Boeing 747-8, can the 747 airframe progress any further?
Discussion
I read with interest Lufthansa have taken delivery of the first 747-8 and congrats to all 
But...........
To me it looks like a 747 with a slightly longer top deck which is essentially that same aircraft I viewed in the '70's at Heathrow, granted with significantly efficient wings/engines/flight management etc.
When do the designers at Boeing sit back and say.......we've really pushed the 747 to the limit and we need a new design of aircraft/airframe?
With the 747/100, 200, 400 and now the -8, are they clutching at old straws trying to keep up with the Airbus A380 or can the 747 continue to evolve for the next 20 years?
But...........
To me it looks like a 747 with a slightly longer top deck which is essentially that same aircraft I viewed in the '70's at Heathrow, granted with significantly efficient wings/engines/flight management etc.
When do the designers at Boeing sit back and say.......we've really pushed the 747 to the limit and we need a new design of aircraft/airframe?
With the 747/100, 200, 400 and now the -8, are they clutching at old straws trying to keep up with the Airbus A380 or can the 747 continue to evolve for the next 20 years?
I realise that the -8, was not just chucked together using bits from the parts bin, but I wonder if their reluctance to design from a " clean sheet" was 1) it was a hugely successfull proven design and 2) IIRC, Boeing were steering away from larger aircraft because they believed that smaller aircraft were the future.
HoHoHo said:
I'm sure Boeing are building their business on smaller aircraft using shorter flights rather than long haul A380 type aircraft which makes me think 'knee jerk' reaction, they are simply extending an old airfame to the limit.
It would probably near bankrupt Boeing to create a brand new large, long haul aircraft - as it nearly did with Airbus, if I'm not mistaken (although I probably am). Plus, to extend the top deck gives a bigger aircraft without the need for any massive retooling etc.I am pretty sure however that Boeing have banked on the 'Hub' style approach to air travel, large aircraft flying into 2 or 3 national hubs where everyone jumps onto smaller planes. Airbus have gone for the flying direct kind of approach, thinking that connecting flights will become a thing of the past.
Implausibly, the -8 is actually the first ever fuselage stretch of the 747. You need to look at the whole infrastructure around the 747 rather than just the plane itself - essentially wherever a -400 can go, an -8 can go. Airlines need to make some fairly hefty adjustments for the A380.
I think the 747-8i will be the last 747. Boeing Yellowstone project Y3 is the future 777/747 aircraft which is planned to arrive after the Y1 (737 replacement) which has been delayed by the 737 MAX.
The Y2 which was to be the sonic cruiser and then the 7E7 and the now 787 is taking up Boeings time with developments of this aircraft.
The Y2 which was to be the sonic cruiser and then the 7E7 and the now 787 is taking up Boeings time with developments of this aircraft.
I reckon it's the last variant on the type. Hard to see what can be done to it, in order to legally retain it's status as the same type.
It looks like they are paving a software-based fix to the stabiliser flutter issue, which is always preferable to structural alterations at this point in the game.
Once the weight issues are dealt with, the 748 is an aerodynamic triumph, in that it has a magnificent wing. So good, in fact, the pilots have had to learn another 'times table' for descent profile monitoring. Much of the plumbing remains the same as the 744, unfortunately, but it works, I guess.
My company have the freighter, and, teething niggles aside, are very happy with the capabilities of it. It can haul a serious amount of lithium ion batteries a long way! Now, for the cargo market to pick up a bit.
I am tempted with transitioning on to it, I'd love to fly her, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy the operation as much as my current steed. We shall see what my rosters start to look like when we get our 777F!
It looks like they are paving a software-based fix to the stabiliser flutter issue, which is always preferable to structural alterations at this point in the game.
Once the weight issues are dealt with, the 748 is an aerodynamic triumph, in that it has a magnificent wing. So good, in fact, the pilots have had to learn another 'times table' for descent profile monitoring. Much of the plumbing remains the same as the 744, unfortunately, but it works, I guess.
My company have the freighter, and, teething niggles aside, are very happy with the capabilities of it. It can haul a serious amount of lithium ion batteries a long way! Now, for the cargo market to pick up a bit.
I am tempted with transitioning on to it, I'd love to fly her, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy the operation as much as my current steed. We shall see what my rosters start to look like when we get our 777F!
I think Boeing are doing the exact OPPOSITE of pushing for the 'hub' theory of operation.
The 'hub' theory is met by your mahoosive A380s ploughing between the few big hubs, with your A32X/A31X taking people on the short hopes to their final destinations.
Boeing have gone a different route, with the 787. The 787 plane is designed to fly a smaller number of people on long, and ultra-long haul routes directly between cities. So removing the need for 'hub' operations.
The 787 is the only 'new' plane that Boeing have made for quite a while. They are rehashing the 737 (next gen, max,) with upgrades to keep it running as an air frame, and trying to fit stretches/shrinks of the 777 and 787 to fill the gaps left by the 757 and 767. The 747-8 seems a little half hearted plan to try and compete with the A380. Its a bit bigger than the biggest 777, has 4 donks, but isn't as big as a a380. The slow sales, especially to civil passenger airlines seems to reflect a lack of interest in it as a concept.
The 'hub' theory is met by your mahoosive A380s ploughing between the few big hubs, with your A32X/A31X taking people on the short hopes to their final destinations.
Boeing have gone a different route, with the 787. The 787 plane is designed to fly a smaller number of people on long, and ultra-long haul routes directly between cities. So removing the need for 'hub' operations.
The 787 is the only 'new' plane that Boeing have made for quite a while. They are rehashing the 737 (next gen, max,) with upgrades to keep it running as an air frame, and trying to fit stretches/shrinks of the 777 and 787 to fill the gaps left by the 757 and 767. The 747-8 seems a little half hearted plan to try and compete with the A380. Its a bit bigger than the biggest 777, has 4 donks, but isn't as big as a a380. The slow sales, especially to civil passenger airlines seems to reflect a lack of interest in it as a concept.
c7xlg said:
I think Boeing are doing the exact OPPOSITE of pushing for the 'hub' theory of operation.
.
I don't think they are pushing too hard on either side of that theory, to be honest. Current economics and fuel prices dictate that twin engined planes are the way forward. However, the requirement for very large aircraft is for slot-restrained airports and high density routes..
The 787 is merely a replacement mid-size aircraft. It isn't big enough, nor does it have the range to service a great many markets out of Asia, where the industry's future is - as evidenced by where the bulk of the orders have been taken; 767 operators.
ETOPS,
I think you have missed the point of the 787 entirely.
It has the range to match pretty much any other long haul airliner. Only the 777-300LR seems to have longer reach. Figures from Wikipedia, but well referenced:
787-8 7,650 to 8,200 nautical miles
787-9 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles
A330-200 7,200 nm
777-200 er 7,700 nautical miles
777-200 lr 9,380 nautical miles
777-300 er 7,930 nautical miles
A380-800 8,300 nmi
It was also deliberately designed to be smaller, to service direct city to city routes that do not have enough demand to make a 777, 747 or A380 profitable.
So, IMHO, Boeing have designed the 787 to NOT be part of a hub model. It is designed to link the world;s smaller cities together.
I think you have missed the point of the 787 entirely.
It has the range to match pretty much any other long haul airliner. Only the 777-300LR seems to have longer reach. Figures from Wikipedia, but well referenced:
787-8 7,650 to 8,200 nautical miles
787-9 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles
A330-200 7,200 nm
777-200 er 7,700 nautical miles
777-200 lr 9,380 nautical miles
777-300 er 7,930 nautical miles
A380-800 8,300 nmi
It was also deliberately designed to be smaller, to service direct city to city routes that do not have enough demand to make a 777, 747 or A380 profitable.
So, IMHO, Boeing have designed the 787 to NOT be part of a hub model. It is designed to link the world;s smaller cities together.
c7xlg said:
ETOPS,
I think you have missed the point of the 787 entirely.
It has the range to match pretty much any other long haul airliner. Only the 777-300LR seems to have longer reach. Figures from Wikipedia, but well referenced:
787-8 7,650 to 8,200 nautical miles
787-9 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles
A330-200 7,200 nm
777-200 er 7,700 nautical miles
777-200 lr 9,380 nautical miles
777-300 er 7,930 nautical miles
A380-800 8,300 nmi
It was also deliberately designed to be smaller, to service direct city to city routes that do not have enough demand to make a 777, 747 or A380 profitable.
So, IMHO, Boeing have designed the 787 to NOT be part of a hub model. It is designed to link the world;s smaller cities together.
No, I haven't. I think you have missed the point of the 787 entirely.
It has the range to match pretty much any other long haul airliner. Only the 777-300LR seems to have longer reach. Figures from Wikipedia, but well referenced:
787-8 7,650 to 8,200 nautical miles
787-9 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles
A330-200 7,200 nm
777-200 er 7,700 nautical miles
777-200 lr 9,380 nautical miles
777-300 er 7,930 nautical miles
A380-800 8,300 nmi
It was also deliberately designed to be smaller, to service direct city to city routes that do not have enough demand to make a 777, 747 or A380 profitable.
So, IMHO, Boeing have designed the 787 to NOT be part of a hub model. It is designed to link the world;s smaller cities together.
Firstly, dont be fooled by range claims. An A380 on an 8000nm route would be so zero fuel weight limited, it would run a horrendous loss. A shade over 7500nm is well served, it is purely a 767 replacement with improved technology, allowing it to eat into 330 turf. It doesn't mean it is there to defy hub & spoke operation. The 350 is the same. I bet my house that they'll be used to link big cities together as well as small.
My point is, Boeing are not 'trying to do the opposite' of hub & spoke. They have aircraft that match all types of operation, and all types of operation will be served by many different types.
Your assertion that Boeing (not the 787, specifically) are deliberately countering hub & spoke, is incorrect. Hence, the 777 (on track to be their most successful wide body ever), it's replacement in the works, and the 748.
The 748-i's lack of interest is down to the economic climate and fuel prices, not because airlines don't want hub & spoke.
TimJMS said:
Interesting stuff.
I'm thinking Boeing must have dished up a seriously huge incentive for the German national flag carrier to have dropped the bomb on Airbus.
Pricing is ferocious in this industry, who knows. That said, there is a gap in the market between the 777-300ER/A340 and the A380.I'm thinking Boeing must have dished up a seriously huge incentive for the German national flag carrier to have dropped the bomb on Airbus.
In 1997 Boeing spent a lot of money to facilitate the "merger" with Mcdonell Douglas, for it's military aircraft business, when Airbus were planning the A380. They really didn't have the resources to develop a 747 replacement at the same time as pursue the MD merger. Indeed they tried to tempt Airbus into a joint venture on a new Superjumbo - this may have been purely tactical - but both parties know that the market can't support two competitors in this space. Amortising the development costs for the A380 will take many years - imagine the business case if the market was roughly evenly split with Boeing. Both would suffer - especially when you think that approximately 1500 747s were delivered over a 40 year period. Interestingly many 744 operators are transitioning to the 773 because the A380 is just too big. These operators didn't need anything bigger than the 744 - just a more efficient aircraft with similar capacity. The 773 is canibalising sales from the 748. The ICAO 80m "box" into which the A380-800 fits will probably be used as the limit of stretch for 748 - that would be a 3.75m stretch on the current offering.The 1996 747-600X proposal was for a stretch to 85m - that would have to be the outer limits for the growth scope engineered into the 748 platform & would probably only be pursued once enough airport infrastructure has been enlarged to accommodate the A380 & perhaps in response to the A380-900 & -1000.
I thought the whole point of the the 787 was to provide the option to make getting away from hub and spoke air travel viable as it makes otherwise uneconomical routes possible due to the aircraft's fuel efficiency and range.
For example, United's first 787 is going to be doing Houston - Auckland nonstop, where the only previous alternatives where via LAX or SFO. And there's rumors that AirNZ will be doing Auckland - Chicago with their 787's in 2014. Both routes where there is demand, but insufficient to justify a super longhaul service such as Singapore Airlines all business class A340-500 service from Singapore - Newark nonstop.
For example, United's first 787 is going to be doing Houston - Auckland nonstop, where the only previous alternatives where via LAX or SFO. And there's rumors that AirNZ will be doing Auckland - Chicago with their 787's in 2014. Both routes where there is demand, but insufficient to justify a super longhaul service such as Singapore Airlines all business class A340-500 service from Singapore - Newark nonstop.
davepoth said:
Implausibly, the -8 is actually the first ever fuselage stretch of the 747. You need to look at the whole infrastructure around the 747 rather than just the plane itself - essentially wherever a -400 can go, an -8 can go. Airlines need to make some fairly hefty adjustments for the A380.
There have been shrinks, but not stretches from the quick search I've just made. The 747-400 is the same length as the 747-100. The SP came later, and is a shrink of the initial design. The LCF is a couple of inches longer than the -400, so it could be said that the -800 is in fact the second stretch of the 747 design! The length of the upper deck has changed over time, and I'm not including the YAL-1 because it isn't a stretch in the conventional sense (I know - the LCF is pushing the boundaries!).
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff