747-8F - does it match the hype?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ashford, Middlesex, UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747-8F - does it match the hype?
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)
(Mind you, I doubt any freighter operators are making any money at the moment)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Eurozone
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by zeddb; 15th Feb 2012 at 13:12.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Eurozone
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t would be difficult not to beat the A380-800F as it hasn't even been built yet
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.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAO
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: world
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Button Moon
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Mind you, I doubt any freighter operators are making any money at the moment)
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
