Boeing 747-8I

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 17 Oct 2006, 15:11

chornedsnorkack wrote: Where are the bins now? Or do you mean airlines have stopped heating their planes in winter?

I was joking, but the bins are probably long gone. They were like a center divider between the two pairs of middle seats, kinda like how you see in Business or First Class these days, though it didn't have any electronics that I can remember in it.

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 17 Oct 2006, 15:24

David747 wrote:

I have never flown a DC-10, so I can't comment, but looking at my DC-10 book, The DC-10-10 had indeed a 2-4-2 configuration. I find that interesting, I always though that the DC-10, especially the DC-10-40 was capable of 3-4-3 seating like the 747. When Cageyjames said that the DC-10 had a 2-4-2 configuration, I thought he was talking about the early DC-10-10.

Well, DC-10-10 has the same cross-section as DC-10-40.

The Boeing website offers the airport planning manuals, which include some example layouts. A 10 abreast DC-10 was offered with 16,5 inch seatbacks and 16,5 inch aisles.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 17 Oct 2006, 19:10

747-8 information on Randy's blog:
October 16.

http://www.boeing.com/randy/

David747 · Post by **David747** » 17 Oct 2006, 23:58

As always, Randy presents well defined facts about Boeing programs, like the 747-8. But like I have always said, 747-8 Market doesn't seem big enough to justify the purchasing of a 450 or 467 passanger plane. I love the 747, always have, always will, have read many books on this great bird, but It seems to me that Boeing should start the Y3 project to replace the 747 with a brand new airframe that could carry 430 passangers, which in my opinion seems like a more viable market than the 450 plus market. Like I said before, Boeing has been very successful at introducing new airframes with advance technology, a decade ago the 777 program entered the market and has been a successful program ever since, the 787 is already a success and the plane has not been built yet, and all the other programs have been successful, so introducing a new Airframe IMO, would be a better idea than just stretching the 747 even more. Of course its my opinion.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 19 Oct 2006, 21:01

The 450 seat 747-8 will be the only plane in the 400 - 555 seat market. It will fit between the A340-600 and the A-380. For those airlines wanting more than 400 seats and less than 550, it's a match. Also, as a (relatively) low cost derivative of an existing airframe, it fills a strategic niche and may block some sales by Airbus for the A380.

Already, it has taken some sales from the A380 freighter and, maybe some passenger planes will also be sold soon. Whatever you say about Boeing, they do their market research and have given their airline customers what they want and haven't manufacture red a sales failure yet.

JoeCanuck · Post by **JoeCanuck** » 20 Oct 2006, 18:42

I think you hit the nail on the head. The name of the game, in business, is to make money. If they can turn a profit with a, relatively, low expense upgrade, why not?

I think if Airbus had pushed the first 350 as, merely, an improved 330, instead of as a 787 killer, they'd still have it on the market.

There is plenty of room for better planes, not only the best planes.

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 20 Oct 2006, 19:31

JoeCanuck wrote:I think if Airbus had pushed the first 350 as, merely, an improved 330, instead of as a 787 killer, they'd still have it on the market.

Of course most of the people saying this were also on Airbus' case about the first A350 being not good enough in the first place. I see a lot of "Monday Morning Quarterback" here.

JoeCanuck · Post by **JoeCanuck** » 20 Oct 2006, 21:38

For me, the my main issue with the 350 were the amazing claims that it was an all new unit that'd beat the pants off of the 787. I don't think boeing needs me to cheerlead their product but Airbus's claims seemed unrealistic.

I had no doubts it would have been better than the 330 but it seemed unrealistic that it would out perform the 787 except on price. That's no small thing. Lots of airlines ordered it so it must have made economic sense to them.

I think there are very few airlines, especially in these tight economic times, that would dare to make their buying decisions based on politics, for instance.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 20 Oct 2006, 22:14

JoeCanuck wrote:
For me, the my main issue with the 350 were the amazing claims that it was an all new unit that'd beat the pants off of the 787. I don't think boeing needs me to cheerlead their product but Airbus's claims seemed unrealistic.
If you are speaking of the A330+20, I completely agree, for Airbus to claim that would be as revolutionary as the B787 was indeed a laughable claim. I'm surprised that they were pushing this plane as an alternative to the all new B787.

I had no doubts it would have been better than the 330 but it seemed unrealistic that it would out perform the 787 except on price. That's no small thing. Lots of airlines ordered it so it must have made economic sense to them.
It would have been better than the A330, but again I stress, if you are speaking of the old A350(A330+20) you have again hit the nail on the head, no way would it have outperformed an all new airframe like the B787.

I think there are very few airlines, especially in these tight economic times, that would dare to make their buying decisions based on politics, for instance.

I disagree there. I would be that politics will come into play with orders from China, and not just this year, but in the years to come. IMO of course.

JoeCanuck · Post by **JoeCanuck** » 21 Oct 2006, 10:14

Yes, I was referring to the pre-xwb 350.

CX · Post by CX » 22 Oct 2006, 01:46

smokejumper wrote:The 450 seat 747-8 will be the only plane in the 400 - 555 seat market. It will fit between the A340-600 and the A-380. For those airlines wanting more than 400 seats and less than 550, it's a match. Also, as a (relatively) low cost derivative of an existing airframe, it fills a strategic niche and may block some sales by Airbus for the A380.

Already, it has taken some sales from the A380 freighter and, maybe some passenger planes will also be sold soon. Whatever you say about Boeing, they do their market research and have given their airline customers what they want and haven't manufacture red a sales failure yet.

To a certain degree, it must be admitted that the A380 was built for pride, not really for the market and I think Airbus will be happy if it breakevens.

CX · Post by CX » 22 Oct 2006, 01:52

The A330+20 was quite a bit more than just an improved A330, it had a lot of new stuff which costed them something like $4billion at the end before they switched to the XWB.
Can argue that they could've called the first A350 (without the new nose and new cockpit) an A330-800 or something and just stay a bit competitive. I mean there are still new orders for the A330, if there is an improved A330, the sales will be even better. But as soon as they actually wanted to turn the A330+20 into a brand new plane with the new cockpit and nose and actually wanted it to be a whole family of planes, at that point the XWB was the way to go..

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 22 Oct 2006, 14:21

CX wrote:The A330+20 was quite a bit more than just an improved A330, it had a lot of new stuff which costed them something like $4billion at the end before they switched to the XWB.
Can argue that they could've called the first A350 (without the new nose and new cockpit) an A330-800 or something and just stay a bit competitive. I mean there are still new orders for the A330, if there is an improved A330, the sales will be even better. But as soon as they actually wanted to turn the A330+20 into a brand new plane with the new cockpit and nose and actually wanted it to be a whole family of planes, at that point the XWB was the way to go..

The "improved" version of the A330 (let's call it the A330+) would have cost at least $4 billion (by Airbus estimate) and would have entered a market that is on the decline. Sure, they would have sold some, but I doubt if the number would have justified (and paid back) the $4 billion investment. Fuel and maintenance costs are going up and airlines are willing to pay for planes that reduce these costs.

The A330+ would reduce some costs (better fuel consumption due to newer engines, lighter weight and aerodynamic cleanup), but would still be a heavier plane than the competition. The cost of operation would be less than the current A330, but would exceed those of the B787. The one advantage that Airbus could offer in order to sell the A330+ is price. They'd have to price it lower than the B787 in order to give the airlines a total life-cycle cost comeptitive with the B787. This lower cost might make it impossible to recover the $4 billion development costs.

Airbus needs a completely new plane to be competitive. Of course, this assumes that Boeing can deliver what is promised with the B787!

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 23 Oct 2006, 02:45

There is an interesting development in the 747-8 story. There have been persistant rumors that Boeing would adopt the same fuselage length for both the 747-8 Freighter and Intercontimental. Randy's Journal (October 16 - http://www.boeing.com/randy/) confirms this , BUT:

"Our baseline configuration for the 747-8 Intercontinental brings it in line with the length of the 747-8 Freighter. Compared with the 747-400, the 747-8 Intercontinental will have a 4.1 meter "stretch" in the forward sections, and a 1.5 meter "stretch" in the mid-section, increasing the seating capacity for the passenger model to 467 seats."

I understnqad the logic, but this does not simplify the production of the plane. While both are the same overall length, the sections that are lengthened are different. The site "Randy's Journal" has drawings of both versions.

Interesting!

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 23 Oct 2006, 09:35

smokejumper wrote:There is an interesting development in the 747-8 story. There have been persistant rumors that Boeing would adopt the same fuselage length for both the 747-8 Freighter and Intercontimental. Randy's Journal (October 16 - http://www.boeing.com/randy/) confirms this , BUT:

"Our baseline configuration for the 747-8 Intercontinental brings it in line with the length of the 747-8 Freighter. Compared with the 747-400, the 747-8 Intercontinental will have a 4.1 meter "stretch" in the forward sections, and a 1.5 meter "stretch" in the mid-section, increasing the seating capacity for the passenger model to 467 seats."

I understnqad the logic, but this does not simplify the production of the plane. While both are the same overall length, the sections that are lengthened are different. The site "Randy's Journal" has drawings of both versions.

Interesting!

How many doors will be needed?

Boeing 747-400 can, as shown on Boeing website seatmap, hold 539 seats on main deck, 85 on upper deck.

Any appreciable stretch would bring the main deck seat count over 550 and therefore require sixth pair of doors.

As for the upper deck, 4,1 m stretch now means 5 extra rows, 30 extra seats. The seat count reaches 115 and thus exceeds 110. Does it mean Boeing 747-8I upper decks needs two pairs of doors?

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 23 Oct 2006, 16:16

I think it will depend on how many seats Boeing certifies the plane for. If they need more doors, they'll have to include them.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 23 Oct 2006, 20:33

CX wrote:The A330+20 was quite a bit more than just an improved A330, it had a lot of new stuff which costed them something like $4billion at the end before they switched to the XWB.
Can argue that they could've called the first A350 (without the new nose and new cockpit) an A330-800 or something and just stay a bit competitive. I mean there are still new orders for the A330, if there is an improved A330, the sales will be even better. But as soon as they actually wanted to turn the A330+20 into a brand new plane with the new cockpit and nose and actually wanted it to be a whole family of planes, at that point the XWB was the way to go..

I would agree with you there, but, and maybe I'm wrong, but I just feel that Airbus should have answered with a brand new airframe. This reminds me of Boeing 767-400 that was in a way the answer to the A330 from Airbus, but in a way it failed to materialize in more orders for Boeing to compete with Airbus on this part of the market. I'm not going to be too critical of Airbus, in a way, I understand what they tried to accomplish, use an existing airframe and add a new wing, avionics and other materials, but in the end, the way for them to compete with a brand new airframe like the 787 was to use a brand new airframe themselves.

Boeing tapped the right market at the right time, and the orders for the 787 has made that program such a success, and the plane is still on paper. BTW, when will assembly of the 787 start

PYX · Post by **PYX** » 23 Oct 2006, 21:15

David747 wrote: BTW, when will assembly of the 787 start

Last June.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/200 ... 0a_nr.html

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 23 Oct 2006, 22:04

PYX wrote:
David747 wrote: BTW, when will assembly of the 787 start
Last June.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/200 ... 0a_nr.html

Final assembly (actual assembly of the aircraft, not just components) is expected to start in January 2007. In June 2006, the wing structure assembly was started.

CXRules · Post by **CXRules** » 23 Oct 2006, 22:21

Not sure has anyone read this: http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... ision.html