6 More A350
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fac6,
Take all that and do something useful with it why don't you? Join the GC and get some work done instead of wasting your time here on Pprune with all of us simple-minded blowhards.
Take all that and do something useful with it why don't you? Join the GC and get some work done instead of wasting your time here on Pprune with all of us simple-minded blowhards.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turnandburn
747 freighter out, 777 freighter in due noise.
Originally Posted by B-HKD
Lufthansa confirmed that that they will have no problem operating without the stab fuel until the solution is found.
They are confident the aircraft will have a 8000nm range with a economical payload and should gain 300-400nm when they get the stab fuel.
Longest route they use their 744 on currently (and longest route in the network) is FRA-EZE.
They are confident the aircraft will have a 8000nm range with a economical payload and should gain 300-400nm when they get the stab fuel.
Longest route they use their 744 on currently (and longest route in the network) is FRA-EZE.
Lufthansa operate their 747-8Is with only 386 seats, very little capacity change over their latest 744s configuration.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-400 wing fuel = 163T
-8 wing fuel = 184T (yes the -8 has an extra 21Ts in the wings)
Even without the stab fuel the -8 holds 11T more fuel than a fully fueled -400 and burns at least 15% less.
-8 wing fuel = 184T (yes the -8 has an extra 21Ts in the wings)
Even without the stab fuel the -8 holds 11T more fuel than a fully fueled -400 and burns at least 15% less.
Originally Posted by SMOC
Even without the stab fuel the -8 holds 11T more fuel than a fully fueled -400 and burns at least 15% less.
Well I can say that according to the DCP 747 that on an ICN HKG sector the 8F burns about 4 tonnes less than a 400 ERF. That would be around 15% less for a bigger payload 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't use short haul metrics to judge the -8F. Long haul is what it is built for. In that mission, it is easily carrying the extra 16% cargo volume and the increased weight of the aircraft for the same or better burn than the -400ERF. This before two engine tweaks over the next couple years and a rumor of more performance from the wing after some flight control changes. Also, the airplane will only get lighter as the production process is refined.
To me, it looks very likely that the ten -8 options CX has will be firmed as Intercontinental orders this year. Yet you never know what rabbit Airbus will pull out of the hat to sell the 380.
To me, it looks very likely that the ten -8 options CX has will be firmed as Intercontinental orders this year. Yet you never know what rabbit Airbus will pull out of the hat to sell the 380.
Comparing the 8F to the 400ERF, the 8F looks like it burns a small amount more, not 15% less.
Last edited by 8driver; 29th Jan 2012 at 07:51. Reason: Not getting along with quote function
