Boeing 747-8i

[pedro el leon]

Just unveiled, I really like Boeings new livery. I hope British Airways buys some of these and uses them on the SeaTac to London route, but I doubt that happens. I don't think the 747 will ever die in all forms, she's just timeless. This one will exclusively serve the 400-500 passenger range. The second deck extension does look kind of odd though, probably just used to the classic 747 look.

the new wing, as with the 787, is a thing of engineering beauty:



This first plane is actually going to be a VIP jet for some company or other, which is pretty badass if overkill.

P.S. Soon this airplane will be the basis for Air Force One, heavily modified, of course.

[paloalto]

Beautiful plane, too many delays, not enough customers. Delivery probably in early 2012.

[bunnywailer]

There isn't really too many customers for planes in this class. The Airbus A380 didn't even pick up any US customers for the passenger version. I believe they had a couple orders for the freight-only version, but those orders were cancelled later. UPS or someone was gonna buy a couple.

I agree that the 747 body is timeless. Today's airliners are basically copycats of each other, in different sizes and shapes. Boeing 777 is a nice looking plane, but everything else from a 767 to an A330, to a 757, 737, and A320-class all have the same basic shape.

[paloalto]

Boeing exec admits 787 outsourcing strategy backfired

Feb 11, 2011

As reported by The Seattle Times, in a January appearance at Seattle University, Boeing Commercial Airplanes Chief Jim Albaugh talked about lessons learned from a disastrous three years of delays on the 787 Dreamliner.


In the university talk and a subsequent interview, Albaugh was extremely candid about the 787's global outsourcing strategy -- specifically intended to slash Boeing's costs -- which, essentially, he admitted had backfired. "We spent a lot more money in trying to recover than we ever would have spent if we'd tried to keep the key technologies closer to home," Albaugh told the large audience of students and faculty.


As noted by Seattle Times, "Boeing was forced to compensate, support or buy out the partners it brought in to share the cost of the new jet's development, and now bears the brunt of additional costs due to the delays. Some Wall Street analysts estimate those added costs at between $12 billion and $18 billion, on top of the $5 billion Boeing originally planned to invest."


Albaugh avoided directly criticizing the decisions of his predecessors. The report notes that the 787 outsourcing strategy was put place in 2003 by then-Boeing Chairman Harry Stonecipher, who was ousted in 2005, and Commercial Airplanes Chief Alan Mulally, now chief executive at Ford. "It's easy to look in the rear-view mirror and see things that could have been done differently," Albaugh was quoted as saying. "I wasn't sitting in the room and I don't know what they were facing."


And yet, the report goes on to examine how at least one senior technical engineer within Boeing predicted the outcome of the extensive outsourcing strategy a decade ago, in a paper presented at an internal company symposium -- described as "a biting critique of excessive outsourcing [and] a warning to Boeing not to go down the path that had led Douglas Aircraft to virtual obsolescence by the mid-1990s." The 2001 paper laid out the extreme risks of outsourcing core technology, predicting that it would bring massive additional costs and require Boeing to buy out partners who could not perform.


Albaugh said in the interview that he read the paper, authored by former Boeing Senior Technical Fellow and and world-renowned airplane structures engineer John Hart-Smith, six or seven years ago, and conceded that it had "a lot of good points" and was "pretty prescient."

[younggun]

Dang that plane is huge! You could fit 4-5 of the tiny ones the airport in my town flies out in there.

[ingoodstanding]

If I'm not mistaken, this particular plane has a VERY limited customer (commercial) order base. The majority of the planes are to be used for cargo.

Interesting features:
*Windows: 1.5 times the size of your normal...no shades, but touch sensitive windows which tint by finger.
*(option for) Fully reclinable seats which fold out into sleepers
*MUCH leg room...enough for VB players
*Wings which flex in either direction (what?, 10-12metres) OR the joke is to actually touch one another, either above or below the plane
*Cabins with humidifiers and satilite tech. which track the sun around the globe. NO MORE jet lag. You'll wake in your city of destination (with dawn/dusk climate) just as the city is on the ground.
-obtical illusion(s) in design structure. Curvatures in ceiling/walls/overhead bins which appear MUCH larger than actuality.
*Fuel efficiency...enough to circle the world on a tank of gas.

[bunnywailer]

Feb 14, 2011 11:11:49 GMT -5 paloalto said:

And yet, the report goes on to examine how at least one senior technical engineer within Boeing predicted the outcome of the extensive outsourcing strategy a decade ago, in a paper presented at an internal company symposium -- described as "a biting critique of excessive outsourcing [and] a warning to Boeing not to go down the path that had led Douglas Aircraft to virtual obsolescence by the mid-1990s." The 2001 paper laid out the extreme risks of outsourcing core technology, predicting that it would bring massive additional costs and require Boeing to buy out partners who could not perform.

Wow. There's a name from the past. Douglas Aircraft. A company that is so famous in the history of aerospace - the DC3, the DC10, the A-4, the F4D and F6D, the SBD Dauntless. All gone now.

When they merged with McDonnell they produced the F-15, still one of my favorite airplanes ever. Beautiful design and a joy to watch in flight.

[mikegarrison]

Feb 14, 2011 13:50:11 GMT -5 ingoodstanding said:

If I'm not mistaken, this particular plane has a VERY limited customer (commercial) order base. The majority of the planes are to be used for cargo.

Interesting features:
*Windows: 1.5 times the size of your normal...no shades, but touch sensitive windows which tint by finger.
*(option for) Fully reclinable seats which fold out into sleepers
*MUCH leg room...enough for VB players
*Wings which flex in either direction (what?, 10-12metres) OR the joke is to actually touch one another, either above or below the plane
*Cabins with humidifiers and satilite tech. which track the sun around the globe. NO MORE jet lag. You'll wake in your city of destination (with dawn/dusk climate) just as the city is on the ground.
-obtical illusion(s) in design structure. Curvatures in ceiling/walls/overhead bins which appear MUCH larger than actuality.
*Fuel efficiency...enough to circle the world on a tank of gas.

You are mistaken about at least one of those, I'm afraid. Even with no passengers/cargo, the plane can not circle the world without refueling.

[pedro el leon]

Uh yeah, the record for a commercial airplane is the 777-200LR, which went almost exactly halfway around the world, I think Sydney to London. No way 747-8 has that sort of range, I bet somewhere around 8,000 nautical miles. the 777 is of course powered by two massive engines, the most powerful mobility engine ever devised, instead of the 747s four power plants.

[mikegarrison]

Feb 14, 2011 19:36:52 GMT -5 pedro el leon said:

I bet somewhere around 8,000 nautical miles.

That's a good bet -- with a load of passengers. It can fly farther if it is empty, of course.

Here's the payload range chart which is on Boeing's public website:
www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/747-8_payload.pdf

[TheSantaBarbarian]

"When they merged with McDonnell they produced the F-15, still one of my favorite airplanes ever. Beautiful design and a joy to watch in flight."

I was the F-15-AMRAAM interface lead for Hughes Aircraft Co. for the Full Scale Development portion of the AMRAAM program. I love the F-15 but my fav, "modern" warplane is the Tomcat. (I did a lot of work on the weapons interface for it as well.)

[paloalto]

This plane is a step forward in many ways. Latest composite materials, cutting edge technology to reduce noise and weight, increased fuel efficiency, better navigational controls.

The problem is there just isn’t the expected demand for it. Maybe the cargo version will sell but the passenger version looks like a financial loser. Otherwise Boeing is doing OK.

[BearClause]

I don't know. The picture makes it look like a pelican - especially with the shadow there under the window. I'm used to rounder noses from Boeing.

Also - the McDonnell-Douglas products still live on. The current 717 is just a next-generation MD-90 and what was supposed to be named the MD-95. I travelled on 717s about three times on inter-island flights on Hawaiian Airlines.

[BearClause]

I actually have a fondness for the 747SP. As the Red Stripe commercial said, there's nothing wrong with short and stubby.

[mikegarrison]

Feb 15, 2011 2:47:17 GMT -5 BearClause said:

Also - the McDonnell-Douglas products still live on. The current 717 is just a next-generation MD-90 and what was supposed to be named the MD-95. I travelled on 717s about three times on inter-island flights on Hawaiian Airlines.

The 717 has been out of production for several years now.