Talk:Boeing 747-8

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)

"747 Dreamliner" and "Boeing 747 Dreamliner" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirects 747 Dreamliner and Boeing 747 Dreamliner have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether their use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on these redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 29 § Boeing 747 Dreamliner until a consensus is reached. Vitaium (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This name is just wrong. The Boeing Dreamlifter is the relevant Boeing 747 derivative. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is the only related Dreamliner. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

* Note: merged adjacent and essentially identical entries on the RfD page, with and without "Boeing". Rosbif73 (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Confusing cruise speed

The article has a table stating that the cruise speed of the international variant is Mach .855, which is stated to be equivalent to 908 km/h. Mach .855 at sea level under standard conditions is 1047 km/h. Mach .855 matches Boeing's own claims at https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/commercial/airports/acaps/747-8_Rev_D.pdf . However, the speed of sound is dependent on altitude. The article is using some kind of automated conversion based on "altitude_ft" of 43100. However, https://simpleflying.com/how-fast-boeing-747-8-fly/ states a cruise speed of 1061 kmh, implying that the speed is equal to what mach .855 would be at sea level. It would appear that someone is making an incorrect assumption, but it's unclear to me whether it is in this article or simplyflying's. 172.14.225.35 (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

simpleflying is not a reliable source and should not be used in articles - see WP:SIMPLEFLYING. Can you find a better source to make your comparison? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

simpleflying gave a value very close to the value calculated from 0 ft height, implying that they used 0 ft height.

Tried a couple of online calculators with 0.855 mach and 43000 ft :

1. https://aerotoolbox.com/airspeed-conversions/#google_vignette
2. https://www.globalaircraft.org/converter.htm

Both gave 908 km/h.  Stepho  talk  23:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)