New Boeing 747-8 [Archive] - RedFlagDeals.com Forums

Evil Techie

Mar 21st, 2006, 12:30 PM

Boeing's solution to the efficiency of Airbus A380 is to somewhat give a 747 the advantages of its 777 and 787

behold, the 747-8

http://www.747.newairplane.com/747-8.htm

http://747.newairplane.com/funstuff/Pictures/747-8_image9_lg.jpg
http://747.newairplane.com/funstuff/Pictures/747-8_image10_lg.jpg

suppose to save 6% more money for seat-mileage cost than A380

engine specs just came out
GE will supply GEnx-2B67
747-8 will be rated at 66,500 lb of thrust

we probably wont see this plane until 2008~2009 though

neptunestar

Mar 21st, 2006, 12:32 PM

old news but good to see a airplane post on rdf

Computer500

Mar 21st, 2006, 12:47 PM

great nice pictures...................

yjxiao

Mar 21st, 2006, 01:34 PM

Nice plane, I've never been on an airplane that's got beds like those. Im just curious as to which airlines actually configures their planes with beds like that.

Boeing's solution to the efficiency of Airbus A380 is to somewhat give a 747 the advantages of its 777 and 787

behold, the 747-8

http://www.747.newairplane.com/747-8.htm

http://747.newairplane.com/funstuff/Pictures/747-8_image9_lg.jpg
http://747.newairplane.com/funstuff/Pictures/747-8_image10_lg.jpg

suppose to save 6% more money for seat-mileage cost than A380

engine specs just came out
GE will supply GEnx-2B67
747-8 will be rated at 66,500 lb of thrust

we probably wont see this plane until 2008~2009 though

FastFokker

Mar 21st, 2006, 01:36 PM

I've always loved the 747 (which is funny because I almost despise the A380).. it's such a well established and refined product from Boeing.

I think I'm actually happier they would keep the same brand product and just revised for capacity and efficiency, rather than making an entirely new aircraft.

lithiumli

Mar 21st, 2006, 02:18 PM

very nice, i would like to see a side view of the plane

FastFokker

Mar 21st, 2006, 02:46 PM

very nice, i would like to see a side view of the planeHere's my rendition of the side view... :D

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/2462/b7478007sl.th.jpg (http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=b7478007sl.jpg)

najibs

Mar 21st, 2006, 03:01 PM

Here's my rendition of the side view... :D

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/2462/b7478007sl.th.jpg (http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=b7478007sl.jpg)

HAHAHA...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

CSR

Mar 21st, 2006, 03:48 PM

HAHAHA...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

I dont get it

najibs

Mar 21st, 2006, 04:19 PM

I dont get it

Its a fake pic. He got an image of a KLM 747-400 and just stretched it, adding more fuselage. In other words its just photochopped@!

charliebrown

Mar 21st, 2006, 04:32 PM

very nice, i would like to see a side view of the plane

not the best side view (who looks at just the mid-section anyways???)
http://747.newairplane.com/funstuff/Pictures/747-8_image4_lg.jpg

doesnt look too stretched out
http://747.newairplane.com/funstuff/Pictures/747-8_image6_lg.jpg

747-400
http://www.plane-spotters.net/Aviation_Photos/thumbnail/008000/PlanespottersNet_008919.jpg

najibs

Mar 21st, 2006, 04:36 PM

the rear of the engines looks so cool :)

demha88

Mar 21st, 2006, 05:05 PM

Its a fake pic. He got an image of a KLM 747-400 and just stretched it, adding more fuselage. In other words its just photochopped@!

you monkey obviously its a fake, he said it was his rendition

CSR

Mar 21st, 2006, 05:33 PM

you monkey obviously its a fake, he said it was his rendition

No shite, he was explaining to me what was changed to the picture, which I had asked for.

najibs

Mar 21st, 2006, 05:55 PM

you monkey obviously its a fake, he said it was his rendition

I was just clarifying for CSR since he replied to me "i dont get it"

Evil Techie

Mar 21st, 2006, 11:15 PM

btw 747-8 is 12% more fuel efficient than A380

im not sure how stretched out the body is but the upper deck is quite a bit longer

i counted approx 30 windows

NDman

Mar 21st, 2006, 11:25 PM

I always like the 747-400 when it first came out with the mini-side fine at the end of the wings.

I'm really digging the new wing design too. It looks really nice.

FastFokker

Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:13 AM

I actually like Airbus products, though I have a bias against the A380..

If it's truly going to be 12% more fuel efficient over the Airbus (goes against convention as Airbus is almost always more fuel efficient than the competing Boeing), I hope they hurry up and get it into production.. this will give the A380 a good go.

Think of it this way, would you rather take a brand new, unknown product like the A380 for your Airline... or would you opt for the competing brand which is well established and has made a name for itself and could actually be equally efficient, if not the 12% more fuel efficient.

I know which one I'd take.. bye bye Bus of the Air! I really hope nobody is injured from the A380, but I personally wouldn't mind if that Titanic sunk. Unfortunately if it did, it would probably cripple Airbus and hurt all the other products I like (within EADS and BAe Systems).

Najibs, I love the look of those engine cowlings as well.. almost looks stealthy! :D If I recall correctly, they are designed that way to help reduce noise.

Evil Techie

Mar 22nd, 2006, 02:28 PM

one more advantage of 747-8 is that its size is compatible with so many airports
200 something

where as airbus A380 is restricted to only some

and the cockpit instruments of 747-8 have been kept common with the 747-400 with some updates on displays
so pilots can feel at home right away with only some trainings

FastFokker

Mar 22nd, 2006, 02:37 PM

one more advantage of 747-8 is that its size is compatible with so many airportsGood point, that's a huge advantage over the A380.

and the cockpit instruments of 747-8 have been kept common with the 747-400 with some updates on displays
so pilots can feel at home right away with only some trainingsI think that's just common now.. all Airbus flightdecks are the same and all Boeing flightdecks are the same.. for cost efficiency in crew transitioning, not to mention for safety.

If you look at any Airbus flightdeck, you'll see they're all the same.. and same with (modern) Boeings.

Evil Techie

Mar 22nd, 2006, 03:00 PM

Good point, that's a huge advantage over the A380.
I think that's just common now.. all Airbus flightdecks are the same and all Boeing flightdecks are the same.. for cost efficiency in crew transitioning, not to mention for safety.

If you look at any Airbus flightdeck, you'll see they're all the same.. and same with (modern) Boeings.

what i mean is that since 747-8 is in the same family as 747-400, its much more common to it than say A380 is common to A340

Ojam

Mar 22nd, 2006, 03:07 PM

Evil Techie

Mar 22nd, 2006, 03:16 PM

http://static.flickr.com/31/62688719_140a05f604.jpg?v=0

A380's wing design is to carry more load while being efficient

the dreamliner and 748-8's wing designs are the fastest commercial jet wing designs

more efficient
seeing it made is another matter, im not sure how they could go about making a wing curved like that while keeping its structural integrity

basically 747-8 is named 8 is because it is using its advanced engineering designs from 787
while its interior will borrow from from of the 787 LED lighting technology and 777's comfort

actually now that im reading the page again, its got more commonality in terms of operations with the 777 and 787 flight decks

http://www.747.newairplane.com/747-8.htm

The_Madz

Mar 22nd, 2006, 05:07 PM

why is everyone so negative about the airbus a380?

I liked that airbus took the big step to redesign a new bigger airplane unlike boeing who keeps trying ot breathe more life into an aging plane.

FastFokker

Mar 22nd, 2006, 06:28 PM

why is everyone so negative about the airbus a380?Oh goodness, so many reasons. Remember what happened to the Titanic? History repeats itself.

I liked that airbus took the big step to redesign a new bigger airplane unlike boeing who keeps trying ot breathe more life into an aging plane.Aging!?!? They're still building them, they are brand new!

They took a brilliant design which worked great and over the years continuously refined it.. that's not breathing life into an aging plane, that's good sensibility. Considering the amount of innovations applied to modern 747's, you might as well say it's a new aircraft in comparison to the original 1970 747.

I like Airbus products, but I still think the 747 should be the king. I hope not too many people get hurt when that A380 sinks.

Gamester2K

Mar 22nd, 2006, 06:46 PM

Oh goodness, so many reasons. Remember what happened to the Titanic? History repeats itself.

i tihnk this has less to do with history repeating itself and more to do with your bias against airbus

jerryhung

Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:08 PM

i tihnk this has less to do with history repeating itself and more to do with your bias against airbus

I agree, and please don't curse the A380
To me it's kinda like you're against Skyscrapers because more people die when planes fly into them, yet more countries are still building them. I would hope nothing bad like 911 will ever happen again, NEVER.

I like both Airbus and Boeing (mn, I like A340 and 777)
and would want chances to fly on A380/787 for some premimum.

FastFokker

Mar 22nd, 2006, 07:12 PM

i tihnk this has less to do with history repeating itself and more to do with your bias against airbusNot really, I actually like Airbus, BAe, Eurocopter, CASA, Socota and the rest of the EADS family.

I just don't care for the A380... and I reserve the right to not care for it so long as I, or it, lives. :razz:

jerryhung, I believe it was all Boeings that crashed during 9/11.

The_Madz

Mar 23rd, 2006, 09:45 AM

Oh goodness, so many reasons. Remember what happened to the Titanic? History repeats itself.
Aging!?!? They're still building them, they are brand new!
well with the titanic the problem was it was made to have people think it was unsinkable and didn't have proper safety equipment. If airbus had made claims that the airplane couldn't crash or something like that then it woudl be more valid.

They took a brilliant design which worked great and over the years continuously refined it.. that's not breathing life into an aging plane, that's good sensibility. Considering the amount of innovations applied to modern 747's, you might as well say it's a new aircraft in comparison to the original 1970 747.

I like Airbus products, but I still think the 747 should be the king. I hope not too many people get hurt when that A380 sinks.

but that's jsut it, the 747 is from 1970, it still more or less looks the same, it's not that "exiting" anymore. Although they have made lots of innovations to it and it continues to be an amazing aircraft there just isn't much "wow" factor left with it because it's the same old stuff with redesigns. It's like watching extreme makeover airplane edition.

what i personally like they are doing with the airbus a380 is making passenger comfort more of a priority with more room to move about. The worst is being crammed into tiny seats where my knees are in constant contact with the seat in front of me.

like i for one would like to see boeing design a new super airliner. Something that beats the A380.

FastFokker

Mar 23rd, 2006, 10:48 AM

well with the titanic the problem was it was made to have people think it was unsinkable and didn't have proper safety equipment. If airbus had made claims that the airplane couldn't crash or something like that then it woudl be more valid. My analogy of the Titanic was just in their gargantuan size and capacity.

I'll just drop it though as I don't actually believe the A380 is going to hit an iceburg, sink and kill hundreds of people.

but that's jsut it, the 747 is from 1970, it still more or less looks the sameLooks can be deceiving.. yes the shape is pretty much the same as in the upper level hump.. what else? I mean a B737 looks like an A319 which looks like a B757 which looks like an A330 which looks like an B767.. I mean c'mon, all those airliners look the same, so what does that matter?

Although they have made lots of innovations to it and it continues to be an amazing aircraft there just isn't much "wow" factor left with itI still have "wow" when I see a B747.. the machines are behemoth. I'll also have that same "wow" factor if/when I see the A380 in person.. it's an amazing machine and is truly historical, it's just my personal bias.. I hate it, that doesn't diminish it in any way though.

what i personally like they are doing with the airbus a380 is making passenger comfort more of a priority with more room to move about.Passenger comfort in what way? It's going to be the same old bus that goes in the air.. it's going to be tight, with no leg room and a oversized person sitting on one side of you and a mother with a baby on the other side.

Airlines decide how tight they are going to put the seats, not Airbus. If you look back in history, every new aircraf that comes out has fancy ammenities inside that no airline ever includes. I laugh when I see the artistic renditions of what the interiors of new aircraft will look like.

Stock R

Mar 23rd, 2006, 10:54 AM

I'm not an aviation expert by any means, and I'm not an engineer, but in my unqualified opinion the A380 seems to have much more "traditional" shaped wings, where as this new 747-8 wings seem to curve up a bit just like Boeings other new planes, this leads me to assume that this new design in more efficient and a better shape for a wing, which leads me to the conclusion that even though the 747-8 is in the same family as the other 747's its a more advanced plane then the simple BIG A380, would that be a wrong assumption?

I'm not an aviation buff, but I am in aerospace engineering.

The wings on the A380 imo are not traditional at all. I don't have a picture of the A380 on hand for a comparison, but from what I recall, it's a very curved wing as well, especially where it blends into the body.

I would be very far away from calling the A380 simple.

FastFokker

Mar 23rd, 2006, 11:08 AM

I think I brought it up in the A380 thread, but the A380 wings actually didn't perform as well as hoped/expected during the stress testing. Not a huge deal, but the fact that it didn't do what engineers expected is an uneasy feeling, at least to me.

The fact Boeing is putting together an exact competitor to the A380 which is more fuel efficient and already compatible with all airports which currently support the 747 is a huge disadvantage to Airbus.

Who knows, maybe all the buyers will back out like they did with the Concorde and it will get forced on Air France and British Airways like the Concorde. :confused:

Stock R

Mar 23rd, 2006, 11:20 AM

In case anyone is interested in the new aircraft designs, they're starting to look very different because of the advancements in materials and computer power.

Composites are hitting the aerospace industry really hard. With current developments in composites, new possibilities are coming up in aviation that weren't available before. Not only are composite materials lighter, but they are also stronger. It's not that the current ideas weren't there before. They just weren't plausible. But now they are. Wing designs such as forward swept wings weren't used very often because at high loads, they would shear off. Now they're being revisited. Along with composites being used, it's likely soon that rivets will no long be holding the planes together :O Instead adhesives will do the job with a lot less weight! Scary idea, glue holding your plane together?

Computer power is also affect aircraft design because structural parts can be designed using finite element modelling. While I was visiting the messier-dowty plant (makers of the a380 landing gear) i was looking at one of the forgings. For reinforcement before, they would have to just guess where the extra strength would be needed and slap a solid block of metal there. Now they know precisely where they need reinforcement and how much of it.

The blended bodies of todays aircraft is just amazing :) No more random bulky extrusions. Everything is smooth and streamlined. I like it.

Evil Techie

Mar 23rd, 2006, 01:57 PM

the thing with A380 is that the ideaology behind it is basically the bigger the better

with some incentives of some better engines and slightly better wing designs that comes with technological advancements

to me, Boeing is always a step ahead
its good that airbus sometimes follows what boeing does and it makes its own product even better

but boeing dreamliner wing design is just incredible and definately crossing into another realm of aerospace industry

najibs

Mar 23rd, 2006, 02:11 PM

the thing with A380 is that the ideaology behind it is basically the bigger the better

The A380 will be a woman's dream then. They will argue that this world needs more Jumbo Jets, baby :lol:

Evil Techie

Mar 23rd, 2006, 02:14 PM

The A380 will be a woman's dream then. They will argue that this world needs more Jumbo Jets, baby :lol:

i dont think there are women big enuf for a jumbo jet to fit inside her

najibs

Mar 23rd, 2006, 02:19 PM

i dont think there are women big enuf for a jumbo jet to fit inside her

HAHAHAHA, you didn't understand my joke, did ya? I didn't mean it literally. :lol:

FastFokker

Mar 23rd, 2006, 02:22 PM

The bigger they are, the harder they fall...

najibs

Mar 23rd, 2006, 02:25 PM

The bigger they are, the harder they fall...

The more it hurts too :cheesygri

The_Madz

Mar 23rd, 2006, 03:35 PM

najibs

Mar 23rd, 2006, 03:45 PM

is the reason why people dislike the a380 simply because they are afraid of change.. or are they saddened by the fact that the 747 no longer is the biggest on the block?

most of hte points i hear is that the A-380 is horrible because it's so big and that it will crash and burn and kill thousands of people.. i'm sure the same can be said about the 747 when it first rolled out of hte factories.

One thing i like about the A-380 is made to have more space for passengers than the 747, or so they claim. any airplane manufacture who starts putting passenger comfort as a priority gets my respect.

People don't dislike the A380. Well, maybe FastFokker does, LOL. For the most part, we haven't had anything bigger than the 747 since it was introduced in the late 60's because there was simply no need for something bigger. Even now that flying is more affordable, I think the A380 is as big as they'll get.

THe delayed development of one was because of the lack of need, and because even to this day, very few airports will be able to handle the size of the A380. Imagine 600 people trying to clear customs and immigration from ONE flight lol.

I think that nowadays we NEED something to replace the Concorde. In this day and age. Business and time are money, and business is bigger than ever before. Executives need to get from point A to B as fast as possible. Concorde was out of reach for many because there were so few. High maintenance fees, and high fuel consumptioon. FLying on the Concorde was for the Elite. We need to turn flying over Mach 1 into something more mainstream and mroe affordable, because there IS a market for that.

charliebrown

Mar 23rd, 2006, 03:52 PM

I think that nowadays we NEED something to replace the Concorde. In this day and age. Business and time are money, and business is bigger than ever before. Executives need to get from point A to B as fast as possible. Concorde was out of reach for many because there were so few. High maintenance fees, and high fuel consumptioon. FLying on the Concorde was for the Elite. We need to turn flying over Mach 1 into something more mainstream and mroe affordable, because there IS a market for that.

SONIC CRUISER!!!

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/technical_charts.html

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/images/010426a.jpg

Evil Techie

Mar 23rd, 2006, 05:42 PM

yeah the fact is that there arent that many airports that can handle the A380 and the routes require A380 are often congested enough

thats the main problem

another main point is that 747-8 will still be cheaper to fly than A380 despite the huge increase in seat numbers of A380

im talking about seat-mileage cost here
so its got everything taken into account

A380 started as a good idea but if they had the wing technology of Boeing, we would all be praising it right now

FastFokker

Mar 23rd, 2006, 05:49 PM

SONIC CRUISER!!!Unfortunately, the Sonic Cruiser is misleading.

It leads people to believe it's a replacement for the Concorde, but the fact is it won't even break the sound barrier.. it's cruise speed is supposed to be 0.95-0.98 of mach.. the Concorde did mach2.0.

Boy I loved that Concorde.. she was a beauty!

Evil Techie

Mar 23rd, 2006, 06:19 PM

Unfortunately, the Sonic Cruiser is misleading.

It leads people to believe it's a replacement for the Concorde, but the fact is it won't even break the sound barrier.. it's cruise speed is supposed to be 0.95-0.98 of mach.. the Concorde did mach2.0.

Boy I loved that Concorde.. she was a beauty!

yeah i loved the concorde too
heck i even loved the russian counterpart...

but really, its not very fuel efficient to go above mach 1 at this point so theres no point in building those if its gonna cost so much for just 1 flight

nowadays, most ppl arent in the hurry to get to places since most of the communications can be done on internet with webcams and video-conferences

Stock R

Mar 23rd, 2006, 07:17 PM

Nitram

Mar 24th, 2006, 12:50 AM

The first thing that came to my mind when I saw the inside of that plane with the beds was: It'll be much easier to join the Mile High Club now :lol:

I know...dirty mind

Evil Techie

Mar 24th, 2006, 04:17 AM

The first thing that came to my mind when I saw the inside of that plane with the beds was: It'll be much easier to join the Mile High Club now :lol:

I know...dirty mind

i thought about that too
but it has less sound insulation than the bathroom
so... not very easy to do it there either

ur not the only dirty mind on RFD heheeh

FastFokker

Mar 24th, 2006, 08:18 AM

charliebrown

Mar 24th, 2006, 10:28 AM

I'll eat my finger if an airline buys the 748 with beds included. Okay I won't really, but which airline right now has beds? I can't think of a single one.

The renditions of what the interior is going to look like is always over-hyped.. for every aircraft, but they never do come with the fancy ammenities. The original 747 was supposed to have a bar, lounge and piano.. among other useless things. Same happened with the A380 interior pictures, it's a joke.

Airlines just want to stuff as many seats in as possible. Some airlines just squeeze more seats in than others.

Virgin has their "upper class"

http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/tridion/images/ucsseatbed416x205_tcm18-40467.jpg
too bad never flew with virgin for business...coz this is pretty cool
http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/tridion/images/ucs_plans206x385_tcm4-44099.gif