Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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? |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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). |
Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 8): So let me get this straight. |
Quoting rampbro (Reply 7): What about doing a combi? |
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 vin2basketball (Reply 8): So let me get this straight. |
Quoting StTim (Reply 9): Yup - got it in one sir. |
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? |
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. |
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 |
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: |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quoting CiC (Reply 25): What is the last status about the rumors that KLM want to have a 748 Combi? |
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? |
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 26): FAA regulations regarding passengers and freight on the same deck make certifying a 748 combi impracticle. |
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. |
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... |
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. |
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 |
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??" |
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. |
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. |
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 34): but the additional weight |
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 34): lack of ability to change configuration |
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? |
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. |
Quoting Stitch (Reply 39): So the 747-200C became the Combi, instead of the Convertible |
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. |
![]() |
Aeroloft -Copyright Greenpoint |
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? |
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? |
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. |