Talk:Boeing 747-8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Announce vs Launch

Can we have some discussion on this, please? To my mind, an airliner cannot be "launched" until it is at least rolled out, possibly not until the launch airline takes delivery. It can certainly be officially announced before any components are bolted together.

Looking at the A380, when did it "launch"? June 1994, when development of the A3XX began? 1999, when Airbus decided to actually build the plane? 2001, when it was branded the A380 with Singapore Airlines as the launch customer? 18 Jan 2005, when it was rolled out? 27 Apr 2005, when it made its maiden flight? Some other moment?

With the B748, I don't think that anyone can possibly dispute that it has been announced, but saying it has been launched could mislead a reader. My feeling is that launching an airliner is analogous to launching a ship, even if the ship needs to be fitted out and tested before being handed over to the customer. I would say that once the B748 would be undeniably launched when it takes to the air, but probably some time before that at the rollout ceremony. --Jumbo 11:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary gives (amongst others) the following two definitions for "launch"
  1. set (a vessel) afloat
  2. start or set in motion (an enterprise, a person on a course of action, etc.)
Launching a venture (including a commercial aircraft programme) is thus not analogous to launching a ship. "Launch" is a standard verb used to describe the commencement of a commercial aircraft programme, e.g. EADS Boeing MSNBC www.airliners.net
Having said all that, while I disagree that 'launch' is an unacceptable word in this context I have absolutely no problem with your wording in the introduction. And to answer your question, the commerical "launch" of the A380 (as the A3XX) was 2000. [1] Mark83 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Now please ? The A380 was launched in 2000 , with many airlines ordering (LH and AF come to mind). The A350 was launched in 2005 and the B748 also in 2005. Launching in the airline industrie means that the manufactorer is going to build the aircraft. It also means that the airlines can order the aircraft. Note ORDER and not COMITTMENT ! Order means that they will buy it and that the pay money. Comiitment means that they want to order the aircraft but are negotiating finall price or waiting for the launch.

I like to use the first flight date as the key date of significance for a new aircraft. As we have learned from the Airbus 350, a launch date is a simply a marketing tool. I have created a chart that has all the first flight dates I can confirm. You can find this chart at user:Mnw2000/Aircraft 1st Flights user:mnw2000 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is not accurate to consider the launching of an airplane model as the date of the first flight. I concur with the previous post that the launching of an airplane program means that the manufacturer is going to build the plane and is ready for taking orders. However, there are some cases when orders have been announced without the program being officially launched. That would be considered as orders after the announcement of the program. OVERMIND 13:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Boeing calls "authorization to offer" (ATO) the event that sales people can start soliciting purchase orders from airlines. Boeing calls "program launch" the event that board of directors authorizes the development of a new airplane model. That usually happens after sizable order(s) were received. Airbus call these events commercial launch and industrial launch respectively.--Yasobara 02:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Performance data too good for even an Imperial Star Destroyer!

>With an increased 422 ton maximum take-off weight, the freighter will be >able to move 155 tons of cargo more than 5,150 mi/8,260 km

I call this double bullshit. The american C5 Galaxy can carry 120 tons (in theory, restricted to 96 real tons due to structural problems). The russkie An-124 Condor can carry 150 metric tons of cargo and that plane is much more massive than the B-747. It is impossible to put 155 tons of junk into any kind of 747-based aircraft and make it fly. The value is surely bogus.

Otherwise, when flying with maximum cargo load onboard, no aircraft has a range beyond 2500 kilometers. In order to fly 5150nm, the B-747F8 would have to fly with a mere 30 tons or so of cargo. The An-225 Mriya has a mere 2000km flying distance when carrying the maximum 250 metric ton payload, because it cannot have full fuel tanks then.

The numerical data should be double-checked, it looks like Boeing daydreaming. 195.70.32.136 10:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to check your own figures, or at least the analysis. Boeing claims the 747-8F will max out at 140 metric tonnes (154 tons) of cargo. The A380-800F is specced for 158 tonnes, and the An-124 for 150 tonnes. Compare the engine specs - 747-8F, 4×296 kN; A380-800F, 4×340kN; An-124, 4×230kN. If you're going to doubt the 747-8F, which has an empty weight that's less than both of the others, you might as well doubt the A380-800F as well. Just being 'much more massive' doesn't mean that the payload capacity is higher. ericg ✈ 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you should re-think your position on this. The current 400F can carry almost 124 tons with a range of over 8200km. That is the current model, that customers do use now. Are you saying they send the planes out with 25% capacity to make its range? Range numbers are given at max payload. 206.45.164.74 01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually the 400ERF is the current model. Payload is a hair higher with range about 10% higher.[2] -Fnlayson 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential customers list

We need to nix this list on here, Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 entirely. It's a whole lot of unwarranted speculation. Might as well list anyone who has not placed an order for either of these aircraft. I suggest we either delete the list or at least pare it back to major contests in the press (SQ, EK, etc.) Comment at Talk:Boeing 787#Potential customers list instead. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


I absolutely agree. Everyone under the sun is a potential customer. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia should mostly be about facts and not speculation. I think the order table is good enough. Since this post has not been countered since May, I will move and delete the paragraph. Instead I will add trivia. --Bangabalunga 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think some of the customers for the 747-8 are well-supported. The 787-8F does have firm orders, but Boeing is not expecting orders for 747-8I until 2007. Starcity ai 07:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to delete the speculations about airliners changing from A380 to 747-8I, Emirates increased the A380 numbers actually. Due to the "freezing" of the A380F there were also no new 747-8F ordered. 84.130.231.123 13:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)LP

  • I see no speculations. One statement in there says some airlines were considering switching their orders to 747-8F after A380 delays (with a reference). -Fnlayson 14:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, I'm again, sorry, but I see not more than a reference about Emirates and Virgin Atlantic (#4 Robertson, David. "Airbus will lose €4.8bn because of A380 delays ", The Times Business News, October 4, 2006.) None of them actually did so.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=mktw&guid=%7B36C4BA55%2D04B9%2D498C%2DAD80%2DBC596918E6C5%7D&link=&keyword=A380
http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/EMIRATES%20AIRLINE%20A380s.html
Are there any airlines thinking about to change to the 747-8 ? If not, that should be changed to the past form. If any, please refer to, thanks!.

In the Wikipedia article stays:
Background:
"Following delays to the A380 program some airlines have stated they are considering switching their orders to the 747-8.[4]"
Marketing and sales performance:
"Because of the delays of Airbus A380, some airlines are believed to be considering canceling or scaling down their orders of the A380 in favor of the Boeing 747-8.[4] While this remains true for certain customers, for the most part airlines that have purchased the Airbus A380 have increased their orders."

I will be happy if I see a reference for these certain customers, thanks again! Sorry, but I'm new in Wikipedia, so here is my time stamp and signature, --Cirrocumulus 20:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As of August 2007 there were no switches to the 747-8, and no reference to any airline supposed of doing that. I deleted this part of marketing and sales performance as it was obsolet. Cirrocumulus 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison table?

Is it necessary? Also, it has some errors: The A380 uses the Trent 900. It also neglects the fact that the A380F is really a parcel hauler, whilt he 747-8I is really a heavy lifter. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, since it's not comparing anything useful (MTOW, without knowing empty, is pointless). ericg ✈ 00:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously put together by a Boeing fan with "little man " syndrome trying to deny Airbuses supremacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.4.102 (talk • contribs)

{{sofixit}}, then, if you have a more accurate comparison, or remove it entirely. Baseless (and equivalently pro-airbus 'little man') claims like yours don't get us anywhere. ericg ✈ 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Supremacy?? What a difference a few MONTHS makes. Oh, how the mighty are falling! -- BillCJ 00:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I also say this table has to go. --Bangabalunga 23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unsupported BBJ orders

More and more BBJ orders are showing up for the Intercontinental. There doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting the 2 orders in October and 1 order in November. Starcity ai 09:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Boeing Order and Delivery web pages shows the order of 4 747-8I by "Boeing Business Jet" [3] [4]. user:mnw2000 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They ordered at least three 747-8 with GE engines until October '06 [5] -> Select Boeing Business jet as customer, direct linking seems to be not possible --Denniss 22:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The place to see that there are four BBJ VIP 747 orders along with four BBJ VIP 787 orders, is at the summary page [6]. user:mnw2000 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That place does only show four 747 but no specific subtype as on the other report side. But it's somewhat safe to assume it's just another 747-8. --Denniss 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It's well known that these orders are 747-8Is. It's a fact. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There are NO BBJ based on any Boeing 747 aircraft prior to the Boing 747-8I. All VIP 747 now in service are custom jobs that were customized by someone other than the BBJ division. That includes the two 747-200 that are now Air Force One. user:mnw2000 04:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No winglets?

I notice that the -8 does not have the -400's winglets, which were supposed to help with fuel economy. Any aerodynamics experts in the house who'd like to comment on this? Was the envisioned fuel savings just not there? Is the -8 achieving the same result with different wing design? Akradecki 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

From the text:
Raked wingtips, similar to the ones currently on the 777-200LR and 777-300ER models and the 787-8 and 787-9 design, will replace the winglets on the 747-400. These structures help reduce the wingtip vortices at the lateral edges of the wings, decreasing wake turbulence and drag and thereby increasing fuel efficiency.
One can see the raked wingtips in the full version of the new Luththansa pic. - BillCJ 20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The fuel savings were there, but winglets are a late-70s concept, while the raked wingtip is somewhat newer. Winglets also require more structure to ensure strength, as Airbus recently learned on the A320 series. Boeing's blended winglets seem to have seen more development, and the company is well known for having one of the best wing design groups in the world, so together with Aviation Partners they probably developed a winglet that added more than enough thrust to offset the weight. The 744's winglets did help with the economy, but raked wingtips will help more. It's the same kind of long-haul technology progression we saw with the switch to ETOPS twinjets. ericg ✈ 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] zero-fuel weights reversed?

Why is the zero-fuel weight of the 747-8F so much higher than that of the passenger version? Seems like these numbers might have been reversed. -- Mikeblas 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's correct... the important thing here is to understand maximum zero-fuel - it's the maximum weight of the aircraft without any fuel. Because the -8F is designed for capacity over range, more of the aircraft is devoted to cargo and less to fuel; therefore, the zero-fuel weight is higher (more cargo, less fuel) for the -8F than it is for the -8I. ericg ✈ 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China Airlines

To whoever added China Airlines to the list of orders, do not add CI until either CI or Boeing has released a statement confirming the order. And even if you do so preemptively, at least put the right flag. China Airlines is of the Republic of China, not the People's Republic of China. --butterfly0fdoom 17:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should wait until official confirmation by the airlines or Boeing. There is speculation as cited here [7]. user:mnw2000 05:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Certificaton controversy?

From what I understand Boeing intend to use some of the certification of the first Boeing-747, the B747-100, a plane that was certified 1969, if they aren´t allowed it would cost a lot of extra money and could lead to delays? Are they similarities from the B747-100 and B747-800 enough to re-use some of the certificaton? RGDS Alexmcfire

They would more likely go off the previous -400 for the -8. Do you have an article or something that discribes this controversy? -Fnlayson 01:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It's only a controversy in the mind of John Leahy. He's essentially upset that the A380 has had so many certification hoops to jump through (vortex separation being a big one) and he wants to have the 747-8 recertified from scratch. On the other hand, he's basically insinuated that it was a 40 year old airplane with outdated technology that won't benefit customers. Somehow, I don't think he'll be able to have it both ways. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks the explanation. Unless a civil avaition authority agrees, that should not be mentioned in this article, imo. -Fnlayson 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree this shouldn't go in the article. But wonder whether if the shoe was on the other foot how many people would want something added to the A380s Technical Concerns. IMHO the 747-8 should have a full certification, presumably modern regulations exist for a reason. Would you want to ride in a new car that was based an old chassis that didn't protect you in an accident because it was exempt from current regulations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.175.211 (talk • contribs)
  • It's not exempt. It has to follow current regs for a derviative aircraft, not a new one. The new 787 article has some a Tech concerns section too. -Fnlayson 22:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a tech concern, but " Boeing 747-8 needs wake vortex tests" http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/20/215009/boeing-747-8-needs-wake-vortex-tests.html I think it would be common practice to test the real wake turbulence, because there is not a simple relation between weight or size and turbulence.--Cirrocumulus 20:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with main 747 article

Why exactly is there a separate article for a variant of a Boeing model? I think this article should be merged with the main Boeing 747 article since there is a list of 747 variants there where I think this article really belongs to. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge per above. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The 747-400, 747SP, and 747 LCF all have their own articles as well. The split was voted on in the 747 talk page. -Fnlayson 23:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, especially considering the length of the main 747 article and the extensive changes. ericg ✈ 02:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Takeoff and landing distance

Due to technical improvements I could imagine that the takeoff and landing distance hasn´t extended in comparison to the -400 model. Is that true? 84.173.223.230 22:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The distances should be comparable to the previoud variant (-400ER). Design values should be available before long. -Fnlayson 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Plans to extend the length of the 747 were first discussed in 1972; it took 33 years before Boeing committed to a longer version, whereas plans to shorten the 747 were first discussed in 1973, and it took one year before a commitment to the 747SP was made.

So what? Its not sourced, its original research, its not notable and technically not really true (747-300 had a stretched top in 1980). Plenty of reasons not to stretch the 747 anyways and the 747SP was a flop.

Trivia is being depreciated in Wikipedia anyways: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. --Eqdoktor 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • That's not OR at all. A stretched upper deck is unrelated to overall fuselage length which is what's described. Avoid trivia says to avoid and minimize trivia, not get rid of it in a knee jerk. -Fnlayson 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You can put as many warning tags on it and what not - its still a "so what?" trivia. --Eqdoktor 15:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
In your opinion, but not necessarily everybody. -Fnlayson 23:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delays?

Swedish media claim the B748 is delayed due to parts from Honeywell not working well, anyone knows anything more? RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guggenheim

It looks to me like "Guggenheim Aviation Partners" should be Guggenheim Aero Finance Company . The "partners" name occurs in many Boeing entries on Wikipedia. Whoever is putting it in may want to check it. There is no such company as Guggenheim Aviation Partners, but aero finance has a web site http://www.guggenheimaerofinance.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.59.162 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Their web site says Guggenheim Partners at the notices at bottom and the web page label. -Fnlayson 16:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that's a non aviation-specific parent company for Aero Finance, as far as I can tell. I'm no expert, but I hit the link on the wiki page to "Aviation Partners" and saw it was not to a real company, and just was suggesting this is probably the correct one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.59.162 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • An internet search shows the Guggenheim Aviation Partners used in a lot of places. Guggenheim Aviation Partners is under Guggenheim Partners which is a subsidiary to Guggenheim Aero Finance Company per these Guggenheim web pages: Guggenheim Partners, GAP, Guggenheim aero Finance Company -Fnlayson 17:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 747-8 Intercontinental Possible Orders

Hello everyone. I recently added back a section that says who might order some 747s. Someone, I beilev Fnalyson, removed it, because they said it was too opinionated. Which I agrre with. So now I changed the wording, to say they might order 747 or 380s, but Fanlyson asked who's opinion. And to answer your question, Fnlayson, I do not believe it's anyone opinon. Those potential customers are ones who have jumbos in their fleet that will eventually need replacement. Others have other explanatiosns,added after then in parenthsis, but that is general reason for the list. I just think it is very interesting to see who might order it, and wikipedia is all about interesting facts. That's the beauty of it. Anyway, of course, my opinion doesn't count all that much so please discuss this topic here. Thanks. -By the way, Fnalyson, sorry for the wierd spellings of your name, I forgot how to spell it. (Edwardlay 21:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

  • It is worded much better now. It needs a reference though. Uncited claims and speculation should be avoided. -Fnlayson 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Great. Glad we could agree. I'll work on it over the next month, getting the references. (Edwardlay 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC))
  • Qantas, has ordered A380s contrary to what it says here.--Grahame (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longer upper deck?

Is the 747-8 going to have a longer upper deck than the 400? I mean, is it going to extend further back on the plane? The early 747's had a shorter upper deck. It seems like they've gradually crept further and further back over time. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Previously there were 2-3 upper deck lengths. The -8 will have a longer upper deck with its longer fuselage. Good question. That needed to be added to the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the list has its own article?

Why does the list of orders have it own article? Please refer to List of Boeing 747-8 orders. I would recommend that this is merge or deleted. It is the same information in the same place. AdmRiley (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Somebody thought it'd be a good idea, I guess. There's not enough order activity to need to it, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heaviest?

"The 747-8 is the heaviest aircraft ever offered by a United States aircraft producer, commercial or military." This sentence is followed by a reference to the C-5 Galaxy fact sheet; however, that fact sheet doesn't support the claim made in the sentence. All it does is show that the C-5 Galaxy is lighter than the 747-8. I don't know the standard procedure for things like this; should we switch back to the fact tag until we find a better reference, or what? -- CPColin (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentence only says the 747-8 is the heaviest (takeoff weight) US aircraft. The MTOW for the 747-8 is referenced later in this article and I provided a note and reference for the next highest weight aircraft (C-5). That should be more than sufficient. It's not like there's a bunch of aircraft in this size range. A fact tag would not the proper tag now anyway, more like a vs one. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. "Heaviest aircraft ever offered..." is a substantial claim to make. Pointing out one aircraft that is lighter than the 747-8 is not enough to support it. -- CPColin (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, "offered" was too broad and not accurate anyway. Boeing has put heavier 747 variant designs (-500X/600X/700X) out to gauge interest in the 1990s. That might have been an offer to sale. So I changed the wording to "ordered". -Fnlayson (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Offered" wasn't the part I was worried about; it's the "heaviest aircraft ever" part. Unless we find a source that clearly states something like, "the 747-8 is the heaviest aircraft ever offered by/ordered from a U.S. aircraft producer," the sentence might as well be unsourced altogether. -- CPColin (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)