747-8 Family Details (From 747 Chief Engineer)

[BOEING777X]

Boeing's Chief Engineer on the 747, Michael Teal believes the airplane has another 40 more years service ahead of it and remains confident the -8F/-8I will be successful.


I talked with him in Seattle and he revealed some interesting insight (http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/02/13/747progress) into the 747-8 program - would be interesting to hear back from the engineers amongst us here to get their perspective, particularly those who have worked on previous 747's.

[c100driver]

The sales record of the B748i to pax airlines begs to differ with his belief!

Only Luffti is planning to operate on Airline Pax ops at this stage, and the aircraft has been available for deposits for two years!

[18-Wheeler]

You mean how the next new generation of airliners will be a long alloy (now carbon) tube, sweptback wings, and underslung engines?
No, wait, that's been going for about 50 years.
Sorry to disappoint you mate, but there's only three really major improvements in airliner technology in the last 50 years, and that's engines & avionics, and to a lesser degree materials.
There's not much else that's new.

[boeing boeing.. gone]

18 wheeler

undertsanding of aerodynamics???? computer modelling????? these are two other elements perhaps that have changed??

I agree with rainboe. I work in construction and know that people like to work in buildings that have been desgined recently (on the whole) not a building desgined 80 years ago.

the king is dead long live the king (a380)

[BOEING777X]

Wishful thinking from a hardly unbiased opinion!


No need for bias of any kind - Mike Teal simply talked about his product as any engineer would.


No mate- 80 years service doesn't cut it in a modern world!


Well, in fairness, the 747 hasn't strictly reached 80 yet, and I have my own doubts that it will either. Museums excepted ;)

[Semu]

Why wouldn't it reach 80? The DC-8 will at least make 60. Unlike the DC-8, there are no replacements announced for the 747F. The A380 will never make a general freighter, because 1. Only airports with scheduled A380F service will purchase the speciallized loading equipment needed to load the upper deck (and using the lower deck only would not compete very well with the 747), and 2. For reasons that utterly elude me, Airbus put the flight deck on the centre deck, rendering it cost prohibitive to ever make a nose loader out of it. Certainly, the frieghter of choice for the forseeable future will be the 777F, but there will be a market for a few 747Fs for a long long time yet.

[BOEING777X]

For the 747-8I, it still has the opportunity to become a converted freighter once its usefulness as a pax airplane ends...that may aid its slow trek to the 80-year mark!

[Rainboe]

For reasons that utterly elude me, Airbus put the flight deck on the centre deck, rendering it cost prohibitive to ever make a nose loader out of it. Because you don't design an aeroplane that will sell in the many hundreds, if not thousand + on the basis of creating a cargo version out of it! Just as Boeing built the 767 with a rather poor cabin cross section which meant current ULDs, which fitted A300s, could not be used in the hold. They decided, and announced, that 'you don't design a passenger aeroplane on the basis of hold dimensions!'
Who is to say the A380 won't clean up the future market? It will do the job more economically than a 747-8, which I believe is unlikely to see the light of day.

[TopBunk]

Boeing boeing ........

undertsanding of aerodynamics???? computer modelling????? these are two other elements perhaps that have changed??

I don't doubt that computer modelling will and does help, but remind me what the main problems faced by the A380 were caused by ........ oh, that's right, incompatibility in the systems between France and Germany, if I'm not mistaken.

Still some way to go, I think.

I believe the B787 fuselage join problems may have a similar history.

[CR2]

Rainboe, wasn't the 747 originally designed for a USAF requirement which the C5 Galaxy ultimately won?

As for the 380F, was involved with my former company in the "customer requirements" meetings with Airbus. They basically refused to listen to what freighter people wanted. We want to load 10ft high ULDs (as on the 747), they offered 8ft. Nose-door? "You don't need it!!!" (oh really?). Large engine carriage (eg 747/777/330 size), silence. Vast empty weight to carry 20-25T more than a 747F. Hmmm.

[BOEING777X]

...a 747-8, which I believe is unlikely to see the light of day.

Funny, I saw it being built...(granted, it was the 8F...)

[judge.oversteer]

Yeah?

Way back the original A300 was designed as a flying boat. Problem was it leaked so badly they put wheels on it!

JO

[Rainboe]

The A380 doesn't lend itself to a nose door. Double decker loading is impractical. The 747 is fortunate it converts superbly to a freighter, but it will not last forever.
Looking at the 747-8, I cannot see LH, the only pax customer, proceeding. Where does it leave the program- a cargo only aeroplane? At a time when air cargo has collapsed? The program is heading towards a freeze, followed by cancelation. LH will probably order 777-300 to replace the 747-8. Order will be restored!

[BOEING777X]

The program is heading towards a freeze, followed by cancelation.


Erm, not (yet) it isnt... (http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/02/03/boeing747/)

[Rainboe]

Interesting. I still feel this recession will be long and cruel. The market for the plane is being destroyed. In good times it might have made it, but I can't see it surviving now, with cheap grounded ex-pax 747-400s ripe for conversion, the collapse of the cargo market and collapse of new aircraft orders as the recession bites. Nobody is buying anything.

[CR2]

I've been in the freight biz for 20 years now & I have never seen it this bad. The loads out of the far east on which we all depended are drying/have dried up. As for converted pax 400s rainboe, I'm tending to agree with you. The -8F is a fantastic aircraft have no doubt about it but I wonder.... say $40-$50M to acquire and convert a pax aircraft or $200M for the new one.

[BOEING777X]

The market for the plane is being destroyed. In good times it might have made it, but I can't see it surviving now, with cheap grounded ex-pax 747-400s ripe for conversion,

Despite the availability of 747-400's, hardly any are being snapped up for conversion as the economics just dont make it worthwhile compared to new builds.

Otherwise we'd be seeing or would have seen a slew of 747-400 conversions which have had flat interest in the last 5 or more years, despite the 747-8F being available too - and instead, orders for the latter remain firmly intact.

The freight segment is "in the toilet", but as with every economic cycle, it wont last forever - and in the absence of any true large rival freighter, the 747-8F has the market to itself.

[c100driver]

From Flight International 9 Feb 09


Chief Excutive Jim McNerney warns that the continuation of the program should not be seen as a forgone conclusion: "we still see a viable business proposition here. Now obviously if we ever got to a point where we didn't, we'd have to work with our customers to come up with another answer"


I agree with Rainboe on this one that the B748i is a dead man walking with only one airline customer for 20 airframes plus some VIP jets. Boeing will never get a return on its investment in developing the jet. However the B748F probably has a better than 50/50 chance with 106 orders, but it depends on how fragile the order book is.

[BOEING777X]

Both 747-8F/747-8I have orders totalling 106.

In terms of cost, the 747-8I is in many ways similar to the 777-200LR. Both are derivatives of more popular siblings and were hit during downturns in travel.

Granted, the 777-200LR hasnt set the world alight, but its snared more orders than the rival A340-500 and theres every possibility that plenty of 747-400 operators (who are not yet A380 customers) may opt for the 747-8I.

Until Boeing terminates the -8I, speculating about its appeal is a matter of opinion/difference :)

[glad rag]

The first Lufti 380 is in the jig........:}

[Pugilistic Animus]

Oh C'mon Mr. Boeing have a Heart - will Ya! Let's JUST Have One More


Please:{

PA:(

[airfoilmod]

Cr2, as I recall, the 747 had no interest for USAF. Except for tankers, all must be high wing.

[galaxy flyer]

AF

Too true, the Stewart ANG was all set to fly them, Scoop Jackson (D-Boeing) died and the AF purchase died with him.

GF

[john_tullamarine]

Are you at the show next week ?

[point8six]

CR2 - As in Joe Sutter's book "747" the design for the 747 was not the same as the entrant for the military contract, but was a new design using technology from the military concept. In fact it resembled an aircraft that the Russians have built, the An 124 - it had an anhedral wing with underslung engines and a conventional tail-plane (not a T-tail). The new design for the 747 satisfied Juan Trippe's request for a large passenger jet to carry 350 pax.

[CR2]

Thanks for the clarification folks.

[keesje]

Otherwise we'd be seeing or would have seen a slew of 747-400 conversions which have had flat interest in the last 5 or more years, despite the 747-8F being available too - and instead, orders for the latter remain firmly intact.


The last 5 years we where in an economic boom. On top of that many A380 were delayed, forcing airlines to keep 747-400 longer in service then they planned to. Thats why we saw 747-400 conversions being postphoned.

[BOEING777X]

^

Considering most 747-400 operators are also 777-300ER operators, that is a moot point.

Part of the reason why the 747-8I and A380 have sold so poorly is the shift to more longer range twins (777, 787, A350XWB).

Even prior to the A380, with 77W deliveries, there wer ebarely double-digit orders for 747-400 conversions anyway - considering the 777F has far better economics than a converted 747-400, its a no brainer in todays world.

[keesje]

Even prior to the A380, with 77W deliveries, there wer ebarely double-digit orders for 747-400 conversions anyway - considering the 777F has far better economics than a converted 747-400, its a no brainer in todays world.


A new 747 / 777 is three times as expensive. Fuel prices are low. There is overcapasity among the 747 overhaul providers. The Asian take over. They do most Cargo conversion too. (TAECO)

As long as credit is no restriction for a cargo mover, the addition $150.000.000 for a brand new machine should be no problem..

[BOEING777X]

Boeing: 747-8 Intercontinental Passes 25 Percent Design Milestone (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2009/q2/090427a_nr.html)


EVERETT, Wash., April 27, 2009 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has passed a major milestone in the design of the 747-8 (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/index.html) Intercontinental, completing 25 percent of the design releases for the new passenger airplane. This means a quarter of the information needed to build parts and tools for assembly has been completed and released for fabrication or procurement.

"We have made tremendous progress on the design engineering," said Mo Yahyavi, vice president and general manager for the 747 Program. "The engineering is proceeding as planned and we are a step closer to bringing the 747-8 Intercontinental to market."

Since much of the design is the same as the 747-8 Freighter, which Boeing is building first, the engineering focus is on work that is unique to the 747-8 Intercontinental, comprising mostly fuselage and interior design. The most obvious difference is that the 747-8 Intercontinental fuselage will boast an extended upper deck.
On the interior, the airplane will incorporate features from the 787 Dreamliner, including a new curved, upswept architecture that will give passengers a greater sense of space and comfort, while adding more room for personal belongings. The architecture will be accentuated by lighting technology that provides smooth transitions for a more restful flight.

"The 747 family has been a favorite among passengers," said Michael Teal, 747-8 chief project engineer. "The 747-8 Intercontinental will build on the memorable experiences they've had on a 747. The moment passengers step aboard a 747-8 Intercontinental, they will know it's a brand new airplane and enjoy a more relaxing flying experience."

As for the airplane's performance, the 747-8 will be stretched 18.3 feet (5.6 meters) from the 747-400 to provide 467 seats in a three-class configuration and a range of approximately 8,000 nautical miles (14,815 kilometers). It will deliver nearly equivalent trip costs to those of the 747-400 and 13 percent lower seat-mile costs, plus 26 percent greater cargo volume. The 747-8 Intercontinental also will be 16 percent more fuel efficient and create a 30 percent smaller noise footprint than its predecessor.

"The 747-8 Intercontinental will be a great airplane for our customers," said Yahyavi. "Our team is focused on completing the remaining detailed design needed to deliver the airplane in late 2011."

The 747-8, which includes the 747-8 Intercontinental and the 747-8 Freighter, was launched in November 2005 by Cargolux Airlines and Nippon Cargo Airlines. Lufthansa was the first airline to order the 747-8 Intercontinental in December 2006.

[forget]

For reasons that utterly elude me, Airbus put the flight deck on the centre deck, rendering it cost prohibitive to ever make a nose loader out of it.

$$$ apart, tell me why it can't be done.

[vapilot2004]

$$$ apart, tell me why it can't be done.

I'm not an engineer, but I would say the E/E bay is in the way.

[capt_akun]

I wonder why instead of stretching the 747-400 a further few metres, that Boeing itself just extends the top bit of the 2nd deck all the way till the end?

[stilton]

Two good reasons, first of all you do not gain any more cargo capacity, secondly,
those additional passengers on the top deck have to put their checked baggage into that same cargo area and you lose even more cargo space.

This, of course is one of the problems with the A380 whose cargo capacity is not that impressive for it's size.

[capt_akun]

Stilton,

Gotcha. Thanks!