Talk:Boeing 747-8/Archive 1

Archive 1

Announce vs Launch

Can we have some discussion on this, please? To my mind, an airliner cannot be "launched" until it is at least rolled out, possibly not until the launch airline takes delivery. It can certainly be officially announced before any components are bolted together.

Looking at the A380, when did it "launch"? June 1994, when development of the A3XX began? 1999, when Airbus decided to actually build the plane? 2001, when it was branded the A380 with Singapore Airlines as the launch customer? 18 Jan 2005, when it was rolled out? 27 Apr 2005, when it made its maiden flight? Some other moment?

With the B748, I don't think that anyone can possibly dispute that it has been announced, but saying it has been launched could mislead a reader. My feeling is that launching an airliner is analogous to launching a ship, even if the ship needs to be fitted out and tested before being handed over to the customer. I would say that once the B748 would be undeniably launched when it takes to the air, but probably some time before that at the rollout ceremony. --Jumbo 11:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary gives (amongst others) the following two definitions for "launch"

1. set (a vessel) afloat
2. start or set in motion (an enterprise, a person on a course of action, etc.)

Launching a venture (including a commercial aircraft programme) is thus not analogous to launching a ship. "Launch" is a standard verb used to describe the commencement of a commercial aircraft programme, e.g. EADS Boeing MSNBC www.airliners.net

Having said all that, while I disagree that 'launch' is an unacceptable word in this context I have absolutely no problem with your wording in the introduction. And to answer your question, the commerical "launch" of the A380 (as the A3XX) was 2000. [1] Mark83 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Now please ? The A380 was launched in 2000 , with many airlines ordering (LH and AF come to mind). The A350 was launched in 2005 and the B748 also in 2005. Launching in the airline industrie means that the manufactorer is going to build the aircraft. It also means that the airlines can order the aircraft. Note ORDER and not COMITTMENT ! Order means that they will buy it and that the pay money. Comiitment means that they want to order the aircraft but are negotiating finall price or waiting for the launch.

I like to use the first flight date as the key date of significance for a new aircraft. As we have learned from the Airbus 350, a launch date is a simply a marketing tool. I have created a chart that has all the first flight dates I can confirm. You can find this chart at user:Mnw2000/Aircraft 1st Flights user:mnw2000 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is not accurate to consider the launching of an airplane model as the date of the first flight. I concur with the previous post that the launching of an airplane program means that the manufacturer is going to build the plane and is ready for taking orders. However, there are some cases when orders have been announced without the program being officially launched. That would be considered as orders after the announcement of the program. OVERMIND 13:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Boeing calls "authorization to offer" (ATO) the event that sales people can start soliciting purchase orders from airlines. Boeing calls "program launch" the event that board of directors authorizes the development of a new airplane model. That usually happens after sizable order(s) were received. Airbus call these events commercial launch and industrial launch respectively.--Yasobara 02:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential customers list

We need to nix this list on here, Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 entirely. It's a whole lot of unwarranted speculation. Might as well list anyone who has not placed an order for either of these aircraft. I suggest we either delete the list or at least pare it back to major contests in the press (SQ, EK, etc.) Comment at Talk:Boeing 787#Potential customers list instead. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Everyone under the sun is a potential customer. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia should mostly be about facts and not speculation. I think the order table is good enough. Since this post has not been countered since May, I will move and delete the paragraph. Instead I will add trivia. --Bangabalunga 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think some of the customers for the 747-8 are well-supported. The 787-8F does have firm orders, but Boeing is not expecting orders for 747-8I until 2007. Starcity ai 07:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to delete the speculations about airliners changing from A380 to 747-8I, Emirates increased the A380 numbers actually. Due to the "freezing" of the A380F there were also no new 747-8F ordered. 84.130.231.123 13:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)LP

• I see no speculations. One statement in there says some airlines were considering switching their orders to 747-8F after A380 delays (with a reference). -Fnlayson 14:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, I'm again, sorry, but I see not more than a reference about Emirates and Virgin Atlantic (#4 Robertson, David. "Airbus will lose €4.8bn because of A380 delays ", The Times Business News, October 4, 2006.) None of them actually did so.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=mktw&guid=%7B36C4BA55%2D04B9%2D498C%2DAD80%2DBC596918E6C5%7D&link=&keyword=A380
http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/EMIRATES%20AIRLINE%20A380s.html
Are there any airlines thinking about to change to the 747-8 ? If not, that should be changed to the past form. If any, please refer to, thanks!.

In the Wikipedia article stays:
Background:
"Following delays to the A380 program some airlines have stated they are considering switching their orders to the 747-8.[4]"
Marketing and sales performance:
"Because of the delays of Airbus A380, some airlines are believed to be considering canceling or scaling down their orders of the A380 in favor of the Boeing 747-8.[4] While this remains true for certain customers, for the most part airlines that have purchased the Airbus A380 have increased their orders."

I will be happy if I see a reference for these certain customers, thanks again! Sorry, but I'm new in Wikipedia, so here is my time stamp and signature, --Cirrocumulus 20:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As of August 2007 there were no switches to the 747-8, and no reference to any airline supposed of doing that. I deleted this part of marketing and sales performance as it was obsolet. Cirrocumulus 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparison table?

Is it necessary? Also, it has some errors: The A380 uses the Trent 900. It also neglects the fact that the A380F is really a parcel hauler, whilt he 747-8I is really a heavy lifter. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, since it's not comparing anything useful (MTOW, without knowing empty, is pointless). ericg ✈ 00:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously put together by a Boeing fan with "little man " syndrome trying to deny Airbuses supremacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.4.102 (talk • contribs)

{{sofixit}}, then, if you have a more accurate comparison, or remove it entirely. Baseless (and equivalently pro-airbus 'little man') claims like yours don't get us anywhere. ericg ✈ 05:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Supremacy?? What a difference a few MONTHS makes. Oh, how the mighty are falling! -- BillCJ 00:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I also say this table has to go. --Bangabalunga 23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No winglets?

I notice that the -8 does not have the -400's winglets, which were supposed to help with fuel economy. Any aerodynamics experts in the house who'd like to comment on this? Was the envisioned fuel savings just not there? Is the -8 achieving the same result with different wing design? Akradecki 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

From the text:

Raked wingtips, similar to the ones currently on the 777-200LR and 777-300ER models and the 787-8 and 787-9 design, will replace the winglets on the 747-400. These structures help reduce the wingtip vortices at the lateral edges of the wings, decreasing wake turbulence and drag and thereby increasing fuel efficiency.

One can see the raked wingtips in the full version of the new Luththansa pic. - BillCJ 20:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The fuel savings were there, but winglets are a late-70s concept, while the raked wingtip is somewhat newer. Winglets also require more structure to ensure strength, as Airbus recently learned on the A320 series. Boeing's blended winglets seem to have seen more development, and the company is well known for having one of the best wing design groups in the world, so together with Aviation Partners they probably developed a winglet that added more than enough thrust to offset the weight. The 744's winglets did help with the economy, but raked wingtips will help more. It's the same kind of long-haul technology progression we saw with the switch to ETOPS twinjets. ericg ✈ 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

zero-fuel weights reversed?

Why is the zero-fuel weight of the 747-8F so much higher than that of the passenger version? Seems like these numbers might have been reversed. -- Mikeblas 02:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's correct... the important thing here is to understand maximum zero-fuel - it's the maximum weight of the aircraft without any fuel. Because the -8F is designed for capacity over range, more of the aircraft is devoted to cargo and less to fuel; therefore, the zero-fuel weight is higher (more cargo, less fuel) for the -8F than it is for the -8I. ericg ✈ 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

China Airlines

To whoever added China Airlines to the list of orders, do not add CI until either CI or Boeing has released a statement confirming the order. And even if you do so preemptively, at least put the right flag. China Airlines is of the Republic of China, not the People's Republic of China. --butterfly0fdoom 17:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should wait until official confirmation by the airlines or Boeing. There is speculation as cited here [2]. user:mnw2000 05:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Certificaton controversy?

From what I understand Boeing intend to use some of the certification of the first Boeing-747, the B747-100, a plane that was certified 1969, if they aren´t allowed it would cost a lot of extra money and could lead to delays? Are they similarities from the B747-100 and B747-800 enough to re-use some of the certificaton? RGDS Alexmcfire

They would more likely go off the previous -400 for the -8. Do you have an article or something that discribes this controversy? -Fnlayson 01:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's only a controversy in the mind of John Leahy. He's essentially upset that the A380 has had so many certification hoops to jump through (vortex separation being a big one) and he wants to have the 747-8 recertified from scratch. On the other hand, he's basically insinuated that it was a 40 year old airplane with outdated technology that won't benefit customers. Somehow, I don't think he'll be able to have it both ways. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks the explanation. Unless a civil avaition authority agrees, that should not be mentioned in this article, imo. -Fnlayson 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree this shouldn't go in the article. But wonder whether if the shoe was on the other foot how many people would want something added to the A380s Technical Concerns. IMHO the 747-8 should have a full certification, presumably modern regulations exist for a reason. Would you want to ride in a new car that was based an old chassis that didn't protect you in an accident because it was exempt from current regulations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.175.211 (talk • contribs)

• It's not exempt. It has to follow current regs for a derviative aircraft, not a new one. The new 787 article has some a Tech concerns section too. -Fnlayson 22:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a tech concern, but " Boeing 747-8 needs wake vortex tests" http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/20/215009/boeing-747-8-needs-wake-vortex-tests.html I think it would be common practice to test the real wake turbulence, because there is not a simple relation between weight or size and turbulence.--Cirrocumulus 20:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge with main 747 article

Why exactly is there a separate article for a variant of a Boeing model? I think this article should be merged with the main Boeing 747 article since there is a list of 747 variants there where I think this article really belongs to. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per above. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The 747-400, 747SP, and 747 LCF all have their own articles as well. The split was voted on in the 747 talk page. -Fnlayson 23:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, especially considering the length of the main 747 article and the extensive changes. ericg ✈ 02:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Takeoff and landing distance

Due to technical improvements I could imagine that the takeoff and landing distance hasn´t extended in comparison to the -400 model. Is that true? 84.173.223.230 22:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• The distances should be comparable to the previoud variant (-400ER). Design values should be available before long. -Fnlayson 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Plans to extend the length of the 747 were first discussed in 1972; it took 33 years before Boeing committed to a longer version, whereas plans to shorten the 747 were first discussed in 1973, and it took one year before a commitment to the 747SP was made.

So what? Its not sourced, its original research, its not notable and technically not really true (747-300 had a stretched top in 1980). Plenty of reasons not to stretch the 747 anyways and the 747SP was a flop.

Trivia is being depreciated in Wikipedia anyways: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. --Eqdoktor 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's not OR at all. A stretched upper deck is unrelated to overall fuselage length which is what's described. Avoid trivia says to avoid and minimize trivia, not get rid of it in a knee jerk. -Fnlayson 15:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You can put as many warning tags on it and what not - its still a "so what?" trivia. --Eqdoktor 15:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, but not necessarily everybody. -Fnlayson 23:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Delays?

Swedish media claim the B748 is delayed due to parts from Honeywell not working well, anyone knows anything more? RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Guggenheim

It looks to me like "Guggenheim Aviation Partners" should be Guggenheim Aero Finance Company . The "partners" name occurs in many Boeing entries on Wikipedia. Whoever is putting it in may want to check it. There is no such company as Guggenheim Aviation Partners, but aero finance has a web site http://www.guggenheimaerofinance.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.59.162 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Their web site says Guggenheim Partners at the notices at bottom and the web page label. -Fnlayson 16:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, but that's a non aviation-specific parent company for Aero Finance, as far as I can tell. I'm no expert, but I hit the link on the wiki page to "Aviation Partners" and saw it was not to a real company, and just was suggesting this is probably the correct one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.59.162 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • An internet search shows the Guggenheim Aviation Partners used in a lot of places. Guggenheim Aviation Partners is under Guggenheim Partners which is a subsidiary to Guggenheim Aero Finance Company per these Guggenheim web pages: Guggenheim Partners, GAP, Guggenheim aero Finance Company -Fnlayson 17:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported BBJ orders

More and more BBJ orders are showing up for the Intercontinental. There doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting the 2 orders in October and 1 order in November. Starcity ai 09:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Boeing Order and Delivery web pages shows the order of 4 747-8I by "Boeing Business Jet" [3] [4]. user:mnw2000 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They ordered at least three 747-8 with GE engines until October '06 [5] -> Select Boeing Business jet as customer, direct linking seems to be not possible --Denniss 22:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The place to see that there are four BBJ VIP 747 orders along with four BBJ VIP 787 orders, is at the summary page [6]. user:mnw2000 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That place does only show four 747 but no specific subtype as on the other report side. But it's somewhat safe to assume it's just another 747-8. --Denniss 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's well known that these orders are 747-8Is. It's a fact. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There are NO BBJ based on any Boeing 747 aircraft prior to the Boing 747-8I. All VIP 747 now in service are custom jobs that were customized by someone other than the BBJ division. That includes the two 747-200 that are now Air Force One. user:mnw2000 04:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that but you'll have to take my word on it. Traumatic (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

- Or look on Boeing's Orders & Deliveries web page. See 747 Orders summary. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

747-8 Intercontinental Possible Orders

Hello everyone. I recently added back a section that says who might order some 747s. Someone, I beilev Fnalyson, removed it, because they said it was too opinionated. Which I agrre with. So now I changed the wording, to say they might order 747 or 380s, but Fanlyson asked who's opinion. And to answer your question, Fnlayson, I do not believe it's anyone opinon. Those potential customers are ones who have jumbos in their fleet that will eventually need replacement. Others have other explanatiosns,added after then in parenthsis, but that is general reason for the list. I just think it is very interesting to see who might order it, and wikipedia is all about interesting facts. That's the beauty of it. Anyway, of course, my opinion doesn't count all that much so please discuss this topic here. Thanks. -By the way, Fnalyson, sorry for the wierd spellings of your name, I forgot how to spell it. (Edwardlay 21:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

• It is worded much better now. It needs a reference though. Uncited claims and speculation should be avoided. -Fnlayson 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Great. Glad we could agree. I'll work on it over the next month, getting the references. (Edwardlay 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC))
• Qantas, has ordered A380s contrary to what it says here.--Grahame (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Performance data too good for even an Imperial Star Destroyer!

>With an increased 422 ton maximum take-off weight, the freighter will be >able to move 155 tons of cargo more than 5,150 mi/8,260 km

I call this double bullshit. The american C5 Galaxy can carry 120 tons (in theory, restricted to 96 real tons due to structural problems). The russkie An-124 Condor can carry 150 metric tons of cargo and that plane is much more massive than the B-747. It is impossible to put 155 tons of junk into any kind of 747-based aircraft and make it fly. The value is surely bogus.

Otherwise, when flying with maximum cargo load onboard, no aircraft has a range beyond 2500 kilometers. In order to fly 5150nm, the B-747F8 would have to fly with a mere 30 tons or so of cargo. The An-225 Mriya has a mere 2000km flying distance when carrying the maximum 250 metric ton payload, because it cannot have full fuel tanks then.

The numerical data should be double-checked, it looks like Boeing daydreaming. 195.70.32.136 10:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to check your own figures, or at least the analysis. Boeing claims the 747-8F will max out at 140 metric tonnes (154 tons) of cargo. The A380-800F is specced for 158 tonnes, and the An-124 for 150 tonnes. Compare the engine specs - 747-8F, 4×296 kN; A380-800F, 4×340kN; An-124, 4×230kN. If you're going to doubt the 747-8F, which has an empty weight that's less than both of the others, you might as well doubt the A380-800F as well. Just being 'much more massive' doesn't mean that the payload capacity is higher. ericg ✈ 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you should re-think your position on this. The current 400F can carry almost 124 tons with a range of over 8200km. That is the current model, that customers do use now. Are you saying they send the planes out with 25% capacity to make its range? Range numbers are given at max payload. 206.45.164.74 01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually the 400ERF is the current model. Payload is a hair higher with range about 10% higher.[7] -Fnlayson 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The 747 freighter in general is designed to trade off fuel vs payload. You can choose to fill the tanks to the max and carry less payload, or carry as much payload as the decks will withstand and only carry enough fuel to take you 4500 miles. To some extent, the passenger model lets you do that, too, but if we assume that no passenger plus bags weigh more than 300 pounds, a full passenger airplane is (747-400) 416 people x 300 pounds = 62.4 tons. So the passenger version of 747, even with every seat occupied, isn't carrying nearly as much payload as the freighter, which means its range is greater. As a caveat, note that we assume the fully loaded 747 is operating from a field that can handle maximum deck weight. Raryel (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the list has its own article?

Why does the list of orders have it own article? Please refer to List of Boeing 747-8 orders. I would recommend that this is merge or deleted. It is the same information in the same place. AdmRiley (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Somebody thought it'd be a good idea, I guess. There's not enough order activity to need to it, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well since we have atleast some kind of consensus on this and no one else has opposed this for more than a year, perhaps we could go ahead with the merge? Vedant (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Good move. There was no opposition. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Heaviest?

"The 747-8 is the heaviest aircraft ever offered by a United States aircraft producer, commercial or military." This sentence is followed by a reference to the C-5 Galaxy fact sheet; however, that fact sheet doesn't support the claim made in the sentence. All it does is show that the C-5 Galaxy is lighter than the 747-8. I don't know the standard procedure for things like this; should we switch back to the fact tag until we find a better reference, or what? -- CPColin (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentence only says the 747-8 is the heaviest (takeoff weight) US aircraft. The MTOW for the 747-8 is referenced later in this article and I provided a note and reference for the next highest weight aircraft (C-5). That should be more than sufficient. It's not like there's a bunch of aircraft in this size range. A fact tag would not the proper tag now anyway, more like a vs one. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. "Heaviest aircraft ever offered..." is a substantial claim to make. Pointing out one aircraft that is lighter than the 747-8 is not enough to support it. -- CPColin (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• OK, "offered" was too broad and not accurate anyway. Boeing has put heavier 747 variant designs (-500X/600X/700X) out to gauge interest in the 1990s. That might have been an offer to sale. So I changed the wording to "ordered". -Fnlayson (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• "Offered" wasn't the part I was worried about; it's the "heaviest aircraft ever" part. Unless we find a source that clearly states something like, "the 747-8 is the heaviest aircraft ever offered by/ordered from a U.S. aircraft producer," the sentence might as well be unsourced altogether. -- CPColin (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fnlayson, please explain to me how the source given supports the claim that "the 747-8 will be the heaviest aircraft, commercial or military, manufactured in the United States," because I honestly can't see the same conclusion being made on that page. That page doesn't even mention the 747-8, which makes the sentence in the article original research, doesn't it? -- CPColin (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is covered in that sentence and in the current reference no. 13. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It really isn't. That source says, "The current ranking of the world's largest aircraft by maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) is shown in the following table." It makes no claims on what is or isn't "the heaviest aircraft, commercial or military, manufactured in the United States." It even lists an incorrect MTOW for the 747-8. Please clear this up for me, because I'm not seeing anything but original research here. -- CPColin (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is with some basic info. The Boeing 747 & 777 and Lockheed C-5 are the only US planes in the table on the aerospaceweb page. The Airbus planes are European; the An-225 and An-124 are Soviet/Russian. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Longest aircraft

"The 747-8 is a development of the Boeing 747, which takes advantage of improvements in technology and aerodynamics. The two variants of the 747-8 were launched in 2005, and as of 2006 will both feature a fuselage stretch of 18.3 ft (5.6 m) over the 747-400, bringing the total length to 250 ft 2½ in (76.4 m). The stretch would mean that the 747-8 would be the world's longest airliner, surpassing the Airbus A340-600 by 1.1 meters."

This is wrong. Nor 747-800, nor A340-600 are the longest airliner. Antonov An-225 An_225 is 84m long or around 8 meters longer than 747-800. Duosoul (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess that depends on one's definition of "airliner". Some people mean "passenger airliner" when they say "airliner", and I suspect that's the case here. Would adding "passenger" to the contested sentence satisfy your query? - BillCJ (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I added "passenger" before airliner as you suggested. That's better anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Longer upper deck?

Is the 747-8 going to have a longer upper deck than the 400? I mean, is it going to extend further back on the plane? The early 747's had a shorter upper deck. It seems like they've gradually crept further and further back over time. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Previously there were 2-3 upper deck lengths. The -8 will have a longer upper deck with its longer fuselage. Good question. That needed to be added to the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Hang on, the answer depends on how one defines "further back." The upper deck will be longer on the passenger version due to the stretch ahead of the wing relative to the -400, but will still terminate in the same location over the wingbox as on the -400. To put it simply, they updated a -400 and added sections fore and aft. Mgw89 (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo caption

If the caption is going to mention Lufthansa, then I insist it says "Lufthansa is currently the only airline customer..." To say "Lufthansa is the launch customer" is MISLEADING. It implies there are other customers. I don't consider business jet customers ordering one aircraft to be significant. In the eyes of the average reader a customer means an airline. 128.232.242.178 (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What you suggest is misleading as well. There are several VIP orders for 747-8I also. The orders situation is covered a couple places in the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Korean Air just became the second airline customer for the 747-8 passenger version. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSGEE5B312Y20091204?type=marketsNews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.181.196.151 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Korean Air Orders

There seems to be some confusion about the number of 747-8Fs Korean Air has on order. Up until the announcement of the 747-8I order, the airline was noted as having 5 -8Fs on order, and this is indeed what the December 28 2006 order was for - see http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q4/061229a_nr.html. When the -8I order was announced, it was noted in the Boeing press release that "Korean Air already has arrangements to operate seven 747-8 Freighters." However, a quick check of Boeing's order and delivery reports says that Korean Air only has 5 -8Fs on order as of the end of November. Thus, the order on December 28, 2006, should stand at 5 aircraft. If you note the language of the Boeing press release, it says "has arrangements to operate seven" as opposed to "has ordered seven" 747-8Fs. This would suggest the 2 aircraft on top of the 5 ordered on December 28 2006 will be leased. Atlas Air, Guggenheim Aviation Partners and Dubai Aerospace Enterprise all have 747-8Fs on order and are involved in leasing aircraft. I can't find any reference to any of them leasing 2 747-8Fs to Korean Air, although often these deals are not well publicised until the delivery of the aircraft. Further, the press release for Korean Air's 747-8I order states "With the addition of the Korean Air order, Boeing has secured 110 orders for the 747-8. Thirty-two of the orders are for the 747-8 Intercontinental, and the remaining 78 are for the 747-8 Freighter." This agrees with Korean Air having 5 747-8Fs on order, not 7.

Bearing all this in mind, I am reverting the edits made which say Korean Air ordered 7 747-8Fs on December 28, 2006 to say that they ordered 5 such aircraft on that date, as per all available references. If anyone can find a reference which says Korean Air ordered 7 aircraft on that date, then please supply it and update the table. If the 2 aircraft were ordered at a later date, they should have their own entry in the table, rather than the December 28, 2006 entry. However, I expect we'll find they are not in fact ordered by Korean, but by another company. --Nick Moss (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the diligent work. I missed the operated/ordered distinction. I had guessed KA recently modified their previous order to add the 2 more -8Fs. But leasing is a much more plausible reason. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

747-8F launch customer

The table of orders shows both Cargolux and Nippon Cargo Airlines as launch customers for the 747-8F. Surely this can't be right? Planes aren't usually launched with joint launch customers (787 launch customer is All Nippon, A380 launch customer was Singapore, 777 launch customer was United, etc). All of what I've read on this plane indicates that Cargolux is the launch customer for the 747-8F, no mention of Nippon Cargo. Should this be changed? C628 (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You must not have readSee the Boeing release for those in the order table then. Both companies are mentioned and it has an image for each. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but this (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/background.html), also from Boeing, says "first airline in service" will be Cargolux, nothing about Nippon Cargo. "First airline in service" sounds awfully like launch customer to me. C628 (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

747 Model Orders and Deliveries summary lists both ordering the -8F on Nov. 15, 2005. But the launch announcement (ref. 12) that I referred to above, stated Cargolux would put the -8F into service about 3 months (1 quarter) sooner than Nippon Cargo. I guess that's still the case on deliveries. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Total Orders

Fnlayson, thanks for changing my edit to -8F cancellations to a separate row in the table, I should've done that when I changed it, but I think your order totals are off by -2; can you explain the discrepancy between the totals and the amount I get from adding up orders in the table? C628 (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and change those to the orders I get from adding up the orders in the table, as that makes sense to me; if you have a different opinion let me know. Thanks. C628 (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I just subtracted 2 from both the -8F total and overall total. It probably should be 32 for -8I, 76 for -8F and 108 overall now. It was 32/78/110 after KA's order just before GAP's reduction. Hopefully the sum of the numbers in the table match. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just changed it to that, as well as reducing the number of purchase rights that didn't match up. Good to know I wasn't missing something. C628 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks for catching that. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

First Flight?

Hi, It doesn't say the planned first flight date in the box, could anyone add it? Jianqing01 (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Jianqing01

WP:BOLD raseaC^{talk to me} 14:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That field is not supposed to be used for projections. Anything added needs to be referenced at least. I know first flight is soon, but have not seen a date in the aviation media. Boeing has not mentioned a date in recent press releases. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Raked wingtips on the 747-8

Hi, I'm the person who made the edit about the raked wingtips of the 747-8 being more similar to those of the 787-8 and -9, being both raked and curved, rather than those of the 777-300ER and 777-200LR, which are raked but flat (not curved). If the article is to have this level of all-inclusiveness in scope relating to comparisons of the wingtips, then I think it would make sense to also include the wingtips of the 767-400ER in the comparison, which are also flat and raked, and from which those of the 777-300ER and 777-200LR are actually derived. These type of flat raked wingtips were originally designed for the 767-400ER and entered service with it in 2000. In the early stages of the 787 program, when it was still known as the 7E7, early designs for that aircraft also called for similar flat raked wingtips, but they were eventually abandoned in favor of the new raked and curved wingtips. The flat version did go on to be used on the -300ER and -200LR versions of the 777, but when the 747-8 was developed Boeing opted for the curved variety used on the -8 and -9 version of the 787 (the 787-3 uses a type of upright raked winglet somewhat but not closely similar to those found on newer versions of the 737-700 -800 and -900). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.3.184 (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Boeing dropping the i out of 747-8 Interncontinental

I have been noticing that Boeing no longer seems be calling the passenger variant the 747-8i, but instead just 747-8. Has anyone else been seeing it, I will scan the news for the last few months to see if anything official has been said. Maybe as it gets closer to final assembly we will know more. JhanJensen (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Range fully loaded

The spec sheet says "range fully loaded," which is true for the 748F, but not for the passenger model. Passenger a/c are given in "range at MTOW," where you fill max fuel and see how much stuff you can still pack in. I'm going to switch it to "range," disambiguating it by model. Mgw89 (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

British Airways World Cargo leasing -8Fs

British Airways World Cargo announcement says they are leasing 3 747-8Fs. These will be leased indirectly from Atlas Air, which has 12 freighters on order from Boeing. This is not new aircraft order and should not be added to the Orders section. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Caption of "Artist's rendering of the Boeing 747-8F during cruise portion of flight"

This aircraft has slats and flaps deployed. The aircraft is hardly in the "cruise portion of flight". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.251.130 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed - we dont really need photoshoped images. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

2 Orders for GECAS (General Electrics Capital Aviation Services) at PAS 2011

Two 747-8F's were ordered by GECAS at Farnborough 2011, as referenced here. I did noticed the two unidentified orders and was not certain if this was them and did not want to add incorrect orders as I could not confirm or deny the existence of the unidentified order myself or even whether the GECAS order was for these as they were made near the time of the Paris Air Show.--Evipci (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you really read this page? Where on earth do you see the Gecas order reported as firm ? Those two recently reported -8 may or may not be from Gecas, it's not up to us to speculate. --Denniss (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Does not seem likely they are the same customer. Boeing announced GECAS's agreement to buy 2 -8Fs on June 20, then the next day announced a firm order for 2 from an undisclosed customer the next day. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Design: what has /not/ changed

I tried to bring forward the idea that there is a lot of commonality between the -8 and the -400 (and the classics). My edit (#466858581) was reverted (I guess I’m not quite so adroit with text edits yet) but it’s definitely something we should mention in the "Design" section. A lot of compromise comes from the fact that the -8 uses the same landing gear that the classic had on its first flight some 40 years ago. The same goes with the fuselage. Adapting existing design elements to increase commonality is an integral part of aircraft design and in this regard mentioning what has not changed would be an worthwhile addition. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The text, especially details needs reference(s). Otherwise it looks a bit like original research. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My edit (as in the exact text I attempted to add) is not what I am talking about here. Ariadacapo (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh OK. Some text saying what was not changed or carried over from the -400/-400ER would be a good thing add. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100#Vote_on_flag_removal

This voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. Tagremover (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Lufthansa buying both 747-8i & Airbus A380

It's curious that Lufthansa is the only airline to buy both, and worth an analysis in the article if any facts are known - is it related to the terminals they use ? Rcbutcher (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. This is probably not the best place to ask, since talk pages are not general discussion forums. It would be better to ask this kind of question on the Airliners.net forums. —Compdude¹²³ 04:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring specifically to improving this and similar articles, not the topic in general - reasons why certain purchase decisions were made, if known, are more useful and interesting than just a list of numbers. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't a Chinese airline order a few 747-8Is?

I remember reading sometime back that a Chinese airline (Air China, I think) ordered several Boeing 747-8 Intercontinentals (the passenger version). But that's not listed in the orders section of the article. Why not? -Compdude123 (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Air China has to get Chinese government's approval before the order can be finalized. This is mentioned near the bottom of the "747-8 Intercontinental" variant section. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying. This should be mentioned in the orders section, too. I'm going to copy that text to the orders section. -Compdude123 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the Boeing website AirChina finally had the order approved and firmed up.Rockford1963 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, listing which web page would've helped. The news releases page does not list anything yet. But the recent orders page does list an order for 5 by Air China. Either way it'll show up on the 747 order & deliveries page early next month. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

747-8 FMS VNAV problems

Can anyone shed light on the current certification problems regarding the FMS and VNAV profile's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.164.33.104 (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I may be an airplane geek, but I guess I'm not geeky enough... —Compdude123 (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I am guessing FMS is flight management system and VNAV is for visual navigation. I doubt if there are any real issues left since the -8F and -8I have both been certified. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about such certification issues on 747-8, but VNAV stands for Vertical NAVigation, and this is not a guess. RobertoRMola (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Transaero

Transaero "agreement" never materialized into a firm order and I believe should be removed from article unless other contributors have inside information to the contrary. It appears this was an order to curry favor with Airbus to get a better price on the A380 but was never a serious agreement. Thoughts???

Korean Air's order for 5 more 747-8Is at the 2013 Paris air show

Under your orders and agreements chart, you fail to mention that Korean Airlines made a firm order with Boeing to purchase 5 more 747-8is. This brings their total order to ten -8i aircraft. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 747-8info (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 October 2013‎ (UTC)

That is not yet a firm order according to Boeing's orders & delivery page. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit from previously:

Korean air have finalised the orders for five more 747-8 aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.107.141 (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Right, that was added to this article 2-3 days ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Orders and deliveries

I think I saw the usual orders and deliveries table by year. But can't see it now. Could someone please create it? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Passenger capacity

Why does the 747-8 claim to have a passenger capacity of 605, when the much smaller 747-400 variant had a greater capacity of 660pax? The 747-8 can hold 51 more passengers, meaning at least 711 pax, but 51 more is a 3 class figure, so surely single class it can hold up to somewhere around 740? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 747-8info (talk • contribs) 14:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Aviation regulations limit max seating to the number of people that can be evacuated in a period of time (90 sec, I think). 605 is probably all they tested for. Besides, the higher seating for the 747-400 was only used on the -400D domestic version for short commuter flights by Japanese airlines. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The 747-400D was the domestic variant. the only differences were lack of wingtip extentions and winglets, a stronger upper deck floor and removal of the galley for more seats upstairs, hence the additional couple of rows of windows. The -400D was by no means larger. Meanwhile, the 747-8 is much larger yet has a much lower single class capacity figure. Why would Boeing only test for 605 pax when they knew certain airlines may want over 700 for another potential -8D? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 747-8info (talk • contribs) 19:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If there's a big market for a high-density -8D version Boeing would be selling it already. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Doors are the limiting factor. The 747-8i has 5 type-A-doors and one smaller type-C-door upstairs on each side. A type A door allows for 110 pax each according to FAR25 8xx, a type C for 55, that makes 5x110+55=605. The 660 pax were a special permission from the japanese authorities. And BTW: neither the upper deck nor the nose section would be certifiable under todays current rules. regards, 89.204.138.20 (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-neutral wording - written by Boeing's PR department?

Looking at (say) the Boeing 747-8F section, all but one of the twelve references are from Boeing PR sources, apart from one which notes that Boeing freighters are being sent for storage in the desert. If Boeing really holds such a dominant position in the global freight market, perhaps it would be best to source our statements from an independent origin? --Pete (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. That text has been reworded to be more neutral. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is this stuff not being included?

Why has information regarding cancelled orders of Emirates cargo/DAE and Guggenheim removed or not been mentioned, nor the MOU of Hong Kong Airlines, why aren't BA Cargo, DHL and Panalpina being listed as they are operating in their own liveries be it through Atlas, Polar cargo and Global Supply, why cant the VIP jets operators be listed in here all have been delieverd, none of the above is trivia and can be included in a concise manner.

By the way is it confirmed Arik have converted their order to 773ER? 115.167.86.79 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Boeing still lists the Arik Air order here (evidently the order change has not been finalized). The table only lists firm orders confirmed by Boeing. Notable agreements and letters of intent are listed in article text, such as the 'Sales and marketing' section. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

- The other operators were removed because the main source, Flight International does not list them as being operators. Most of the sources used to cite these additions do not appear to be reliable sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Info was readded. I fixed the formatting and tried to clarify who was operating for whom. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/boeing-747-8/

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Concensus on table listing former and current operators

Fnlayson wants a concensus wether article should have the small operators table, which he calls large and keeps removing, many articles have multiple tables, whats the problem with having a small one in this article, please add your views, the manner is which operators have been listed with an almost year old reference is just unacceptable when it can be better. So Support or Oppose.175.110.250.59 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the current/former operators are listed at List of Boeing 747 operators so we dont need to repeat the information, as usual a summary of the current operators is fine. Although not relevant to the question being asked the fact the reference is "old" does not really matter as it is a reliable reference and the data will get updated when Flight publish a new census, remember this is an encyclopedia it doesnt have to be current just reliably referenced at a point in time (loads of enthusiast websites track operators delivery and movements daily if users are that interested but it is not the role of an encyclopedia). MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment but other 747 model specific articles have their own separate list of operators, see Boeing 747-400 and Boeing 747SP. Much rather find the information in the aircraft article more so an unpopular aircraft model with just a handful of operators, rather than browse a long list and look up each and every place to see who operates the type.175.110.250.59 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't feel another table is needed here. A paragraph on the -8 operators works well and is sufficient. A bulleted list of operators like at McDonnell Douglas MD-90#Operators is simpler and would be OK. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment the bulleted version was added here, you deleted it, it was better than the MD-90 one with no flags and in two columns, spread enough to be balanced with width of the order table and not look unsightly in the article as a whole, the MD-90 list pales in comparison. 175.110.250.59 (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• The code must have looked like a table then. One column should be fine for this. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No it did not look that way, infact it would look terrible as a single column one. 175.110.250.59 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Why another table in order and delivery section totally unecessary, when one for operators was rejected. double standards. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Category F vs Category E ?

"The increased wing span makes the 747-8 a Category F plane rather than a Category E plane, similar to the Airbus A380". Can we have a footnote on what this means and its implications please, otherwise they're meaningless words to the average reader like me. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of latest information

This is bizzare why cant an article have monthly updates, removing Air China and Slik way, you dont own it and its not going to be accepted. 139.190.165.153 (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The orders and deliveries table is already being updated almost every month; the delivered numbers seems to convey much of the same info. The updates to the numbers for each operator can be inaccurate without source(s) for each's total. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

747-8 (without "i")

Dear Denniss (talk) how am I supposed to provide a reference for something that is not used anymore? Boeing uses on all recent releases either full "747-8 Intercontinental" or just "747-8" for the passenger version. If you don't believe it, I can give you examples: [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] All are official Boeing releases and none uses 747-8i as designation, in the first two just "747-8" is used for the passenger version and 747-8F for the freighter and in the third 747-8 Intercontinental is used. So thats what should be used in this article as well.SideshowBob7 (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of evidence they still use intercontinental and that's what the "i" is supposed to stand for. They often use just 747-8 or 747-8 freighter instead of -8f, shall we drop using the -8f designation as well? Changing the article use would actually add confusion instead of improving it.--Denniss (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Boeing frequently uses full "747-8 Intercontinental" but whenever they use a shortcut it's "747-8" for the passenger version. See the first two links I provided, where 747-8F by the way is used as official designation for the freighter. Since Boeing isn't using 747-8I, I don't see why it should be used here!SideshowBob7 (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Still those examples are not proof that the 747-8I was renamed to 747-8 as you are claiming in article text. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• I removed the -I as Boeing is not using it anymore (see Boeing website and recent press releases). I also don't see what would be confusing about 747-8 for passneger and 747-8F for freighters because exactly this naming scheme has been used for the 747-400 for decades. 134.96.199.57 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I've restored them. You've no consensus for these changes, and no sources have been submitted that the -8i was renamed. - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• No one has provided a source that says -8 has actually replaced -8I. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In your edit summary You claim there are sources that 747-8I is used. If that is so than please be so free to show me one recent official Boeing document where they use 747-8I and I will immediately stop! Otherwise it's pretty obvious that it's not used anymore, as can be seen in the examples provided above and demanding another source for that is just ridicolous; See: [11] ._ 134.96.74.162 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The recent 747 press releases refer to the passenger version as "747-8 Intercontinental". These two Boeing pages (747 BG updated c.2013, AERO article, 2010) do list "747-8I". -Fnlayson (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Air Force One

I've heard that they have ordered a 747-8 to replace the 747-200 Air Force One. Is that true? Andrepoiy (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Look in the "Presidential aircraft" section. Check the references there or look on most any news site. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed infobox image change

I propose changing the infobox image to this image of a Lufthansa 747-8i:

The reason for the proposed change include:

• higher resolution image
• in-service production version, not prototype as in first image
• faces article text correctly

If needed, my proposed image may be cropped for use in the infobox. Is this a good change or not? Kai Tak 14:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• I dont have a problem with your suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

They´re also the largest operator of the type. 89.15.239.204 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Highest aircraft gross weight production cargo airplane?

The 747-8F would seem to have displaced the Antonov An-124 Ruslan as the "world's highest aircraft gross weight production cargo airplane." Is this true, and if so, should this be in the lede? Fanyavizuri (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Only if reported by reliable sources. The An-124 article says that the production has been suspended, not permanently ended. Since the fact is only going to be temporary, it probably shouldn't be in the lead. AHeneen (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the 777 really larger in terms of passengers carried that the 747?

Look at this article: http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/080715/boeing-says-747-no-longer-its-biggest-jet-ba.aspx?partner=YahooSA&ref=yfp The article states that the largest 777 planned will carry more than the 747-8. However, its seat count looks close to the 424 or so carried by the 747-400 in 3-class configuration. The 747-8 carries 467 in 3 classes. Does the article assume that the 747-8 has been reconfigured for two classes, with business class significantly expanded (and therefore many fewer economy seats provided?) I did not want to use this citation for updating the 747 page without adequate references and citations. I'm looking around, but if anybody has good references and wants to incorporate this, feel free. Raryel (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No. It´s just a shoddy piece of "journalism". Seat count is not determined by PR-agencies, but by authorities. Limiting factor is availability and size/type of doors, and the maximum for any 777 with 5 type-A-doors is 550 pax. Limit for the 747-8i is 605 due to the additional type-C-door on the upper deck. regards, 89.204.138.20 (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible GA?

Would any editor be interested with taking this article to Good Article status together? I have tagged some text as needing citations and needing update (parts of the article look like they were written before the aircraft or a specific variant entered service), and fixed quite a few dead references in the article (there are still several that need to be replaced). Once these are fixed the article should be good to go. ssт✈^(discuss) 14:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yawn. Nobody interested? sst✈^(discuss) 09:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"Outdated" tag

@Fnlayson: I added the tag to the section because it is apparent that parts of the article were written before the aircraft or variant has entered service, such as "The 747-8F is to have more payload capacity but less range than the current 747-400ERF" (implying that the 747-8F is not yet in service) and "as a consequence, this area will not have windows" (implying that the 747-8 Intercontinental is not yet in service). These are only a few examples of clearly outdated text and need to be rewritten with new sources or removed completely. I have re-added the tag for now; please do not remove the tag before addressing these issues. sst✈^discuss 08:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I did not see specific reason(s) before on what are the problem(s). Reason(s) can be added in tags like these to clarity. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Transaero Airlines bankruptcy

Hello.

Transaero Airlines went bankrupt and the Russian government is shutting it down on October 26th. This should mean that their order is cancelled. Can someone confirm if this is correct and then update the orders list?

Thanks.

24.86.109.134 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not that simple as you imply. An order is a contract and there are terms for canceling, such as penalty fees. Boeing still has this order listed on its 747 orders and deliveries page as of Dec 2016. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

But if there is no money to purchase the aircraft, I seriously doubt Boeing will be shipping them over. Has the Russian Federation agreed to fulfill the order? 104.169.39.45 (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well it usually costs something to sign a contract or to break a contract. The completed aircraft for Transaero were transferred to the 747 Presidential aircraft program (see text in article). Boeing no longer lists an order for Transaero Airlines at Boeing 747 orders & deliveries page as of January 2018. -Finlayson (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I rather doubt that Russia will pay any penalties considering all the sanctions we have on them. They will just say go pound sand. 151.203.70.159 (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Fair points, but this is a commercial sale. The Russian government is not involved unless it owned Transaero (in part or whole). -Fnlayson (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Unjustified information "Entry into service and future prospects"?

The following statement has no source, and I personaly doubt the truth:

"Airlines bought the 747 primarily for its range, not its capacity, and the potential for unfilled seats was an accepted drawback. The advent of the long-range twin-engine jet, exemplified by the Boeing 777, took away the range advantage."

Really? Wasn't/isn't the capacity very important? A huge part was/is doing US east-west-coast and transatlantic which is far from the range capacity of the 747.

Isn't it rather unusual to add preliminary orders to the table

For other aircraft, like the A380, even orders with named parties (Iran 12 A380s) are not added until the order is firm. The last line in the orders table on this page seems to be based only on a preliminary order with no named customer. Chann94501 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It is an unnamed customer and listed as a firm order by Boeing here. Where does that article or other source say this is a preliminary order? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Currency

I've tagged the article as needing updating. Lots of it is fine, but parts have a number of places where it's telling us what was happening as of 2010 or whenever. Editors in the know could presumably sort this out so that the article just tells us what happened rather than what was intended to happen and might have done so? :) Thanks DBaK (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Transaero canceled orders?

Should the four cancelled planes ordered by Transaero be included? Two were built, and they are apparently being sold to the US Air Force for use as Air force one(s).104.163.142.4 (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This will be updated with supporting sources. Boeing has updated their sources for this; the order(s) for the "Unidentified Customer(s)" has increased to 3 here as of July 25. -14:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)