B747-8 no future oders?

[G-TTIC]

Hello

I am surprised that since the initial orders placed a few years back the 747-8 orderbook has basically been flat (or near enough). I allso suprised that now LH have the pax version (the I) in active service that no ones following suit. It would be a fantastic A/C in ops that require more capacity the the 777/330/340/747-4 but where the 380 would just be overkill for those carriers and/or routes. Its the best happy medium A/C

Quite surprising

[tsv]

Originally Posted by G-TTIC

Hello

I am surprised that since the initial orders placed a few years back the 747-8 orderbook has basically been flat (or near enough). I allso suprised that now LH have the pax version (the I) in active service that no ones following suit. It would be a fantastic A/C in ops that require more capacity the the 777/330/340/747-4 but where the 380 would just be overkill for those carriers and/or routes. Its the best happy medium A/C

Quite surprising

I don't find it surprising at all, it's a very old design and as much as they tart it up it will never be true competitor to the A380 at the higher end or A350/777 at the lower end.

This leaves it occupying a very small niche in the market, i.e. Airlines who need that particular size and/or Airlines who already operate 747's and need a couple more VLA but do not want to go to the expense of introducing a new type.

The freighter version will do a bit better but again the Twins have huge advantages over the Quads in an environment of high fuel costs so don't expect too much success there either.

[LUNN]

Any idea if Arik, Air China and Hong Kong Airlines have confirmed their orders?

[AA 1818]

Originally Posted by LUNN

Any idea if Arik, Air China and Hong Kong Airlines have confirmed their orders?

Arik, certainly not.

Air China, not sure.

Hong Kong Airlines, they are in such a financial position back home with HKIA and creditors that it's not a matter of if they do or don't. The planes are never going to be there.

[Peter Kesternich]

Originally Posted by tsv

(...)it's a very old design and as much as they tart it up it will never be true competitor to the A380 at the higher end or A350/777 at the lower end.
(...)

Well - the 747-8 has a new wing and a new engine, so it's NOT an old design. As for the competition, I think the 777 and A350 are out of that league simply because they are twin-engined. So the only thing that you can compare the 747-8 with is the A380. And let's face it: the A380 is not a big seller either. According to the Airbus website, total orders for the A380 currently stand at 257. That's still about 200 short of the estimated break-even point, and if I recall correctly the last order for the A380 was received more than a year ago. So the question is not about the future of the 747-8 alone, but about very large aircraft in general. I think VLA are generally a niche market these days.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Peter Kesternich

Well - the 747-8 has a new wing and a new engine, so it's NOT an old design.

The 747-8 does not have a new wing. It was re-profiled and received raked wingtips, but structurally stayed the same. The wing sweep remained the same, which costs a considerable amount of weight.
A new wing would have had 5-8° less wing sweep while keeping the same area and span and would have saved in the order of 5-6t. It's not a new wing.

[Peter Kesternich]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The 747-8 does not have a new wing. It was re-profiled and received raked wingtips, but structurally stayed the same. The wing sweep remained the same, which costs a considerable amount of weight.
A new wing would have had 5-8° less wing sweep while keeping the same area and span and would have saved in the order of 5-6t. It's not a new wing.

Well - the inner structure might be the same, but the aerodynamical aspects changed considerably, including the wingtips, the profile and the flap system and therefore I think it IS a new wing.

[WestjetterO]

I could see BA and/or CX ordering the 747-8i, since they are squeezing every last drop out of the 747-400. I sure hope they do, as well as some other airlines in the future.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 777 and have high hopes for the A350, but I sincerely hope they are not going to dominate the future of commercial aviation. I can't see them completely replacing larger aircraft like the 747-8i and the A380.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Peter Kesternich

Well - the inner structure might be the same, but the aerodynamical aspects changed considerably, including the wingtips, the profile and the flap system and therefore I think it IS a new wing.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but as you point out, the profile is changed, the wingtips are different and the flap system is new. The wing itself however, is not. "New wing" implies "new design" or other significant structural differences when that's not the case.
You can call it whatever you want, it's a 60's design in a new package and this fact is worth tons in DOW so I think it's significant.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but as you point out, the profile is changed, the wingtips are different and the flap system is new. The wing itself however, is not. "New wing" implies "new design" or other significant structural differences when that's not the case.
You can call it whatever you want, it's a 60's design in a new package and this fact is worth tons in DOW so I think it's significant.

I don't want to get into how much change in a wing is a significant change.

But a change in the airfoil shape could be a very significant one.

The reason why the wings of the 747 have so much sweep is simple: to fly faster. Wing sweep was, and still is, a usual way to retard the formation of shockwaves when flying at transonic speeds. That's why the 747 was for so many years the fastest plane around (save for the Concorde, of course). It just had the biggest sweep.

Later in history, the supercritical airfoils were invented (or discovered?). These airfoils not only retard the formation of shockwaves, but also deal with shockwaves very nicely to some extent. This allowed new airplanes to surpass the speed of the 747 even with less sweep, especially seen in bizjets.

The problem with the transonic regime is that there is a point where the drag starts to skyrocket with every knot of airspeed that you increase. And both wing sweep and supercritical airfoils are tools to deal with that.

A plane that flies at transonic speeds and lacked a supercitical airfoil (like the previous 747) has the potential to benefit a lot from new airfoils. The reduction in drag at transonic speeds (that's where the 747 always fly) can be dramatic.

All that said, I don't know how much of that potential could be realized here for two reasons: First, I don't know how much drag could have been saved in this particular case assuming that you were free to optimize the re-profiling. Second, they were not free to optimize the reprofiling, because the "no structural change" input set limits to how much the profile could be changed, again for two reasons: 1) At any cross section, the chord and the thickness at the spars are fixed and cannot be changed. 2) The reprofiling shall not produce a significant change in the lift distribution (both chord-wise and span-wise), else the current structure would not be suitable to deal with it.

But I have a doubt: Boeing claimed that the 747-8 had not only a much better per-trip cost than the A380 (which is expectable because it can take fewer passengers) but even had a slightly better per-seat-mile cost. Was Boeing able to deliver on that promise?

[CO777/200]

Originally Posted by AA 1818

Arik, certainly not.

They already confirmed their order!

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1964

[LH-B744]

Well. Afaik, the 748is have been acquired to solve the Problem that all aur old B744s (like D-ABVD, which will no longer be in the air after JAN 2013) were leaving. These machines are just too old to expect a future in the LH longhaul fleet. So, we don't expect Boeings to replace our D-ABVD, but we expect an aviation company who is able to deliver our orders.
We are not fixed on a special manufacturer, 748i or 388, so, who is able to deliver our orders?

Edit: I dont't appreciate this development, as I am a convinced customer of pmdg simulations. But even me is not able to deny the facts that take place in our short haul fleet. But, this is nothing new, even the UA short haul fleet before the CO merger has gone through this:
B737s are replaced by A320s and A320 neo's.

So, I can't form an opposition to the a/c's that we were using since almost 50 years. But our 733s and 735s will not be used by the NG of pilots. And that's a fact, afaik.

Thus, I am an opponent of mergers, i.e. only a clear loss of aviation quality. The best evidence in Europe has been done when LTU has vanished from our airports (in the year 2008_).
Since then, not a single thing has improved in our area.

And what has improved since NW disappeared from all their worldwide known hubs, PHNL, KMSP, KDTW, EHAM, and so on and so on and so on, since they've been present with their 742s @ EDDL? Imho, nothing.

So, this might be an explanation why I am a manifested opponent of mergers. Imho, a merger has never (!) had a positive effect on aviation, not since I am an aviation enthusiast (since the beginning of the 1980s).

[dakota]

This unfortunatley looks like the 767-400 that although was a nice aircraft, few airlines bothered with it, Delta and Continental springs to mind. Im sure though that with the wing cracks on the A380 and the long time of deliveries , airlines will go for it. I cant believe that the A330 is so popular now after all this time i mean even Virgin Atlantic bought those buggers......so who knows??

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

The reason why the wings of the 747 have so much sweep is simple: to fly faster. Wing sweep was, and still is, a usual way to retard the formation of shockwaves when flying at transonic speeds. That's why the 747 was for so many years the fastest plane around (save for the Concorde, of course). It just had the biggest sweep.

Later in history, the supercritical airfoils were invented (or discovered?). These airfoils not only retard the formation of shockwaves, but also deal with shockwaves very nicely to some extent. This allowed new airplanes to surpass the speed of the 747 even with less sweep, especially seen in bizjets.

That's exactly my point, both wingsweep and supercritical airfoils are a way to deal with the shock waves of transsonic airspeeds, but wingsweep comes with a weight penalty.
With today's airfoils it's possible to achieve the same speeds with much less wing sweep, which makes the wing lighter. Calling it a "new wing" when it still incorporates the design compromises that 60's technology dictated is simply inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Gabriel

But I have a doubt: Boeing claimed that the 747-8 had not only a much better per-trip cost than the A380 (which is expectable because it can take fewer passengers) but even had a slightly better per-seat-mile cost. Was Boeing able to deliver on that promise?

On the first: maybe. On the second: No.

[LH-B744]

The 763ERs are well known here, But I can't say much about the 767-400ER.

I just had a look at seatguru, which tells me that a 763ER can be equipped with 208 passenger seats. Required tora is 2530 meters (8,300 ft @ MTOW), so this a/c would perfectly fit to my home airport.

But - imho - only one or two airlines are using the 763ER here.
So why is this? - I don't have a clue.

One example.
Why is EK using the 777-300 here, and not a 767-300? Do they need 350 seats when they come to EDDL?
One thing that I know at least is, a 773 is not able to perform the t/o at EDDL @ MTOW.

So, probably the EK route via EDDL is so convenient (or short?), that EK 773s don't need 11,100 ft tora, which they indeed need with MTOW.

Another example.
In August 012, LH is using the 340-300 here to cross the pond and not the 747. The official explanation is, EDDL is not ready to handle the 330 passengers that are leaving a LH-B744 at once.
I don't know if that is true, but the EDDL rwys are quite short, shorter than the 06L at Dorval airport.

So this could be one reason why some a/c are used here, and others are not.

[Foxtrot]

^EK does not have 763ERs. The smallest aircraft it has are the the 332s if I'm correct.

[Peter Kesternich]

Originally Posted by LH-B744

The 763ERs are well known here, But I can't say much about the 767-400ER. (...)

But - imho - only one or two airlines are using the 763ER here.
So why is this? - I don't have a clue.(...)

Current operators of 767-300ERs into Düsseldorf (as far as I know): Delta, British Airways, probably Condor
Former operators of the 767-300ER: LTU, American
Who did I miss?

Originally Posted by LH-B744

(...)
Why is EK using the 777-300 here, and not a 767-300? Do they need 350 seats when they come to EDDL? (...)

Emirates definitely needs the seats out of Düsseldorf. If they didn't, they would still fly their A333s on the route to Dubai, like they used to do just a few years ago.

Originally Posted by LH-B744

(...)One thing that I know at least is, a 773 is not able to perform the t/o at EDDL @ MTOW.

So, probably the EK route via EDDL is so convenient (or short?), that EK 773s don't need 11,100 ft tora, which they indeed need with MTOW(...).

The route from Düsseldorf to Dubai is indeed quite short, even for a 777-300, but most definitely for the 777-300ER. So with not so much fuel loaded, I assume, they can take on a full load of passengers and cargo and still be below the MTOW.

Originally Posted by LH-B744

(...)Another example.
In August 012, LH is using the 340-300 here to cross the pond and not the 747. The official explanation is, EDDL is not ready to handle the 330 passengers that are leaving a LH-B744 at once. (...)

I wonder who gave that "official" explanation. Düsseldorf is more than ready to handle the 747. In the 1980s, JAL used 747s out of EDDL to Tokyo. The issue with the Lufthansa A340s is that these aircraft have the right size for the market in EDDL. 744s to North American destinations wouldn't be full, especially with the Air Berlin competition on some of these routes.

[3WE]

Originally Posted by Peter Kesternich

Well - the inner structure might be the same, but the aerodynamical aspects changed considerably, including the wingtips, the profile and the flap system and therefore I think it IS a new wing.

The inner structure is the same, but it IS a new wing?... and ALL CAPS on "IS"...???

Yep, overplayed your hand.

Unless it's completely new, I belive the better word is "updated"

Might be significantly updated, but as Gabrield said, significantly can, unfortunately, be very subjective.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

On the first: maybe. On the second: No.

Originally Posted by Boeing

The 747-8 Intercontinental is more than 10 percent lighter per seat than the Airbus A380 and consumes 11 percent less fuel per passenger. That translates into a trip-cost reduction of 21 percent and a seat-mile cost reduction of more than 6 percent compared to the A380.

Retrieved today from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747...ackground.html

Isn't there legal implication about saying false statements like that one? Deceptive advertising or something? It's not as if that was a forward-looking statement.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Retrieved today from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747...ackground.html

Isn't there legal implication about saying false statements like that one? Deceptive advertising or something? It's not as if that was a forward-looking statement.

If that were true, the A380 would be dead. Not a few sales here and there, but zero sales. And the 747-8I would pick up all the A380 sales, because it's the best game in town. The opposite is true. The 747-8I sold in very small numbers to carriers trying to rightsize their fleet or carriers looking for better cargo capacity.
Boeing probably found a small patch of routes for which that statement is true. It certainly isnt true for the other 95%.

A380 sales arent stellar, but she still beats the 747-8I 7:1. If that isnt telling enough in and of itself, I dont know what is.