747-8

[+Dave 2,322]

http://www.msnbc.msn...ness/?GT1=43001

 

There is nothing more beautiful in the airliner world today than the 747.

 

Check the net, there are some great pictures of this thing. Graceful, beautiful, and in my opinion Boeing's crowning achievement. The newest Airbus is lack luster compared to this.

[+Dave 2,322]

I just asked for access to the Boeing media sections so I can get some high res pics of the new 747 to post here. I wonder if we can get an advertising banner for them here too? Yes I'm excited about an airliner but this love affair with the 747 goes back to my first flight on one in 1983. It was a Pan Am flight to Germany when my dad got stationed in Turkey. The 747 and the Concord, two of a kind planes that changed aviation. This new 747 will bring the back the times when flying was glamorous. Just my thoughts anyway.

[Canadair 16]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but where were you stationed in Turkey? And defintely 747 is an aviation achievement

[+Dave 2,322]

My dad was a 6ATAF "Disco Hit" Izmir, Turkey 1983-1985.

[+GrinchWSLG 24]

Worked this bird a few nights ago. They brought her over in the evening for some approach lighting tests with a new windshield or something. Unfortunately it was in the middle of our evening rush. Gave me a real headache trying to get my departures out with the 3 minute wake turbulence hold. And the 10 mile in trail seperation meant as soon as my 3 minutes were up, here came the stream of arrivals! Yeah, long night, but she's a beautiful bird, that's for sure.

[+daddyairplanes 10,251]

it's a beatiful bird fer sure. suprised i've never been on one with around 14 transatlantic trips under my belt. but AMC contractors Omni and World Airways mostly fly L1011 and the couple straight outta my pocket flights i made were on 777. the lockheed .... thing.... is a dog by comparison to any boeing product.

Edited February 15, 2011 by daddyairplanes

[FastCargo 412]

Boeing has had the frieghter version up and running for sometime already. Actually was down in Fresno doing approach tests with a 747-400 following it around back before the beginning of the year. It surprisngly doesn't look that different until you notice the engines.

 

I have to admit, the 747 has always appeared more graceful than the A380 to me. The A380 always seems to look a bit 'stubby'.

 

FC

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

What's the story with a few of the first batch of these going to private owners in the US and abroad...?

[FastCargo 412]

They gots the money, they gets the plane...simple as that methinks...

 

FC

[Nesher 628]

the 747 is a winner for the last 3-4 decades...the 380 will have a hard time competing with that kind of record

and yep, it's way more graceful than the 380

Edited February 15, 2011 by Nesher

[Toryu 156]

Looks like customers are more into "tech" than "grace" nowadays - thats why the A380 has outsold the 747-8I from the start, which has only two customers so far (Lufthansa and Korean).

[FastCargo 412]

Well, the A380 has been around longer than the 747-8I.

 

But, there are several factors involved in the A380 vs 747-8I, a few are numbers based, a few are intangibly based.

 

1) The A380 has more capacity. For high traffic routes, this is a no brainer.

2) The A380 was more efficient (fuel used per passenger seat) than any 747-X product offered at the time. That can be argued to have changed with the 747-8I, which has a new wing.

 

Intangibles:

 

1) The A380 is 'newer'. Like the argument that killed the F-20 in foreign sales...it's not a derivative of an existing design.

 

Interestingly enough, in the cargo market, it's been a different story. The A380F (freighter) version was delayed for so long, and the delays were handled so badly by Airbus, that ALL the launch customers cancelled their orders and currently, no customers exist. But, the 747-8F has been selling quite nicely, along with the older versions, showing there is still is a market for high capacity cargo haulers. It can be shown that in a market where having the newest toys isn't as much of a factor as efficiency and operating costs, that the 747 is the clear winner. Maybe someday once the Airbus gets their act together with the A380F, they can compete in that arena.

 

FC

[+Dave 2,322]

Airbus doesnt so a thing for me anyway. Their planes are ugly and do not have the grace, the history and the iconic status the 747 has. They just dont. People think of 747's when it comes to airline travel. Its been a household word for what 50 years now? Airbus can make all the A380's they want but it will never have the fame and relability the 747 has garnered.

[Toryu 156]

The 747-8I has also been around for a couple of years now, and yet it still got only two customers, while the 8F is a lot more successfull till the day.

I don't have the numbers right here, but I remember reading that the 8I wasn't going to hit the A380 anwhere except on routes with lower pax-numbers, where the smaller ("small", eh?) plane has the natural advantage of hauling less excessive/ unused weight around. That is on top of the 388's wing (A380-800) actually being optimised for a possible larger brother, the 389.

 

On top of what FC said, the 380 also has

3) taken over the flag-ship status for airlines (it's not that Emirates really NEED that many A380s)

4) the ability to haul a lot of people around, from an Airbus cockpit that uses all the standardised fratures of previous Airbii (less cost for crew-training, cross-ratings are possible)

5) a very good payload-range performace compared to pretty much anything (haven't checked the 747-8I for comparison)

 

The A380F has always run in somewht troubled waters. It's highly unlikely we'll EVER see one actualy fly.

The latest issue I'm aware of is that there's a problem with the upper-deck-floor which couldn't handle the weight it was supposed to. There wasn't any convenient way of loading the plane and there was no way of removing the upper-deck-floor (critical structural part) for oversized-goods transportation. Therefore, the couldn't have been any way of transporting non standard-pallet sized goods, as is possible wih the 747F - but only through the rear cargo-door (same reasons, the ceiling is too low, when loading through the nose).

 

It's gonna be pretty hard removing Boeing from their number one slot in cargo planes - their experience and market-share are really tough to beat.

On top of that is the conversion-market, which provides a lot of interesting aircraft to companies with less high expectations on technological (and performance) standards.

The A330-200F is a start, though, and from what I hear it's a nicely-sized aircraft for filling the payload/range-niche between the 767-300F and 777F.

 

I agree with Dave, the A380 is in no way a look to write home about. The 747's much more of a beautiful aircaft (especially with those barn-door flaps UP and with the short upper-deck). The 8F and 8I also bring on the new wing and engines, which really improve the looks.

Airbus has always kinda kept it down in he looks-compartment (I grew to like the A330, but that's propably because I got in contact with them a lot) - the A350 is gonna be quite a looker, though!

 

People think of 747's when it comes to airline travel. Its been a household word for what 50 years now? Airbus can make all the A380's they want but it will never have the fame and relability the 747 has garnered.

 

The 747 has been around for 42 years now and as you said, it has become quite a brand. But perception of people does change - as the olger generation dies-off, younger generations will develop their own "brands" and "classics". For today's young people, the 747 is not the same miracle as it was to those people in 1969 - it has become and everyday-thingy, that only few actually lose a thought or two about.

They take it for granted.

 

Another thing is the ever-emerging discussion about pollution, fuel-efficiency etc.

The 747-400 already was a gas-guzzler in the early 90s, just after it came into service. The conemporary A340s had and still have a much much lower fuel-burn, especially when taking the A340-600 in comparison - and they offered the same cargo-space with a couple of seats less in the cabin.

Even those A340s are becoming less attactive every year (they're not made anymore, either, whereas their twin-engined brethren, the A330s are going strong!).

 

The future belongs to twins, composite airframes and new ideas in engine-design (ducted fan, geared fan, maybe something new altogether?).

The 787 and A350 are the first step into that direction, and thus they'll become icons themselves.

The 747 will always have a special place in aviation: the first wide-body, the first jet with two decks and the largest airliner of it's time.

Others will follow.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Toryu

[FastCargo 412]

The 747-8I has also been around for a couple of years now, and yet it still got only two customers, while the 8F is a lot more successfull till the day.

I don't have the numbers right here, but I remember reading that the 8I wasn't going to hit the A380 anwhere except on routes with lower pax-numbers, where the smaller ("small", eh?) plane has the natural advantage of hauling less excessive/ unused weight around. That is on top of the 388's wing (A380-800) actually being optimised for a possible larger brother, the 389.

 

On top of what FC said, the 380 also has

3) taken over the flag-ship status for airlines (it's not that Emirates really NEED that many A380s)

4) the ability to haul a lot of people around, from an Airbus cockpit that uses all the standardised fratures of previous Airbii (less cost for crew-training, cross-ratings are possible)

5) a very good payload-range performace compared to pretty much anything (haven't checked the 747-8I for comparison)

 

The A380F has always run in somewht troubled waters. It's highly unlikely we'll EVER see one actualy fly.

The latest issue I'm aware of is that there's a problem with the upper-deck-floor which couldn't handle the weight it was supposed to. There wasn't any convenient way of loading the plane and there was no way of removing the upper-deck-floor (critical structural part) for oversized-goods transportation. Therefore, the couldn't have been any way of transporting non standard-pallet sized goods, as is possible wih the 747F - but only through the rear cargo-door (same reasons, the ceiling is too low, when loading through the nose).

 

It's gonna be pretty hard removing Boeing from their number one slot in cargo planes - their experience and market-share are really tough to beat.

On top of that is the conversion-market, which provides a lot of interesting aircraft to companies with less high expectations on technological (and performance) standards.

The A330-200F is a start, though, and from what I hear it's a nicely-sized aircraft for filling the payload/range-niche between the 767-300F and 777F.

 

I agree with Dave, the A380 is in no way a look to write home about. The 747's much more of a beautiful aircaft (especially with those barn-door flaps UP and with the short upper-deck). The 8F and 8I also bring on the new wing and engines, which really improve the looks.

Airbus has always kinda kept it down in he looks-compartment (I grew to like the A330, but that's propably because I got in contact with them a lot) - the A350 is gonna be quite a looker, though!

 

I've heard that the A380 cockpit, while similar to it's brothers, is different enough that although the idea of a common rating is possible, there hasn't been a lot of headway made it actually making it occur...one of those 'sounds good in theory but doesn't match reality' things. A similar thing occured with the 777 because it was similar to the 767/757 (which do share a common rating).

 

I hadn't heard about the upper deck floor on the A380F, though it does not surprise me. At our company, the Airbus floors have had significantly more beam cracking issues than our other aircraft, even our older 727s and MD10s (as in the 727s have had less than 5, the MD10s less than 10, the Airbus over 100). That's too bad, we could use the lift of an efficient large freighter. Our 777Fs have been making money hand over foot for us with their increased efficiency over our MD11s.

 

We actually have had an A330 on the ramp for evaluation as a midsize freighter to replace our A300/310s and some of our MD10s. The current feeling is that we aren't getting them (an interesting problem was the 'rake' of the aircraft on the ground was causing loading issues because loading crews couldn't get the cans pushed uphill...Airbus has proposed a nose gear mod that would solve this)...but we have a saying...'until you see it with a purple tail on the ramp, don't discount anything'. So who knows...the A330 would be a decent fit because it uses the same tube as our A300/310s, so we already have loading experience with the general type.

 

The A350 XWB looks to be interesting...hopefully it'll be a lot better contender than their last attempt to compete with the 787...pretty much potential customers told Airbus to go back to the drawing board because their initial attempt was not good.

 

FC

[Toryu 156]

The commonality will be much closer between the A380 and A350 (and A400M) than between the other aircraft, but it's generally there and helps a lot when "stepping up" or "down".

Interestingly, the initially proposed A350 would have been quite a good contender for the _early_ 787, but back when it was rejected (and rightfully so) nobody really knew about the upcoming problems of the 787. The first couple of 787s are overweight and underperforming (which doesn't come as a surprise as that's only normal for new aircraft) and the new grossed-up A330-200s (238t MTOW) will be able to compete then though the 330's own payload/range band. This is gonna change soon, when Boeing figures out how to safe weight here and there and when the 787 will come down to specs (weight-wise) - thats UP in performance, of course

 

I'm not sure about the 300-family, but the 330 and 340 have huge problems with corrosion aroud the galley/ restroom areas.

I've seen one floor-beam-replacement in C-Check and what I knew were the old floor-beams looked more like "cauliflower" than metal to me.

But then again, most people liked working on the Bus or flying it.

 

The nose-gear-mod is now a standard-feature on the 330-200F, and albeit looking kinda weird, it supposedly doesn't hurt performance or cockpit noise-level.

[JediMaster 451]

The 380 does have airport restrictions, too. So while the 8I might not make much of a dent on routes that support the 380, on ones that couldn't because of the terminals or ramps or whatever the 8I will be a way to increase capacity with no infrastructure changes.

[+GrinchWSLG 24]

Worked the 747-8F again a few days ago. They're still checking out that windshield. She made a few touch and goes in the sunset to we got a good look at the white whale. Magnificent bird.