A box of chocolates.

Now that everyone is looking the other way, Yesterday a significant aviation milestone went by without notice.

Of course I'm talking about this event:

The first roll out of the 747 was a modern historic milestone that marked the beginning of Mass Air Travel Today it is 50 years since that day and what a good idea it would be to have the next frame for UPS be rolled out to celebrate the occasion.

Well life is like a box of chocolates, and if the sour quince log is the last piece in the box, it is still coated with chocolate. I hope that this isn't the case, and there are as many or as  few pieces left, as long as there are people willing to see it that way.

In the 50 years since it was revealed, the 747 laid the foundation of Today's Market, a benchmark that was unrivaled until 2005. Even if Airbus retains the lions share of the VLA market in the future, it is scant reward considering how the market has almost made quads like the 747 irrelevant, by selecting smaller types to 'de-fragment' the hub and spoke system of yesteryear.

Yet even if we are unwilling to acknowledge its many achievements, the 747 is indeed a masterful piece of industrial Art for it time, built with Slide Rules and drafted blueprints not Autocad, rendered with a Physical Mockup not a 3D CGI and all in 5 years , whilst the Walls of BCA's PAE  factory was being built around it. The Jet spent the Winter in 1968, outside in the snow as BCA rushed to prepare it for its first flight.

This winter, however  a new journey will begin, with BCA now looking forward to revealing the first 779 frame sometime before years end, if indeed that is where the program now stands.

Certainly then, the spotlight will fall on the latter and the Queen will have to take a backseat into the New Year. There may be future commitments for the 747, but the market has moved on and away from its necessity and soon it may be its last year of production.

Until that time, may we all celebrate its longevity.

' Long Live The Queen Of the Skies'

And Thank You to all The Readers.

                                                         picture Copyright Boeing. Co

Next frame should be out soon....

Here are some details for the next frame to roll out

LN 1550 747-8F RC 538 UPS MSN 64259 N613UP

I'm guessing a delivery in November, which would mean that the last frame for 2018 is for ABC with delivery possibly before or after the holidays, late 2018 ir early in the New Year. 2019. Of course no confirmations yet,

As for the Turkish thing, reg is reported to be TC-TRK with the details for this frame in the last post. 

Of course, the focus on PAE this coming winter will be on some other aircraft, so no limelight on the Queen this Christmas. Unless Santa Has a present that is.

Flying Kabobs.

VQ-BSK formerly of the Qatar Amiri Flight has been sold recently to the Turkish Government it's expected to become the Turkish President's Flying Palace, a fitting purchase for a large country sitting in the middle of the World.

Here is some info on the Aircraft in question. 

VQ-BSK LN 1468 MSN 42096 RC008 

New Reg has been reported but No pics so far. 

Now onto something a little bit more serious as all kabobs have skewers and the skewers in question come in the form of numbers and number analysis. We've all read comparison charts about performance and fuel consumption many many times and everybody agrees that at the current 747-8 is a Lemon. Yes it is sour and sadly deserves its place in the dustbin of failed products produced and sold at a whim.

But wait. 

There were sources out there that were saying that the fuel burn per seat of the 747-8 was better than the A380, 777-300ER or even the 777x models. In fact there was a graphic showing how the 747-8 had the 'BEST' fuel economy of any VLA and it even beat out the 777x models to boot. 

Really?

It all stems from a numbering exercise that BCA performed several  years ago adopting newer seating standards across their range of products. Some people distinctly remember back when the seating capacity of the 747-8i was 467 seats not the 405 seat figure we see today. Well as it turns out I got a little shock when I saw he number for myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft To quote:

747-8,  467 seats, 6,000 nm mission,  10.54 kg/km  or 2.82 L/100 km per seat.

747-8,  405 seats, 7,200 nm mission,  10.9 kg/km  or 3.35 L/100 km per seat.

A380,   544 seats,  6,000 nm mission,  13.78 kg/km  or 3.16 L/100 km per seat

77W,   365 seats, 6,000 nm mission,  8.49 kg/km or 2.91 L/100 km per seat

779x     385 seats, 7,200 nmi  mission,  9.04 kg/km or 2.85 L/100 km per seat   (not shure abt dis one)

Are these numbers lying? Go check out the various as quoted sources from the original page in the footnotes. 

Basically it says that flying around a 747-8i with only 400 seats is not eco-friendly but check out the numbers of the other types one of them a twin seating about 100 less passengers. 

So in short, Airlines bought other aircraft because they didn't like 18 wheelers but bent over and bought 22 wheelers and 14 wheelers because the wheels were just rounder than the ones on the 18 wheeler. 

Seriously what are all the people doing looking at fixed numbers analysis based on numbers and stats rigged to prove that lemons are sour if they are yellow and not sour when their orange. Given that none of the Airlines that bought the other quad operates that aircraft close to the capacity as stated above one wonders what the real figures are, because I suppose you cant take ANY numbers for granted these days.

Can you say skew-ered? 

I can. Have a great weekend.

747 CMCA: It was good then and should be even better now.

I've not researched this but here are several links to a proposed military 747 model that was rejected in favor of other solutions. I've not seen any real material on this, but supposedly if it was made into a real program, it could add a significant number of frames.

Also there need not be any in house work as the interior could be subcontracted to a vendor and all BCA has to do is build frames for the purposes of conversion. Of course the standard certification rules apply for this proposal and a test and certification program will be necessary to approve changes.

The down side is that anything military might have a negative public image, and that slot allocation might be affected because there might be a priority assigned to each frame built for the Air Force, making civilian buyers having to accept a longer waiting period.

Costs according to the Articles are 15% of a B-52 refit and the combat payload would be more than a B-52.

Links are below:

https://metro.co.uk/2016/01/23/these-plans-show-boeings-proposal-to-put-dozens-of-missiles-in-a-747-5639423/

https://www.quora.com/Instead-of-putting-new-engines-on-the-B-52-or-buying-the-expensive-B-21-Raider-why-doesnt-the-Air-Force-procure-a-B-52I-with-modern-technology

http://cmano-db.com/pdf/aircraft/3729/

The Great and the Good.

Now that the latest installment of the 747 has been delivered to UPS:

(L/N 1549 - 747-8F, RC537, UPS# 9,  N612UP MSN 64258):

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UPS9105  :

Its worthwhile to note that one more frame has been removed from the backlog and is now part of the active fleet and  as the first manifestations of the 779 have appeared at PAE, one is left with this surreal feeling  of missed opportunities and vacuous disappointment. 

There are many things about being a sales person, firstly its about the customers and the product and making the two meet eye to eye. A successful salespersons knows their customers, their habits, their tendencies but mostly a customer, any customer is a person with a problem and you are the person with the solution.

Even if there is not a deal signed on your desk at days closure, you still need to focus on the task of being that person and on or off the bat, even deals in the trashcan need close scrutiny as the the reasons for failure. Its just part of the job, and helps in focusing in more on what the customer really wants. 

I'm sure that BCA did its homework when it came to thhe 748 and to critique them for trying to make a goose lay Golden eggs isn't constructive in the slightest. Its easy to point the finger and say wisecracks in hindsight and I've done it many a time. Of course, that still isn't the level of scrutiny necessary to finish the task, just putting the commercial package out to pasture is only one step in building a better relationship with the customer. 

Many a time I've asked, using my salespersons glasses, what if there was a better baseline spec of the 747-8i available? What if there was an engine choice? How come there isn't more range, or better avionics, or improved cabin designs, etc etc. 

The thing is, is that the ship has sailed, and all those failed offers to those customers need to be picked apart. So it failed, but by how much. Where did the customer get left behind, why, so on so forth. In the many books I've read about The Boeing Company, I read that they only pick America's Best and Brightest and the search for a better system and better solution to a problem was always their unwavering commitment 

The incredible things they built with this commitment include of course, this 747 program, which unlike the SST, the TFX or even the Moon Landings or anything else from that era, has stood the test of time. 

Perhaps of course, their greatest achievement is to continue with it, for all intents and purposes even when the last person to leave is switching the lights off.