747-8F - does it match the hype?

[Rum Baba]

Everyone's saying the 747-8F is the future, but I'm trying to find out what it is actually like to fly and operate. That is, how does it handle and are airlines making the savings they were hoping?

(Mind you, I doubt any freighter operators are making any money at the moment)

[CAO]

I don't know what it's like to fly the 747-8...I've flown the 744, but have yet to fly the 748 (Atlas)...

As for your assumption about freight companies making money...you are painting with a pretty broad brush. I wouldn't be so quick to make that judgement. :=

[zeddb]

The 747 8 flies pretty much like a -400 but there are some significant differences.

The wing is different (supercritical) and the engines are more powerful and also a lot quieter. You don't feel the "kick in the pants" on the takeoff roll that you got in the 400, it just trundles along making very little noise and suddenly an electronic voice says "V1". Rotation is a more gentle affair since the beast is around 20 feet longer. The wing (?) makes the whole thing a bit more speed unstable on finals.

Under the skin there are a lot of differences. The outer aileron and spoilers are "fly by wire" and move around in flight to keep everything sweet. There are no flight deck indications of this. There is a RAT and the hydraulic system rearranges itself in the event of failures so that even on one or no engines, all control surfaces are powered. All the spoilers operate as roll augmentation and the elevator is split into 4 sections (2 each side). This makes the flight control check callouts slightly different. The ailerons also droop for takeoff and landing which improves performance. The CWT has a nitrogen system to prevent a repeat of the TWA incident.

On the flight deck, the ECS is made by Leibherr and pumps out a lot of air during certain flight phases. The noise can be quite startling at first. The gear lever is now just an up/down switch with no "OFF" position. The EICAS selector panel is off the 777 and can be used to display things all over the place.. An example is the ability to display the electronic checklist (another new toy) on the ND whilst the engine display is on the lower EICAS MFD. Oh yes, the screens are now called MFD's.

There is no clock, it is incorporated into the inner MFD and runs automatically from takeoff and the total flight time is displayed on the status page. The trim position is moved to the upper centre MFD and blanks after takeoff.
The FMC has several extra pages and has a display more like the 777. The whole thing is geared around RNP operations and there are three buttons on the glareshield to ACCEPT, REJECT or CANCEL ATC messages. The approach logic has been changed to something called Integrated Approach Navigation (IAN). What this means is that as long as an approach is in the FMC, all you have to do is select APPROACH and you are basically flying an ILS regardless of whether it is LNAV/VNAV, ILS, VOR or whatever. RNP scales appear on the PFD to show you where you are in relation to lateral and vertical profiles. Sounds complex but it makes life easier. There is a brand new radar which you basically leave in AUTO and it does everything for you. The ND features an airport map (not yet functional) and a vertical situation display which does clutter the ND a bit but I like it. You can switch it off.

The other new toy of note is the EFB. At the moment this is used to store manuals electronically and is used as a performance tool. The figures are very conservative, especially on landing as the brakes are the same for a heavier aircraft but these are being gradually tweaked by Boeing as experience is gained. The EFB also has a pilot utilities menu which contains a calculator and a conversion tool ( Litres to Kg etc). Eventually this gizmo will have charts and things.

On walk around, you will notice that the wheels are bigger, I can no longer fit between the body gear and gear door and it is not due to too many pies down route. Honest. You need to avoid the RAT doors in case it pings down and takes your head off. The whole thing is longer and takes more time to stagger around. The Nav lights are a bit different.

MTOW is 445 tonnes and MLW 345 tonnes for the freighter or thereabouts. The beast is longer and a lot better looking than the A380 and has a definite ramp presence. The only major whinge from our guys is the rearrangement of the galley which is now side on and gives less room to move about. There are more seats on the upper deck. Taxying needs you to go a bit deeper into the turns.

And thats about it. A nice bit of kit IMHO. The aircraft of choice for heavy lifting over long ranges. Fuel burn is about the same or slightly less than the 400 for a greater weight. We had 8tonnes/hour in the cruise the other night at around 385t. The 400 was a fairly constant 10t/hr.

Enjoy.

[GlueBall]

zeddb . . . thanks for the differences review. :ok:

[zeddb]

Just remembered a few more bits and bobs if anyone is interested.

The overhead panel has been tidied up a bit. The engine start panel is simplified, no more manual start or continuous ignition switches, the whole thing is automatic. The engines also monitor absolutely everything and shut themselves down if they don't like it. The 400 (CF6) only monitored Hot, Hung and no EGT rise.

The engines take longer to start than the CF6 (can't speak for the RR) and tend to vibrate due to rotor bow. They also produce quite a lot of smoke which alarms the ground crew. This is normal. The engines themselves look the dog's bo****ks with large scimitar bladed fan blades. So far they have been very reliable. Take off requires 40% to be set prior to pressing the blast off button. The ground anti ice procedure is a bit different and you need to watch vibration levels. Any more than 4 and you have to manually de ice the engines. Not been a problem so far, even in a frozen ORD. A PIP from GE is expected at some point to address some minor issues, including the smoky start.

There is no more Aft cargo heat switch, it is incorporated into the system elsewhere and the yaw dampers have to remain off until the IRS has aligned. The pack selectors have been replaced with simple PBI's.

That's all I can remember without looking at the manual and I'm on days off!

[Flightaddict]

It looks like a very great machine! Enjoy your flight on the beast :O

[Skystar320]

Beats the A380-800F!

[Rum Baba]

Thanks very much. That was massively useful!

[Arfur Dent]

Zedd
Hugely entertaining and informative - and I'm a 400 driver! Ever thought of writing a book?
Good on ya.:ok:

[fire wall]

ASDA 11000 ft Sea Level
Tow 443 t
TO AST 40 deg
plenty of go juice
rotation does not have the lag of the 400
roll rate is crisp both clean and dirtied up.
new speed window logic is good for on departure speed restrictions
very quiet in crz, other times can be as if someone has opened the window as a result of recirc fan logic and/or pack H flow - being addressed
sips fuel
vnav logic on descent with speed window open stays in path as opposed to vnav spd on 400
lands beautifully

[772driver]

Zeddb, do you work for ABC by any chance? ))

[surely not]

Skystar320 it would be difficult not to beat the A380-800F as it hasn't even been built yet. Guess you are Boeing blind and will love the -8F no matter what.

Zeddb thanks for answering the question without resorting to Boeing v Airbus nonsense. It does seem that with all those changes to the aircraft Boeing has pulled a bit of a fast one by getting certified on the original 747 Type Certificate with changes.

[Phil Squares]

I believe it is certified on the 747-400 type certificate. Not really a big deal if you think about it.

Nothing Airbus has not done.

[grounded27]

t would be difficult not to beat the A380-800F as it hasn't even been built yet

Yeah, because any prospective buyers pulled out for.... Boeing products. Sure it may have been a different story if Airbus could have kept to schedule. Much like the MD-11 (in it's prime) the B777F is the perfect size freighter.

Makes me think of Atlas with 30 something 742's and 744's during a market slow down, hard times to own or have obligations on that many aircraft that you can not fill.No doubt the 748 is a nice aircraft and the A380F if produced at max weight/volume may have been a money maker but the liability in my opinion is far too great unless you have a reliable route for it. The market is just not large enough to operate the aircraft efficiently and certainly not reliable enough.

[CAO]

Your assumptions about Atlas are quite wrong, Sir.

First, our 742s are no longer operating...and the 744s and 748s to come are doing quite well in regards to their money-making potential.

Over the last 18 months to two years, we have added (and I won't count the customer-owned 744 pax and 744LCF aircraft that we operate) 9 aircraft, all 744s. That number includes 3 that we have received from GSS in return for the 3 748s that they now operate.

We would not have done that if we were not making money with them. BTW, we are taking delivery of 3 748s this year in addition to the numbers above.

Sorry for the thread drift...

[grounded27]

I was reflecting upon history, it does tend to repeat it's self. I am correct in reference to the early century performance of ATLAS. Sorry I should have specified the era.

[ross_M]

The engines also monitor absolutely everything and shut themselves down if they don't like it.

Ha. Not sure if that's a happy development. :uhoh:

[Flightmech]

Not sure an airplane would actually get certified if its engines "shut themselves down if they don't like it"!!!:E I presume you're talking about shutting down during an autostart rather than inflight! Autostart is nothing new on Boeings or Airbus though is it??

[L1011-500]

I think what he meant to say is that :now the autostart on the -8 is completely independant. i.e ,it monitors everything with no exeptions and does everything. There is not such thing as a manual start now on the -8 compared to the -400

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

(Mind you, I doubt any freighter operators are making any money at the moment)


Are you having a laugh? Deutsche Post (DHL) made around 3 Billion Euro's Profit last year and loads continue to be high.

Some outfits are struggling but from what I see on a daily basis at work, freight airlines are about the only one's making any proper money at the moment.

Back on topic...... Having parked next to a GSS 744 in Madrid shortly before X-Mas, one of their crew popped over to say hello. According to him the 74-8 has had a few teething problems early on but having flown it, he said it was very nice. From a commercial point of view.....as long as BA world cargo produce the loads then it will make money.

If you doubt this, next time you're in Staples or such like...enquire how much it would cost to send an A4 letter weighing 500g overnight to the US. Then imagine how many of those would fit into a 747-8. There's your answer.

Have a good weekend folks.

2W2R :ok:

[CargoOne]

2 Whites 2 Reds

Since when DHL Express or Deutsche Post become a freighter operator? Don't mix one of their units actually operates a fleet to serve the group's traffic with making money from that.

DHL is a mail, freight forwarder and express parcel company, it can get a rid of airline tomorrow, substitute all capacity with subchapter and they still will be a fine and profitable business. Now, how many days EAT, DHL Air and Co will survive if they become an open market freight carrier?

Same goes for FedEx, UPS, TNT etc.

[2 Whites 2 Reds]

Cargo One....

As you rightly say, Deutsche Post could indeed dispose of all of it's in-house flying ie DHL Air and EAT and still make money. But having recently spent $1bn on 6 new 767's straight off the production line, it's not likely. There are already a number of external carrier's operating for us but the group make vast amounts of profit from the ability to get things from one country to another in a timely fashion. Whilst we would all like a copy of 'The Big Picture', I can only assume that there is a worthy benefit to operating our own aircraft or the company woud simply use the external carrier's.

To cut a long story short, DP makes HUGE profits and largely thanks to it's airline business which, as you correctly say, is in itself a tool to facilitate the overall operation.

[grounded27]

Dalsey, Hillblom and Lynn. Better known as Dewy, Hewy and Lewy fell hind tit to FedEx in the US market and the brand was bought by DP later bullied out of the US market giving it a still profitable but restricted global market. They know their limits and will operate within them.

[CargoOne]

2 Whites 2 Reds

Just my personal opinion, all big express parcel companies can get more profit by outsourcing airlift, at least in Europe.

However the initial point was that there are few to none freighter operators who making profits at the moment and for sure DHL & Co are doing their profits not from freighter operations as such. To give you an example, BP and Shell have business jets and making a multi-billion profits while NetJets is struggling. Why would be that?

[grounded27]

However the initial point was that there are few to none freighter operators who making profits at the moment and for sure DHL & Co are doing their profits not from freighter operations as such. To give you an example, BP and Shell have business jets and making a multi-billion profits while NetJets is struggling. Why would be that?

WTF The largest global companies (freighter operators) as you call them are all well in the black, hardly phased by the recent recession. In what logic do you compare oil companies (deep pockets) who could probably fly NetJet's fleet at a complete loss and not have it make a dent in their profit margin's to net jet's? Sir your logic, I do not follow,

[zeddb]

[QUOTE]Not sure an airplane would actually get certified if its engines "shut themselves down if they don't like it"!!! I presume you're talking about shutting down during an autostart rather than inflight! Autostart is nothing new on Boeings or Airbus though is it??/QUOTE]

Just in case I didn't make myself clear, I was of course, alluding to the ground autostart feature!

If the engines were capable of shutting down in flight with no prior warning the aircraft would certainly not be certified. Any pilot voluntarily operating an aircraft so equipped probably would be certified and quite possibly sectioned as well. :ok:

[Pow-wow]

If someone can tell me an easy way to post pics on here without opening my own website ;) then I can post some flight deck pics of the new displays and systems :ok:

[Pow-wow]

Zeddb and Siberfuchs,

Those revues are pretty much what I think about it too.

Very accurate descriptions and I can only agree on the lag on rotation issue.

VNAV has calculated some outrages paths for the descent, but as you said, a lot of it is down to ATC clearances and FMC modifications to the STAR or when on vectors. The suggested Flap configuration points are great, but they are definitely on the "sporty" side if you are light, and if you get any shortcuts to final, you may end up in a pickle :-)

Most noticeable is the lack of engine noise, especially in landing configuration.
The leading edges seem to cover any engine noise with their own.
Overall thou it seems quieter than the -400. Except for the damn galley chiller that is, which also has a mind of its own :)

[exeng]

The approach logic has been changed to something called Integrated Approach Navigation (IAN). What this means is that as long as an approach is in the FMC, all you have to do is select APPROACH and you are basically flying an ILS regardless of whether it is LNAV/VNAV, ILS, VOR or whatever. RNP scales appear on the PFD to show you where you are in relation to lateral and vertical profiles. Sounds complex but it makes life easier. There is a brand new radar which you basically leave in AUTO and it does everything for you.

My experience of IAN (albeit in a 737 NG) has 99% of the time been good. However it can kill you as I am sure you are aware. It is only as good as the database provided. If it is wrong then all bets are off. I would never rely on it as a stand alone system. Every time the database is changed there is the potential for errors.

The auto function on the wx radar may be great on this new aircraft. On our old 73 NG's I find it to be very good in clb and crz but hopeless in descent - in descent the ground returns obscure potential wx hazards so I have to switch to manual tilt.


Regards
Exeng

[EW73]

I guess, with the ground autostart - quote "now the autostart on the -8 is completely independent. i.e, it monitors everything with no exeptions and does everything."..........I'm thinking this new space-age system has now been developed to the stage where it is almost as good as the 742 autostart system, but certainly not as reliable....and I have much experience in this area!

EW73

[bvcu]

Brilliant ! only defects with that system was the coffee bag consumption......

[Cavallier]

I thoroughly enjoyed my training flight up to PVG on it. I totally agree with the points on reduced engine noise, complications with the Vnav and especially the attitude in the flare!!! It seemed flatter and de rotated so quickly I nearly didn't catch it. My only concern was its comfort in turbulence. We went though some bumps both cloud and clear air and I thought it was rough as old guts.....not that the boxes mind. Oh quickly forgot not fiddling with the tilt on the radar is a habit I must refrain from!!!

The Cav

[onehotflyer]

Great plane, although taking a bit of getting used to not being able to hear the engines on final approach mainly due to the odd hurricane that rushes through the cockpit. I do believe the air con is being looked at though so that will hopefully be solved. As mentioned, the upper deck is a real let down. Wish they had consulted a few pilots. Just a few small changes could make a great plane a totally awesome one.

[NWSRG]

I've been flying it since November and it's burning 2-3% less fuel than Mr Boeing promised

Given that the GenX hasn't yet delivered on it's original promises, that is impressive...

[zeddb]

I never flew the "classic" but the autostart system on the-8 works fine. As did the one on the -400. Did exactly what it said on the tin.

To be honest, in 10 years flying the Jumbo and far too long flying other Boeing and Airbus products, I never had any problems with the motors. But then I have always had GE's hanging off the wings. The only donk I ever saw problems with was made by RR/BMW. And that wasn't a very serious one.

Just my own personal experience. The BA777/Quantas A380 crews may feel somewhat different.

The fuel burn with the Gnex is pretty good although that may have something to do with the new wing as well.

[John21UK]

Thanks to the guys in the know for takng time to give us some answer and an insight. Much apprciated!

[giblets]

I've been flying it since November and it's burning 2-3% less fuel than Mr Boeing promised...and its my understanding that Boeing are taking more weight out of it?

Which figure is that based on, the EIS figure, or the original figures given some time ago?

[Phantom Driver]

I think what he meant to say is that :now the autostart on the -8 is completely independant. i.e ,it monitors everything with no exeptions and does everything. There is not such thing as a manual start now on the -8 compared to the -400


Ahh yes; good old days. Hardest part of 744 sim could be "start faults"-(18, as I recalled). No autostart on our machines in those days, even though it came as standard on the later model-400. Management had them removed from the new deliveries (apparently to maintain fleet standardisation).

This, coupled with the official policy of no overlapping starts, (i.e have to wait till each engine was stable before starting the next) used to drive ATC (and other operators) crazy during pushback. Eventually, we resorted to the obvious--unofficial overlapping starts (not quite 2 at a time, a la Airbus, but almost) which speeded things up quite a bit.

Then the "powers that be" saw the light and incorporated it into the SOP's, and eveyone was happy.