uta999
Topic Author
Posts: 701
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:55 pm

The 747-8 has been a bit of a disaster for Boeing, when you think how the 747 Classic was designed, built and flown in just over 26 months in the late 1960s.

How did they get it so wrong? Basically, in the end creating a cargo only 747-NEO that no-one wanted.

Perhaps a better route to a lot more sales, would have been a simple 747-400 upgrade; the 747-500. It would have reached the airlines a lot sooner, and cost far less. Maybe getting the 2000th 747 built.

The absolutely daft decision to go with the 'lucky' Chinese -8 prefix killed the 747 for good.
Your computer just got better
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6261
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:10 pm

None of this is accurate. If the market for the 747-8 dried up, what makes you think that your proposed 747-500 would have sold better?

The customers have made fleet decisions that they prefer similarly sized twin engine airplanes such as the 777-300ER. That's what killed the 747, not whether it was called the -8 or whatever.
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:16 pm

Airliners.net has a looooong memory: viewtopic.php?t=9379
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
jetwet1
Posts: 2858
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:24 pm

What is missed so often on this site when it comes to the 748 is the side benefit of offering this aircraft, that being it forced Airbus to offer the 380 for far less than they would have liked or lose orders to the 748. Look back at how Emirates played Airbus on it's 380 orders, we constantly heard that they were also looking at the 748.

I would say the 747-8i has been a less than successful model when it comes to sales, there is the continued sale of the 747-8f to also look at and again, the fact that the 8i caused Airbus to have a lower cash flow so causing it to also have less money for R&D for other models.
 
User avatar
NYPECO
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:55 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:32 pm

No
 
User avatar
XAM2175
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:25 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:55 pm

uta999 wrote:
The 747-8 has been a bit of a disaster for Boeing ... How did they get it so wrong? Basically, in the end creating a cargo only 747-NEO that no-one wanted.


I would argue that the 748 was as successful as Boeing needed it to be - for, as jetwet1 notes, the mere fact that it was in Boeing's catalogue's kept Airbus from having free reign in the VLA market segment. It might even be said that the 748F was the final and decisive factor in keeping the A388F from leaving the drawing board.

That Boeing actually sold a bunch to cargo airlines was a bonus and that some even ended up getting built for passenger use was doubly so.

I'm also curious to know what makes in your mind the 747-8 a NEO that nobody wants when NEO in Airbus terminology is pretty much the bare minimum possible update. How would your hypothetical 745 been any different? The 744 already has a two-crew glass cockpit - about the only way to keep the 747 anywhere near competitive was with a NEO.

uta999 wrote:
The absolutely daft decision to go with the 'lucky' Chinese -8 prefix killed the 747 for good.

... because a re-stickered 744 couldn't have been called a 748, or the exact same development that went into the 748 couldn't have been called the 745?

Guess the 787 would have been perfectly on-time, on-budget, and on-spec if they'd started with the 787-2 instead.
 
Someone83
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:57 pm

Boeing did announce both a 747-500 and 747-600 at the 1996 Farnborough Air Show. However due to lack of interest from airline it never materialized. Even in the last half of the -90s, the 747 popularity had startet to decline. Then they waited a few year and launched the much more successful 777-300ER instead. Which by itself killed the 747 passenger program
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5945
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:21 pm

uta999 wrote:
The 747-8 has been a bit of a disaster for Boeing, when you think how the 747 Classic was designed, built and flown in just over 26 months in the late 1960s.

How did they get it so wrong? Basically, in the end creating a cargo only 747-NEO that no-one wanted.

Perhaps a better route to a lot more sales, would have been a simple 747-400 upgrade; the 747-500. It would have reached the airlines a lot sooner, and cost far less. Maybe getting the 2000th 747 built.

The absolutely daft decision to go with the 'lucky' Chinese -8 prefix killed the 747 for good.


Others have already responded to much of what you have said, but in terms of the -8 designation, look no further than the words of Jon Ostrower, uttered this very day.

Can I be ‘that guy’ for a second? It doesn’t actually matter how you brand an airplane if you’re under the Airbus or Boeing umbrella. “Do no harm” is the only rule. Don’t pick a number combination that offends a nation and leave out any racist, sexist or homophobic slurs. Ta da!


https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 4395353088
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1396
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:32 pm

No, the 748 was even a dumber decision than the 380. By the time the 748 decision was made B could see that their understanding of p2p was spot on.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2611
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:35 pm

vhtje wrote:
Airliners.net has a looooong memory: viewtopic.php?t=9379


Wow that aged well. Reading the references to A380 as A3XX is reminiscent of all of our current talk about NMA. Maybe in 19 years people will be referencing the topics we are currently discussing and laughing at how far off we were as they sip cognac from the comfort of their supersonic 797.
 
catiii
Posts: 3074
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:38 pm

Maybe they should have built the Sonic Cruiser instead!
 
Bald1983
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:13 pm

uta999 wrote:
The 747-8 has been a bit of a disaster for Boeing, when you think how the 747 Classic was designed, built and flown in just over 26 months in the late 1960s.

How did they get it so wrong? Basically, in the end creating a cargo only 747-NEO that no-one wanted.

Perhaps a better route to a lot more sales, would have been a simple 747-400 upgrade; the 747-500. It would have reached the airlines a lot sooner, and cost far less. Maybe getting the 2000th 747 built.

The absolutely daft decision to go with the 'lucky' Chinese -8 prefix killed the 747 for good.


Would have made no difference. The reason for the 747-8's failure was the same as the A-380's failure. The planes were too big for the market. The 747-500 would have failed even more because it would not have been that advanced compared to the A-380 making it more of a handicap.
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2611
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:18 pm

The following quote from the topic linked is relevant.

Airliners.net has a looooong memory: viewtopic.php?t=9379


Udo is right, the 747 is a 60's aircraft. So is the A3XX. Its a big tube with wings. Load it with all the technology you want, its still just a larger 744 with a full upper deck. You may get better fuel burn from a cleaner design and more fuel efficient engines, but the improvement in operating cost will be based mostly on keeping this plane completely full on every trip.


Even 19 years ago people understood the economics that were at hand. Why the Boeing and Airbus market analysts couldn't see the problem is beyond me.
 
mchei
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:23 pm

Is Lufthansa the only company to fly the 380, the 744 and the 748? I know that they have different configurations on these planes (if I remember correctly the 744 doesn’t have a First anymore) but what made them have all three in their portfolio? Apart from political reasons of course...
F70-F100-E145-E170-E190-319-320-321-735–736-737-738-752-763–742-744-333-343-ATR72-Metroliner-Saab2000-Lockheed Electra-C172-C182-C182RG-MD11
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:30 pm

jetwet1 wrote:
What is missed so often on this site when it comes to the 748 is the side benefit of offering this aircraft, that being it forced Airbus to offer the 380 for far less than they would have liked or lose orders to the 748.

But that strategy has now come full circle. A380 pricing has, and still is, depressing contracted 777X sales, pricing and packaging, and lowered the 'value' bar in respect to all WB models.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:57 pm

uta999 wrote:
The 747-8 has been a bit of a disaster for Boeing, when you think how the 747 Classic was designed, built and flown in just over 26 months in the late 1960s.

Perhaps a better route to a lot more sales, would have been a simple 747-400 upgrade; the 747-500.


The 747-8 is, in many ways, what the original 747-500X was meant to be in terms of capacity and performance with better engines and a not-as-good wing.

As for a "simple" 747-400 upgrade, Boeing tried it in 2001 with the 747-400X and 747-400X Stretch. Both were shelved within the year and Boeing in 2002 floated the 747-400XQLR (Quiet, eXtra Long Range). While it too was shelved, it did form the basis for the 747-400ER which did enter service (with QF for 6 frames*).

* - It was far more successful in freighter form.


mchei wrote:
Is Lufthansa the only company to fly the 380, the 744 and the 748?


Korean Airlines also operates all three models.
 
Samrnpage
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:01 pm

747-8 costs more to operate and brings in less profit than a 777/A350. 4 holers are a thing of the past.
 
jetwet1
Posts: 2858
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:19 pm

Planesmart wrote:
jetwet1 wrote:
What is missed so often on this site when it comes to the 748 is the side benefit of offering this aircraft, that being it forced Airbus to offer the 380 for far less than they would have liked or lose orders to the 748.

But that strategy has now come full circle. A380 pricing has, and still is, depressing contracted 777X sales, pricing and packaging, and lowered the 'value' bar in respect to all WB models.


While I don't want to pull this thread away from the original topic...

You are 100% correct.

However, Boeing also has far more room to move in when it comes to margin, look at the 2017 revenues, Boeing $93.39b, Airbus $67b, net income Boeing $8.19b, Airbus $4.3b, double the net profits with only 50% more revenue.

Now of course without diving headlong into their books for a few months these are a very simple way of looking at things, but it my mind Boeing looked at their future offering (at the time the 7E7) and thought that spending around $4b to develop the 748 was worth it....Of course hindsight is 20-20, the 7E7 program going to hell didn't help the 748, so costs went up (for both programs), but there are times in business where you spend money (sometimes a lot of money.....And sometimes a seriously lot of money) to not so much help yourself, but to not help your competition...

Anyways, back on topic...as pointed out above, Boeing offered a 745 and 746, no takers, pretty much the writing was on the wall already, Boeing saw it and threw the company behind the 7E7, the update of the 747 was more of an after thought.....

BTW, I love how the 747-8i looks in house colours.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:25 pm

Thai Airways and Malaysian Airlines did sign MoUs for a total of 12 747-500X and 747-600X post Farnborough, but when BA decided not to purchase them in favor of holding on to their 747-400s that pretty much soured Boeing's Board on the program and a formal Authority to Offer was never granted.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:42 pm

Stitch wrote:
Thai Airways and Malaysian Airlines did sign MoUs for a total of 12 747-500X and 747-600X post Farnborough, but when BA decided not to purchase them in favor of holding on to their 747-400s that pretty much soured Boeing's Board on the program and a formal Authority to Offer was never granted.


My memory (which could be somewhat faulty) was that the Asian financial crisis of the late 90s contributed to their downfall as well. At the time, "common knowledge" was that giant planes were going to find their biggest success with Asian carriers (east Asian, to avoid any retorts of "technically, DXB is in Asia").
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
stratclub
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:56 pm

uta999 wrote:
The 747-8 has been a bit of a disaster for Boeing, when you think how the 747 Classic was designed, built and flown in just over 26 months in the late 1960s.

How did they get it so wrong? Basically, in the end creating a cargo only 747-NEO that no-one wanted.

Perhaps a better route to a lot more sales, would have been a simple 747-400 upgrade; the 747-500. It would have reached the airlines a lot sooner, and cost far less. Maybe getting the 2000th 747 built.

The absolutely daft decision to go with the 'lucky' Chinese -8 prefix killed the 747 for good.

For all intents and purposes the -8 is the same thing as a -500 would of been. If you didn't notice Boeing "Jumped the Shark" on all of their dash designations for new models.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:02 pm

jetwet1 wrote:
What is missed so often on this site when it comes to the 748 is the side benefit of offering this aircraft, that being it forced Airbus to offer the 380 for far less than they would have liked or lose orders to the 748. Look back at how Emirates played Airbus on it's 380 orders, we constantly heard that they were also looking at the 748.

I would say the 747-8i has been a less than successful model when it comes to sales, there is the continued sale of the 747-8f to also look at and again, the fact that the 8i caused Airbus to have a lower cash flow so causing it to also have less money for R&D for other models.


The A380's biggest competition was always the 77W, not 747-8. 748's biggest competition was also 77W.
Yes, the 748's closer in size to the A380. But the A380 is hands-down a better passenger jet; most airlines were really choosing between 77W and A380.

There's really no excuse for having done the 747-8.
It probably would have been better to spend an extra ~$2bn on a complete new wing and get a decent passenger jet, rather than spending ~$5bn for basically no reward (I doubt Boeing has ever made meaningful production profit off 748's).
But a rewing would have stolen orders mostly from 77W - many from A380 as well.
 
stratclub
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:03 pm

stratclub wrote:
uta999 wrote:
The 747-8 has been a bit of a disaster for Boeing, when you think how the 747 Classic was designed, built and flown in just over 26 months in the late 1960s.

How did they get it so wrong? Basically, in the end creating a cargo only 747-NEO that no-one wanted.

Perhaps a better route to a lot more sales, would have been a simple 747-400 upgrade; the 747-500. It would have reached the airlines a lot sooner, and cost far less. Maybe getting the 2000th 747 built.

The absolutely daft decision to go with the 'lucky' Chinese -8 prefix killed the 747 for good.

For all intents and purposes the -8 is the same thing as a -500 would of been. New engines, a stretch, some aerodynamic improvements, some system changes and a fresh coat of lipstick. If you didn't notice Boeing "Jumped the Shark" on all of their dash designations for new models.

Because Boeing got so far behind, with the 787 they were conducting two flight test programs simultaneously instead of concurrently and what they got so unbelievably wrong on so many levels was the 787. For the most part, once both planes were in Flight Test, validation went smoothly despite the enormous work load and logistics of operation two new model validation programs at the same time.
Last edited by stratclub on Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:04 pm

stratclub wrote:
For all intents and purposes the -8 is the same thing as a -500 would of been.


No. Huge difference between a 777-style high-AR wing on the -500 and the '60's-style wing still on the 747-8.
 
c933103
Posts: 3786
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:07 pm

N328KF wrote:
uta999 wrote:
The 747-8 has been a bit of a disaster for Boeing, when you think how the 747 Classic was designed, built and flown in just over 26 months in the late 1960s.

How did they get it so wrong? Basically, in the end creating a cargo only 747-NEO that no-one wanted.

Perhaps a better route to a lot more sales, would have been a simple 747-400 upgrade; the 747-500. It would have reached the airlines a lot sooner, and cost far less. Maybe getting the 2000th 747 built.

The absolutely daft decision to go with the 'lucky' Chinese -8 prefix killed the 747 for good.


Others have already responded to much of what you have said, but in terms of the -8 designation, look no further than the words of Jon Ostrower, uttered this very day.

Can I be ‘that guy’ for a second? It doesn’t actually matter how you brand an airplane if you’re under the Airbus or Boeing umbrella. “Do no harm” is the only rule. Don’t pick a number combination that offends a nation and leave out any racist, sexist or homophobic slurs. Ta da!


https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 4395353088

"8" actually mean fortunate in term of money and getting rich in Chinese. When you consider most airlines in China are government owned, and now that the regime in China have been tightening their control on officials as well as national companies by clamping down corruptions which usually have an outward sign connected to appears as wealthy, you can see "8" model names is actually doing a pretty bad job when it come to finding a good number for aircrafts for Chinese market. Actually even 666 would have been a better model number.
Say NO to Hong Kong police's cooperation with criminal organizations like triad.
 
jmchevallier
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:17 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:08 pm

Another issue with the B747-600X was its increasing length, in order to improve the economics of the proposed aircraft.

At the end of summer 1996, it reached 85m (8m more than the B777-9), making the plane quite painful to accomodate at most big airports.
 
User avatar
Slash787
Posts: 912
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:37 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:15 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
None of this is accurate. If the market for the 747-8 dried up, what makes you think that your proposed 747-500 would have sold better?

The customers have made fleet decisions that they prefer similarly sized twin engine airplanes such as the 777-300ER. That's what killed the 747, not whether it was called the -8 or whatever.


Great reply and well this is my answer too.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5685
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:16 pm

What are the differences between the Boeing 747-400 and the Boeing 747-8I other than size ? Is the B747-8 more fuel efficient ?
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6261
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:27 pm

Mortyman wrote:
What are the differences between the Boeing 747-400 and the Boeing 747-8I other than size ? Is the B747-8 more fuel efficient ?


A lot. Different wing. Different engines. Significant changes on the flight deck such as new Displays, Vertical Situation Display, Airport Moving Map, Electronic Checklist, GLS approach, Integrated Approach Nav capability, upgraded Avionics, Engine Autostart (-400 had this as an option), etc.
 
stratclub
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:31 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
stratclub wrote:
For all intents and purposes the -8 is the same thing as a -500 would of been.


No. Huge difference between a 777-style high-AR wing on the -500 and the '60's-style wing still on the 747-8.

Who said anything about the triple 7? Both references were about the 747. Being that the next 747 after the 400 should have been the 500 and was instead called the 747-8.
 
stratclub
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:33 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
What are the differences between the Boeing 747-400 and the Boeing 747-8I other than size ? Is the B747-8 more fuel efficient ?


A lot. Different wing. Different engines. Significant changes on the flight deck such as new Displays, Vertical Situation Display, Airport Moving Map, Electronic Checklist, GLS approach, Integrated Approach Nav capability, upgraded Avionics, Engine Autostart (-400 had this as an option), etc.

Ya like I said, a model refresh if you will. There is a lot more the same between the two models than there is different............................
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:24 pm

stratclub wrote:
Who said anything about the triple 7? Both references were about the 747.


The 747-500X and 747-600X of 1996 had a 73m wing based on the 777's wing. The 747-8 has a re-profiled 747-400 wing. The 745/746 wing was much more aerodynamically advanced.


stratclub wrote:
Being that the next 747 after the 400 should have been the 500 and was instead called the 747-8.


The "8" in 747-8 was Boeing wanting to highlight the engines and other technologies from the 787 program being incorporated into the design, not to try and appeal to Chinese carriers.

There was also the aforementioned 747-500X and 747-600X and Boeing even kicked around a 747-700X that was the same length as the 747-600X but with a cabin 1.5m / 5ft wider to allow 11-abreast seating (3+5+3).
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:26 pm

stratclub wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
stratclub wrote:
For all intents and purposes the -8 is the same thing as a -500 would of been.


No. Huge difference between a 777-style high-AR wing on the -500 and the '60's-style wing still on the 747-8.

Who said anything about the triple 7? Both references were about the 747. Being that the next 747 after the 400 should have been the 500 and was instead called the 747-8.


The 1990's 747-500/600 proposal had a new wing. The 747-8 does not.
The 500/600's wing was based on the then-new 777 design (high-AR).
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:40 pm

Stitch wrote:
The 747-500X and 747-600X of 1996 had a 73m wing based on the 777's wing.


Right.
It's an interesting question, IMO, what the -8 would have been had Boeing put a new CFRP wing on it. In the end they spent nearly as much as for a rewing anyway...
New wing span of say 251ft should have increased L/D by ~10% assuming we keep the same wing area and total wing weight (shift CFRP weight savings into greater span).
With 10% higher L/D, you can now either reduce MTOW, extend range, increase capacity (i.e. bigger stretch) or combination/compromise between those options.
All in you'd probably see 15-20% lower fuel/pax at equal range to 748i.

That'd make the plane significantly more fuel-efficient than A380 and 77W.
It maybe takes 1/3 of 77W's market share and half of A380's. Though losing half of its orders might have meant program death for A380 a while ago depending on EK's response.

To be clear, I can't see a version of the 747-8 with or without a new wing that makes business sense for Boeing. Just that a rewinged 748 is probably less of a disaster than 748 actually has been.

Plus Boeing would have got a significantly better freighter for which it could have charged a higher premium and/or sold more units.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2372
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:00 am

Someone83 wrote:
Boeing did announce both a 747-500 and 747-600 at the 1996 Farnborough Air Show. However due to lack of interest from airline it never materialized. Even in the last half of the -90s, the 747 popularity had startet to decline. Then they waited a few year and launched the much more successful 777-300ER instead. Which by itself killed the 747 passenger program


The 745 and 746 would have been totally rewinged with less sweep rather than just a relofted 744 wing. There wasn't much interest in a totally rewinged aircraft which would have cost more than the 748 wing. It would have had to sell many more units to justify the expense.
 
User avatar
DL757NYC
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:07 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:20 am

The story of the 748 is not over yet. What happens if it one day turns into the plane everyone wanted like the 767. In a few years all the old cargo planes will need to be replaced. Internet sales are going to explode in other countries. What cargo plane can carry large amounts and piece of cargo? When the last plane is delivered the. Write the obituary.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2372
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:25 am

Matt6461 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The 747-500X and 747-600X of 1996 had a 73m wing based on the 777's wing.


Right.
It's an interesting question, IMO, what the -8 would have been had Boeing put a new CFRP wing on it. In the end they spent nearly as much as for a rewing anyway...
New wing span of say 251ft should have increased L/D by ~10% assuming we keep the same wing area and total wing weight (shift CFRP weight savings into greater span).
With 10% higher L/D, you can now either reduce MTOW, extend range, increase capacity (i.e. bigger stretch) or combination/compromise between those options.
All in you'd probably see 15-20% lower fuel/pax at equal range to 748i.

That'd make the plane significantly more fuel-efficient than A380 and 77W.
It maybe takes 1/3 of 77W's market share and half of A380's. Though losing half of its orders might have meant program death for A380 a while ago depending on EK's response.

To be clear, I can't see a version of the 747-8 with or without a new wing that makes business sense for Boeing. Just that a rewinged 748 is probably less of a disaster than 748 actually has been.

Plus Boeing would have got a significantly better freighter for which it could have charged a higher premium and/or sold more units.


The 745 and 746 were offered in 1996, before the Asian financial panic in 1997. There's no way Boeing would have offered a CFRP wing to rewing the 747 in the mid 90's, when they had never built any civilian plane with a CFRP wing before. Your speculation about how much more efficient the 745 and 746 would have been with a CFRP wing is a bit ridiculous, because that's not what was being offered.

The main problem the 747-8 faced was the massive screw ups in the 787 program. The 748 was supposed to transplant 777 and 787 technology into the 747 platform. With the outsourcing plan for the 787 development going wildly off course and massively over budget, Boeing had to take engineers off the 748 program and move them to the 787 program. The 787-8 was originally supposed to be delivered to the launch customers in the 4th quarter of 2008. It ended up being almost 3 years late and billions of dollars over budget.

The 747-8 was to follow into service not long after the 787-8. Being delayed probably hurt much of the potential sales of the passenger version due to it being the last of the 747 versions, and most airlines preferred the 77W. Had Boeing not had the 787 snafus, the 748 might have been able to pick up sales due to the electrical wiring design debacle of the A380 program.
Last edited by flyingclrs727 on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1843
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:25 am

All of this is wrong. The reason the 748 failed miserably wasn't because it was ''cargo only''. Because, mind you, that aircraft seating size has a crapload of demand. Boeing just has it covered, with a certain plane called the 777-300ER. You may have heard of it. The 777-300ER also took over as kind of an evolution of the 747. Same capacity, two engines, more range and efficiency. Also note that while the 744/748 can technically carry more pax, to be competitive in the lucrative Business Class you have to fit completely different seats than what the manufacturers use to calculate pax numbers, and those seats are a completely different shape. They take more space and are inefficient on the 747. The 777-300ER however is perfect for them.

Had a 744 MAX per se been built, it would have literally sold 0 planes. Because if you did it before 2000 it would've been too early and engine tech wouldn't be worth an entirely new aircraft, and after 2000 the 77W was already available, so anyone who wanted an aircraft that size would've chosen the 77W. And if you fast forward two years, where aviation is in financial turmoil following 9/11, the 777-300ER is a life saver for airlines
A350/CSeries = bae
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20932
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:02 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
The 745 and 746 were offered in 1996, before the Asian financial panic in 1997. There's no way Boeing would have offered a CFRP wing to rewing the 747 in the mid 90's, when they had never built any civilian plane with a CFRP wing before. Your speculation about how much more efficient the 745 and 746 would have been with a CFRP wing is a bit ridiculous, because that's not what was being offered.

True, but also at that time no one knew the 77X would become the product it did become. It was order-able in 2000 and didn't EIS till 2004.

flyingclrs727 wrote:
The main problem the 747-8 faced was the massive screw ups in the 787 program. The 748 was supposed to transplant 777 and 787 technology into the 747 platform. With the outsourcing plan for the 787 development going wildly off course and massively over budget, Boeing had to take engineers off the 748 program and move them to the 787 program. The 787-8 was originally supposed to be delivered to the launch customers in the 4th quarter of 2008. It ended up being almost 3 years late and billions of dollars over budget.

Yep, not to mention the early frames were too heavy ( leading to a few rejections that later had to be sold cheap as white tails or left unsold like the frame LH didn't want ) and the engine came to market needing a PIP that took years to deliver ( https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ip-engines ).
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:37 am

One can dream..........


Image

Image
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1337
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:39 am

Bald1983 wrote:
uta999 wrote:
The 747-8 has been a bit of a disaster for Boeing, when you think how the 747 Classic was designed, built and flown in just over 26 months in the late 1960s.

How did they get it so wrong? Basically, in the end creating a cargo only 747-NEO that no-one wanted.

Perhaps a better route to a lot more sales, would have been a simple 747-400 upgrade; the 747-500. It would have reached the airlines a lot sooner, and cost far less. Maybe getting the 2000th 747 built.

The absolutely daft decision to go with the 'lucky' Chinese -8 prefix killed the 747 for good.


Would have made no difference. The reason for the 747-8's failure was the same as the A-380's failure. The planes were too big for the market. The 747-500 would have failed even more because it would not have been that advanced compared to the A-380 making it more of a handicap.


I disagree (and so do many on this board).

The reason for both failing is that they did not offer a CASM reduction large enough to compensate for their larger per trip cost. Bigger planes have to cost less per seat or they don’t selll.

The A380 has a CASM a little bit better than the 777, but not enough. I don’t think the 747-8 has any cost advantage over the 787 at all.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5945
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:32 am

DL747400 wrote:
One can dream..........


Image

Image


The 747-500X was almost exactly the same length (within a few inches) of the 747-8I. The 747-700X, however, would have been glorious. It would have been the new -500X/-600X wing, with a "widened fuselage." In essence, it was an all new aircraft. ;)

Image
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:18 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Your speculation about how much more efficient the 745 and 746 would have been with a CFRP wing is a bit ridiculous, because that's not what was being offered.


Check your reading glasses, dear. I was talking about a 748+new wing, not the 1990's 745/6 proposal.
btw - it's a bit daft to say "speculation about X is ridiculous because X wasn't the case." Speculation about something implies that something wasn't or isn't yet the case.
What you're really saying is "all speculation is stupid."
Which is internally contradictory with participating in a virtual community based on largely on amateur speculation.
In other words - reconsider that position or delete your account.

flyingclrs727 wrote:
The 747-8 was to follow into service not long after the 787-8. Being delayed probably hurt much of the potential sales of the passenger version due to it being the last of the 747 versions, and most airlines preferred the 77W. Had Boeing not had the 787 snafus, the 748 might have been able to pick up sales due to the electrical wiring design debacle of the A380 program.


Doubtful. 748 never posed much value over proposition over either 77W or A380. For all its faults, the A380 is just a much better plane than 748; both are far inferior to 77W.

OA940 wrote:
Also note that while the 744/748 can technically carry more pax, to be competitive in the lucrative Business Class you have to fit completely different seats than what the manufacturers use to calculate pax numbers, and those seats are a completely different shape. They take more space and are inefficient on the 747. The 777-300ER however is perfect for them.


I'm with you on 77W vs. 748 but your seating efficiency thing doesn't make much sense.
747's cabin is only ~4in wider than 777's; efficiency delta is negligible. In fact, because reverse herringbone J can use lower pitch given a wider cabin, the 747 might be *more* efficient for it. Meanwhile 6ab UD Y seating is more efficient than even 10ab on 777.

Don't make this any more complicated than it has to be. All 747 version share an outdated wing.
There are other factors but wings are a fairly important part of any airplane.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6467
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:26 am

Nope. The future of the 777, and the possibility of the 777-300ER, was clear by the late '90s.

Boeing probably should have done the 747-8 for cargo operators only. Use the GEnx (for increased thrust more than lower fuel burn), stretch the aircraft, and increase weights, but avoid the costly reprofile of the wing (doing a wingtip device instead) and skip the bigger windows and new interior. The 777-300ER could have done fine on its own at keeping the A380 in check.
 
FatCat
Posts: 909
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:02 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:29 am

I'm sorry, but:
Isn't the -8i the real -500?
I mean, the fifth version of the Model 747.
-100, -200, -300, -400, -8i - five versions.
You'd say - SP is a version, too, you're right. Imho is on the edge between being a -100 derivate and a different version.
Wasn't 747-8i called so because she is using 787 engines? I've read it somewhere.
Off topic, it hurts me a lot this version numbering.
Why not 787-100 and -200 instead of -800 and -900?
Are those really the 8th and 9th versions of the 787?
Same for Airbus.
Aeroplane flies high
Turns left, looks right
 
User avatar
ZKNCL
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:00 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:43 am

It is an interesting question to pose. For one, it would have come out sooner than the 748 and avoided the dry-up of VLA demand. Ergo, it could have been used to replace older flying 742s and 741s. Therefore, orders could have definitely been higher than the 748.

However,

Increased total orders for the 747 family? I'm not sure that they would have increased terribly much. This would be attributed to many reasons. For example, a lot of late 744 orders could have been 745 instead, thus being a 1-for-1 swap within the family.

In fact, the more modern and advanced A380 probably could have taken a successful swipe at the 745, thus impacting the outcome for Boeing's potential to position the 77W as a replacement afterwards. Since by then, airlines would already have an aircraft to fill the role in the case of the A380 and 745.

Overall, all this would do is extend the time of the 747's eventual displacement by the 777 family. And in fact, lessen the success of the 77W for where it is today. The saved development costs and increased 747 sales probably would have probably just lessened the growth and subsequent success of Boeing.

XAM2175 wrote:
... because a re-stickered 744 couldn't have been called a 748, or the exact same development that went into the 748 couldn't have been called the 745?

Guess the 787 would have been perfectly on-time, on-budget, and on-spec if they'd started with the 787-2 instead.


That's a straw man and you know it.
 
Max Q
Posts: 7548
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:17 am

Still way too early to judge the 748


Decent chance the totally unique freighter version has over a hundred sales left in it
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8363
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:37 am

I think the 747-500 was a more expensive proposal than the 787-8 done in the end. The fuselage length would have been about the same and the -500 proposal included a new wing, whereas the -8 got a do over of the 747-400 wing. The wait insured that the 747-8 got I assume the better engines. The 747-500 concept included also a redo of the MLG and possible the NLG for a serious increase of MTOW.
The 747-500 would have been nearer to the A380 in payload and range, but I assume a more expensive proposition than the 747-8.

I do not see if the 747-500 would have changed anything for Boeing, but having produced higher development cost.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:25 pm

jetwet1 wrote:
Planesmart wrote:
But that strategy has now come full circle. A380 pricing has, and still is, depressing contracted 777X sales, pricing and packaging, and lowered the 'value' bar in respect to all WB models.


While I don't want to pull this thread away from the original topic...

You are 100% correct.

However, Boeing also has far more room to move in when it comes to margin, look at the 2017 revenues, Boeing $93.39b, Airbus $67b, net income Boeing $8.19b, Airbus $4.3b, double the net profits with only 50% more revenue.

Me neither, but that's precisely thinking the current Boeing Board has outlawed. Sales, current and future, must meet 'mature' model profit targets (early deliveries exempt, but capped). The past practice of group-wide pricing, using 737 and 777 profits, and now 737 and 787 profits to under-price new 777X and 748 sales is over.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26311
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:25 pm

seabosdca wrote:
Boeing probably should have done the 747-8 for cargo operators only. Use the GEnx (for increased thrust more than lower fuel burn), stretch the aircraft, and increase weights, but avoid the costly reprofile of the wing (doing a wingtip device instead) and skip the bigger windows and new interior.


We kind of got this with the 747EX Freighter concept floated around the time of the 7E7. It would have been a 200-inch stretch with the 7E7's engines, a 960,000lb MTOW, the radial tires and wheels of the 777-300ER (not the gear trucks) and an "improved" wing in terms of high-speed aerodynamics and high-lift system.


mjoelnir wrote:
I think the 747-500 was a more expensive proposal than the 747-8 done in the end.


Significantly so. The 747-500X and 747-600X development program was projected to be USD 12 billion in 1996 dollars.(so close to $19 billion today).

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