Why Boeing Built The 747-8
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 21. 12. 2022
- In the 2000s, Boeing launched their 747-8, an upgraded but broadly similar 747-400. Why was this? In today's video, we explore the purpose of the Boeing 747-8 in the aviation industry, why the aircraft manufacturer launched such an aircraft when they had the 787 and the industry trends were shifting, exploring the A380 as well and how Airbus saw the industry moving in the wrong direction.
đ Subscribe to GlobeTrotting: bit.ly/SubscribeGlobeTrotting
CONNECT WITH US
đŠ Twitter: / djsaviation
đ„ Facebook: / djsaviation
đŹ Discord: / discord
đ» Patreon: / djsaviation
BUSINESS ENQUIRIES
đ§ Email: contactdjsaviation@gmail.com
CHECK OUT THE PODCAST
đïž Spotify: bit.ly/DjsAviationPodcast
đïž Apple: bit.ly/DjsPodcastApple
SUBMIT VIDEO IDEAS
âïž Form - bit.ly/SubmitVideoIdeas
===============================
âčïž MORE INFORMATION âčïž
creativecommons.org/
Licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0
- Boeing YouThe videoChannel
- Boeing Mediaroom
- Airbus Mediaroom
Video was written by Nate Hiromoto.
đ” OUTRO TRACK đ”
Krys Talk - Fly Away [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
âą Krys Talk - Fly Away |...
Free Download / Stream ncs.io/flyaway
#aviation #news #747 #usa #america #unitedstates #flight #aircraft #avgeek #airplane #airlines #airport #planespotting #airbus #boeing
Part of me thinks the 747-8 was built partially due to the fact that they wanted to make one last version of the jumbo. Thereâs nothing wrong with the -400, but I think someone felt that there should be a modernized 747 as a send off.
And we have to admit itâs one of the best looking planes ever built.
I for one think Boeing did the right thing by bringing out the 747-8. Especially the F version. Freight haulers love it. It's the biggest freight hauler out there and with the new wings and engines it's a better choice. And the drivers love it as well.
As with passenger versions, most showed a preference for the 777F vs the 747-8F. The 777 out sold the 747-8F by more than a factor of 3 to 1. There wasn't enough demand for it to sustain production. The last few years they were only producing .5 a month or 6 a year. The scale wasn't there.
@@johniii8147 Somehow I doubt that. The 747 emerged from the CX competition in the 1960's, which was won by the C-5 Galaxy. Boeing turned it's design into the first Jumbo Jet, the 747. The aircraft however retained it's raised cockpit and upswinging nose to allow for the loading of outsized cargo. This feature makes the 747 as a cargo jet superior to any other commercial airliner.
@@classicgalactica5879 I'm well aware, unlike most, the roots of what became the 747. But, even as a cargo plane it's been declining in popularity as a cargo plane. 777F's and 767F and conversions of both have been selling gang busters. The market shifted. The nose thing doesn't turn out to be that big of deal since in practice it's actually rarely used. All the converted 747s don't have it anyway.
The front loading door of the 747-8f and other 747 freighters makes these airplanes a little more versatile than most other freighter aircrafts that are derived from passenger variants. I would not be suppressed if a handful of these planes romaine in operation also 50 years from now.
âRomaine in Operationâ
They wonât be able to lettuce go
-747Salad.
Si
The wings were not borrowed from the 787. It was essentially the existing wing with a composite wing's trailing edge added.
I helped build every -8 made. The air foils are significantly different than the 400. The only similarity is the problem of "wing flutter". This was addressed like every other model built by adding "counter weights" in the outboard sections. Aspect ratio and a number of other details are radically different than any other models. Engine pylons are new to hang the GENx engine unlike the 400.
Borrowed design from 787 but obviously a completely different structure to 787 having two pylons and much bigger with a different layout - the airfoil, composite construction, flex, raked tips etc weâre all borrowed from 787.
Boeing made the right call 25 or so years ago when it decided against building bigger like Airbus. This gave a a huge advantage. As an American it pains and annoys me to see how Boeing has screwed it all up
When you put beans counter in charge of engineering company, the results are predictable.
The merger with the McD Douglas culture is the root cause of all problems
will be flying this queen variant on Lufthansa in March. Can't wait!
The most special Boeing 747-8i will be the new Air Force One.
ok
I think both airliners are marvelous. If not, I wouldn't have kept a fleet of both in my garage.
I flew on a Korean Air 747-8 and I was impressed. It was the fastest air ground speed I've ever been (720 MPH) and it was smooth. Compared to 787-9, A350 or 777... I would pick the 747 any day.
The 8 was exactly right!! â€ïž
Each 747-8f/8i sold meant one less A380 sold.
For a time it looked as if the 747-8f would really sell bigly.
A380 was built on hubris and "jumbo-envy". There never was a market for it. Odd because Airbus made its mark on twin engine widebodies (A300/A310, later the A330).
50 more 380s (more 747-8 passenger aircraft haven't been sold) wouldn't have made a real difference. At the end smaller widebodies had beaten the 380, and not the 747-8 which mainly sold as a cargo aircraft (it's a good cargo aircraft)
@@simonm1447 In 1965 Boeing guesstimated about 200 passenger model 747s to be built, the rest Freight models. Boeing was building a freighter, basically. In late 90s Boeing throughly studied the market for VLA (very large aircraft) a la the A380, and could not find a market for it. They found the market was for "big, long-range twins" 777/787. It was the right bet. Myself I thought there would be more sales for the 747-8F.
@@patpongmichiko the development of the 380 started before the late 90s, the program itself was launched in the late 80s. It makes a difference if you develop a completely new aircraft or if you just modernize an existing one, like the 747-8.
At the end the market didn't develop like Airbus assumed, but it's a bet since such a program takes decades until enter in service and things can change within 20 years.
In this case Boeing had more luck with their current widebody fleet, on the other hand their single aisle lineup is based on a single aircraft which has no further potential for modernization. They could have had the C Series too, but they decided to try to bankrupt Bombardier, and so Airbus took the chance and integrated the aircraft into their own lineup to offer a modern, smaller aircraft beneath the 320.
@@simonm1447 absolutely agree. Commercial aircraft development stretches over a decade before entry into service. Airbus lusted a long time for their own "747". Boeing did major advanced studies on a VLA, for which there was no market, thereby "settling" on a derivative 747, the "8", and concentrating company resources on the 787 program. I was a Boeing shareholder at the time and hence my interest.
No matter how long but she will be remembered as the Queen of the skies
first flight of the last 747 has not gotten the attention that i thought it would :( flew yesterday to portland for painting
I like the 747-8
Like to see more flying
Love you and your videos DJ. Merry Christmas!
Boeing built the 747-8 for just 1 reason. Enough customers wanted it.
I think Coby Explanes did a good job arguing why the 747-8 was a success despite the low sales. DJ touched on it - the costs were relatively low, so even if it is a "failure", it wasn't much of one.
Colby puts a lot of crazy ideas/theories out there.
Wasn't there a joint study by Airbus and Boeing prior to this where they determined the 4 engine planes were losing out to 2 engines.
yes
Yes, the trend was already well established by that point.
That was established before TOPS was expanded and was a big reason as to why ETOPS was expanded
Beautiful aircraft
Most of the development costs on the - 8 were largely done largely 30 or 40 years ago,with a little modernizing Boeing got a better jet and the best and the biggest commercial cargo jet available. It could still be flying 30 plus years from now.
Why are there no Lufthansa clips in this video? I expected to see several. You know, being the largest 747-8i operator and all.
Any picturs of the canciled plain????
I AM UNFORTUNATELY 75 YEARS OLD,I HAVE A OLT OF TIME,LIVE IN GREAT COUNTRY SINCE 1971đșđžđșđžđșđžđșđžđșđžTHE REASON WHY I AM WRITING ALL THAT YOU đŹđ§đŹđ§đŹđ§đŹđ§LOVE and ADMIRE đșđžđșđž
at 3:41 my heart stopped for a second
It really was the 747-8F that kept the 747 production line open. And should have at least stayed open a bit longer to build planes that could have been an alternative to the An 124, especially given the current war going on the Ukraine.
Ukraine will never have an aviation industry again.
Airbus A380 got its goal, biggest in the world, loved by users, including myself, but didnât get to succeed due economics. I flow in -8, well, nothing different as noisier of course than A380. Theyâll sell cargo, thing that Airbus actually never succeed in making: a good cargo plane
I think you are wrong to say that airbus was not interested in the environment or fuel efficiency is ridiculous! The main philosophy approach difference between Boeing and Airbus was Boeing correctly worked on Point to Point flights being the way forward not Hub and Spoke.
The a380 is mainly utilised in hub and spoke operations đ€
@@morgitoryMost of the airports that arenât hubs canât handle the size of the 380.
Ah yes Boeing and Airbus, 747-8 had fuel efficant engine
no speaking English, no english đđđ
I believe in the near future the will restore the program back...long live the queen....
challenging by the advent of a380. improved 747-8 stretch older 747 and fuel efficiency.However, 4 engines aircraft very costly to operate. airlines preferred 2 engines with the same capacity and efficient. But 747 8f is more appealing considering their proven reliability.
747F users love it , saves money on pilot training they can dual type the -400F and -8F
the 747-8 program wasn't very expensive
Actually, it was pretty pricey. There were a lot of wing changes.
@@Ampersandrascott True but it still has the same type rating
@@ethansaviation2672 Yeah, thatâs obvious, but it was still expensive
Why does the 747 retract Krueger flaps and some slats upon landing?
I thought they were going to finishe them too. Oh well, glad it's still going...for now.
The total 747 production number is 1574 made.
I think Boeing should have spent more money on making the 777 program better with alli metal or carbon fiber which would have reduced its weight and extended its range to better compete with the A350
And now A380 is going back into production as I predicted and Boeing finally ended 747
â€
Why? To help Airbus with its A-380 blunder. The B-747-8 would take sales away from the A-380 and hurt Airbus at the
same time.
I miss the 747. I flew on a 777 or A 350. The 747 is much more comfortable. I hope 747 will be back.
The answer is very simple. The A380 was a financial failure. The 747-8 was a financial success.
Boeing saw the future of longhaul aviation more accurately than Airbus, and as a result Airbus will continue to chase Boeing and probably never catch up.
Airbus was more successful with their narrowbody vision and have mainly succeeded because of a more modern aircraft. Had Boeing designed and built an NMA alongside the Dreamliner, Airbus would be dead in the water by now.
Having said that, I do have to congratulate Airbus on the A350, which is an excellent aircraft.
@@null6343 You better go back and check your numbers again. 150 units on a $5 billion investment. Even if we're being conservative and price the freighters at $150 million a piece, a hundred of them would yield $15 billion. That alone is a huge success. Calling that a failure is crazy.
I wonder why can't Boeing do the same and put new wings and engines for the 757? I hope they will come up with a new 717 too. Why giving up the whole small jet market?
747 program must focus in weight reduction and nothing else.
Seems like the big birds should/will reemerge with take off and landing slots limited in tandem with the increase in travel demand.
"...take off and landing slots limited..." Offset by need for runway/taxiway and two-story terminal space modifications.
@@davidmontville4885 most airports worthy of an a380 have already made the modifications
@@Npzsn83 Modifications which, for the most part, have not produced positive results. Most 'worthy' airports would love to have more standard wide-body gates, and to do away with the bastardized sections of their terminals.
That's where the 777X comes in.....
@@mattevans4377 Exactly
I believed this is successful program
It's mainly a cargo aircraft program, with 2/3rd of the sales as cargo versions. It's a good cargo aircraft however
This is so much copium. Its clear that Boeing just like airbus thought the market would be much larger. Airbus stated that about 500 A380 it would consider it a success, that was at a time something that was thought would be pretty easy to obtain.
People tend to forget that while the 747-400 was the most sucessfull 747 model, a bulk of it sales was at the very first years, and a last quantity of them was just past over -300 sales. On a market in the late 80s where L1011 was virtually alreddy out of the market, and DC10 was very unpopular due to crashes, 747 had a virtual monopoly of long range jets.
By the time 10s came around there was hardly any 747 selling any more. With the 777 almost as large, with as long range, but also the A340 with very long range, and 767ER and A330 closing in on the range advantage.
747 was virtually dead in the water, but the freighter was still selling fairly well. They need update the 747 anyway, it was to old. And with the A380 actually getting quite considerate orders it would seam like there was a decent market for a large 4 engined aircraft anyway.
So Boeing had to get a upgraded 747 to keep in the market, and also extend the sales of the freighter. Also benefit boeing, they could do it on a fairly smal developmental budget, so they didnÂŽt need to sell in as large numbers.
With a solid freighter market could easialy sell over 100 (and did) they really didnÂŽt need to sell that many, if even 100 passenger versions to recoup the cost. Just needed to get some od 20% of the top of Airbus market that looked very solid at the time.
While boeing also failed, they was at least quite close to the target.
it's funny how Boeing just made the 747-8 so that Airbus would HAVE to go all in on the A380. especially when you consider that the A380 was a financial loss for Airbus and, if not for Emirates, would have been a COMPLETE financial disaster
Airbus - bragging rights becoming the biggest passenger commercial plane because of being sick of Boeing's 747 being the biggest... Boeing, 50+ years of production bragging rights, and the Freighter version being the largest viable freighter vs Airbus 380 not a viable freighter. Boeing naming the last version - 8 because of the Chinese lucky number 8 hoping for more of their orders... surprised you didn't mention that, I remember that from ages ago...
I personally believe Boeing has been mostly leaderless when it comes to vision and future of air transport. Yet they readily have stopped production of aircraft that still had huge potential for updating and production. The 757 never should have been shut down. It should have received a new wing, engines and cockpit. The 747 had a unique position again once the A-400 production stopped. Boeing should have offered a new wing and new engines in the 747-8 and focused on air cargo efficiency. I believed had Boeing clearly stated the goal of updating and keeping the 747 program going well into the future it would have garnered more sales.
The 767 was another platform that had possibilities.
The same thing with the 717, airlines still wanted the plane even after Boeing shut the program down.
I completely understand why the 757 was shut down. It was the right decision. What they failed at was coming up with a suitable replacement. Should have done what they did with the 757/767 program and made a joint developed 787/797 to replace them both
@@jimmygee3219 they could have kept it going with improvements and sold a lot of aircraft. Instead they gave over all the orders to Airbus A321. Delta and other airlines even asked Boeing if they could restart the 757 line.
@@markvolpe2305 yep. Boeing really made a big mistake with the 757. Had they just updated the wings, engines and cockpit, they could have kept the a321 from becoming the only airline option
@@bret9741 I understand that but it wasnât selling when they discontinued it. Thatâs why they discontinued it. Itâs was a failure if itâs own success imo. It sold so well at the beginning that no one really needed it later until the airlines needed a second generation like now. Pair the post 9/11 decline in the aviation industry with already slow sales and low fuel costs at the time and there was no reason to keep the line open. They even made a big marketing push in the late 90âs early 2000âs to keep it around and it didnât work. As I said at the time it was the right decision to make. What Boeing failed on was to build a successor in the 20 years they had since then to recapture that market when the market shifted.
757 is gone. Canât keep a manufacturing line open when no one is purchasing the product.
Most of Boeing's models have been in reaction to Airbus. Making Boeing a second-rate company. Lots of the Dreamliner project also had quite a lot of government funding through all sorts of military projects and taking the knowledge from those. Boeing needs to kick out the beancounters in the top positions of management and install engineers or Boeing will wither away and disappear.
You have posted an unusual amount of bilge. The A380 was ill-conceived and a flying turd. They haven't produced anything close to the 747 in any variant. Your user name is apt.
Umm, What ?
This might be the most fantastical pile of strawman-building I have seen posted in a while.
Please try harder next time , and actually put some thought into it.
Boeing just hired a bunch of new engineers. Your a little late. Boeing's engineering wasn't the problem management was there sore cry. There fixing it. All companies get greedy its history repeating it self Airbus will eventually have the same growing pains. Its human nature.
extend the life of 747 by powering it with smaller 5-engine, and increasing the number of seats; but allowing the plane to cruise with 3 engines
A380 is the way forward. People love the a380 and it is know. As the king of the skies. Airbus is doing well by making the market competitive with aeroplanes.
Huh?
production of the A380 already ended a while ago . in fact, even before the last 747 variant rolled off the production line.
Stop making up stuff .
I'm glad to see Airbus getting it all wrong. As usual the EU screws everything up like the comet.
Boeing made a company error and it will be fixed as Boeing builds its plane in one country a proud country. Airbus on the other hand relies on other countries for there parts if one place of manufacturing schedule gets screwed up the whole production line is screwed up.
Look.. with the launch of the 777 BOEING knew the 747 was on borrowed time.. even when the a380 was launched the operating/seat cost per mile never even approached what the 747 was doing. 47-8 cemented the fact that the a380 was a pig, It only really made sense on the EUR-Asian content. Add to the fact not a single US airline purchased and a380 and the launch of the 787 and the FAA was increasing ETOPS. Almost ever single airport can accommodate the 747 so as long as demand was thier why stop production. Que the 777x.. enough said COVID .
They should have made it live up to its name and add four more engines.
More so than say another aircraft? Nothing fabricated? You do come out with some doozies
Smart strategy? Speciality of Boeing, making new with old. The -8 is a big fail.
For me B747-8i more beautiful than A380, leading in art valeu, A380 like fat airplanes.
That old and boring ending theme you have been playing for years now. Is a copyright song. Time to get rid of it. Thank goodness the beginning theme is gone
We find your commentary to be mostly boring. Does that reflect your overall personality?
I prefer the 747 over the a380 , I miss the real jumbo jet đą
Utter failure. No airline advertised 747-8 as their flagship and only freighter carriers accept the level of comfort on a 747
Airbus sucks and is second to Boeing. This volger sticks up for Airbus.. he doesn't give Boeing enough credit Coby is much better and not one sided...
The 747-8 was the once again knee jerk reaction to the A380, just like Boeings knee jerk reaction to the A320neo and 737max.
You never mess with the queen of the skies with a dumb whale đ€Ą
747-8 Freighter was not. It's in a class all its own as there is no A380 freighter.
@@shrimpflea Would Boeing have launched it if not for the A380? Who knows, but I'd suspect not. They have a monopoly in the large freighter market so if cargo carriers need a new plane, then they just buy the 747-400 as it's the only option. The -8F simply footed the bill of the -8 as a whole making the knee-jerk reaction less risky.
Before the -8 program, Boeing officially launched the 747 -500/600. It was to be a full double decker. Almost as soon as we announced that, Airbus announced the A380. At that point Boeing throttled back and then cancelled the -500/600. We literally came in one day to the announcement about the cancellation. We then put a lot of people on the 767-400 while 747-8 product development continued.
The a380 was a attempt by airbus to prove it could build a successful jumbo, but it failed spectacularly. The a380 is a great plane but has nothing on the 747, the latter has been flying for close to 50 years and is a massive success already.
The a320neo program thou was one of the smartest things AB ever attempted together with the a300.
To show airbus what a jumbo should be.