747-8 Wings Its Way In
April 27th, 2009
Boeing recently announced that it had completed major assembly of the first pair of wings destined for the 747-8F.
The first 747-8F is due to roll out in late August 2009 with first flight tentatively scheduled to be conducted by the end of the third quarter of this year. First delivery is slated to launch customer Cargolux in the third quarter of next year. At last weeks earnings call, Boeing also announced that the 747-8 Intercontinental program would see its first delivery in the fourth quarter of 2011. Airline launch customer Lufthansa reiterated its plans to keep the order and says it will “stay as it is.”
For the 747-8 family, Boeing has given the wing an extensive overhaul to incorporate the newest techology to allow the airplane to fly further while carrying more fuel, all in a more efficient manner than preceding 747’s.
Image courtesy of Boeing (Click To Enlarge)
Speaking earlier this year, 747 Chief Engineer Michael Teal revealed some insight into the new wings for the 747-8 family.
“The improvements in performance come from two large areas. One is the new aerodynamic wing that improves the lift over drag and also the engine. Because the engine and the wing are the same on both airplanes, the technology changes that increase the improvements for fuel efficiency you get on both airplanes. In terms of the percentage improvement, it’s different whether you’re measuring in tonne-mile costs on the freighter versus seat-mile costs on the passenger, and of course they fly different distances, that’s why you’ll see different numbers,” he said.
“We went in to the wind-tunnels and we were doing all the initial design work on the wing, we realised that we needed a “leap improvement” to get the performance that was required – so it was later in the design process that we agreed we had to change the aerodynamic shape of the wing which pretty much has the same structural load paths [as the 747-400], so that aerodynamic change meant we ended up changing more parts and we later realised the significance of that change,” Teal added.
Being the first major derivative of the 747 in a number of years, three 747-8F’s will be involved in the flight test program with two 747-8I’s involved in certification for the passenger model.
Boeing also today announced that it had reached the 25% design milestone on the 747-8 Intercontinental.
“We have made tremendous progress on the design engineering,” said Mo Yahyavi, vice president and general manager for the 747 Program. “The engineering is proceeding as planned and we are a step closer to bringing the 747-8 Intercontinental to market.“
First delivery of the 747-8I is destined for a VIP customer in the Middle East.
Entry Filed under: Boeing, Boeing 747, Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental, Boeing 747-8F, Boeing 747-8I, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Lufthansa
39 Comments Add your own
1. Anon | April 26th, 2009 at 21:22
So is it a new wing or not?
Boeing would have us believe its “new” yet sports similarities from its predecessors.
2. Taniwha | April 26th, 2009 at 22:30
“So is it a new wing or not?”
I believe structually it is the same but there are major differences (as shown in the diagrams above) to the external shape and surfaces, not to mention the appendages such as various flaps, ailerons, etc.
As for it’s effect through the air? It’s a new wing.
3. ikkeman | April 27th, 2009 at 08:50
I’d vote that when you change the loft or the load paths (remove a spar) it’s a new wing. It may be based on a predesesor, but it;s a new wing.
One question remains: what are the numbers Mr. Teal - I understand they’ll be different based on what you use them for, but go ahead and give the best case scenario - what is the spfc/casm/rasm gain for the -8 vs the -400?
4. Vero Venia | April 27th, 2009 at 09:41
It has new wings, new engines, stretched fuselage and new interior. That’s a lot of change.
to ikkeman: in about one year we will know the actual performance of the 747-8. Be a little bit patient, one year is only 12 months.
http://verovenia.wordpress.com
5. Michael Di Marco PE | April 27th, 2009 at 13:04
Go to the link,”He said.” Then, go to the Engine & Wing Improvements and within it is stated as a “NEW WING.”
6. MPTA-098 | April 27th, 2009 at 17:26
It’s interesting to compare the “new” wing on the 747-8I/F with the new modified A343 airfoil which Airbus developed for the A345/A346, and then look at the total R&D and production costs for both programmes.
747-8I/F wing: The wing has been re-lofted with the airfoil shape changed. (i.e. more supercritically shaped). This means that this is turning out to be a very substantial reworking of the wing.
BUT, most of the movable surfaces will be of a new design, with a few significantly redesigned from that of the 744 configuration. Also, new systems such FBW spoilers & outboard ailerons.
A345/A346 wing: 3 extra frames in centre wing box combined with a tapered insert on the airfoil, along with 1,6m wingtip extensions requiring a longer seventh slat.
BUT, THAT’S ABOUT IT!
The leading and trailing edge components ARE COMMON with the A332, A333 and A343 as well as the 2m-span canted winglets.
————————————————–
Analysis:
One should note that the design and development of high-lift systems, such as the NEW double-slotted inboard and single slotted outboard flaps, remains difficult and time consuming. Multi-element high-lift systems have a significant impact on the cost of a typical jet transport because (i) they are time consuming to design and test, (ii) their flows, geometry, and actuation and support systems are complex, (iii) they are heavy, (iv) have a high part count, and (v) are maintenance intensive. According to PKC Rudolph, an aircraft’s high-lift system accounts for somewhere between 6% and 11% (potentially higher for more complex configurations) of the production cost of a typical jet transport. Consequently, the movable surfaces account for about two-thirds of the production costs of a typical wing on a LCA.
————————————————–
Conclusion:
The A345/A356 programme required an investment of about USD 2,5 - 3,0 billion. At his point in time, there’s no reason not to believe that the 747-I/F will cost more than that to develop.
Also, the relative production costs of the A345/A346 are significantly lower; partly thanks to sharing most of the production infrastructure with the A332/A333, and partly due to the high production rate of the A332/A333. On the 747-8I/F, the production infrastructure and aircraft parts are all unique to the 748. Initially, and possibly for quite some time, only ONE aircraft will be produced per month which will result in poor production economics for both the freighter and the intercontinental.
7. B380 | April 27th, 2009 at 18:37
“The first 747-8F is due to roll out in late August 2009 with first flight tentatively scheduled to be conducted by the end of the third quarter of this year. First delivery is slated to launch customer Cargolux in the third quarter of next year.”
– I don’t understand, Boeing are planning about 1 year from first flight to delivery for a “major derivative of the 747″. Yet insist they they can deliver the first 787 in 8 months, which is essentially a new aircraft (assume FF June, Delivery Feb 2010).
8. Falcon | April 27th, 2009 at 18:40
MPTA-098,
You stated the A345/A346 program was 2.5 - 3.0 BUSD. May I ask from where you got that number.
MTIA
9. MPTA-098 | April 27th, 2009 at 19:07
Initial estimate:
One source, for example, can be found here:
Quote: “The programme will require an investment of some $2,5 billion”
==> at Page 126 (click on the pdf files in the left column), FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 2-8 September 1998 in this link:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1998/1998%20-%202368.html
Add, an estimated (on my part) USD $0,5 in programme cost overrun (i.e. efforts to reduce weight of initial wing-sets, HGW-version etc).
10. Vero Venia | April 27th, 2009 at 19:48
In my opinion, the comparison between the 747-8 and the A340-500/600 is not relevant.
Boeing designed a new wing for the 747-8. These wings are not a “bricolage”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricolage
In addition, I believe the 747-8 is an “opportunist” aircraft. It takes the benefit of GEnx development from the 787. I do not think Boeing would have launched the 747-8 without the availability of the GEnx engines.
11. Falcon | April 27th, 2009 at 22:41
MPTA-098,
Many thanks for the link.
Based on those numbers and the 117 deliveries (end of March) it will be interesting to hear from the people claiming the A345/6 is at loss but the 748 was a sound investment. Especially considering your points about how much of the costs are / were shared with the A330 and even earlier A340 models.
12. Leelaw | April 28th, 2009 at 06:53
A much more apt comparison would be the A345/346 to the 773ER/772LR/777F. The A345/A346 program is moribund at this point and the “financial cake” is baked, while in the case of the 748, though obviously distressed, the jury is still out as to whether long-term financial performance will justify the large investment in development.
13. Vero Venia | April 28th, 2009 at 08:45
Leelaw,
I also have the feeling that the 747-8 program is distressed. But the 747-8i is not the only one in the niche market of 400+ seat aircraft.
I don’t know anything about the financial state of the 747-8 and A380 programs. But it looks like if Boeing and Airbus, with the 747-8 and A380 respectively, were playing at “who will pull the plug first” or “Let’s see who’s bleeding the most.”
14. MPTA 098 | April 28th, 2009 at 12:15
Vero Venia, even though the wing on the 748 might look “new”, it’s still LEGACY CONSTRAINED by the high wing sweep at 37,5 degrees. A new clean slate and structurally lighter wing design for the 748, would’ve had a wing sweep similar to the 33,5 degrees of the A380 wing. Also, the wing span would likely have increased by an additional 5-6 meters.
Comparing the development and production of the “new” wing on the 748, which requires significant modification to the outer wing box as well as major changes to the leading and trailing edge components, with the much simpler modifications done to the wing on the A345/A346, is highly relevant to underscore the fact that the 748 programme will very likely become significantly more expensive to develop than what was the case for the A345/A346 programme. Also, one will need to add to those R&D expenses a projected poor production economics for the programme which primarily is due to the 748I’s complete lack of market penetration.
Regarding the availability of the GEnx, it looks like Boeing might have been tricked into developing the 748 due to the company perhaps being lulled into a false sense of certainty of the infallibility of the program thanks to the attractiveness of the GEnx offering; only later to discover that they needed an additional and highly expensive “leap improvement”, to get the “performance that was required”.
15. Aurora | April 28th, 2009 at 13:47
Vero, I don’t see any VLA “plug pulling” by either OEM, but its going to be a challenge to see how the airlines adapt with these large aircraft. ATW carried an article today in which QF’s Alan Joyce admitted that their aircraft had “too few seats”, i.e., an acknowledgement that they were devoting a disproportionate share of this most expensive of real estate to the premium pax segment.
Going forward can the airlines make money by [re] configuring these things in “all cattle class” or a mix of “premium economy” & cattle? Can they fill an A380 at 800 seats? Even if they can fill it, can they get the yields to actually make a profit?
Perhaps this is a situation where the aircraft that offers more flexibility for pax/cargo will be preferred?
16. Vero Venia | April 28th, 2009 at 14:55
MPTA 098
I can’t say anything about the development cost of A340-500/600 nor for the 747-8. I just don’t know.
Still, the comparison between the two is irrelevant.
Apropos market penetration, it has been said many times that 400+ market is a niche market. This is valid for the 747-8 and for the A380.
http://verovenia.wordpress.com
17. MPTA-098 | April 28th, 2009 at 16:11
Vero Venia, it looks like the A345/6 wing development effort pales in comparison to what is required on the 748. Now, as Falcon indicates, the favourite pastime for some people in the blogosphere seems to have been to stress that the A345/6 is a loss making programme, while at the same time claiming that the 748 has “already reached the point of break-even”. By looking at the R&D figures for the A345/6, and comparing those with what actually is required for the 748, it’s not a great stretch to point out that if the A345/6 is at loss at 117 deliveries as of today, surely the break-even point for the 748 is now approaching at least 200 frames. Do note that when the 748 was formally launched, Boeing projected that the intercontinental would account for about two thirds of total sales over the life of the programme. However, the 748I’s complete lack of market penetration is a severe blow to any hope that the programme will ever shift from being in the red. Also, with the current implosion in the air freight industry, it looks like Boeing might only have produced some 110-120 748 frames before 2020; and that’s a best case scenario.
18. Leelaw | April 28th, 2009 at 16:40
The OEMs have already sunk a combined $16-18B into the niche VLA market with little hope now of achieving a reasonable return on the investments by any kind of convention measure of financial performance for long-term projects. The VLA resource sinkhole (both human and cash) has also forced them into trying to do their far more critical devlopment progams (787 and A350) on the cheap, with rather hideous results so far.
19. Ed | April 28th, 2009 at 17:01
MPTA 098 said in reply # 14;
“Regarding the availability of the GEnx, it looks like Boeing might have been tricked into developing the 748 due to the company perhaps being lulled into a false sense of certainty of the infallibility of the program thanks to the attractiveness of the GEnx offering; only later to discover that they needed an additional and highly expensive “leap improvement”, to get the “performance that was required”.
I’m not sure that is correct. Boeing did need a certain level of performance and advancement over the B-747-400ER/ERF for the B-747-8I/F. In that case, they achived the goal. The B-747-8 will carry more weight over a longer distance for a lower cost than the B-747-400ER/ERF, and much more over the basic B-747-400/F. The B-747-8s direct competitor is the B-747-400, not the A-380-800, and certainly not the much smaller A-340-500/-600.
The A-345/6s direct competitor is the B-777-200ER/LR/300ER. For that, the A-340 losses miserably.
But back to the B-747. Boeing read the tea leaves correctly back in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The major need for the VLAs will be in the “F” models, with the passenger versions playing a minor role. This is a shift from past markets. I believe Airbus made a major fubar by canning the A-380-800F, not that it sold very well anyway (IIRC, they only sold 24 A-380-800Fs before that program was put on the “back burner” and FEdEX, UPS, and EK canceled their orders). The UPS order for 8 new build B-747-400Fs proved this and the need for UPS to get new frighters. They are also getting several B-747-400BCFs.
Airbus has sold some 117 A-340-500/-600s, and those will, most likely end the A-340 model line. It took Airbus 10 + years to sell that number. Yet, the B-747-8F/I has sold nearly that same number in less than half the time, and out sold the A-380-800 over the last 3 years. Boeing has sold some 29 B-747-8Is including the 20 to LH (who also holds options on another 20 airplanes). The remainder is in the B-747-8-BBJ version. But, Boeing has sold some 80 B-747-8Fs, along with a like number of B-777-200LRFs (AF, FedEx, EK, and others) and 29 B-767-300ERFs (UPS). On the Airbus spreadsheet, they have also sold about 70 new A-330-200Fs, and are also marketing the A-350-900F. Together this comes to some 330 wide body “F” models sold over the last 3-4 years.
The B-747 will use a slightly different version of the GEnx engine on the B-747-8 and the B-787-8/-9 (as well as the new RR Trent on the B-787). These engines, still in testing, will prove far superior to any engines before. We are talking about the next generation of engines, now flying on the A-380 (RR Trent), and soon on the B-747 and B-787. These engines are superior to todays GE CF-6, PW-4000, and RR RB-211 and earlier Trent engines in fuel burned per mile, and in trust. They may even be better than the B-777 engines from GE, P&W, and RR.
The sales outlook for the B-747-8 family looks promising, but mostly in freighters. It could easily be a quick USAF C-5A/B/M replacement (although it cannot carry the outsized cargo a C-5 can carry) a very heavy tanker, replacing the KC-10A, the new AL-1B, as well as a VC-25A replacement. That is just for the USAF. That could be as much as 100, or more new, B-747-8F/BBJs (60 to replace the KC-10A, 25 C-5A replacements, 12 new AL-1Bs, and 3 VC-25A replacements).
20. MPTA-098 | April 28th, 2009 at 17:08
Leelaw, I would agree that the original A350 was a programme “on the cheap”. However, inferring that the XWB-version only has to show “hideous results so far” is a pretty far fetched conclusion, isn’t it?
21. MPTA-098 | April 28th, 2009 at 17:42
“I’m not sure that is correct. Boeing did need a certain level of performance and advancement over the B-747-400ER/ERF for the B-747-8I/F. In that case, they achived the goal. The B-747-8 will carry more weight over a longer distance for a lower cost than the B-747-400ER/ERF, and much more over the basic B-747-400/F. The B-747-8s direct competitor is the B-747-400, not the A-380-800, and certainly not the much smaller A-340-500/-600.”
The 747-8I’s direct competitor is the A388. Sadly, it looks like the intercontinental will be DOA, and fortunately for Airbus, the A345/6 was first to market.
If Boeing hadn’t been tricked into developing the 748-I/F, they could have put further derated GEnx engines on a slightly modified 744F, saved at least USD 3 billion, and still dominated the large freighter market for another decade.
“The A-345/6s direct competitor is the B-777-200ER/LR/300ER. For that, the A-340 losses miserably.”
Sure, but that was not the point of initial my post.
“Airbus has sold some 117 A-340-500/-600s, and those will, most likely end the A-340 model line. It took Airbus 10 + years to sell that number. Yet, the B-747-8F/I has sold nearly that same number in less than half the time, and out sold the A-380-800 over the last 3 years.”
Incorrect. Airbus has produced 117 frames. Still some to go. Also, before 77W-sales took off, Airbus had sold some 140+ frames.
“The sales outlook for the B-747-8 family looks promising, but mostly in freighters. It could easily be a quick USAF C-5A/B/M replacement (although it cannot carry the outsized cargo a C-5 can carry) a very heavy tanker, replacing the KC-10A, the new AL-1B, as well as a VC-25A replacement. That is just for the USAF. That could be as much as 100, or more new, B-747-8F/BBJs (60 to replace the KC-10A, 25 C-5A replacements, 12 new AL-1Bs, and 3 VC-25A replacements”
Actually, the sales outlook for the B-747-8 family has never looked more dismal. The air freight industry is imploding while the intercontintal has completely failed to get any traction in the VLA market.
It’s a pipe dream to believe that the 748F can somehow “replace” any C-5s. Maybe Boeing want to sell the 748F as a tanker option, but I’s sure. that USAF wouldn’t be the least interested. Also, do note that apart from the KC-X comepetition that seems to be ready for the second round, any new additional large tanker aircraft is simply not affordable for the foreseeable future.
22. Vero Venia | April 28th, 2009 at 20:52
MPTA-098 | April 28th, 2009 at 16:11 said
Vero Venia, it looks like the A345/6 wing development effort pales in comparison to what is required on the 748. Now, as Falcon indicates, the favourite pastime for some people in the blogosphere seems to have been to stress that the A345/6 is a loss making programme, while at the same time claiming that the 748 has “already reached the point of break-even”.
I do not know the financial situation of the A340-500/600 programme, but there are only 139 units ordered, of which 117 have been delivered since its entry into service in 2002. So, I can hardly consider it as a success especially when you consider that the Trent500 was specifically developed for this application. You have to remember that there are two versions (-500 and -600) although both versions share the same wings, there has been some amount of extra work to be done. There is also a HGW version that needed even more extra work.
As far as the wings are concerned, I fail to see why 747-8 wing development should cost more than A340-500/600 wing development. Although the A340-500/600 wing is a “bricolage”, it needed new jigs, new pylons and new other things because Trent500 is much heavier than CFM56-5C4. The MTOW of the A340-300 is only 275 tonnes compared to 372 tonnes or 380 tonnes for -500/600. It is a 30% increase in MTOW.
I think the design change has been at least as extensive as 747-8’s wings.
Concerning the 747-8, if my memory serves me well, Jim McNerney said that the 747-8 is not yet profitable NOW. It does not mean that it won’t become profitable if there are more orders in the future. As somebody said in one of the comments above, the jury is still out.
Please remember that the 747-8F will enter into service only in 2010 and the -8i in 2011. So, the 747-8 is still far away from its break even point, whatever that number is.
http://verovenia.wordpress.com
23. Vero Venia | April 28th, 2009 at 21:02
21. MPTA-098 | April 28th, 2009 at 17:42
AS I have already mentioned above, 400+ seat aircraft market is a niche market. Neither the 747-8 nor the A380 will sell in a large number.
24. Vero Venia | April 28th, 2009 at 21:15
As of March 31st, 2009, there are 139 net orders for the A340-500/600 of which 117 have been delivered.
25. Vero Venia | April 28th, 2009 at 21:22
17. MPTA-098 | April 28th, 2009 at 16:11 said
Do note that when the 748 was formally launched, Boeing projected that the intercontinental would account for about two thirds of total sales over the life of the programme.
If my memory serves me well, it was the other way round. They projected less than 180 747-8i and less than 300 747-8F in the next 20 years. But things can change, may be they will sell more 747-8 than those figures, or less. Who knows?
26. MPTA-098 | April 29th, 2009 at 11:57
Vero Venia:
“As far as the wings are concerned, I fail to see why 747-8 wing development should cost more than A340-500/600 wing development. Although the A340-500/600 wing is a “bricolage”, it needed new jigs, new pylons and new other things because Trent500 is much heavier than CFM56-5C4. The MTOW of the A340-300 is only 275 tonnes compared to 372 tonnes or 380 tonnes for -500/600. It is a 30% increase in MTOW. I think the design change has been at least as extensive as 747-8’s wings.”
What you are saying is that the extensive changes to the outer wing boxes are similar on both the A345/6 and 748, which is true.
Again, what you seem to be forgetting is that the movable surfaces of a wing, including high-lift systems, such as the double-slotted inboard and single slotted outboard flaps, remains difficult and time consuming to develop, and that these systems actually account for about two-thirds of the production costs of a typical wing on a LCA. On the A345/6 the leading and trailing edge components are identical (apart from that longer seventh slat) to those on the the A332, A333 and A343. This is in sharp contrast to what is required for the 748 where the leading and trailing edge components are all new, or heavily modified.
“If my memory serves me well, it was the other way round. They projected less than 180 747-8i and less than 300 747-8F in the next 20 years. But things can change, may be they will sell more 747-8 than those figures, or less. Who knows?”
When the 748 was launched in November 2005, Boeing forecasted the need for about 900 airplanes (600 passenger carrying aircraft and 300 freighters) in the 400-plus-seat segment over the “next 20 years”. Expecting to win 50 percent of that market, Boeing projected sales of about 300 intercontinentals and 150 freighters over 20 years.
“AS I have already mentioned above, 400+ seat aircraft market is a niche market. Neither the 747-8 nor the A380 will sell in a large number.”
That Sir is an opinion, not a fact!
27. Vero Venia | April 29th, 2009 at 17:24
26. MPTA-098 | April 29th, 2009 at 11:57
Don’t think that the A340 wings are simple wingbox insert. With such a MTOW increase (100 tonnes from 275) the flap tracks and other moving surfaces (flaps, spoilers etc) are significantly different from the -300. Very few parts are shared with the -300, if any.
Take the role of a wing designer with the same self-inflicting constraints as for those A340-600 wing designers who had to increase the MTOW from 275 to 380 tonnes. In addition, the take-off thrust must increase from 151.25kN (CFM-56-5C4) to 260kN (Trent560).
Please think about this calmly and thoroughly before posting another comment.
Boeing forecasted 900 aircraft equal or bigger than the 747 in the next 20 years.
They were looking at about 475 747-8 of which only one third would be 747-8i. They admitted that the market for the 747-8 and bigger is a small niche market.
I am sticking to my opinion about the size of the VLA market until A380 and 747-8i orders prove the opposite.
28. Vero Venia | April 29th, 2009 at 17:28
By the way, Airbus should have taken the decision to design a completely new wings for the A340-600/500.
29. MPTA-098 | April 29th, 2009 at 18:58
Actually, the percentage difference in MTOW for the A318 and A321 is slightly larger than the percentage difference in MTOW between the A343 and A346HGW. Wing area for the A318 and A321 are 122,6m and 123,0m respectively with the A321 having a slightly modified wing with double slotted flaps and modifications to the flight controls allowing the A321’s handling characteristics to closely resemble the A320’s although the landing and take-off speeds are increased on the A321 due to the higher wing loading.
Furthermore, looking at the 777, the percentage difference in MTOW between the basic 777-200 (initially A-Market) and 777-200LR (C-Market) is slightly larger than the percentage difference in MTOW between the A343 and A346HGW. And of the approximately 35 percent change in parts on the 77L/77W from the earlier 777 models, this did not include a mjor revision to the movable surfaces.
Please do read the following note on the reasoning behind BAe deciding on the wing-insert solution “as it provided the benefits of increased area and greater fuel capacity, while enabling the leading and trailing edge components to be common with the existing A340 wing”:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1998/1998%20-%202367.html
Do note that the A345/6 wing was constrained in the design. A clean slate design, with similar dimensions, would have been designed with increased thickness at the root to enabling a lighter structural design.
“Boeing forecasted 900 aircraft equal or bigger than the 747 in the next 20 years. They were looking at about 475 747-8 of which only one third would be 747-8i. They admitted that the market for the 747-8 and bigger is a small niche market”
Come on, this is not correct, Boeing did not count on winning all of the 300 freighters that would be needed (according to their forecast) in the 400-plus-seat segment from 2005 to 2025.
“I am sticking to my opinion about the size of the VLA market until A380 and 747-8i orders prove the opposite.”
The lack of 748I proves nothing. It’s too early to tell how the VLA market will play out, but it looks like the 748I will not be a player. Perhaps, Boeing might introduce a revolutionary BWB-type aircraft to outcompete any A380-900 or A380-1000 derivative aircraft.
30. Vero Venia | April 29th, 2009 at 21:45
29. MPTA-098 | April 29th, 2009 at 18:58
The market size for 400+ aircraft has shrunk. The latest estimate for 747-8 market is 345, down from the four hundred and something, of which 75% is for the freighter market.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/07/222817/corrected-boeing-fights-1-weight-growth-on-747-8.html
Bogues says the market for the 747-8 now represents about 345 aircraft, of which about 75% belongs to the 747-8F. That means Boeing projects about 85 aircraft sales for the 747-8I, of which 26 are already accounted for between sales to Lufthansa and Boeing Business Jets.
Don’t expect to see many sales for the 747-8i and the A380. It is a small niche market. But again, I am willing to admit I am wrong when I see a proof.
http://verovenia.wordpress.com
31. Vero Venia | April 29th, 2009 at 22:25
29. MPTA-098 | April 29th, 2009 at 18:58
Your comparison with the A321 is silly. It’s a twin and the A319, A320 and A321 share the same engines (exactly the same hardware).
Didn’t you notice that on a quads there are two heavy engines hanging far away from the wing root?
32. MPTA-098 | April 30th, 2009 at 13:43
“The market size for 400+ aircraft has shrunk. The latest estimate for 747-8 market is 345, down from the four hundred and something, of which 75% is for the freighter market.”
If you want to rewrite history, feel free. Do note though, that quoting from Boeing’s highly revised 748 market outlook from April 2008, in contrast to the projections made at programme launch in November 2005, is revisionism at its worst.
“Don’t expect to see many sales for the 747-8i and the A380. It is a small niche market. But again, I am willing to admit I am wrong when I see a proof.”
Actually, the ULR-market (A345 and 77L) is a market that can be defined as a niche market, but you knew that, didn’t you?
Furthermore, it’s absurd to infere that there’s little demand in the 748I-class (cabin floor area of around 430m2), when the only offering in this class is inefficient by todays VLA standards. Therefore, it’s no surprise that the 748I currently has no, or very little traction indeed, in the (Boeing-defined) 400+ market. This is primarily due to:
(i) the 40 year legacy of the basic frame, where you’re having transonic airflows over the nose and supersonic airflows over the cockpit meaning significantly more aerodynamic drag than what you would have in a state-of-the-art design, which of course leads to significantly more noise inside the cockpit of a 747 than inside the A388 cockpit
(ii) a massively modified wing that is still based on the non-supercritical 37,5 wing-sweep legacy design of the 747-100.
Also, it’s absurd to say that you’re willing to admit that you’re wrong when you see a proof, when you know perfectly well that no such proof can be submitted in the near term.
33. Vero Venia | April 30th, 2009 at 15:05
Five simple questions.
How many A380 have been ordered since its launch in 2000?
How any of them have been ordered between 2004 and now?
How many A380 have been delivered in 2008?
How many A380 deliveries are planned in 2009?
How many deferrals have been requested by airlines?
34. MPTA-098 | April 30th, 2009 at 15:09
“By the way, Airbus should have taken the decision to design a completely new wings for the A340-600/500.”
Really?
I would guess that a new clean slate design for the wings for the A345/6 would have increased programme costs by about 100 percent. And such a wing would still not negate the fact that a long thin tube, such as the A346, needs a lot of extra material (and hence weight) to achieve sufficient stiffness. At the time, “completely new wings” for the A346 was therefore not the best option to take.
35. Vero Venia | April 30th, 2009 at 15:36
Frankly, there is not of any use to discuss about the A340-500/600. Its days are counted.
And as of today, there is not any sign whatsoever the VLA market is growing.
36. MPTA-098 | April 30th, 2009 at 15:46
“Your comparison with the A321 is silly. It’s a twin and the A319, A320 and A321 share the same engines (exactly the same hardware).”
Nonsense, I compared the MTOW of the A318-A321, A343-A346HGW, and 777-200-777-200LR, just because you made such a deal out of the increase in MTOW from the A343 to the A346.
“Don’t think that the A340 wings are simple wingbox insert. With such a MTOW increase (100 tonnes from 275) the flap tracks and other moving surfaces (flaps, spoilers etc) are significantly different from the -300. Very few parts are shared with the -300, if any.”
Hmm, in the A340-200/300/500/600 Family Differnces Brochure, there’s no mention of significantly different moving surfaces due to the hike in MTOW.
http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/flightops/aircraft/Airbus_A340_Technical_Differences.pdf
“Didn’t you notice that on a quads there are two heavy engines hanging far away from the wing root?”
That’s funny, and since you mentioned it, what about the wing bending relief provided by these two outboard engines yielding significant weight savings?
37. Vero Venia | April 30th, 2009 at 16:01
36. MPTA-098 | April 30th, 2009 at 15:46
That’s funny, and since you mentioned it, what about the wing bending relief provided by these two outboard engines yielding significant weight savings?
Even for dynamic load case on landing?
38. MPTA-098 | April 30th, 2009 at 16:24
“Five simple questions”
Fine, so you don’t want to defend your revisionism on the 748.
As for “A380 sales”, do note that this thread is about the 748 wing and not the A380. As you know, I’ve already outlined my views on the VLA market in the linked thread, and I don’t want to waste much more time on this. However, I do expect the A380 production line to be operational for another 25 years at least. Concluding today that Airbus won’t sell many more A380 copies, and forecasting the future based on what’s happened up to this point is prettty silly, to say the least, and is in my view equally as “shortsighted” as when Richard van der Riet Woolley reiterated, on his appointment as UK Astronomer Royal, his long-held view that “space travel is utter bilge”. Speaking to Time in 1956, Woolley noted:
“It’s utter bilge. I don’t think anybody will ever put up enough money to do such a thing . . . What good would it do us? If we spent the same amount of money on preparing first-class astronomical equipment we would learn much more about the universe . . . It is all rather rot.”
BTW, the “A380″ thread:
http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/04/15/shoot-the-dog/
39. B380 | April 30th, 2009 at 19:42
37. Vero Venia | April 30th, 2009 at 16:01
36. MPTA-098 | April 30th, 2009 at 15:46
That’s funny, and since you mentioned it, what about the wing bending relief provided by these two outboard engines yielding significant weight savings?
Even for dynamic load case on landing?
————-
The relief provided by the second engine helps the wing bending at the root during the vertical manoeuvre at 2.5g. This is usually the design case at the wing root. So indeed, as MPTA-098 said, it helps to reduce the weight in that area. During the dynamic landing, the extra moment created by the second engine will be taken by the landing gear and has little affect on the wing root itself.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed