User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1841
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:36 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
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 All 747 version share an outdated wing.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.


What I mean: In the early/mid 2000s flatbeds were being introduced. F seats got like they are today around 2007 with the SQ A380 Suites. Assuming Boeing launched the 745 around 2000-2001 (before then the 744 was still enough), factor in 9/11, and introduction would've been around 2005. The 77W was available at the time, but lets say the 745 could still compete. The nose of the 747 (where most airlines put first class) doesn't leave much room. It just creates an awkward configuration with tons of wasted space, even if you fill it with J seats. The upper deck can't fit all that many premium seats. The 77W can fit about the same seats, just more efficiently. And it offers more flexibility when it comes to seating layouts. JL's and SQ's 77Ws can carry a relatively large amount of passengers with a very spacious configuration. Likewise for airlines that wanna pack pax the 77W can fit more than 400 people onboard without becoming unbearable. The 744 can fit 400 people too, but there is a lot of wasted space if you stuck in modern seats like Zodiac's Cirrus (Delta A330/744 J) or Stelia's Solstys (Iberia J)
A350/CSeries = bae
 
B-HOP
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 8:09 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:01 pm

Boeing is smart not to burn money in 8's, remember, they nearly lose the house on the 500/600 series, with new wing, FBW and a total system overhaul, they were lucky they didn't proceed or it would hit right by the Asian financial crisis with lots of red ink. The second incarnation, 747X and Stretch were a knee jerk reaction to the launch of A380 and both were not caught on with customers, the modifications it received simply weren't big enough, I remember FBW spoilers and ceiling gallery, not much was done on the wing apart from blended winglet, the bursting of dot com bubble and 11/9 killed 747X. Small changes then progress to ER that kept the ball rolling till -8 comes along, with the tested 787 engines, true, the wing need a more radical makeover but Boeing was rise not to spend more than it needs to, given much has been spent on talking to customers and defining the market before, they knew passenger aircraft would be smaller chasing for frequencies, with A380, 777 and 787 being the core of that and Boeing counted the number of mega-cities that requires VLA link and decide not to overspend on that, meanwhile freight ex-AsiaPacific growing at that rate does, why 8I is around, maybe the VIP bizjet market is what Boeing aims for too!
The delay on 787 also caught them completely out of hand, it could have use the manpower for 787 to work on refining/fixing issues on 747-8, instead, the jet comes late and missed airlines order cycle. JL, for example, was bankrupted at the time, CX, having used 77W, looked at the sums and never looked back on VLA, same as BR, others need it already have A380 ordered
Live life to max!!!
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1287
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:47 pm

seabosdca wrote:
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.


I'm not sure Boeing even needed to stretch it. I'd guess the awkwardly-named 747-XQLR (a re-engined 747-400ERF with a modest MTOW bump, new wingtips, and some aerodynamic cleanup) would have secured much if not most of the 747-8F's order book for a tiny fraction of the cost. The "reprofiled" 748 wing in particular turned out to be very costly for its performance benefit. As Matt6461 pointed out, spending somewhat more on a totally new wing (a la the 737NG) would have actually made the 748 competitive with the A380 and 77W at the risk of cannibalizing the latter, which they clearly didn't want to do. This was probably the right decision given the limited VLA market, but they tried to split the baby by making expensive changes to the existing wing. They ended up with a beautiful aircraft that's incurred more than $2 billion in forward losses. Freighter demand may yet save the program as 744Fs retire, but sales can't have been what Boeing expected when they launched.
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
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 6:16 pm

B2707SST wrote:
I'm not sure Boeing even needed to stretch it. I'd guess the awkwardly-named 747-XQLR (a re-engined 747-400ERF with a modest MTOW bump, new wingtips, and some aerodynamic cleanup) would have secured much if not most of the 747-8F's order book for a tiny fraction of the cost.


Excellent points. You're probably right that a simpler 747MAX would have captured nearly all 748F orders. Freighters usually weight-out before they volume-out, so functional payload need not have differed much.
Absent the stretch you can stay closer to 744ER MTOW and probably don't need significant MLG modification.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:32 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
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.

What also has to be taken into consideration is the butts in the seats. If the plane is too big and seats are not filled, the economies move even further from planes like the 787.

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
Stitch
Posts: 26307
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:11 am

A possible issue with a "747-400MAX" Freighter is that it's payload weight would not appreciably be more than the 777 Freighter (the latest models of the latter can lift 107,000kg compared to 113,000kg for the former) and even with the GEnx1B-67, would fuel burn for four of them that much better than the two GE90-110Bs?

The 747 needed to grow both in payload weight and payload volume to really position herself above the 777 Freighter in the line.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Should Boeing have built the 747-500?

Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:32 pm

Bald1983 wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Bald1983 wrote:

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.

What also has to be taken into consideration is the butts in the seats. If the plane is too big and seats are not filled, the economies move even further from planes like the 787.

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.


And if the plane is too big and the seats are not filled, CASM does not matter.

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