747-8 MTOW

[EduardoP0520 1]

Hello,

I was reading something about different airframes of the 747-8 having different MTOW's and a certain "Performance Improvement Package" that reduced the overall airplane weight by around 10,000 pounds, which allowed Boeing to also increase the range to about 8,200NM. I couldn't find any official boeing document other than the "Airplane Characteristics for airport planning" which did state 2 different MTOW's under the 747-8f: 442,253 Kg. (975,000 lbs.) and 447,696 Kg. (987,000 lbs.). I find this pretty interesting, given that the -8 wasn't sold as much and I wouldn't think Boeing would continue to do R&D to that point of increasing the range, reducing the weight of the aircraft and increasing MTOW. I also read that the last airframes that Boeing built (VP-BBY and VP-BBP) have an MTOW of about 472,000 Kg (1,041,000 lbs) or even more. 

If that is the case, what would be the actual weights and ranges of the 747-8 that you're developing? Would you take the variations into account in say the official liveries you provide us with? Or if not, would other repainters could be able to modify the performance of the plane based on the registration of the plane? 

I think it would be really cool to see it implemented as one of the wonderful 747-isms and quirks, however I do understand that getting the real numbers for each aircraft and maybe the sim limitations would make it hard. Nevertheless I cannot wait for you to release this amazing simulation of the newest queen, bringing us simmers as close as possible to the real thing. Keep up the good work!

-Eduardo Padilla

Links to articles:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-landing-gear-tweak-key-to-747-8-future-in-passenger-400464/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8 (under "into service and further development")

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-07-14/747-8s-continued-weight-loss-boosts-performance

"Official 747-8 Flight Tracking/Production Part 18” subtopic in Airliners dot net

 

[PinkPony 171]

1 hour ago, EduardoP0520 said:

Hello,

I was reading something about different airframes of the 747-8 having different MTOW's and a certain "Performance Improvement Package" that reduced the overall airplane weight by around 10,000 pounds, which allowed Boeing to also increase the range to about 8,200NM. I couldn't find any official boeing document other than the "Airplane Characteristics for airport planning" which did state 2 different MTOW's under the 747-8f: 442,253 Kg. (975,000 lbs.) and 447,696 Kg. (987,000 lbs.). I find this pretty interesting, given that the -8 wasn't sold as much and I wouldn't think Boeing would continue to do R&D to that point of increasing the range, reducing the weight of the aircraft and increasing MTOW. I also read that the last airframes that Boeing built (VP-BBY and VP-BBP) have an MTOW of about 472,000 Kg (1,041,000 lbs) or even more. 

If that is the case, what would be the actual weights and ranges of the 747-8 that you're developing? Would you take the variations into account in say the official liveries you provide us with? Or if not, would other repainters could be able to modify the performance of the plane based on the registration of the plane? 

I think it would be really cool to see it implemented as one of the wonderful 747-isms and quirks, however I do understand that getting the real numbers for each aircraft and maybe the sim limitations would make it hard. Nevertheless I cannot wait for you to release this amazing simulation of the newest queen, bringing us simmers as close as possible to the real thing. Keep up the good work!

-Eduardo Padilla

Links to articles:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-landing-gear-tweak-key-to-747-8-future-in-passenger-400464/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8 (under "into service and further development")

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-07-14/747-8s-continued-weight-loss-boosts-performance

"Official 747-8 Flight Tracking/Production Part 18” subtopic in Airliners dot net

 

As you mentioned, the -8i/F originally had a 442,253 Kgs. (975,000 lbs.) MTOW. When the airframe came in a bit heavy, and the GEnX-2B fell short of initial fuel burn, Boeing countered this with a paper MTOW increase to 447,696 Kg. (987,000 lbs.). Following GE's PiP and Boeings efforts at weight reduction, the -8i/F eventually met its weight goal and the GEnX-2B its promised fuel burn. 

Only two operators took delivery of -8's at the original 442t MTOW. Lufthansa and Cargolux.

Cargolux implemented the Boeing Service Bulletin and increased the MTOW of the few existing 442t aircraft to 447,696 Kg. Which all remaining aircraft were delivered at. Boeing would normally charge for paper MTOW increases, however in this case it was free, and became the new standard MTOW as they pushed to meet the performance guarantees.

Lufthansa never implemented the SB and opted to take the later aircraft at the same 442t MTOW. In their network only FRA-EZE pushes the -8 to MTOW occasionally. (When EZE is fogged in, and necessitating a distant alternate).  ATC/Airports charge by MTOW, and carrying around a additional 5t of MTOW on paper would be a waste of money 99.9% of the time, especially with the engines now meeting/exceeding their original performance guarantees (thanks to the PiP).

Both of the other 747-8i operators ( Air China, Korean Airlines) have the 447t MTOW, as does every 747-8F (via aforementioned SB or from the factory).

Not sure where you read about BBJ's at 472t MTOW, but I assure you that is not the case. The aircraft is currently not certified for anything above the 447t/987k and likely never will be.

Considering there are absolutely no structural differences between a 442t/975k and 447t/987k -8, PMDG will likely do what they did with the -400 and B777-200LR/-300ER. Allow us to load up the aircraft up to the heaviest weights Boeing offers for the type. However, iff you are simulating a operator with a lower MTOW/MZFW/MLW etc. just follow follow the lower weight limits! 


 

[Captain Kevin 586]

4 hours ago, EduardoP0520 said:

I find this pretty interesting, given that the -8 wasn't sold as much and I wouldn't think Boeing would continue to do R&D to that point of increasing the range, reducing the weight of the aircraft and increasing MTOW.

Not sure why you think they wouldn't try to improve on an airframe just because they don't sell nearly as many of them. You'd think you'd want to try to get more people to buy them.

[EduardoP0520 1]

1 hour ago, Captain Kevin said:

Not sure why you think they wouldn't try to improve on an airframe just because they don't sell nearly as many of them. You'd think you'd want to try to get more people to buy them.

I know they would try to improve an airframe, but those are very significant updates, you don't get those kind of improvements by loosing a couple of bolts, I didn't know if even Boeing would think they could sell enough units to justify the cost. Maybe it's just that I am not used to see it and this is the first plane that I research that much.

-Eduardo Padilla

[Guest]

13 hours ago, EduardoP0520 said:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-landing-gear-tweak-key-to-747-8-future-in-passenger-400464/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8 (under "into service and further development")

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-07-14/747-8s-continued-weight-loss-boosts-performance

"Official 747-8 Flight Tracking/Production Part 18” subtopic in Airliners dot net

 

I’m not sure if anyone has taken much notice but Eduardo has made a clear to understand post here and has backed up what he said with a source. That’s something to recognise. It was at another one of those “I heard X and Y existed and are you going to add it?” I appreciate the effort you went to in this post. May seem crazy that I’m focusing on that but you made a worthwhile post that is informative and not demanding towards the PMDG staff. Thank you. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, VHOEI said:

It was at another one of those “I heard X and Y existed and are you going to add it

The word highlighted in bold was meant to be “wasn’t.”

Sorry. I couldn’t leave that there. 

[craig_read 43]

On 27/09/2017 at 10:19 AM, Captain Kevin said:

Not sure why you think they wouldn't try to improve on an airframe just because they don't sell nearly as many of them. You'd think you'd want to try to get more people to buy them.

I guess if there are cheap quick wins to be had they'd go for it, especially if this R&D benefits already existing programmes that are in train (specifically the Air Force One replacement)... so why not push them out in a vain attempt to drum up some more interest.. .. If we're being honest Air Force One is the main reason the 747-8 exists and the production and support alone for that project might be enough for the whole programme to wash it's own face financially.. I think the US government would probably pay through the nose to avoid the embarrassment of having an A380 carry their leader around.. Other than that sales of the 747-8 (and let's be fair to it) are a complete disaster..

On a personal note, I love the 747, favourite plane bar none... love it.. I think it's sad that we're likely to see less and less of these iconic aircraft as time marches on.. but things come and go..

[Guest]

13 hours ago, craig_read said:

On a personal note, I love the 747, favourite plane bar none... love it.. I think it's sad that we're likely to see less and less of these iconic aircraft as time marches on.. but things come and go..

Wait.....  I’m going???

Who said I was going?

Wait... Where did VH-OJB go?

[craig_read 43]

9 hours ago, VHOEI said:

Wait.....  I’m going???

Who said I was going?

Wait... Where did VH-OJB go?

Lol :)