747-8: A new lift in performance 

مرحبا.

+Thomson Brown in order *o p

+Ken Parrott 00 *

Boeing killed the 748 by introducing the 779 and with 300 million dollar list price it aint exactly cheap

Thomas Harbauer The entire purpose of the 787 is to replace the 767. Why would Boeing make a 767MAX??

... .o

bellissimo

its very intresting

999 for me as soon be there are a bit like it or lose,

q

Beautiful Post my dear friend

Good night dear friend Nice post Great smile Have A Wonderful day Have a blessed day ahead

Q belleza es este boeing saludos amiga

Hallo my dear friend Nice post

Nos vamos de viaje? Jeje

maybe garuda buy airbus a380 to replace 747-400 for hajj flight

Boeing made plans to make a 747-500 and a 747-600. However, the -500 design became the 747-400ER and the -600 design was scrapped. This airplane is named "747-8" because it has been upgraded with technology from the 787.

!!e!e

"Just replacing the wing and engines won't get you much." Okay, in that case the A330 is no better than the A300 and the A340-500 is no better than the A340-300 and the 737-700 is no better than the 737-300. Reduced drag and reduced fuel consumption won't get you much? Re-winging an airplane makes it a new airplane. Re-engining with 787 engines creates a massive fuel consumption reduction. The only "economic" flaw the 747 fuselage has is that - in the aft part of the fuselage- there is a bunch of excess fuselage structure (weight) above the passengers caused by the 747 being designed to haul cargo containers. Looking at the A380 aft fuselage and massive tail and horizontal stabilizer I see a lot of dead weight there too (unlike the back end of the 747). Due to the high mass of the airframe and the short (in comparison) moment arm to the tail, the A380 is probably carrying a lot more "dead weight" than the 747 is in the upper lobe of the fuselage. Look at it! The A380 is a pig. Look at that tail! I wonder what it weighs? The superior aircraft is whichever one is most cost-effective for the route that a particular airline needs it to address. Whichever one has the lowest seat-mile costs, highest dispatch reliability and the lowest maintenance costs is going to be the best airplane. The QANTAS representative who bought the A380 did it only because he said that Airbus was essentially "giving them away" and he couldn't turn that cost savings down because he's "have to answer to his board" (investors)- and would probably be fired. QANTAS has always been Boeing loyal, but businesses exist to make a profit- and Airbus likes to give airplanes away.

StratMatt777 All right, you wanna get technical? 1. The A380 air-frame is made of composites. Especially the tail structure you think is "dead weight". Thus, in fact the tail structure of the A380 is larger, and LIGHTER compared to 747-8i. You can even see it in this video that that the tail section is painted green with a non-corrosive paint; meaning it's made of aluminium. So you can keep wondering how much it weighs. 2. If A380 looks like a pig, 747 looks like humped buffoon. 747 design is flawed -- cockpit is placed on the upper deck and the lower deck protrudes under it! How is the polite supposed to see the runway?? There aren't even cameras at the nose-gear like A380 has! 3. As I've already pointed out the only carrier, Lufthansa say A380 is cost effecient compared to the 747-8i (supposedly the model expressly to built to compete against A380's superior technology) 4."Airbus likes to give airplanes away." Yeah right, they are very generous.

Jérôme Delacour said "2. If A380 looks like a pig, 747 looks like humped buffoon. 747 design is flawed -- cockpit is placed on the upper deck and the lower deck protrudes under it! How is the polite supposed to see the runway??" Actually, an Airbus spokesman concedes that the A380 is not very pretty. He says that they had a certain dimension to work with and this is the result. Obviously any attempt to streamline the look of the A380 to make the front end more sleek would have been at the cost of seats and efficiency. So that wouldn't make any sense. Airliners exist to make airlines money. it doesn't really matter that there are enthusiasts like us who get all caught up in "which one looks better" and then get all pissy about which manufacturer is better (all based entirely on the nationalism that is the result of the country we just happened to be born in). I don't care that the A380 is ugly. In fact, I think that the Wings and engines look fantastic. The fuselage looks okay to me in Korean Air and British Airways colors... but looks really don't matter. 747 pilots have never had any trouble seeing the runway, though I'm sure it took some getting used to at first! Apparently you aren't aware that when Juan Trippe and Boeing came up with the concept of the 747 they were certain that supersonic flight was the future and that every single 747 they were going to produce in the early 1970s was going to be turned into a freighter- and that all airlines would fly supersonic airliners. The cockpit is on the upper deck so that the nose can open to load cargo containers. That is the only reason it has an upper deck. I respect your opinion on the looks of these two airplanes, but I don't really believe that you can find anyone who thinks that the A380 nose or fuselage looks better than the 747... if you can find them they are Airbus fans who are lying because they think that admitting that the 747 looks better in some way is an attack on the A380 (it isn't an attack on the A380). It's just a fact. Boeing knows that the 777X is going to DESTROY the 747-8i in terms of seat-mile costs, but it will remain a fantastic freighter (which is probably the real reason they designed the 747-8). It's not a problem that the fuselage is made of aluminum. If aluminum fuselages were terribly inefficient the 777X wouldn't have one. "Airbus likes to give airplanes away." Yeah right, they are very generous." What I said about Airbus and QANTAS was a fact. You don't have to like it. It's not that big of a deal. They are just airplane manufacturers... the fact of the A380 being ugly does NOT mean that U.S. is #1 and Europe is #2! It just means that it is ugly. Have a good day~

StratMatt777 Mais quoi ça cette connerie???! So, long last you agree that whether the A380 looks elegant or not is YOUR opinion? Lolzz! In fact most would opine that the Korean Air and South China liveries are quite ugly. A380 looks the best in Air France, Lufthansa, Qantas, Emirates liveries. Anyway, thanks for not challenging the key factual points, i.e., (1) and (3), which means they are true and you have no answer to them. I don't give a rat's fart about opinions. **All who have travelled in an A380 agree that it is much quieter, spacious and luxurious. Even economy class seats. **Pilots are delighted the way it responds, the fly-by-wire, glass cockpit, advanced avionics. Slow landing speed, for a graceful landing and needs shorter runway. **Airlines are happy with fuel savings and satisfied customers. **Airports are happy to see one aeroplane take-off/land instead of 2 to 3. Complies with ICAO standard 80 metre box. These are the facts which make A380 much better than 747, even 747-8i. So by not refuting the facts your opinionated long comment is meaningless. I couldn’t care less who designed the 747, even I could say -- Did you know Jean Roeder and Charles Champion, at Airbus, were the creators of the A380? What difference does it make if you don’t know who they are? You agree with the obvious misplacement of the cockpit on 747; stating that pilots would need getting used to. And funny enough the even on freighter aeroplanes the cockpit could still have come at the tip -- just like all other freighters. And about the companies; when Airbus introduced fly-by-wire, glass cockpit, composites, Boeing dismissed it as cheap innovations. Now they are humming the same tune, so much so that they are promising a host of improvements of an aeroplane (777X) which is not even built yet. Heck! They haven’t even built factories to manufacture the composite wings. And please provide proof for your remark about the Airbus Spokesperson and Qantas.