Looks like the 747 isn't quite dead yet. UPS just ordered 14 747-8s with the option for another 14.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/customers/ups/747-8f-order.page
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/customers/ups/747-8f-order.page
UPS orders new 747-8s
- Thread starter KD0AXS
- Start date
- Status
Bet that wasnt cheap.
Boeing probably gave them a sweet deal. I'm happy that the 747 lives on. I wish the MD-88 could live on or was re-made. (McDonnell) Douglas made the most robust aircraft ever.
I wonder how the 747-8 freighter compares to the future 777X freighter. I figure all but the largest planes were moving towards twinjets for the inherent efficiencies. I'm glad the 747 is still in the air though, such an iconic aircraft.
Originally Posted By: EdwardC
I wonder how the 747-8 freighter compares to the future 777X freighter.
The 777 is probably a little more efficient in terms of fuel burn, but since it can't load through the nose it probably isn't as efficient in terms of ground-time. And of course the 747 carries more total weight, too. I think freight is one area where there'll be a niche for widebody 4-engine jets (and the 747 in particular) for a while, yet.
I wonder how the 747-8 freighter compares to the future 777X freighter.
The 777 is probably a little more efficient in terms of fuel burn, but since it can't load through the nose it probably isn't as efficient in terms of ground-time. And of course the 747 carries more total weight, too. I think freight is one area where there'll be a niche for widebody 4-engine jets (and the 747 in particular) for a while, yet.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
I was watching one of Lufthansa's B747-8i's taxi the other day - the GEnx engines were easy to spot ...
She was a beauty ...
She was a beauty ...
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: EdwardC
I wonder how the 747-8 freighter compares to the future 777X freighter.
The 777 is probably a little more efficient in terms of fuel burn, but since it can't load through the nose it probably isn't as efficient in terms of ground-time. And of course the 747 carries more total weight, too. I think freight is one area where there'll be a niche for widebody 4-engine jets (and the 747 in particular) for a while, yet.
That and the 747 being built today is not that close to the original 747. Many many updates since its original build.
Originally Posted By: EdwardC
I wonder how the 747-8 freighter compares to the future 777X freighter.
The 777 is probably a little more efficient in terms of fuel burn, but since it can't load through the nose it probably isn't as efficient in terms of ground-time. And of course the 747 carries more total weight, too. I think freight is one area where there'll be a niche for widebody 4-engine jets (and the 747 in particular) for a while, yet.
That and the 747 being built today is not that close to the original 747. Many many updates since its original build.
Must have gotten a great deal considering Boeing needs 747 buyers and 767 / 777 was an option.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: EdwardC
I wonder how the 747-8 freighter compares to the future 777X freighter.
The 777 is probably a little more efficient in terms of fuel burn, but since it can't load through the nose it probably isn't as efficient in terms of ground-time. And of course the 747 carries more total weight, too. I think freight is one area where there'll be a niche for widebody 4-engine jets (and the 747 in particular) for a while, yet.
That's a very good point, I had wrongly assumed that the current and future 777(X)F had a nose door or swing tail option. Surely a huge factor in a freight application.
Originally Posted By: EdwardC
I wonder how the 747-8 freighter compares to the future 777X freighter.
The 777 is probably a little more efficient in terms of fuel burn, but since it can't load through the nose it probably isn't as efficient in terms of ground-time. And of course the 747 carries more total weight, too. I think freight is one area where there'll be a niche for widebody 4-engine jets (and the 747 in particular) for a while, yet.
That's a very good point, I had wrongly assumed that the current and future 777(X)F had a nose door or swing tail option. Surely a huge factor in a freight application.
Saab used to ad that their cars were born from jets. Now it looks like it needs a dipstick and a power steering reservoir under the hood/nose.
The 747 is the big boy. It can carry lots of freight . Look at the inside of an empty 747 freighter it looks like a football field. Besides freighters sit all day fuel consumption isn't as critical as a passenger plane that runs most of the time .
I like the older ones, the 747-400 I believe. It worked-well! Now they have been sitting on their hands like automotive engineers do and have come up with gimmicks to stay busy. Really? A nose that folds like the hood of an automobile.......
I hate gimmicks. Look how they sell cars now. It isn't about what lasts, is of good quality and rides to one's liking...It is whoever has the most backup cameras and the biggest navigation screen.
I hate to see aircraft follow suit, because when the bean counters come in with last year's quarterly reports you better believe they will try to use subpar materials, cheaper labor, cutting corner techniques and whatever else to satisfy this year's gotta-have-gizmo.
I hate gimmicks. Look how they sell cars now. It isn't about what lasts, is of good quality and rides to one's liking...It is whoever has the most backup cameras and the biggest navigation screen.
I hate to see aircraft follow suit, because when the bean counters come in with last year's quarterly reports you better believe they will try to use subpar materials, cheaper labor, cutting corner techniques and whatever else to satisfy this year's gotta-have-gizmo.
Not a very good picture, but here's one of the few 747-8i's you see from time to time. I think Air China only has 2 of this type, pretty hard to compete with the economics of a 777
747-8i waiting to depart 36R in Biejing:
747-8i waiting to depart 36R in Biejing:
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
Really? A nose that folds like the hood of an automobile
The 747 freighters have always had the nose that folds up. It was part of the design of the original 747. The cockpit was placed above the main deck in order to allow this. That's how the 747 got its iconic "hump". It's certainly not a gimmick. It makes loading and unloading of freight much more efficient, which is why the 747 is so widely used as a freighter and no doubt was a major consideration for UPS when choosing new aircraft.
Really? A nose that folds like the hood of an automobile
The 747 freighters have always had the nose that folds up. It was part of the design of the original 747. The cockpit was placed above the main deck in order to allow this. That's how the 747 got its iconic "hump". It's certainly not a gimmick. It makes loading and unloading of freight much more efficient, which is why the 747 is so widely used as a freighter and no doubt was a major consideration for UPS when choosing new aircraft.
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
I like the older ones, the 747-400 I believe. It worked-well! Now they have been sitting on their hands like automotive engineers do and have come up with gimmicks to stay busy. Really? A nose that folds like the hood of an automobile.......
I hate gimmicks. Look how they sell cars now. It isn't about what lasts, is of good quality and rides to one's liking...It is whoever has the most backup cameras and the biggest navigation screen.
I hate to see aircraft follow suit, because when the bean counters come in with last year's quarterly reports you better believe they will try to use subpar materials, cheaper labor, cutting corner techniques and whatever else to satisfy this year's gotta-have-gizmo.
Stick to your day job, okay?
I like the older ones, the 747-400 I believe. It worked-well! Now they have been sitting on their hands like automotive engineers do and have come up with gimmicks to stay busy. Really? A nose that folds like the hood of an automobile.......
I hate gimmicks. Look how they sell cars now. It isn't about what lasts, is of good quality and rides to one's liking...It is whoever has the most backup cameras and the biggest navigation screen.
I hate to see aircraft follow suit, because when the bean counters come in with last year's quarterly reports you better believe they will try to use subpar materials, cheaper labor, cutting corner techniques and whatever else to satisfy this year's gotta-have-gizmo.
Stick to your day job, okay?
Did GE ever fix the engine problems on the 747-8 ?
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
I like the older ones, the 747-400 I believe. It worked-well! Now they have been sitting on their hands like automotive engineers do and have come up with gimmicks to stay busy. Really? A nose that folds like the hood of an automobile.......
.
C'mon, guy... learn a little history. The 747-100 was originally designed, at least partially, to compete for the military cargo lift spec that the C5 Galaxy won. The swing up nose door was an option FROM THE START. A nose door was part of the military's requirement set. In fact that's the ONLY reason that the 747 is a 2-deck design, the purpose of the upper deck was to allow the cockpit to remain fixed while the nose swung up so that all the flight controls wouldn't have to operate through a massive hinge system.
The military went with the C5 rear ramp/high wing design and its probably a little more useful for that application because it carries its own loading ramp in the rear as well as a low nose so you can drive a tank right through a C5. The high nose requires infrastructure at the airport where loading/unloading will happen, and *that* is fine for air cargo operations. The 747 turned out to be a much better airframe than the C5 in the long run, but the C5 configuration is better for the military (basically same layout as the previous C-141) and was pretty much repeated with the C-17.
I like the older ones, the 747-400 I believe. It worked-well! Now they have been sitting on their hands like automotive engineers do and have come up with gimmicks to stay busy. Really? A nose that folds like the hood of an automobile.......
.
C'mon, guy... learn a little history. The 747-100 was originally designed, at least partially, to compete for the military cargo lift spec that the C5 Galaxy won. The swing up nose door was an option FROM THE START. A nose door was part of the military's requirement set. In fact that's the ONLY reason that the 747 is a 2-deck design, the purpose of the upper deck was to allow the cockpit to remain fixed while the nose swung up so that all the flight controls wouldn't have to operate through a massive hinge system.
The military went with the C5 rear ramp/high wing design and its probably a little more useful for that application because it carries its own loading ramp in the rear as well as a low nose so you can drive a tank right through a C5. The high nose requires infrastructure at the airport where loading/unloading will happen, and *that* is fine for air cargo operations. The 747 turned out to be a much better airframe than the C5 in the long run, but the C5 configuration is better for the military (basically same layout as the previous C-141) and was pretty much repeated with the C-17.
As much as I hate the overused phrase "paradigm shift" (ugh) the 747 was one. It had everything you need for a great story - Huge size, huge speed, huge cost, huge bet-the-company investment, huge impact on passenger traffic. A development that started FIFTY+ years ago! Still one of the two or three fastest civilians flying and still, thanks to UPS, selling. You almost couldn't make it up. Without doubt the Queen of Aviation.
Go Boeing!
This shows that the program isn't dead yet.
I'm sure that UPS got a good price on these frames, but Boeing always did figure that freighter sales would save the program if pax sales proved nugatory, as they have.
Will Fedex now take another look at this type?
Both UPS and FedEx had orders for the stillborn A380F, so both apparently saw the need for the volume and useful load capacity of something larger than any twin.
The A380F wouldn't have been nearly as useful lacking the option of nose loading as well as having the structural floor dividing the two decks. Loading the upper deck would've been really fun for the rampers.
This shows that the program isn't dead yet.
I'm sure that UPS got a good price on these frames, but Boeing always did figure that freighter sales would save the program if pax sales proved nugatory, as they have.
Will Fedex now take another look at this type?
Both UPS and FedEx had orders for the stillborn A380F, so both apparently saw the need for the volume and useful load capacity of something larger than any twin.
The A380F wouldn't have been nearly as useful lacking the option of nose loading as well as having the structural floor dividing the two decks. Loading the upper deck would've been really fun for the rampers.
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
I like the older ones, the 747-400 I believe. It worked-well! Now they have been sitting on their hands like automotive engineers do and have come up with gimmicks to stay busy. Really? A nose that folds like the hood of an automobile.......
I hate gimmicks. Look how they sell cars now. It isn't about what lasts, is of good quality and rides to one's liking...It is whoever has the most backup cameras and the biggest navigation screen.
I hate to see aircraft follow suit, because when the bean counters come in with last year's quarterly reports you better believe they will try to use subpar materials, cheaper labor, cutting corner techniques and whatever else to satisfy this year's gotta-have-gizmo.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. Aircraft manufacturing is nothing at all like cars on assembly line. Each ship is skillfully, handcrafted much like a Rolls Royce or skyscraper. Every rivet is installed by hand.
I believe backup cameras are required to be standard on 2015+ vehicles sold in the USA. I've had a few loaner vehicles with back up cams and I can't say I didn't enjoy the feature.
I like the older ones, the 747-400 I believe. It worked-well! Now they have been sitting on their hands like automotive engineers do and have come up with gimmicks to stay busy. Really? A nose that folds like the hood of an automobile.......
I hate gimmicks. Look how they sell cars now. It isn't about what lasts, is of good quality and rides to one's liking...It is whoever has the most backup cameras and the biggest navigation screen.
I hate to see aircraft follow suit, because when the bean counters come in with last year's quarterly reports you better believe they will try to use subpar materials, cheaper labor, cutting corner techniques and whatever else to satisfy this year's gotta-have-gizmo.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. Aircraft manufacturing is nothing at all like cars on assembly line. Each ship is skillfully, handcrafted much like a Rolls Royce or skyscraper. Every rivet is installed by hand.
I believe backup cameras are required to be standard on 2015+ vehicles sold in the USA. I've had a few loaner vehicles with back up cams and I can't say I didn't enjoy the feature.
- Status
