As your non distorted photos show, it's a massive 42 inches longer than a 340-600 and they've got a whopping 3 pax 748's orders, all from Lufthansa. Having told the world and anyone who wanted to listen that widebody twins are where it's at and that the 777 is where it's at, in particular. And that only a complete fool would bother with 4 engines or the hub and spoke network that they require.

I can't imagine the Boeing sales pitch now.

what are the basic weights?

A380-800 driver, you conveniently left out the comparison of the Basic Operating weight of each aircraft type as that would give a true indication of the potential payload. We all know that the Dugong is designed to be stretched and thus the Wing/Centre Wing Box structure is bigger, stronger and heavier than what the current -800 version requires - in comparison, the B747-8 wing/fuselage is designed/optimised for the current version, ie they will not be carrying around any excess weight (probably in excess of 100 tonnes) and thus will almost certainly have better fuel/payload/kilometre figures. Some people deride the B747-8 as being old technology but as it has an entirely new wing, partial fly-by-wire controls, GENX engines & associated systems etc, I believe that its operational performance will stack up very competitively with the Dugong.

Wrt your post #114, earlier in this thread, the question was posed as to which of the two new Boeings would start test flying first. My posts were simply showing that the race is still on.

Or more importantly what's the max payload at max range comparison like?

Stillalbatross,

LH have ordered 20 x 747-8I, not 3.

Still not a huge number...

http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...tTimeout=20000

New glitch reported in Dreamliner

• [*]
• [*]

By Julie Johnsson Tribune reporter 5:17 p.m. CST, November 13, 2009

• http://www.pprune.org/hive/images/icons/email_icon.pngE-mail
• http://www.pprune.org/hive/images/icons/print_icon.pngPrint
• Share
• http://www.pprune.org/hive/images/ic...ls-uparrow.gif http://www.pprune.org/hive/images/ic...-downarrow.gif Text Size

Boeing Co. engineers discovered yet another problem with the 787 Dreamliner this summer as they raced to deal with the latest cause of delays with the star-crossed jet: structural weaknesses where its wings attach to the frame.

Metals bolts known as "freeze plugs" had damaged composite materials in the wing of one of the six planes that Boeing plans to use in flight tests, engineers found. They strongly recommended that the plane remain grounded until the problem is fixed, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

A spokeswoman for Chicago-based Boeing provided few details of the incident, aside to say that the problem had been "resolved" and to confirm that the 787 remains on track to take its first flight late next month.

Delamination over time can lead to structural failure in a composite, a super-hardened plastic that Boeing is using extensively in place of metal in the new plane. Boeing wouldn't say if similar corrosion was found in other Dreamliners.

The 787, which is running nearly three years behind schedule, relies on composites to a greater extent than any other commercial jetliner. The space-age materials, which are stronger and lighter than metal, are designed to make the plane more fuel-efficient.

However, Boeing has encountered problem after problem as it tries to get the best-selling jet into the air for the first time. Critics conted Boeing was too ambitious with the Dreamliner, attempting to build a ground-breaking airplane while retooling its manufacturing to place much of the responsibility for design and assembly in the hands of suppliers.

The plane's first flight was originally scheduled for late summer 2007 but has been postponed repeatedly as Boeing grappled with glitchess that have included a shortage of titanium fasteners, coding issues, paperwork snarls and suppliers struggling to meet Boeing's ambitious production schedule.

The latest postponement came in June as suppliers, airline partners and journalists prepared to trek to Everett, Wash., to witness the 787's first flight, a key milestone. Boeing called off the festivities and revealed the 787 frame had shown unanticipated structural weakness in testing in a critical area, where the wings are joined to the fuselage.

Over the summer, Boeing's engineers devised a fix, installing new fittings in 34 locations on the first test-flight aircraft. They plan to finish work on the second flight-test plane shortly, Boeing announced Thursday.

Boeing hasn't completed installing the reinforcements on its static-test airframe. Until it does so, Boeing won't be able to fully test whether its fix worked.

"Once the installations are complete the team will re-fit the strain gauges and other instrumentation necessary to prepare for the test, which will occur later this month," said Mary Hanson, a Boeing spokeswoman. "We've done a significant amount of static and fatigue testing at the subcomponent level and are confident we have the right approach."

.....Hell -why all the fuss???

All Boeing has to do is bring in the Qantas Spin team and it would be all sorted. The old 78" record got a good work out last year.

Ladies and Gentlemen -our apologies for the delay -but we always put Safety before Schedule" :hmm:

Works a treat !:suspect:

So Stubby,

What's your suggested alternative?

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a technical problem with the aircraft, but because we know schedule is so important to our customers, we're going to go anyway. Hopefully, we will arrive at our destination.

:ugh: :*

.....hey Shark !

Ease up on those Thrust Levers Bucko!

Its called satire. :rolleyes:

Of course I don't want the 787 being lobbed off the assembly line "half baked".

My comment was that we always use "safety before schedule"....the result =punters cannot argue with it.

eeeezie peeezie

Fair enough.

Re-reading your first post again, I have obviously taken your comments out of context and construed them as more of the QF bashing that often goes on here on this BB.

My apologies - I think we are both making the same argument that Safety before Schedule is not spin (and never should be).

First Boeing 747-8 Freighter Leaves Paint Hangar
 

http://www.asdnews.com/data_news/ID24597_600.jpg

It features an oversized '8' on the background of the tail as well as '747-8' on the belly

(Everett, Wash., November 18, 2009) -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) moved the first 747-8 Freighter out of the paint hangar in Everett, Wash., Tuesday night sporting a special "light" livery.

Painted white with blue accents, the 747-8 Freighter unveiled a new twist on the Boeing Commercial Airplanes livery. It features an oversized "8" on the background of the tail as well as "747-8" on the belly.

The light livery, which saves time and expense compared to the full Boeing livery, will remain on the airplane until the flight-test program is completed. After flight test, it will be refurbished and delivered to a customer.

The first freighter will begin preparing for the necessary tests leading up to first flight in early 2010.

Source : The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA)

Understand the revolutionary air conditioning system in the 787 has found to be somewhat problematic and requires a substantial redesign. Throw on another couple of years delays and with the A350 possibly flying in 2013 it will be close. I suppose they could always deliver the first bunch unpressurised.

Of course the 747-8 will be on schedule, it's just a couple of plugs and a pair of winglets, how hard can that be?

The 747-8 has had problems with all the new to old section joins, that is what you get when you design something on paper 40+ years ago and then design updates with higher tolerances on CATIA. A lot of shims were needed to join the 747-8 together.

The wing that failed on MSN5000 a few percent below 150% was not the same standard as what was installed on MSN001. I am not aware of any problem with the "centre wing section". The failure on MSN5000 occurred between the inboard and outboard engine at 147% of the limit load. The design requirement is to hold 150% for 3 seconds.

In comparison the wing on the C-17 failed at 124%, and the wing on the 787 also failed in the 120-130% range. The 747-8 wing will not be tested, we know of a number of examples of 747 having inadequate design margins, I can think of two incidents where 747s lost engines in flight due to turbulence as side that were not accounted for. The “new”: 747-8 wing is “grandfathered” off this same 40+ year old design.

That is a useless metric, comparing the OEW numbers for the 747-8i to the A380-800 is a stacked deck, it does not take a genius to realise that an interior for 100+ less seats is going to be lighter.

The "green" A380 has a weight MEW/MWE of 243,200 kg, add the interior to the various between operators to make the OEW around the 280,000-290,000 kg mark. Compare a green A380 to a green 747-8i, and the MEW/MWE ratio to the MZFW would surprise you. Put the same interior standard in the 747-8 as what airlines are installing in the A380 (not the Boeing marketing numbers which use a seat pitch of 61” in first and 39” in business, no crew rest, and not enough galleys and toilets for todays service standards) and the OEW of the 747-8i is much higher that what is being projected by Boeing marketing.

Boeing have conceded that the wing on the 747-8 is not as optimised as it should be. It has kept the same sweep, planform and the location of the structure (inc engine spanwise location) as the 747 classic. It has retwisted and relofted the wing section and added the raked wingtip. This is inefficient for modern supercritical wing section, it should have a higher aspect ratio and lower sweep, and engines in different positions for the bow wave change.

Additionally the GEnx was not optimised for the 747-8, they made it work, but it does not have the same propulsive efficiency as the engine on the 787 due to the smaller fan size and the engine inlet had to be redesigned to the increased operating speed. It does not have the same thermal efficiency due as the engine is not being bleedless. It is also larger with more wetted area, hence drag rise.

What you have also neglected to mention is the advances that both RR and EA have brought to the table since they both flew their A380 engines, both have reduced their TSFC down a few percent leveraging technology from the GEnx/Trent 1000 for the 787 and are still improving. The A380 is also dropping a couple more tonne as more GLARE is being used on the fuselage after MSN024.

The 747-8 has lost its propulsive competitive advantage by being so late. Boeings original business plan had 60% of the 747-8 sales as being passenger models, the market has responded with years of silence with no further passenger sales since LH ( know about the handful of VIP aircraft)

My understanding is they only aspect of the 747-8 that is FBW is the spoilers, none of the primary flight controls, they remain they same conventional control system as found on the 747-400 with 80% parts commonalty with the 747-400.

The 747-8 is already well late as well. At this stage the "simple" derivative looks like it may exceed the 18 months the A380 was late getting to SQ. Some customers are now looking at walking away from their 747-8 commitments as the airframe has now exceeded the 12 month delayed barrier, and they can cancel without penalty.

This was the original 747-8 plan.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...8timetable.png

The 747 was a magic girl, but the sun is going down on her.

Sad but true, the old tart (747) is on the way out. Our lot finish in March 2011 and then the desert. Victorville the final destination. The Company had 44 when I joined, now down to 9. The latest rummour is Lufthansa may even cancel the 747-8. Every walk-around now feels like living history. I even gave her a little pat yesterday (when nobody was looking). Last flight to SYD now extended to 31st Jan. I do the 30th, suppose a 'buzz and break' is out of the question?

Just have a feeling that they've built this thing on the basis thats it's completely new when they've used lots of the 744 to keep costs down. They've spent a decade promoting another aircraft to replace the 744 and a zillion graphs and charts to show hub and spoke are dead and now they want the customers to start buying it?

Sounds like the 757 stretch that was also promoted as a wonderful new aircraft when it wasn't. It also got no buyers and was a flop. Can't see how they can convince airlines no aircraft bigger than the 744 will work in the "new world of aviation" and then turn around and try to sell this.

You have to wonder if they got too greedy from the easy money made on the 744 through the late 90's. If they had brought in the 747-800 in 2003-05 they may have had more success with it. Maybe they couldn't be bothered if the A380 was possibly going to get shelved then everyone would have bought 787 whatever the wait.

And they'd still be selling 744's for another 50 years.

Boeing has confidence that they can solve the B787 Production/Design Problems
 

Boeing Breaks Ground on 2nd 787 Assembly Line in North Charleston
http://www.asdnews.com/data_news/ID24649_600.jpg
Boeing facility expands production capability and increases footprint in South Carolina

(North Charleston, S.C., November 20, 2009) -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) today held a groundbreaking ceremony to mark the start of construction for the second final assembly site for the 787 Dreamliner program at its Boeing Charleston facility. The facility also will have the capability to support the testing and delivery of airplanes.

"Today's event marks the beginning of an expansion plan that will strengthen the 787 program and allow us to continue building on the footprint we have established in South Carolina with Boeing Charleston and Global Aeronautica," said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "Locating the second line in North Charleston will allow Boeing to successfully compete in the aerospace market and grow for the long-term benefit of many stakeholders."

Today's groundbreaking ceremony was attended by Albaugh; South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford; Sen. Lindsey Graham; Sen. Jim DeMint; Rep. Henry Brown; Rep. James Clyburn; State Sen. Hugh Leatherman; State Sen. Glenn McConnell; State Rep., Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell; Charleston County Council Chairman Teddie Pryor, Sr.; North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey and other key officials from South Carolina. Anita Zucker, chairperson and CEO of The InterTech Group, Inc., served as master of ceremonies for the event.

Boeing Charleston performs fabrication, assembly and systems installation for the 787 aft fuselage sections. Global Aeronautica, which is 50 percent owned by Boeing, is responsible for joining and integrating 787 fuselage sections from other structural partners.

"We look forward to expanding our capability in South Carolina through our existing site, while maintaining our commitment to the Puget Sound region where Boeing Commercial Airplanes remains headquartered," said Albaugh. "Puget Sound will continue to design and produce airplanes, including the 787."

The 787 Dreamliner will be more efficient, quieter and have lower emissions than other airplanes while offering passengers greater comfort and the convenience of direct, nonstop flights between more cities around the world. Fifty-five customers around the world have ordered 840 787s since the program was launched in April 2004, making the Dreamliner the fastest-selling new commercial jetliner in history. The 787 family of airplanes will carry 210 to 330 passengers on flights up to 8,500 nautical miles (15,750 km).

Source : The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA)

Interesting that the flight line in that mock-up of the Charleston facility is populated by what look suspiciously like 767s... :hmm:

That line up of 767s is probably due to it becoming the place for the US tanker refits when the 787 fails to get ramped up!!!:ok:

Wow...now that is what's called top-cover!

I guess Billy Doyle from Parramatta must still have been chatting to the Pope then.


(Old Aussie tall poppy joke)