@msbbarratt - is LHR quieter
 

The Qatar airways & BA 787 overfly my house at perhaps 1000ft ish and they are significantly quieter than the whine of a 777. The 380 is so much quieter than the 777 and the 747/a340
This is a personal experience

I agree with Gove N.T. incoming LHR traffic flies over my workshop east of Heathrow at about 4,000ft, and 380 and 787 are noticeably quieter than other planes. Furthermore their tone is more "centered" with less bassy roar and trebly whine, and the volume seems more consistent. The 380 sounds more like an average twin engine plane, very impressive. When they take of Eastwards they are further south and I cannot form an opinion of their noise.

I think a good part of Boeing's reason for building the 747-8i and -F is that they simply refused concede that business to the other major airframer. The freighters are starting to pick up and, as you note, a bunch of customers who can stall delivery as waiting for the improved spec engine. With four burning and such heavy loads, even 1% or 2% fuel reduction makes a huge difference in operating costs. I don't know, but I'd suspect that it is not possible to retro fit the PIP into existing engines.
As for the -8i PAX model, my guess it was just a convenient add-on to the -F program, with 95% of the engineering already done. The capacity differences between the stretched 777s and the A380 are just not all that great. Othe than a handfull of VIP airplanes, I think LH is the only 8i customer on the books. Ha-ha, maybe Boeing is just holding out for the Air Force One order - as if they don't already have it in the bag! Can't you just see the U.S. President noodling around the world on a French made jet? That just won't happen, so the modified 747-8i is the only game in town that meets the basic specs, one of which is four engines. The 747-8 series will sell in time...

Boeing has booked orders for the 747-8i from 4 airlines, one of which is Lufthansa, the others being Air China, Arik Air and Korean, plus an MoU from Transaero (Russia) for four aircraft.

DLH have their fingers in virtually every pie it seems, A333s,A343s,A346s,744s,748s,A380s and MD-11s for the cargo. Does it look like the 748 will get enough buyers to justify the expense in development?

It's possible to retrofit the PIP, but it would be hugely expensive - most of the HP Compressor and LP turbine is new. Once we're over the hump of certifying the PIP, I suspect GE will look at a 'PIP Light', where they retrofit the easier PIP upgrades into the baseline engine. There are already over 200 engines in-service so there will be demand to be able to upgrade those.

I noted before it's hard to do apples to apples comparisons of 'seating' because there is no such thing as a 'typical' seating layout. The bottom line is that the 747-8I still has quite a bit more 'floor space' relative to the 777-300ER and even the -9X. They also did something rather cool with the Intercontinental upper deck - aft of the 'hump', they cleared out the main deck attic space and provisioned for sleeping quarters. Some of the VIP customers have taken advantage of that to install some ritzy bedroom setups. So far I don't think any of the regular airline operators have elected to take advantage of that, but it would be relatively easy to do - the upper deck is typically business or first class anyway - wouldn't it be nice - on a 12 or 14 hour flight - after reaching cruise to head to your private bedroom in the back?:ok:

Private Bedrooms
 

I've seen them on the unmentionable middle east airline's A346s, I assume they have them on the 77ws too? Also Emirates definately have them on some of their A380s, as well as showers! I hope the 748 works out, even as just a freighter. Anybody know how many hulls they need to sell to break even?

Frequently passengers have no idea what aircraft they are on! Recently I did MEL-LHR-MEL on a QANTAS A380, in Business and was unimpressed either by comfort or noise.

Talking to A380 pilots I was told one drawback is that when carrying a high pax load it is unable to carry the high value cargo, like Swiftrider, that normally goes on pax aircraft at premium fright rates.

The advantage for the 747-8 is that those bedrooms can go in space that is currently unused (and can't be used for seats since it can't be occupied for takeoff/landing). All those other aircraft are using potential seating areas for their bedroom suites.

I know what the business case number was for the 747-8 but it's considered proprietary. It's probably garbage anyway since we went significantly over budget (though not nearly as bad as the 787).

BTW, the 747-8 has a much lower noise level during takeoff and landing than the 747-400 - similar noise levels to the 787. Not only are the new engines quieter, but the -8 got a new (quieter) flap system (a surprising amount of the noise during landing is aero noise from the flaps and gear).

How long does it take to build a panel?
 

This looks like an interesting case study for an MBA program. You have to wonder if any changes were made with the 2010 change in ownership that affected the manufacturing and assembly process? (e.g. downsizing workforce or other cost-cutting measures) And is the build-time for the panels quite long such that the pre-2013 deliveries were of the remaining 'Vought' variety already in the production pipeline before the acquisition?

original 777 folding wing?

http://johnwright.smugmug.com/Aviati...96_SFPQE-L.jpg

You're kidding, of course.

Actually no. This is directly from the Seattle Times article on the folding wingstips. They were originally offered on the 777-200, and were 21 feet long.

The 777-x proposed folding wingtip is only 10 feet long.

"In fact, it isn't a new idea. In 1995, Boeing obtained a patent for a folding wingtip design on the original 777, which had a 200-foot wingspan.

That mechanism was even built and tested — the full-scale model used then is on display at the Museum of Flight Restoration Center at Paine Field in Everett. But no airline ever bought this option."

The folding wingtips on the 777X are far removed from those proposed for the original 777. Unlike the original folding wing tips, these are outboard of any flight controls or other moveable surfaces aside from the folding wingtips themselves.
The new wing on the 777X is wider span than current 777-300ER - the folding portion is intended to get the 777X into the same gate footprint as the -300ER. The designers believe they can get the associated weight penalty small enough that drag improvement from the greater span overwhelms the weight penalty. Further, the folding section is small enough that even if it should fail, the aircraft would still be airworthy.

No first hand knowledge, but I'm hearing that on the 777X, the folding wingtip will be basic, not an option.

Yes, I'm aware of that of course.

Just amused at the choice of photo to illustrate the point.

That picture is the folding wing of a Lockheed S-3 Viking.

This is the original 777 folding wing test rig which I believe has been vastly improved for the 777X ie the weight has been cut considerably.

http://theplaneblog.files.wordpress....ding-wing1.jpg

Indeed it is.

I guess what that has in common with the 777 is that both are/were folding wings built by companies that didn't know how to design one (Lockheed subcontracted theirs to LTV, who came up with a very neat offset-hinge design so that the folded wings would overlap).

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../5/1997598.jpg

no worries...would not be the first time the news didnt get the picture correct...