widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:25 am

I thought some here may find this information useful so here are some excerpts from the latest 747-8 Planning Manual augmented by my own cast-down data.

Original Boeing document here:

Boeing 747-8 Airport Compatibility Brochure


General Arrangements:

747-8

747-8F

Interior Arrangements:

747-8

747-8F


Payload Range Capability:

Payload Range Chart 747-8

http://theaviationspecialist.com/748f_prc.gifPayload Range Chart 747-8F[/url]


Airplane Characteristics:

747-8 Airplane Characteristics

747-8 Airplane Characteristics


747-8 Airplane Cast Down Data

747-8 And A380-800 Family Data


This stuff is free people. There are no warranties expressed or implied. Actual mileage may vary...Now talk amongst yourselves. But on a personal note those GEnX's on the 747-8 look pretty cool.



-widebodyphotog

[Edited 2005-12-19 20:34:06]

[Edited 2005-12-19 20:35:48]
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:29 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Thread starter):
But on a personal note those GEnX's on the 747-8 look pretty cool.

Agreed.

*good compilation of info - thanks.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4362
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:42 am

Why does the 748 seem to have a higher cruise thrust, even though it is lighter?

Interesting figures, thank you for sharing.
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:43 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Thread starter):
But on a personal note those GEnX's on the 747-8 look pretty cool.

Yeah, I second this.

BTW, the link for the range chart of the B747-8F looks wrong (I think you didn't bracket it properly). You might want to do a bit of editing in the HTML...

But thanks for posting! This is very interesting indeed!

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:52 am

BTW, something that I noticed in the data you provided is that the cruising altitude of the B747-8 is 35,000ft (as opposed to 39,000ft for the A380; the B737NGs reach 41,000 I think, right?). Is the lower cruising altitude for the B747-8 inherited from the current B747s? Any reason why it can't fly higher?

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:59 am

Widebody,

As usual, excellent post.  bigthumbsup 
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1262
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:02 am

Quoting SNATH (Reply 4):
BTW, something that I noticed in the data you provided is that the cruising altitude of the B747-8 is 35,000ft (as opposed to 39,000ft for the A380; the B737NGs reach 41,000 I think, right?). Is the lower cruising altitude for the B747-8 inherited from the current B747s? Any reason why it can't fly higher?

The A380-800 has an enormous wing for an aircraft of its weight and therefore much lighter loading than the 747, so it should have higher cruise altitudes at any given stage. I would be very surprised if the 747-8 isn't certified up to 41,000 feet, which (IIRC) is the current ceiling for the -400.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
gorbidog
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 9:02 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:02 am

This plane rocks big time!

I think the stretch will do this design perfectly, as the plane will be longer, sleeker, and with the extended wingtips, will truly give the plane a cooler look, much more attractive than the ungainly A380.

Don't flame me anyone, but IMHO (as a former automotive designer), when comparing the 747 vs. the A380 from strictly a design analysis standpoint, it's like The Beauty and the Beast.

[Edited 2005-12-19 21:12:51]
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but please don't throw stuff 'cause our bamboo floor is delicate!
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:04 am

wbp, is there a place where we can find all these cool tables and charts you produce?
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:12 am

I note in the Boeing document, that the raked wingtip spills over the edge of the stand. Wouldn't this affect the compatibility advantage it has over the A380?

Quoting SNATH (Reply 4):
BTW, something that I noticed in the data you provided is that the cruising altitude of the B747-8 is 35,000ft (as opposed to 39,000ft for the A380; the B737NGs reach 41,000 I think, right?). Is the lower cruising altitude for the B747-8 inherited from the current B747s? Any reason why it can't fly higher?

I don't think that was reflective of ceiling. I think it was reflective of the optimal cruise altitude (whatever). IIRC, the service ceiling of the 744 is 450.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:20 am

Wow! Boeing are already claiming an 8270nm range with 450 passengers -- up from earlier claims of 8000nm. Given Boeing's history of extremely conservative performance predictions, it seems likely that actual range will be even greater. The range advantage over the WhaleJet may be enough to sway some sales to the JumboJet. Of course, CASM will be a more important factor than range for most airlines.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:20 am

widebodyphotog..once again, thanks for the great info... thumbsup 
"Up the Irons!"
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:26 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
Of course, CASM will be a more important factor than range for most airlines.

On that note, can anyone figure out how to calculate the seat mile fuel burn for each of the two aircraft. First Boeing claimed to be able to beat the A380, then they published figures that looked unlikely to do that, and depended on reducing the Airbus estimate to maintain that position. What's the verdict now?
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:37 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11):
widebodyphotog..once again, thanks for the great info...

Agreed.  yes  I'm thinking of starting a widebodyphotog chart fan club.  praise 
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:50 am

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
Why does the 748 seem to have a higher cruise thrust, even though it is lighter?

I don't see how the 748I can really be lighter than the 744, or especially the 744ER. It is larger and doesn't make much of a change in current building techniques. It needs higher thrust to achieve the same performance.

Quoting SNATH (Reply 4):
BTW, something that I noticed in the data you provided is that the cruising altitude of the B747-8 is 35,000ft (as opposed to 39,000ft for the A380; the B737NGs reach 41,000 I think, right?). Is the lower cruising altitude for the B747-8 inherited from the current B747s? Any reason why it can't fly higher?

I think he based the information on a middling crusie altitude of FL350, not withstanding a higher cruise. Remember, as it is, to get maximum efficiency, the 744 flies lower (FL290-FL320 or something of the sort) at high speed to burn off fuel, then glides up to a higher altitude at a slower speed to end the flight. Hence you take an average of that. I am betting a fully loaded 748I would have trouble getting to FL350 until fuel was burned off. I sincerely doubt that Boeing would certify it that low.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 6):
I would be very surprised if the 747-8 isn't certified up to 41,000 feet, which (IIRC) is the current ceiling for the -400.

I believe the 744 is certified to FL430

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
Agreed. I'm thinking of starting a widebodyphotog chart fan club.

Can I be the President?

BTW, I find it very interesting that the 748I will be so efficient that it will use 3000 gallons less fuel to fly 500-700nm farther than the 744ER while carrying more passengers and cargo.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
PlaneDane
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:08 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:57 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
BTW, I find it very interesting that the 748I will be so efficient that it will use 3000 gallons less fuel to fly 500-700nm farther than the 744ER while carrying more passengers and cargo.

That's really cool! Thanks for pointing this out for us, N1120A. Thanks also to WBP for the info...
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:32 am

Corrected link:

Payload Range Chart 747-8F

Quoting Glom (Reply 12):
On that note, can anyone figure out how to calculate the seat mile fuel burn for each of the two aircraft. First Boeing claimed to be able to beat the A380, then they published figures that looked unlikely to do that, and depended on reducing the Airbus estimate to maintain that position. What's the verdict now?

Boeing has claimed a 6% seat/mile cost advantage vs A380. That was before a few tweaks to the design, namely a higher MTOW for the 787-8 Intercontinental. Initially it seems that the 747-8 will build on that by another 1% or so. The increased range, payload and overhead space options really gives the passenger airplane some competitive advantages that will be hard to match by the A380 despite it's capacity advantage. For the freighter, dramatically lower tonne/mile costs are already proving very attractive for the general cargo operators who can't utilize the higher volume of A380-800F. All told, if you don't need absolute capacity in your network the 747-8 looks like a very competitive alternative to the Airbus offering.

I have had my own personal misgivings about 747-8, but it seems like the response is right along what Boeing has hoped for. They have been able to offer some very attractive enhancements to the aircraft using 787 technology and that has made all the difference in the world. It's too bad that this product could not have been developed five years ago...



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:35 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 16):
For the freighter, dramatically lower tonne/mile costs are already proving very attractive for the general cargo operators who can't utilize the higher volume of A380-800F.

Not to mention the payload/weight advantages that give heavy lifters like Cargolux and perhaps soon Lufthansa Cargo a major advantage over the A388F
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:45 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
Wow! Boeing are already claiming an 8270nm range with 450 passengers -- up from earlier claims of 8000nm. Given Boeing's history of extremely conservative performance predictions, it seems likely that actual range will be even greater. The range advantage over the WhaleJet may be enough to sway some sales to the JumboJet. Of course, CASM will be a more important factor than range for most airlines.

Now if they were only able to make the fuselage all composite we could have a 787 on steroids!
One Nation Under God
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:00 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 16):

Question, why has Boeing designed the 748F with less range than the 744ERF?

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 18):
Now if they were only able to make the fuselage all composite we could have a 787 on steroids!

Unfortunately, that would require more money than Boeing wants to spend and a likely full recertification and new type certificate, which Boeing wants to avoid.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:19 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
Can I be the President?

Well, I suppose we would have to have some by-laws and a nomination process followed by an election first.

I suppose since you are a legal eagle, you could draft the by-laws. And if you put in a clause in their that makes would make you President-for-life, I won't raise a fuss.  Wink

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 16):
It's too bad that this product could not have been developed five years ago...

Of course, if that had been the case, the A388 might have a higher thrust version of the same engines on it.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
jeffry747
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:26 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:28 am

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Thread starter):
Widebodyphotog

Thank you for satisfying my voracious appetite for info on my favorite airplane

Delicious stuff man!
 Big grin
C'mon Big B, FLY!
 
Max Q
Posts: 5830
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:03 am

The 747-400 is certified to 45000 feet, as was the classic.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:24 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
Question, why has Boeing designed the 748F with less range than the 744ERF?

The ERF was launched when crude oil was $15/barrel. At $60/bl it makes little sense to haul along a hundred thousand lbs of fuel long distance when you can take a hundred thousand lbs more cargo instead and make an extra fuel stop.

A fuel stop with a cargo plane is much simpler than with a pax plane simply because you don't have to wake up hundreds of sleeping passengers.

Very little cargo has such a hurry that it cannot take a fuel stop on a 4,000+ nm sector when there is a significant price incentive. At least there isn't enough to warrent the design of such a plane. If you have got such cargo, then go and buy your own Gulfstream.

You see the same trend on the 380. The 380F has a much shorter range than the 380 pax plane.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12552
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:25 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
Agreed. yes I'm thinking of starting a widebodyphotog chart fan club.

Sign me up. If there was a higher tier RU list, widebodyphotog would be on mine. Let's see President is already taken... I want to be in the founder's circle!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
I don't see how the 748I can really be lighter than the 744, or especially the 744ER. It is larger and doesn't make much of a change in current building techniques. It needs higher thrust to achieve the same performance.

Good question. I believe the flaps are being redone, but that wouldn't cover the 11.7 foot stretch... There is quite a drop in fuel required due to the engine/wingtip improvements where much of the range comes from.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
BTW, I find it very interesting that the 748I will be so efficient that it will use 3000 gallons less fuel to fly 500-700nm farther than the 744ER while carrying more passengers and cargo.

Gotta love it.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
trex8
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:15 am

can you put the galleys above the main cabin and free up space for more seats rather than using it for those skylofts???
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:48 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 25):
can you put the galleys above the main cabin and free up space for more seats rather than using it for those skylofts???

I know there has been consideration of putting galley cart storage upstairs. I'll bet most of the Economy lavs also could be put upstairs.
 
F27XXX
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:53 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:06 am

Will the wings really swish upwards that way while inflight? Not sure how i feel about that quite yet .. it looks kinda effeminate to me ..
I'M BAAAAAAAACK!
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5293
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:33 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 10):
CASM will be a more important factor than range for most airlines.

Operators like SQ will be less likely to "misuse" the A380 with this alternative being available

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 11):
widebodyphotog..once again, thanks for the great info... thumbsup

Here here !

Quoting Glom (Reply 12):
can anyone figure out how to calculate the seat mile fuel burn for each of the two aircraft.

I am not sure about on a seat mile basis, but by my figuring based on max.useable fuel/max.payload the A380 passenger uses 2.9897lbs. fuel to cover a distance of 6550nm. The 747-8 uses 2.585lbs to cover 6740nm which converts into 2.513lb for 6550nm.
On a seat nm basis l figure the 747-8 as consuming the max. standard useable fuel of 403146 lbs divided by 450 seats divided by 8270nm range. This gives a figure of about .1119 lb/nm/seat. On the same basis the A380 number is .12359lb/nm/seat.
If this methodology is incorrect I am sure someone will correct me.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
I'm thinking of starting a widebodyphotog chart fan club

put me down as a charter member.

Perhaps Widebodyphotog would be kind enough to do a typical mission chart for west bound LAX-MEL for each aircraft .
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5293
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:38 am

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 28):
the A380 passenger uses 2.9897lbs. fuel to cover a distance of 6550nm.

OOPS , these fuel useage figures should show "per nm."
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:52 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
Can I be the President?



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 24):
Sign me up. If there was a higher tier RU list, widebodyphotog would be on mine. Let's see President is already taken... I want to be in the founder's circle!



Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 28):
put me down as a charter member.

Well, that's 4 prospective members. Maybe we need an official place to meet, like a dedicated thread, to engage in adulation. We could link and embed all of widebodyphotog's charts and figures. I hate wrestling with the A.net archive search engine to try and find a particular graphic that was linked to in an old thread. However, that may a lot of larger images to embed in a single thread, considering how prolific widebodyphotog has been.

[Edited 2005-12-20 03:55:19]
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5293
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:06 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 30):
We could link and embed all of widebodyphotog's charts and figures.

I have been bookmarking many of them and trying to print them out but my old HP printer is limited to a meg and those color ones take much more than that.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:11 pm

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 31):
I have been bookmarking many of them and trying to print them out but my old HP printer is limited to a meg and those color ones take much more than that.

I would try that except I use different computers and accounts at home and at work and don't want to spend time sync-ing them. Unfortunately, widebodyphotog's website doesn't have a index, as that would solve the problem.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2166
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:17 pm

Well, looking at the drawings, it seems the flaps will no longer be tripple slotted. It will be 777 style. (1 sloted outside flaps and 2 sloted inside flaps)

Yet I am greating disapointed with the seating and aircraft width. The 747-8 has less pitch AND less seat width than the A380. This is horrible. Last time I flew on a 747, I was so cramped due to the seat width. As a passenger, I would prefer the A380 any day.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8826
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:48 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 33):
Well, looking at the drawings, it seems the flaps will no longer be tripple slotted. It will be 777 style. (1 sloted outside flaps and 2 sloted inside flaps)

Yes, flaps will be redesigned to help meet QC.2 requirements. This was part of the 747-400XQLR offering.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 33):
The 747-8 has less pitch AND less seat width than the A380.

Pitch is a function of what the opperator installs regardless of aircraft type.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
Why does the 748 seem to have a higher cruise thrust, even though it is lighter?

The 747-8 is quite a bit heavier than the 747-400 series.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14140
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:50 pm

Yes, galley can go upstairs, not just cart storage, as well as crew rests and crew only lavs. It would be like having an entire length and width of a 738 (roughly) for cooking, sleeping and crapping.

If these numbers are correct, the 748 beats the A388 in all ways: fuel per pax, max range, max payload range, fuel per pax+cargo, max cargo with max pax, etc. The only thing the A380 wins at is that the 748 will cost almost as much to buy and about the same to maintain, which will be spread over a smaller customer base (450 vs 555, though Airbus shortchanges premium to get there). Depending on loads and fuel costs though, the 748 looks to range from about the same to operate to much cheaper to operate.

It's amazing what some new engines can do.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 33):
Yet I am greating disapointed with the seating and aircraft width. The 747-8 has less pitch AND less seat width than the A380. This is horrible. Last time I flew on a 747, I was so cramped due to the seat width. As a passenger, I would prefer the A380 any day.

For the millionth time, SEAT PITCH IS NOT PART OF THE AIRCRAFT DESIGN.

Seat pitch is at discretion of the airlines. Frankly, width is as well, though they do have to work in a restricted space. 17.2" is not the greatest. Airlines could choose 9 abreast at 18.5", but it would wreck the economics.

And just wait until EK puts 3-5-3 Y in the 380...  Wink
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Molykote
Posts: 1239
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:01 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
the 744 flies lower (FL290-FL320 or something of the sort) at high speed to burn off fuel, then glides up to a higher altitude at a slower speed to end the flight.

And here we have the reason behind the 748 CASM advantage over the A388 - It doesn't need engines to climb!
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1623
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:03 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 24):
If there was a higher tier RU list, widebodyphotog would be on mine

Well, you must understand the pickle I'm in. He's the only one on my RU list. I haven't quite felt that anyone that deserves his company yet. If there were a 2nd tier, well then that'd be different  Smile
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:06 pm

May I join as the fifth member?
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:05 pm

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 23):
The ERF was launched when crude oil was $15/barrel. At $60/bl it makes little sense to haul along a hundred thousand lbs of fuel long distance when you can take a hundred thousand lbs more cargo instead and make an extra fuel stop.

It am well aware of how cargo economics work, but it makes absolutely no sense that the 748F, an aircraft that is more efficient and that is built to have a longer range would actually have a shorter range than the plane it is supposed to replace

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 23):
A fuel stop with a cargo plane is much simpler than with a pax plane simply because you don't have to wake up hundreds of sleeping passengers.

I am well aware of how cargo flights work

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 23):
You see the same trend on the 380. The 380F has a much shorter range than the 380 pax plane.

The difference is not nearly as much. Now, a lot of the A380F's range comes at the penalty of heavy lift, but its range is actually longer than that of the 748F even though that is reversed in the passenger versions of the aircraft

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 24):
I believe the flaps are being redone

Yes, they are being redone to be double and not triple slotted, but that doesn't really make all that much difference in weight. It is being done for noise

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 24):
There is quite a drop in fuel required due to the engine/wingtip improvements where much of the range comes from.

The RWD as opposed to winglets are not really making an incredible amount of difference. It is the use of the new engines, as well as more efficient use of fuel capacity, that is really doing it.

Quoting Molykote (Reply 36):
And here we have the reason behind the 748 CASM advantage over the A388 - It doesn't need engines to climb!

LOL. Funny, but that is not what I meant. At certain weights, it is inefficient or impossible for an aircraft to exceed a certain altitude until it has burned off some of the fuel. For example, a 648,000 pound MTOW United 772ER with PW4090 engines with a full passenger and cargo load is limited to say FL310 until it burns off enough fuel to move up. It will then be able to climb up to a new altitude with much less effort and efficiency.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5293
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:23 pm

I thought step cruise was a standard operating proceedure for all types.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:32 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 35):
Yes, galley can go upstairs, not just cart storage, as well as crew rests and crew only lavs. It would be like having an entire length and width of a 738 (roughly) for cooking, sleeping and crapping.

Length and width, yes, but not the height. The ceiling will be about a foot lower than in the B737.
 
art
Posts: 2736
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:00 pm

Quoting F27XXX (Reply 27):
Will the wings really swish upwards that way while inflight? Not sure how i feel about that quite yet .. it looks kinda effeminate to me ..

The "Queen of the Skies" looking effeminate... Doesn't seem too wrong to me!
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:44 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
Agreed. I'm thinking of starting a widebodyphotog chart fan club.

...and I wanna be the sixth member. What would we ever do without widebodyphotog's technical charts and links?
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14140
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:56 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
It am well aware of how cargo economics work, but it makes absolutely no sense that the 748F, an aircraft that is more efficient and that is built to have a longer range would actually have a shorter range than the plane it is supposed to replace

The ERF has 400 gallons more fuel, and a 50,000lb lower MTOW. But I would assume that if you loaded the ERF with 400 less gallons and the same actualy cargo weight as the 8F, you'd get a similar range.

The 777F is designed as the LRF, not the 748F.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 41):
Length and width, yes, but not the height. The ceiling will be about a foot lower than in the B737.

Still high enough to stand and walk, according the Boeing stuff. Maybe best for Asian airlines. I'd probably be a little cramped at 6'3.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1626
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:03 am

Quoting Gorbidog (Reply 7):
I think the stretch will do this design perfectly, as the plane will be longer, sleeker, and with the extended wingtips, will truly give the plane a cooler look, much more attractive than the ungainly A380.

They're both ungainly ugly. A380 does have a better looking wing when viewing directly from the front.
777 and 787 eat both of those for lunch in looks department. Young and lean owns both old fat lady and the young fat girl.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP OF JAROSŁAW KACZYŃSKI AND HIS PUPPET GOVERNMENT. DEMOCRACY SHALL PREVAIL.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:12 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 44):

The ERF has 400 gallons more fuel, and a 50,000lb lower MTOW. But I would assume that if you loaded the ERF with 400 less gallons and the same actualy cargo weight as the 8F, you'd get a similar range.

No. Given equal fuel and equal payload, the B747-8F has much better range than the B747-400ERF -- mainly due to the efficiency of the GEnx engines, though aerodynamic tweaks help as well. The greater structural weight does not overcome the engine and aerodynamic improvements.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 44):

Still high enough to stand and walk, according the Boeing stuff. Maybe best for Asian airlines. I'd probably be a little cramped at 6'3.

Have you tried standing at the back of the upstairs galley on a B747?
 
MKandiah
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:50 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:39 am

While aesthetics may be a matter of personal tastes, the 747 deserves better than to be called an 'old fat lady'.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 45):
They're both ungainly ugly. A380 does have a better looking wing when viewing directly from the front.
777 and 787 eat both of those for lunch in looks department. Young and lean owns both old fat lady and the young fat girl.

 box 
 
miamix707
Posts: 3848
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:02 am

Quoting F27XXX (Reply 27):
Will the wings really swish upwards that way while inflight? Not sure how i feel about that quite yet .. it looks kinda effeminate to me ..

I don't like those wings either for the 747-8, will take a while to get used to them if they'll have this much of a bend. Would like to hear from a Boeing designer what the advantages are of the bent wing.

It's still the best looking new jetliner in 20 years. On the other hand the 787 looks almost as boring as an A320 so the wing flex actually helps  Wink
 
na
Posts: 9301
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: 747-8 Information Update

Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:03 am

Whitebodyphot,
thanks for this collection of data on the world´s greatest airliner!

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 45):
777 and 787 eat both of those for lunch in looks department. Young and lean owns both old fat lady and the young fat girl.

Ahemm...
You better don´t mess with the world´s favorite aircraft. Most people will disagree with you. For me the 747 in all versions is still miles ahead of the 777 and 787 in looks and far more distinctive. Just unique and impressive, where the twinjets are generic (and the 773 even is ungainly looking, out of proportion). The newer Boeing twins are certainly good-lookers just like the A330, but they are twinjets, the most boring basic concept out there.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos