If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail not by posting to this thread.
Posted on 08/17/2005 8:09:49 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement
LOUISVILLE, Ky.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 17, 2005--As part of its on-going effort to accommodate strong international volume growth, UPS (NYSE:UPS) today announced a firm order for eight new Boeing 747-400 freighters from Boeing Co.
Terms of the deal were not disclosed.
Deliveries of the 747-400's will begin in June 2007 and run through 2008. UPS has selected General Electric to provide engines for the new aircraft.
"These Boeing 747-400 freighters will allow UPS to smoothly increase capacity on its most important international 'trunk' routes connecting Asia, Europe and North America," said Bob Lekites, UPS vice president of airline and international operations.
UPS today relies on the Boeing MD-11 freighter as its primary international workhorse. UPS has 20 of those planes and another eight on order. The new 747-400 aircraft, which can handle a larger payload than the MD-11, will be used to "upsize" MD-11 routes as international volume grows.
In its most recent second quarter, UPS's export volume grew an impressive 18.2%, led by Asia export volume gains of 39.5%. China again drove Asia with export volume rising 99%.
The Boeing 747-400 freighter has the capacity to carry a structural payload of 250,000 pounds with a range of 4,400 nautical miles.
UPS is the world's largest package delivery company and a global leader in supply chain services, offering an extensive range of options for synchronizing the movement of goods, information, and funds. Headquartered in Atlanta, UPS serves more than 200 countries and territories worldwide. UPS stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange (UPS) and the company can be found on the Web at UPS.com.
(Excerpt) Read more at home.businesswire.com ...
I had the pleasure of flying Atlanta to LAX (IIRC) on a Delta L-1011 just days before the craft was retired from the fleet.
It was. These are conversions from passenger to cargo versions. Boeing also offers an upgrade of the cockpit in DC-10 freighters to the same two crew cockpit that comes with MD-11. FedEx was the launch customer for that modification, because they have a large fleet of both DC-10's and MD-11's, and the cockpit upgrade allows them to have one pool of pilots to fly both. Also, the DC-10 required a three person crew, so it saves money on personnel. The upgraded DC-10 is called the MD-10.
In some cases where there are parallel runways, one of them would have to be closed to allow an A380 to land or take off. This might be ok for an emergency, but not for routine operations.
If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail not by posting to this thread.
So can a modern 747 use a shorter runway than the older 747.
I am trying to figure out if the some of the smaller airports can make use of the 747 so it is not just the JFK's, LAX's or MIA's that can take advantage of the 747 in this day and age.
I love to see those big birds coming off the assembly line. Thank goodness they will continue the line for many years to come!
Probably. The 400's have much more powerful engines than the 100, 200, and 300 models, and it has some aerodynamic improvements. It also depends on how heavily loaded it is. Air Force One supposedly can take off from fairly short runways when it doesn't have the fuel loaded for an intercontinental trip. Nominally it's a 747-200 airframe, but it has the two man digital glass cockpit of the 747-400 and the 747-400's engines.
While engine performance can shorten the amount of runway a 747 needs, it is still restricted by its highly swept wings (37.5°) which is optimized for high cruising speed. The 747 is still the fastest subsonic airliner that has ever existed. The 747 Advanced will cruise at Mach .86 which is faster than the 400 model's and A380's Mach .85. The A380 due to advances in aerodynamics (a supercritical wing) is able to cruise at the same speed as the current generation of 747's while have less wing sweep which gives it better takeoff performance.
Now boeing will market the 747 Advanced for Passenger service... Still not as big as the 380 but it can land anywhere a 747 can land now.... Very cool
The smaller airports don't need the 747. The development of smaller twin engined planes that can fly intercontinental routes means people don't first have to fly to an internatinal gateway airport like JFK or LAX. Airlines can divert lots of the traffic that used to fly from JFK to LHR by offering direct flights from other cities in the US.
British Airways flys three flights per day each way between IAH (George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston) and London on 777-200LR's. The reason they don't have a couple of 747's on that route is that they want to have flexible schedules that allow their high yielding business and first class passengers the ability to pick their departure times.
I meant to say 777-200ER's.
Minor nit: The Convair 880 and 990 were faster than the 747, I'm pretty sure. I think the 880 could cruise at Mach .87, or higher if they felt like really slurping down the fuel. Those old GE turbojets weren't exactly efficient.
}:-)4
Convair bit off more than they could chew with the 880 and especially the 990. They were the main reason why Boeing built the 720. The 747 can also fly Mach .9 or faster if you're not concerned with range.
The size of the airport doesn't necessarily correlate to the length of the runways. For example, both Austin, TX and Jackson, MS are fairly small but have long runways. Baton Rouge, in roughly the same size range, has runways so short that 737s have run off the end.
Here's some info on minimun runway lengths for the 747-400.
Fully loaded, 10,800 ft.
90% Max. Takeoff weight, 8,400 ft.
80% Max. Takeoff weight, 6,600 ft.
Note that lengths are longer for 100% weights for either a 767 or a 777, but shorter for 90% and 80%
Surprisingly, the 100% takeoff weight length for a 737 is roughly the same as for the 747 (slightly longer for a -300, slightly shorter for a -700). MD-11 is longer across the board than a 747-400.
Landings at 100% of max are always shorter than take off lengths, but there can be longer at lighter weights.
The page I was using was a PDF. www.san.org/documents/planning/assp/tier_one/Appendix%20B_Aircraft%20Runway%20Length%20Requirements.pdf
The 747's just keep going and going and going....
Dang, and here I thought that Branson was somehow smart.
On a related issue, unless I missed something, EADS doesn't appear to be what one might term "forthcoming" about the A380 delays.
Reluctance to own up to design "issues" (if that's what it is) should give pause to any prudent prospective airplane buyer.
.
Unfortunately, they were shipped via USPS and got lost in the mail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.