Can't wait. Credit card ready!!

Ollie will you be purchasing the 747-800 or the 747-8?  I'm torn between the two and was hoping you could help sway me towards one or the other

I reckon we will see at least something before the end of the month.

 

Not saying which month though.

Ollie will you be purchasing the 747-800 or the 747-8?  I'm torn between the two and was hoping you could help sway me towards one or the other

 

Seeing that the -800 doesn't exist, I'm guessing you're stuck with the -8 as the only choice 

I would think you need to buy the 747-400 as the base then the 8....yes 8 not 800 is like the 300 addon to the 777.

I'm still scratching my head as to why Boeing decided to name all the new types -8, -9 and so on. When the two company-specific digits are added it becomes 747-830 or 747-8B5. The 787 type description however usually stays 787-8 or 787-9. Someone even asked me the other day whether the 747-8 and 747-8i are two different aircraft...way to confuse people, Boeing  ...

Pure marketing.  Engineering, design and some assembly is in the home town but don't forget the paper pushers all moved to Chicago..., they moved their head away from their soul.

I'm still scratching my head as to why Boeing decided to name all the new types -8, -9 and so on. When the two company-specific digits are added it becomes 747-830 or 747-8B5. The 787 type description however usually stays 787-8 or 787-9. Someone even asked me the other day whether the 747-8 and 747-8i are two different aircraft...way to confuse people, Boeing  ...

 

My guess, like Dan's is marketing. I'm guessing they thought the old 'hundred' designators seemed out-dated, but that's only my guess. The decision to skip 500 (5) and 600 (6) and 700 (7) also seems a bit odd, but I'm guessing it was related to the 747 receiving some of the technology realized in the 787.

Yeah, the 787 link seems most logical to me, since the B748 even uses a smaller variant of the GEnx engine that is used on the B788/9. The wings on the newer Boeings also seem a lot more 787-ish. I can only imagine the wingspan of the upcoming 777-9. 

Ollie will you be purchasing the 747-800 or the 747-8?  I'm torn between the two and was hoping you could help sway me towards one or the other

 

 

Chris,

 

that seems to be quite a moot(I.) question. Or rather a moot(II.) question. Or maybe even a moot(III.) question.   :p0805:

I'm still scratching my head as to why Boeing decided to name all the new types -8, -9 and so on

 

Budget cuts. Less paper and ink when omitting all the 00's at the end of each different type many times in the manuals. Plus it saves time as it doesn't take as long to read. :smile:

With the 747 being such an iconic aircraft, the 747-8 was given its name purely as an advertisement for the new and upcoming variants of the 787.

By eliminate the 00 they will save a lot of paint ?

Interestingly, the 747-8 is still coupled with the airline code, EG a 747-8i of Lufthansa is actually a 747-830. This is not the case for the 787 however, which is just a plain old -8 or -9 (and soon -10)

Interestingly, the 747-8 is still coupled with the airline code, EG a 747-8i of Lufthansa is actually a 747-830. This is not the case for the 787 however, which is just a plain old -8 or -9 (and soon -10)

 

I already mentioned that above. But it is interesting indeed.

My guess, like Dan's is marketing. I'm guessing they thought the old 'hundred' designators seemed out-dated, but that's only my guess. The decision to skip 500 (5) and 600 (6) and 700 (7) also seems a bit odd, but I'm guessing it was related to the 747 receiving some of the technology realized in the 787.

 

Didn't Boeing begin designing a 747-500 and 747-600 at some point? And wasn't one of them a trijet? That would of been cool to see.