competitive.

Guess I got worked up for nothing!   


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4859 posts, RR: 5
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2137 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 37):
How much cargo can both take at 7000 nm

That is more a function of the number of seats and thus the space left after loading the LD3's with the baggage. I am certain the A380 is volume limited with ~ 470-seats but the 748i is probably not assuming 400-seats. Both will haul about 16t less the spread between OEW and DOW .


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...
BA To Increase LHR-DUB To 8 X Daily posted Thu Aug 16 2012 08:19:20 by GSTBA
MIA-MUC Reduced To 4X Weekly For Rest Of December? posted Thu Dec 16 2010 11:37:57 by miaintl
Airbus To Increase A320 Production To 40/month posted Fri Jul 30 2010 01:11:27 by Centre
Boeing To Increase 737 Production To 34 Per Month posted Mon May 17 2010 15:05:17 by aeropiggot
Etihad To Increase Dublin Flights To 10 Per Week posted Thu Feb 11 2010 04:41:56 by Fly2CHC
Increase In Traffic To IAD For Obama Inauguration? posted Mon Dec 8 2008 18:06:58 by Superfly
UA To Increase Fares Up To $50 posted Fri Mar 14 2008 10:25:43 by AS777
MX To Increase FAT-GDL To Year-round Daily Flights posted Mon Feb 4 2008 19:10:32 by FATFlyer
Lufthansa Increase NCL-DUS To 2 X Daily posted Thu Sep 20 2007 09:15:06 by Gkirk
Huge Cocaine Bust On AeroMex Flight To ORD posted Sun Apr 29 2007 05:58:40 by 777fan