Talk:Boeing 747-8

Boeing 747-8I Discontinued?

Just recently been updated on Boeing discontinuing it’s Boeing 747-8I. Very sad to see such a majestic aircraft go! Luckily, Boeing still plan to keep the B747-8F in production, but plan to produce in smaller groups due to lack of customers buying/leasing 747’s Jasperiscrazy (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

And removed as you provided no source for this. Such detail really belongs in article text anyway with supporting sources. --Finlayson (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Has Boeing discontinued production of 747/8i? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.187.161.187 (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Only outstanding orders are for 17 freighters. MilborneOne (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

main pic change

• 
  current Lufthansa
• 
  proposed UPS
• 
  Nippon Cargo (1), gear down
• 
  Nippon Cargo (2), clean config

While the current picture is nice, I don't think it represents the airliner in an accurate manner as most 747-8s are freighters, two times more than the passenger variant. Here is a similar picture of an UPS 747-8F, its largest operator.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The first one looks better, and shows the hump better too. I don't worry too much about "representative" variants or liveries, just as I don't worry we're "advertising" by using photos of a particular airline's aircraft. The lead pic really just needs to be about showing the aircraft at a good angle that reveals its unique features, if possible. I also tend to like the "beauty shots" that grab a reader's attention, but not everyone thinks that's important. - BilCat (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree the livery does not matter. I chose UPS to check more easily the 16 pictures than the overwhelming 837 -8F pictures in commons. I disagree for the most common variant, it should be shown, eg the B757 main pic is a widespread -200, not the more rare -300. Here are better looking pictures with the hump more distinct. The first one has the four engines visible, and the wing more separate from the fuselage than for the LH pic. The second one is interesting with its clean config and pitched-up position, but may be more unusual. Both better shows the long fuselage and raked wingtip. I'm all for the most aesthetic one but all have their qualities, even the UPS one has a pleasing end-of-day light. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

liters or cubic meters

I changed the fuel volume units from Liters to Cubic meters but it was reverted, stating restore unit conversion change; liters is more common than m^3, at least in the US. As the primary unit is already the USgal, I'm not sure we should follow the common US usage also for metric units. The cubic meter is the coherent SI derived unit for volume, and the Liter is only accepted for SI use. The common usage is to keep 3 significant figures, so the cubic meter is often preferred above 1000 L.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC) minor nitpicking anyway!

Liter/litre is the base unit of volume in the metric system, though usage may vary. And Boeing's 747-8 specs page does not list this detail now to go by. So I can't point to a source. It's not that big of a deal to me anyway. BTW, unit conversions can be do 3 sig figures for any size number; it only affects the mantissa in scientific notation. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Boeing Livery 747-8.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger and Deletion

This article should be merged with the main article and deleted. Main article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747 -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, but you present no justification(s) at all for this. The -8 is certainly a notable variant of the 747. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

For the record, merged articles are almost never deleted, per WP:Merge and delete. And this variant is certainly notable. - BilCat (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Correction to # of planes produced

I had updated the number produced, but someone came along and changed it back. I added a reference source, but also personally worked on every single one of these. Line # 1420 was the very first, # 1574 was the last... simple math gives you a quantity of 154 total -8 aircraft. Znathaniel (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Simple math is 1574-1420+1 = 155.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, can you explain the +1? I must have missed that somewhere. There is no "+1" on the firing order. Znathaniel (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• The first 747 was a not delivered and kept for testing and other uses. This is described at Boeing 747#747-100. [This is only relevant to the total 747 count, not the 747-8 & -8F aircraft.] -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Znathaniel: when counting serialized items, if your just substract the serials, you're lacking one item: if I have items #10 to #20, I've got #10, #11, #12... #19, #20: 11 items, 20-10+1.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Uff da! Thanks for the clarification... In other words, it's like starting the count from 'number zero,' but I forgot to include it! "Simple math! haha" Znathaniel (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the infobox says |number built = 155<!-- combined number -8Fs and -8Is have been completed/flown & delivered — per WP:AIR consensus. -->, but if that is indeed the consensus, how should the Transaero/USAF VC-25Bs be counted? Were they ever completed to Transaero specifications? Apparently they were never delivered to Transaero, but were flown to storage. They are now being reconfigured to USAF specifications, in part by Boeing. Does this count as "delivered"? TheFeds 00:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Remember these are audited *financial* figures filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. I don’t know exactly how the accounting was done, but once the plane was no longer a work in progress, it needed to be delivered, even if it was to Boeing. So long answer short, the VC-25Bs are included. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Image comparing 747-400 and 747-500X in 747-8 article

The 747-500X fuselage was stretched by 18 ft (5.5 m) to 250 ft (76.2 m) long

Regarding my removal, and @Marc Lacoste's reversion, of the image and caption in the Background section (reproduced here), I don't think it should be in this article. Neither of the illustrations are of a 747-8, yet the shape of the 747-500X concept could easily be mistaken for a depiction of the real 747-8I: readers have to interpret text to understand this distinction. (Something similar is in the 747 article, and it makes more sense there, if anywhere.) The provenance of the drawing is simply a user's own work (and they have received many inquiries about the sourcing of their images). The accuracy of the drawing is questionable: both versions are shown with engines that look like Trent 900s or GP7000s, which are reasonable suppositions for the 747-500X, but were never in service on the 747-400 (RB211, CF6 or PW4000). And it's a low-resolution JPEG file. Are there any strong reasons to keep it? TheFeds 08:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it shows the design process which leads to the definitive -8 stretch. It could be replaced by a Boeing promo picture of a -500 though, but the -400/-500 comparaison is what's intersting.-- Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This image is related to first paragraph of the Background section. Anyone getting confused did not read the caption or the nearby text. (This image could be placed on left so it points to the middle of screen and is closer to the relevant text.) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the -500X image relates to text about the -500X. But I do think that people reading the -8 article would prefer to see a comparison between a -8 and literally anything else that physically existed. Boeing's never-built concepts are historical footnotes, and far less relevant to the background of the -8 than the -400 it followed. At the time of the 747-8's release, there were images published showing side views with the different double stretches of the -8I and -8F versus a preceding 747. (Example, but no comparison to existing aircraft. Another example, but this is from before the -8I and -8F were made the same length.) I would be fine with something like one of those images (or a well-sourced user-created version, since the examples are presumably not available due to copyright) in the background section, but the first picture you see after the infobox being the -500X, in an article that barely even depicts the -8I, is a poor editorial choice. TheFeds 19:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• The 747-500X image is placed in the Background section near relevant text. Suggesting this is confusing seems hypercritical or something, at least to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I have only one issue with this image, or rather with its caption, which could do with a change of mood to make clear that the 500X never got beyond the drawing board. I'll make the change very shortly. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The *Background* section by definition is not about the -8 but about the previous studies which led to it. This -400/500 picture is a good illustration for it. A -8/-400 picture comparison would be a great fit for the following *Design effort* section.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Definitely a good idea. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The conditional mood, the sentence about other unbuilt versions, and the left-alignment to keep it clearly within the Background section with various screen configurations helps significantly in making clear that this is not a depiction of the 747-8I. This is probably adequate to avoid most confusion other the visual similarity. I still think the provided image isn't great (no provenance, unlikely engines, plus are those the correct stretched frames for the -500X?), and that we should eventually find and insert good side view images of the article subject (in whatever location). TheFeds 21:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

This image should not be included in the article. It's not accurate. It suggests that the -400 and -500X had the same engines (they did not), that they had nearly identical vertical stabilizers (they did not), that their horizontal stabilizers were identical (they were not), that the wing was the same from the root fairing to the outboard nacelles (it was not), and that the fuselage belly fairings were the same (they were not). Even the windows are wrong; the 747-500X had a different pattern than the -400. In short, the only thing this drawing has in common with the 747-500X is that it's roughly the right amount longer. It's completely inaccurate in all other respects. This would be like me taking a drawing of the RMS Lusitania, splicing in 130 feet or so after of the funnels, and saying that I'd drawn the Aquitania. It's unencyclopedic, and it absolutely shouldn't be in the article. The fact that people are fighting so hard to preserve a false picture floors me. Sacxpert (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a schematic picture of an unbuilt project, not a technical illustration of an existing aircraft. Its perfect accuracy is not claimed (the caption could be clarified, including "schematic" or a synonym) nor useful as it wasn't launched. The picture retains is usefulness to illustrate the pre -8 stretch projects. Don't hesitate to replace it with a more accurate picture if possible.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)