Hmmmm Mine seems to fly okay ;)

One thing that is interesting is it doesn't seem to have the high wing flex that was predicted. This would make the PMDG adaption of the 747-8i inaccurate, which has a pretty severe wing flex like the 787 does.

One thing that is interesting is it doesn't seem to have the high wing flex that was predicted. This would make the PMDG adaption of the 747-8i inaccurate, which has a pretty severe wing flex like the 787 does.

I don't think any observations/conclusions on wing flex during this initial, light weight (presumably), conservative "first flight" as to wing flex would be possible to make. I'm sure that at MTOW the wings will exhibit nearly identical behavior. Recall also, that PMDG indeed has the "inside track" with Boeing - I'm certain they have modeled the animation accurately.Cheers!

I don't think any observations/conclusions on wing flex during this initial, light weight (presumably), conservative "first flight" as to wing flex would be possible to make. I'm sure that at MTOW the wings will exhibit nearly identical behavior. Recall also, that PMDG indeed has the "inside track" with Boeing - I'm certain they have modeled the animation accurately.Cheers!

A light weight plane would flex even more, as there would be less weight holding the wings down. It's probably the weight of the 2 extra engines that is causing the plane not to flex as much as the 787. Remember Boeings predictions are based on simulations, this is the first real look at the way the aircraft really behaves.

A light weight plane would flex even more, as there would be less weight holding the wings down. It's probably the weight of the 2 extra engines that is causing the plane not to flex as much as the 787. Remember Boeings predictions are based on simulations, this is the first real look at the way the aircraft really behaves.

Er, not so on the 'light-plane, more flex' idea. Actually quite the reverse - full (fuel) wings will 'droop' noticeably (6+ feet) on the ramp and raise a like amount once airborne for a >12 foot swing, as a rough example.Also, I'd like to think (actually, pretty certain :( ) that Boeing's computer modelling is sufficiently sophisticated to account for the effect of an extra engine per wing compared to the 787. I'd wager they'd accurately modeled the 'flex' down to the inch well before the first flight...such is the power of modern CAD/CAM!All just IMHO, of course, :( Cheers!

Er, not so on the 'light-plane, more flex' idea. Actually quite the reverse - full (fuel) wings will 'droop' noticeably (6+ feet) on the ramp and raise a like amount once airborne for a >12 foot swing, as a rough example.Also, I'd like to think (actually, pretty certain :( ) that Boeing's computer modelling is sufficiently sophisticated to account for the effect of an extra engine per wing compared to the 787. I'd wager they'd accurately modeled the 'flex' down to the inch well before the first flight...such is the power of modern CAD/CAM!All just IMHO, of course, :( Cheers!

When the 787 first took off it had the noticeable wing flex that we all expected. For some reason the 748 didn't. If you are right about the light weight vs heavy weight wing flex behavior, then the PMDG model is still inaccurate, as it flexes the same light or heavy! In fact it flexes earlier with a light fuel load wing.

hi All, i noticed the same thing too regarding the wing flex. in the videos that i've seen the wing appears to be fully flexed "upward" b4 the A/C breaks ground. the wings shouldn't be fully flexed upward until the wings is supporting the entire weight of the A/C. perhaps i'm wrong. just mho.happy flyin, Tim Wheeler

For me, I think we are extremely lucky that we have an simulation of an aircraft that hasn't yet worked as it will do in the near future.PMDG have provided us with that with the information they have aquired and everybody should be grateful In my opinion.If, they decide to issue a patch to change the wing flex behaviour some time in the future, we will all benefit by it. If they don't, that is okay, we still have a great, wonderful sounding and visually awesome simulation that I, and most other people are more than happy with.

Passing Mt Rainier on Monday

Passing Mt Rainier on Monday

Dang, badaboom, you've done it again - what a shot! Fast becoming my favorite livery - what a beautiful aircraft...and that new wing.Also, pretty decent example of some noticeable wing-flex - just like on my PMDG 747-8F!Cheers!

Dang, badaboom, you've done it again - what a shot! Fast becoming my favorite livery - what a beautiful aircraft...and that new wing.Also, pretty decent example of some noticeable wing-flex - just like on my PMDG 747-8F!Cheers!

That pic shows the same wing flex seen on the takeoff, and landing videos. Which is no different then the wing flex of a 747-400, not the up slope wing flex like the 787 had, the pre flight information and photos for the 747-8 or what the PMDG model demonstrates. There are many comments about this also on the web, so it's not just me that has noticed this. Since the purpose of the up slope wing flex is meant to have the effect of a natural winglet which increases fuel efficiency the lack of it, may ultimately affect Boeing's estimates on the range of the aircraft.Tom

Anyone else notice the stabilizer rocking at landing? For such a soft landing, I was surprised it rocked that much. Maybe PMDG needs to start modeling stabilizer or tail section flex.Jeff P.

That pic shows the same wing flex seen on the takeoff, and landing videos. Which is no different then the wing flex of a 747-400, not the up slope wing flex like the 787 had, the pre flight information and photos for the 747-8 or what the PMDG model demonstrates. There are many comments about this also on the web, so it's not just me that has noticed this. Since the purpose of the up slope wing flex is meant to have the effect of a natural winglet which increases fuel efficiency the lack of it, may ultimately affect Boeing's estimates on the range of the aircraft.Tom

Tom! Well, we've got half-a-name from you (we post full names on this Forum). :( Oh, man. Where to begin? Um, yeah, a few of armchair aeronautical engineers (not sure how to quantify "many") about this supposed lack of wing flex. I'm just not seeing what you are seeing - hey, that happens.But the "leap in logic" to possible fuel economy issues - yikes! That's where - sometimes - these forums can get, well, a little silly :( . There is just no basis for such a conclusion.Consider from Aviation Week: "...not part of the early test phase, fuel consumption was noted to be significantly lower compared to the 747-400, says the crew. Although flying in 'off-nominal' configurations for low fuel burn with flaps and gear down or combinations of different flight surfaces deployed, Feuerstein and Imrich both commented that the burn rate was "noticeably" different."Fuel burn improvements of as much as 15-17% over the 747-400 are expected from the new wing and engines of the 747-8, and testing for cruise efficiency will be a critical element of the performance testing later in the program. "I didn't even look at fuel flow until we were well into the flight," says Feuerstein."Joking with ground engineers monitoring the flight in the telemetry room at Boeing Field, Feuerstein said at the time of the crew's decision to return to land that "we've got enough gas for another eight hours." The aircraft took off at a take-off weight of 630,000 lb, of which some 130,000 lb was fuel -- well below its maximum fuel capacity and around two-thirds of its design maximum take-off weight of 975,000 lb."Feuerstein says 20 deg. flap was used and rotation was at "about 152 knots" with the landing made some three hours and 39 minutes later using 25 deg flap and touchdown at 151 kt." Source Aviation Week Pilots Say New 747 Handles Like The Original .So, bottom-line, I think the 1000's of engineers and test pilots at Boeing are on top of all parameters and further, all parameters (from the people who'd know - not from those looking at a short video and a couple of 'stills', of an aircraft in "non-nominal" configuration and 345,000 lbs. light!) are meeting or exceeding targets.Tom, I think your seeing (or not seeing) waaaay too much here.Just IMHO, and all that.As G7 mentioned, and badaboom has shown, we're all just enjoying this great new aircraft and the awesome model PMDG has offered. To my untrained eye?...it looks perfect!Cheers!

Interesting article and pics of the second 747-8 RC521 that they opened up to the press.check out the water ballast barrels,this baby is meant to be loaded HEAVY!!!http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/comme...mentId=blogDest

Yep, 975,000 lbs of heavy! (Man, why not a 1,000,000 lbs?? Maybe that'll be an extra-cost upgrade...the High Gross Weight version! :( )