Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
rg787
Topic Author
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:28 pm

B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:40 pm

Hello all,

After many many many weekly threads about the 748i, I am convinced that it is not the best plane in terms of economics. But I was wondering: years ago, de A333 was much in the same situation, with little to no orders and a fame of bad economics as well. Today, the A333 has gone through improvements (don't know exactly what improvements but that's what I've been reading here) and turned out as a superb aircraft.

Question is: is it possible to improve the 748i in such a way that it turns out with good economics, much in the same way Airbus did with the A333, and is Boeing doing it?

Please don't compare it to the A380/777X and say it is dead, I've read this since ever already.

Thanks!
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2135
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:07 pm

Outside of further engine improvements, I don't think there is much more that could be done. The other problem with engine improvements is that it can easily be passed on to other aircraft, so improvements would be all for not really.

Unless there is some "magic potion" out there, the 748 will be the last of the line for this legendary machine. I'm as big a 747 fan as there is out there. Unfortunately for us, nostalgia will not keep this line alive.

Long live the Queen!
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
LifelinerOne
Posts: 1620
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:30 pm

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:09 pm

Quoting rg787 (Thread starter):
Question is: is it possible to improve the 748i in such a way that it turns out with good economics, much in the same way Airbus did with the A333, and is Boeing doing it?

Ofcourse. It can be done. However, the most important question is if such improvements are costwise effective. Will enough planes be ordered to get a good enough return on the investment? In case of the B747-8i? I think not.

Quoting rg787 (Thread starter):
Please don't compare it to the A380/777X and say it is dead, I've read this since ever already.

Well, you can't ignore the two elephants in the room...

Cheers!   
Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13612
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:46 pm

The 748 is already much modified (and improved as a result) compared to the 744, much more than from early A330s to current A330s. It even has brand new last gen engines while the A330 does not (yet). I don't think Boeing has left out some easy mods waiting to be done to improve it, it can only be little things.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27359
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:12 pm

Quoting rg787 (Thread starter):
After many many many weekly threads about the 748i, I am convinced that it is not the best plane in terms of economics.

On it's own, the 747-8 has good economics. The issue is one of capacity versus revenue. You need to fill those extra 50-75 seats over a 777-300ER on a consistent basis to maximize that efficiency, but you need to have the traffic demand to ensure those seats are sold at strong fares, otherwise you're better off operating the 777-300ER (higher RASM thanks to less supply to meet demand). On the flip side, if you can regularly fill those extra 50-75 seats at good fares, chances are you could do that with 100+ seats and at that point, the A380-800 probably makes more sense (more supply to meet that demand).

Quoting rg787 (Thread starter):
But I was wondering: years ago, de A333 was much in the same situation, with little to no orders and a fame of bad economics as well. Today, the A333 has gone through improvements (don't know exactly what improvements but that's what I've been reading here) and turned out as a superb aircraft.

The A330-300 never had bad economics - it's closest competitor was the 777-200 and on a trip fuel burn basis, the A333 was around 10% lower. What the A330-300 didn't have was payload-range and through numerous operating weight increases, it has subsequently gained that.

Like the latest A330-300s, the 747-8 has also received a substantial operating weight increase and that has improved it's payload-range significantly over the 747-400 (almost 10,000kg more payload and 650nm more range at maximum payload). However, unlike the A330-300, the 747-8 doesn't enjoy a significant fuel burn advantage against it's competitors (777-300ER and A380-800), both of which offer equal or better range.

Quoting rg787 (Thread starter):
Question is: is it possible to improve the 748i in such a way that it turns out with good economics, much in the same way Airbus did with the A333, and is Boeing doing it?

Boeing has been studying improvements to the 747-8 under a plan known internally as "Project Ozark". This would result in another operating weight increase to add about 500nm to the range and aerodynamic tweaks.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2403
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:24 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Boeing has been studying improvements to the 747-8 under a plan known internally as "Project Ozark". This would result in another operating weight increase to add about 500nm to the range and aerodynamic tweaks.

Yes, this was the plan to redo the aft WBF and lower weight by about 5 tons, which would improve payload/range due to the extra MTOW they were able to eke out. I have not heard much news here, do you know if/when the updates were included?
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:54 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
On the flip side, if you can regularly fill those extra 50-75 seats at good fares, chances are you could do that with 100+ seats and at that point, the A380-800 probably makes more sense (more supply to meet that demand).

What if it's a short segment? I wonder if there is tweaking (lightweight interior, shedding extra tanks) that can make the passenger model attractive at the short end of the range curve.
 
rampbro
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:00 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:00 pm

What about doing a combi?
 
vin2basketball
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:31 pm

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:07 pm

So let me get this straight. This site works itself up over the A380, an aircraft with far more viability than the 747-8, and the consensus seems to be Airbus would be idiots not to cancel. Meanwhile the 747-8, which has sold about 1/3 as many aircraft, needs millions of dollars spent on improvement with few new orders at the end of the tunnel even if it is improved....
 
StTim
Posts: 3787
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:20 pm

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 8):
So let me get this straight.

Yup - got it in one sir.
 
User avatar
Thunderboltdrgn
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:39 pm

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:31 pm

Quoting rampbro (Reply 7):
What about doing a combi?

This has been suggested many times in here (both for 747 and A380) and the replies is quite
unison in saying that new combi models no longer seems to be allowed by the appropriate authorities.

[Edited 2014-12-29 10:31:58]
Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky. Il Drago Ruggente
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:36 pm

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 8):

So let me get this straight. This site works itself up over the A380, an aircraft with far more viability than the 747-8, and the consensus seems to be Airbus would be idiots not to cancel. Meanwhile the 747-8, which has sold about 1/3 as many aircraft, needs millions of dollars spent on improvement with few new orders at the end of the tunnel even if it is improved....

I have not seen one post implying that Boeing *should* do anything. Can you quote were you read that?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5673
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:40 pm

Just as with the A380NEO, without some real commitments from customers it makes no sense at all to pour any more money into the 748. While there is a possibility that with an improvement in the air freight market that the 748F might survive, the 748i is done. There is no valid reason to purchase it over the 779.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 7:05 pm

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 8):
So let me get this straight.
Quoting StTim (Reply 9):
Yup - got it in one sir.

I disagree, the basis of this thread is to show that threads discussing a/c other than the - name shall not be called - can be started, it was going pretty good until a well respected member at reply 4 decided to include the - name shall not be called - and now I expect all hell to break loose as this becomes another bash thread.

Now to stay true to the topic at hand, one of the best things that Boeing could do to improve the 748i right now would be to immediately cancel the 777W, transfer all orders to the 748i as interim lift until the 777X comes along.
It would immediately allow an increase not a decrease in production, would put more 748 a/c into the air even if for only 5 years, who knows, if the price of oils continues to fall folks may once again fall in love with the queen.
Additionally, it would allow more balance to the conversations when the other VLA - name shall not be called - is discussed.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21966
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:26 pm

Quoting rg787 (Thread starter):

Question is: is it possible to improve the 748i in such a way that it turns out with good economics, much in the same way Airbus did with the A333, and is Boeing doing it?

I have some ideas. First, lose the upper deck. It introduces structural challenges and extra weight and unused space for not that much passenger capacity. Just make it a widebody with the cockpit at the front.

Second, re-wing with a new airfoil and CFRP wings. For the best efficiency, make the wings very long (class F) but introduce a folding wingtip. Introduce FBW so that flaperons

Third, quads are really not a good choice unless the aircraft is so large that a twin is not feasible. But with new CFRP wings and improved aerodynamics, two 100-115klb turbofans should do. The final product will look something like this:

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/171/5/9/b777_9x__sunrise__repaint_by_agnott-d69m08e.jpg
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
rampbro
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:00 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:35 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
I have some ideas. First, lose the upper deck. It introduces structural challenges and extra weight and unused space for not that much passenger capacity. Just make it a widebody with the cockpit at the front.

I thought that the whole business case for the 748i was the commonality with the 748F, with the nose loading capability of the latter as its most attractive selling point. Branching the a/c at this point would seem to negate the advantage of commonality; let's face it, the 748i only exists because the 748F has a strong market.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
Second, re-wing with a new airfoil and CFRP wings. For the best efficiency, make the wings very long (class F) but introduce a folding wingtip. Introduce FBW so that flaperons

Now we're talking!

What about something TOTALLY CRAZY like making a 748i with the 748F nose door allowing for maximum pax loading from the front of the plane? This would obviously be marketed towards the operators of sardine-can configured a/c.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:55 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
First, lose the upper deck. It introduces structural challenges and extra weight and unused space for not that much passenger capacity. Just make it a widebody with the cockpit at the front.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
The final product will look something like this:

So other than the a/c being wider than the planned 777X, what would drive a customer to prefer this a/c over the 777X, including factoring the loss of additional pax via the removal of the hump?
 
brilondon
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:01 pm

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 10):
This has been suggested many times in here (both for 747 and A380) and the replies is quite
unison in saying that new combi models no longer seems to be allowed by the appropriate authorities.

I believe it had something to do with the aircraft that crashed flying from Australia to South Africa or vice versa that involved the crashing of a 744 combi due to the cargo catching fire.
Rush forever Closer To My Heart
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21966
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:28 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 16):

So other than the a/c being wider than the planned 777X, what would drive a customer to prefer this a/c over the 777X, including factoring the loss of additional pax via the removal of the hump?

I was describing the 77X. The point is that an optimized 748i is indestinguishable from the 77X.

Look, this thread is like talking about how to stop vaccines from causing autism while forbidding us from mentioning that vaccines don't actually cause autism.

I love the 747, I really do. Not only is it the most beautiful plane in the world (IMHO), but it also did more to change civil aviation than just about any other airplane. But it's time to face fact: it's obsolete. It's over. There will be no more 747 after the last 748 is delivered. In order to make the 747 competitive with modern airliners would involve so many changes that it would no longer be a 747.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27359
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:32 pm



Quoting SSTeve (Reply 6):
What if it's a short segment? I wonder if there is tweaking (lightweight interior, shedding extra tanks) that can make the passenger model attractive at the short end of the range curve.

Short-haul is not really what a 747 is optimized for. The Japanese used them because at the time they were the only airframes certified for more than 440 passengers. Now the 777-300 and 777-300ER can do up to 550 (the A350-1000 has the necessary exits to support 550, but it lacks the cabin area to fit that many seats).


Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 10):
This has been suggested many times in here (both for 747 and A380) and the replies is quite unison in saying that new combi models no longer seems to be allowed by the appropriate authorities.

You can certify new combos. However, the costs and inflexibility of the new rules make them generally economically unfavorable.

They really only work if every flight has the same load factors for passengers and cargo. If they vary, then sometimes you will have to leave either behind while flying empty seats or pallet positions.

[Edited 2014-12-29 13:37:18]
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:46 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
Look, this thread is like talking about how to stop vaccines from causing autism while forbidding us from mentioning that vaccines don't actually cause autism.

Mea culpa, I had my moment just before your post  
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2682
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:31 am

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 10):
This has been suggested many times in here (both for 747 and A380) and the replies is quite
unison in saying that new combi models no longer seems to be allowed by the appropriate authorities.

New Combis are allowed, but they are only allowed to have a fixed barrier between the cargo and passenger sections. Operators would not be allowed to adjust the size of the main deck cargo and passenger sections.
 
Gasman
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:34 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
Look, this thread is like talking about how to stop vaccines from causing autism while forbidding us from mentioning that vaccines don't actually cause autism.

You are right, but have some compassion.   Who amongst us doesn't yearn for the day when Boeing engineers come out and go "Eureka! By tweaking the ceramics on the flux capacitor, the 748 has seat mile costs *half* that of the A380! And it only works if we leave the external design of the 747 exactly as it is! We ain't going to touch a thing! This airframe has centuries left! Whodathunkit??"
 
User avatar
Ty134A
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:19 am

Quoting rampbro (Reply 15):
Now we're talking!

What about something TOTALLY CRAZY like making a 748i with the 748F nose door allowing for maximum pax loading from the front of the plane? This would obviously be marketed towards the operators of sardine-can configured a/c.

i never understood why bags can be easily loaded in containers and passengers not. pre- board them into main deck containers, load them with the high loader or via the nose door, and we turn around a fully loaded 748 in less that 35 minutes....

 
TU3/5,T20,IL8/6/W/9,I14,YK4/2,AN2/4,A26,A28,A38,A40,A81,SU9,L4T,L11,D1C,M11,M80/2/7,
AB4/6,318-321,313,332/3,342/3/5/6,712,703,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,741/L/2/3/4,752/3,763,
77E/W,J31,F50,F70,100,ATP,142/3,AR8/1,SF3,S20,D38,MIH,EM4,E75/90/95,AT7,DHT/3/4,CRJ/7/9
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:32 am

Quoting brilondon (Reply 17):
I believe it had something to do with the aircraft that crashed flying from Australia to South Africa or vice versa that involved the crashing of a 744 combi due to the cargo catching fire.

The aircraft was a South African Airways 747- 200 Combi flying from Taipei to Johannesburg. Theories abound as to why/what started the fire, South Africa was still subject to sanctions from many countries at the time and a popular theory was that illegal arms shipments were part of the cargo on board. Will never know for sure of course. But, as has been mentioned above, Combis can be built and certified, as long as the operator is prepared to put up with the current more stringent rules.
 
CiC
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:51 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:48 am

What is the last status about the rumors that KLM want to have a 748 Combi?

And- if Boeing would make it- what Airlines might be interested in it?
Asiana, EVA Air, South African (?), ...?

BUT: It seems when NZ, LA and QF start operating now twins on South America- NZ/Oz trips and prove that they work on 6hour- ETOPS operations there won't be any need any more for any Quad... So the 77X can do even Sydney- Buenos Aires or Sydney - Jo'burg...
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:58 am

Quoting CiC (Reply 25):
What is the last status about the rumors that KLM want to have a 748 Combi?

FAA regulations regarding passengers and freight on the same deck make certifying a 748 combi impracticle.
BV
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Tue Dec 30, 2014 11:09 am

Quoting rg787 (Thread starter):
Question is: is it possible to improve the 748i in such a way that it turns out with good economics, much in the same way Airbus did with the A333, and is Boeing doing it?

The A330-300 was all about range improvements, the 747-8i already has enough range. Something else is going on with the 747-8.

There's an A380neo analysis on Leeham News, it includes the 747-8i and shows that it has 10% worse cost per seat mile than the 77W, and will be 29% worse than the 777-9. The only way to overcome this gap is upgrading the engines, and give the jet a CFRP wing. That is most likely not going to happen.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:19 pm

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 26):
FAA regulations regarding passengers and freight on the same deck make certifying a 748 combi impracticle.

There seems to be a mythe on A-net that (international) combi's are difficult to be certified under the current regulations.

This certainly not the case and even a future 747-8 combi can be certified under the present legal requirements :

The maindeck cargo compartment must be certified as FAA/EASA fire-Class C (identical to the lower cargo holds) , with an improved( one minute response time) fire/smoke warning installation (744combi -3 minutes warning time) , "fire proof cargo lining" , plus a " rigid 9G barrier , with compartment acces* ".

* = incl. airlock - if animal attendants are required (transport of live animals , e.g. horses), with a fire indication all animal attendants leave the maindeck ASAP , via the airlock.

"Sealing prefends entering fumes or smoke into the pax. compartment, identical to the lowerdeck cargo holds.
In case of fire and/or smoke, a slight underpressure, created in the maindeck cargo deck by the airconditioning system, will further prefend smoke from entering the pax compartment".
A " Halon knock-down" system must be installed to keep a metered constant halon concentration to suppress a maindeck fire , identical to the present 744combi.


The (carbon) rigid 9G barrier*, will be attachted to the (adapted) fuselage and can be removed (in two parts) with a configuration change. A configuration change will be more labour intensive than with current combi's (also removing the rigid barrier and cargo fire lining), but this configuration change will be only performed together with a C or D-check, like the current 744combi's

* See 757-200combi. FAA certified in 2013 : http://www.precisionaircraft.com/con...7-200-precision-conversions-combi/

It depends on your cargo/pax network if the combi operation may be profitable. In KLM's case it's still an advantage to offer wide body maindeck cargo space (live animals- oursize cargo) at multiple destinations, together with a 250 passenger load, with only one aircraft movement.

The only bottle neck is the cost of certification of this variant. A mimimum of twenty was rumoured a few years ago, but maybe Boeing is willing to offer a combi with less firmed orders, seen the present order backlog.

Together with the planned MTOW increase (Project Ozark) to 472 Tons and an increased MZFW (in between the MZFW of the 747-8 freighter and Intercontinental full pax) , this will produce a very capable aircraft.

[Edited 2014-12-30 05:45:26]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13612
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:01 pm

Quoting rampbro (Reply 15):
I thought that the whole business case for the 748i was the commonality with the 748F, with the nose loading capability of the latter as its most attractive selling point. Branching the a/c at this point would seem to negate the advantage of commonality; let's face it, the 748i only exists because the 748F has a strong market.

More importantly, it would need a new certification, and then a lot of things have to be changed.

Quoting CiC (Reply 25):
BUT: It seems when NZ, LA and QF start operating now twins on South America- NZ/Oz trips and prove that they work on 6hour- ETOPS operations there won't be any need any more for any Quad... So the 77X can do even Sydney- Buenos Aires or Sydney - Jo'burg...

It's not just about ETOPS but also runway performance.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
rg787
Topic Author
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:28 pm

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:40 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Like the latest A330-300s, the 747-8 has also received a substantial operating weight increase and that has improved it's payload-range significantly over the 747-400 (almost 10,000kg more payload and 650nm more range at maximum payload). However, unlike the A330-300, the 747-8 doesn't enjoy a significant fuel burn advantage against it's competitors (777-300ER and A380-800), both of which offer equal or better range.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Boeing has been studying improvements to the 747-8 under a plan known internally as "Project Ozark". This would result in another operating weight increase to add about 500nm to the range and aerodynamic tweaks.

Thank you for the great response. That exactly the kind of answer I was thinking.

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 8):
So let me get this straight. This site works itself up over the A380, an aircraft with far more viability than the 747-8, and the consensus seems to be Airbus would be idiots not to cancel. Meanwhile the 747-8, which has sold about 1/3 as many aircraft, needs millions of dollars spent on improvement with few new orders at the end of the tunnel even if it is improved....
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
Look, this thread is like talking about how to stop vaccines from causing autism while forbidding us from mentioning that vaccines don't actually cause autism.

I love the 747, I really do. Not only is it the most beautiful plane in the world (IMHO), but it also did more to change civil aviation than just about any other airplane. But it's time to face fact: it's obsolete. It's over. There will be no more 747

I didn't say Boeing should do it or whatever. I already heard people saying that the 748 is dead, over, obsolete and that the 777X killed it bla bla bla like a thousand times, and this is exactly what makes threads about this plane come up every once in a while. I didn't ask about this, and this type of answer is what makes the thread boring and useless.

What I asked was basically if there are improvements to be made to the plane, similar to those made on the A333 (relatively low cost and easy) that would make it economically attractive, exactly like Stitch and others answered. by similar changes to those made on the A333 I mean, changes that wouldn't need a complete remake of the plane, like a new CFRP wing and etcetera. I already heard all this.

I know most of you think it is dead and that the only way to make it better is to kill it or to transform it in a 777X or whatever. If you guys don't have anything other than this to say, then just move to another thread and talk about something you like. Thank you.

Quoting gasman (Reply 22):
You are right, but have some compassion.   Who amongst us doesn't yearn for the day when Boeing engineers come out and go "Eureka! By tweaking the ceramics on the flux capacitor, the 748 has seat mile costs *half* that of the A380! And it only works if we leave the external design of the 747 exactly as it is! We ain't going to touch a thing! This airframe has centuries left! Whodathunkit??"

LOL
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:45 pm

Quoting rg787 (Reply 30):
What I asked was basically if there are improvements to be made to the plane, similar to those made on the A333 (relatively low cost and easy) that would make it economically attractive, exactly like Stitch and others answered. by similar changes to those made on the A333 I mean, changes that wouldn't need a complete remake of the plane, like a new CFRP wing and etcetera. I already heard all this.

I know most of you think it is dead and that the only way to make it better is to kill it or to transform it in a 777X or whatever. If you guys don't have anything other than this to say, then just move to another thread and talk about something you like. Thank you.

Thing is, unlike the A333, range improvements will not make the 748 more attractive for potential customers. There are bigger issues to overcome.

[Edited 2014-12-30 08:03:38]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Tod
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:51 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Tue Dec 30, 2014 6:25 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 29):
More importantly, it would need a new certification,

More than just another amendment to TCDS A20WE?
 
rampbro
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:00 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Tue Dec 30, 2014 6:33 pm

Quoting Ty134A (Reply 23):
i never understood why bags can be easily loaded in containers and passengers not

I would imagine the weight penalty would be the argument......can you imagine the hardware required to secure the containers well enough so that they didn't vibrate?
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:42 am

Quoting 747classic (Reply 28):
There seems to be a mythe on A-net that (international) combi's are difficult to be certified under the current regulations.

The word I placed in there is practical, yes it can be done but the additional weight and lack of ability to change configuration does not make the resulting combi a practical aircraft to operate for an airline looking to make a profit.
BV
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:18 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 34):
but the additional weight

The additional weight increase would be very small ,if even present, because of the new lighter materials used for the rigid 9G barrier (carbon) and extra installed cargo compartment lining.
All other combi specific items (increased strength floorbeams, halon knock down system, etc) will have the same weight or will be even lighter than the same specific combi items at the present 744combi's due use of more modern materials. Remember the present combi knockdown system was an upgrade kit, after the new regulations became effective after the SAA combi accident. A new 748combi would be optimised from the factory with all lessons learnt in the last twenty years of combi operation..

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 34):
lack of ability to change configuration

The change can be made during a C or D check, like the present 744combi, with halon knock down system.
In real live a configuration change didn't happen frequently and if needed only togerther with the change from summer to winterschedule (or the other way around) AND an upcoming HMV for one of our combi's.

I did operate combi's (7 pallet and 12 pallet) myself before the SAA combi crash and also for years after that crash (7 pallet halon knockdown).
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3172
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:53 am

I suggest a 748i hybrid. Using 4 engines only if required like at takeoff and climb.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27359
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 3:33 pm

Quoting rampbro (Reply 15):
What about something TOTALLY CRAZY like making a 748i with the 748F nose door allowing for maximum pax loading from the front of the plane?

The 747-200C (Convertible) model kind of fit this bill. It was a 747-200 passenger frame with the 747-200F swing nose. You could operate it in an all-passenger or all-freighter configuration (what today is called a "Quick Change" airframe in Boeing parlance) or you could "reverse combi" it with cargo in the front and passengers in the back.

While it was commercially launched in May 1973, I do not know if any models were ever sold, built and delivered.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 3:51 pm

Boeing delivered 13 747-200C aircraft, however AFAIK no Convertable 747 aircraft was ever operated with main cargo fwd of main deck passengers, because all were delivered with the maindeck side cargo door option.

The remaining active aircraft are all operated in the full cargo configuration.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Miguel Snoep



FWD main deck cargo with passenger windows, as installed in the 747convertible.

[Edited 2014-12-31 08:01:06]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27359
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:00 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 38):
Boeing delivered 13 747-200C aircraft, however AFAIK no Convertable 747 aircraft was ever operated with main cargo fwd of main deck passengers, because all were delivered with the maindeck side cargo door option.

So the 747-200C became the Combi, instead of the Convertible.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:33 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 39):
So the 747-200C became the Combi, instead of the Convertible

No, all combi variants (for the -200B, -300 and -400) are only an option and are not mentioned as a sub type at the 747 Type Certificate, like the freighter, convertible, etc.
In many publication they are mentioned 747 Combi , 747M (for mixed) or 742M.743M,744M

As a 747 sub-type, the thirteen 747-200C (convertible) are delivered between 1973 (World Airways) and 1988 (Martinair)

Customers :
World Airways (3x) -273C
El AL (2x) -258C
Iraqi Airways (3x) -270C
Trans america (3x) - 271C
Martinair (2x) -21AC
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27359
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:45 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 40):
No, all combi variants (for the -200B, -300 and -400) are only an option and are not mentioned as a sub type at the 747 Type Certificate, like the freighter, convertible, etc.

I see now. I didn't see your picture of the nose door on PH-MCF, so I assumed none were ever built in that configuration.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:03 pm

OK if you want something really different....
Today all planes offer a layout that is fundamentally the same - re 3 classic classes of Pax. Sooo

You take the 748 (not i).And make it a pax plane (same size as a 777=9?)
First class (if you need it) stays in the 'nose' as usual.
Economy at the back - as usual.
But Business class would be (very) different.

Business class on the main deck would all be comfortable semi reclining seats - but not beds.Up the stairs..
The (small) 'hump' would be a business lounge.
The (now very long) 'Crown' would have 50 small 'bedrooms' (25 each side with aisle down the middle).That would contain a bed ( and fold out stool? for private work).Thus offering total privacy and a real 'flat' bed!.
A business class like no other.If someone like BA ordered such a plane they would beat a path to their door (IMHO).

But hell that's radical thinking - perish the thought in this industry  
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27359
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:24 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 42):
OK if you want something really different....

Boeing pushed that concept from Day One with the 747-8 using the "aerolofts" in the crown area of the main fuselage.

No commercial airline expressed real interest in it.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:39 pm

Parapente means an extended aeroloft, in combination with the 747-8F (short hump fuselage) as a pax aircraft.
Aeroloft -Copyright Greenpoint


Remark : the aeroloft is not possible above the pantries.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
caoimhin
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:30 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:14 pm

The fact that there is any market at all for the A380 and the 748i indicates that there is demand for high capacity, long range aircraft. This is why I scratch my head at what seems, to others, the obvious obsolescence of the 747 airframe.

Set aside for a moment the uncertain future of the A380. It hasn't exactly sold like hotcakes, but it's sold a fair number of units. In a three-class layout, the two aircraft are in similar zones of capacity and range. Why pronounce the 748i DoA if there's still a market for a comparable plane?

I think the question of the 777X, as to how it interacts with the high capacity/long range market, is an important question to ask. Still, as far as we know, doesn't Boeing's long term plan still include a plan for a ~600 pax capacity aircraft as Y3? The 777X would not appear to quite reach that level.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27359
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:41 pm

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 45):
In a three-class layout, the two aircraft are in similar zones of capacity and range. Why pronounce the 748i DoA if there's still a market for a comparable plane?

Actually they are not. The A380 is about 35% larger in terms of cabin area and offers ~15% more range at MZFW.
 
trex8
Posts: 5612
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:31 pm

Would putting lugage containers of some sort on the main deck like LH did on DC10s require the same strict Combi rules for proper freight?
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Thu Jan 01, 2015 12:32 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 47):
Would putting lugage containers of some sort on the main deck like LH did on DC10s require the same strict Combi rules for proper freight?

Never heard of it, when did LH do that ? I know there were DC10 convertibles, but never heard of any being operated in a combi configuration, either all passenger, or all cargo.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27359
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: B748 Possible Improvements

Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:04 am

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 48):
Never heard of it, when did LH do that ? I know there were DC10 convertibles, but never heard of any being operated in a combi configuration, either all passenger, or all cargo.
Lufthansa DC10 Main Deck Luggage (by trex8 Jan 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Who is online

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