This is totally awesome! I have always liked the Boeing 747, but seeing it operate as a freighter is even a bigger testament to its strength and ability. This airport it took off from in Victorville was formerly George AFB. I still drive by it quite frequently when I am in the area. Hats off and congrats to this aviaton giant in this feat! Cool and insightful video!
That jet just took off at a weight that is about 50,000lbs heavier than the entire International Space Station. I wonder what the 747-8's wing bend would have looked like if they loaded her with minimal fuel load and made up the rest of the million pounds with more metal plates?
if airbus was able to make an a380 cargo plane, it wouldnt even compare to the 747-8 freighter. its a remarkable aircraft. airbus has nothing on the 747-8 program
Trailing cones (or trailing wires as they are often incorrectly called or trailing static cones), were first developed and tested in the 1950s and 1960's as a simple means of calibrating the static pressure (altitude reporting) error of an aircraft's pitot-static_system. It does this by giving an accurate measurement of the ambient atmospheric pressure (static pressure) well clear of the aircraft's fuselage. *lifted from wikipedia
I think he might be comparing it to the old 400s in which case he would be right, but these new 8s are eerily quiet. There was a brand new cargolux 8f that made its maiden flight to our airport then popped out, and an embraer 190 was going beind it, and even when the 47 started its takeoff roll I could easily hear the embraer spooling its engines over it just to get moving. Its so weird to see something so big with 4 gargantuan turbines go full tilt so quietly.
did they had to fly for hours in order to get to the appropriate weight for landing? and if so for what reason did they not load the plane with water instead and dump it somehow before landing? i'm curious about this...
it is always very exciting to see that they manage to develope Aircrafts for the Logistics means. in the Future this kind of Planes will be very important. Trading Planes are not really less Important than the Passenger Planes.People should always remember that.
paganviodio The strangest thing has happened over the last few weeks. It first started with a television reporter on a local station here in Los Angeles. This reporter was doing a story about LAX and the remodeling they are doing to it's main terminal, this reporter kept saying Aircrafts instead of the correct way, Aircraft which is plural and has no need to add an s to explain more than one Aircraft. I have seen this here on You Tube on several video captions using Aircrafts along with many in the comments sections. So folks it's always "Aircraft" and never "Aircrafts"
thanks, we are foreigner, i didnt know that. but it sounds to me as there is no diffirence at all...in other languages there is always a diffirent between singular and plural...i have to say, if i mean more than one aircraft ,then " more aircraft", and use more words, which sounds very underdeveloped to me ;;;)))
Fortunately I had the opportunity on July 25 to be in the plant of the Boeing Everett Tour the foundation of the future of the factory of Boeing, which saw the construction of the B787; B777 and B737 freighter, of which I am very proud because in calendas flew past the B720, B707 and Boeing 727-200 of this great American company for commercial aircraft. ASD
I love boeing and airbus for different reasons, but the 747 (any model) has the most iconic fuselage shape in the aviation industry today :) Also.. what is that thing that trails off of the back of the tail on most test aircraft?
They don't need to do that because the MTOW includes full tanks of fuel. Once they take off, and fly 4 hours, it most likely has burned off enough fuel so it is light enough to land even with the 1,005,000lbs on board. So they can land safely.
in the description it says "we loaded our aircraft with over one million pounds" but more accurately you loaded it "up to" just over one million pounds. Then after flying for 4 hours and burning off fuel, what was the landing weight?
Can't dump the payload to alter the weight. That would have defeated the whole purpose. If you load up with cargo, full fuel while in service, you can't just dump your cargo then, can you? Somewhere between MTOW and ZFW is MLW, where it can't be heavier than this and still land.
what are unique craft to carry that much is superior, the design of this craft make me want to get more involved into engineering, I build models crafts myself how can I get involved with Boeing?
They are talkign about Gross Maximum Takeoff Weight right? Not the weight of the cargo? Because the MTW of a 747-8 is 975,000 pounds, and this is only about 2.5% over the that max. Not too crazy. The wording in the video is misleading. It would be really interesting to see what happens with 1 million pounds of cargo haha.
Its is only misleading if you can't comprehend english. Nowhere in the title does it mention anything about lifting a million pounds of cargo. All I see is a "million pound takeoff", which is pretty close to accurate.
sdguero28 im not very sure, but those Antonov Aircrafts CAN lift the Million Pound of Cargo in the Air, I guess...the Airbus 380, when there is a Cargo Version of that,then this Plane will lift more than that.With a little broader Wings, and stronger engines, you can even manage to lift the million Pound. I dont think , it is a big deal...
paganviodio Neither the An-225 nor the A380 can lift anywhere close to a million pounds of cargo. A380 Freighter's maximum payload is 330,000 lb. I'm not sure what the exact max for An-225 is, but it's far less than 1,000,000 lb. The largest cargo it has carried was 417,000 lb. Even the Stratolaunch Carrier Aircraft (the 'Roc') is 'only' designed to carry 500,000 lb. of payload (namely, the Pegasus II rocket stack.) An-225 holds the current record. If they count the rocket that Roc is carrying as payload, it will break An-225's record on its first flight test carrying the rocket stack.
vbscript2 Really? I didn´t know that. Thank you for explaining, but t is also very surprising for me to read that 380 also couldn´t...I don´t want to believe that, just because, the Aircraft is physically much bigger, i think , they ´d manage to let the 380 carry more than that., i cannot imagine that a smaller plane can carry more than the bigger one...
@MoustachesAreEpic Try 1 Million pounds? Sorted, 1,250,000 pounds! I can verify that, SIN-LHR flights are nearly always MTOW. Still takes off well before the end of the runway and still with a good climb rate.
If you'd listened to your JOUR professors, they were telling you not to be a walking box of cliches. "Soaking up" knowledge; "weight of the situation." Seriously?
With quite a few A380s now in service, words seem to be spreading that the Airlines ain't making money off it. Boeing's prediction that it's too big for the market seems to be coming true. HURRAY *dancing happy dance*!!! Hope this clears the way for more orders for the 747-8s. The A380s are simply too butt ugly. Can't even look at it without cringing.
@cirrussr221994 That's scaremongering to say the least. There's an obvious reason why Airbus are now the premier company in terms of sales worldwide and that's down to their approach to innovation and technology. You'll find more and more of the world's airlines prefer Airbus to Boeing these days and the sheer comfort levels in the A380s surpasses anything Boeing can currently offer. Airbus's safety record is every bit as good as Boeing's with both manufacturers doing a great job.
That is just throwing mud around, no reflection on the safety or airworthiness of the aircraft. I work with both A-330's and 767's, I'll take the A-330 anytime so I am not always a fan of Boeing. In fact I still believe the USAF made a big mistake ordering the KC-46 (767-200) over the KC-45 ( A-330) As of right now, Boeing is barely meeting the price and deadlines for their tanker.
Well, you don't see NORMAL flights just going around and then the flight ends. You see flights that cross oceans and the fuel burned reduce the weight, allowing it to land on normal 747 runways. Well, it was a demonstration from Boeing to see that the 747 can go over it's massive takeoff weight, so it's not that strict and if a pilot miscalculated by only small numbers, 400 people (if it's a 747-8i) won't die because of it. Well, you are right, they won't be brothered to fly 8 hours, so you are right on one point.
A380FAirbus originally accepted orders for the freighter version, offering the largest payload capacity of any cargo aircraft in production, exceeded only by the single Antonov An-225 Mriya in service.[260] An aerospace consultant has estimated that the A380F would have 7% better payload and better range than the 747-8F, but also higher trip costs.[261] However, production has been suspended until the A380 production lines have settled with no firm availability date.[66][67][68] In 2015 Airbus removed A380F from the range of freighters on the corporate website.[262]
Open google, type "1005000lbs in kg", result = 455860 kg. Ah thanks Google. Open calclulator, MTOW A380 = 569000kg, subtract the result= -113140kg. OK so the 747 freighter is still 113 tonnes lighter than the A380 pax aircraft.
WOW!!! Still, flight based on air should be outdated technology by now. I'm sorry but it's true. We all know there's no money to be made with new tech.
LOL What? Exactly what else do you propose to fly on? Last I checked, our atmosphere consists of air, which makes finding something else to fly on rather difficult.
Hless421, Only the most arrogant and ignorant people presume to tell me what 'I' know - particularly when we have never spoken before. I deal in facts, not speculation. If indeed there is no money to be made, Boeing would have abandoned this airframe long ago. Apparently Boeing knows something that YOU don't, Hless - no surprises there.. Sit down, shut up, and admit (or at least pretend) that your knowledge is not as all-encompassing as you would have others believe.
Kevin Frothingham If one tries to make a point, making sense is crucial. I have a feeling I'm not the only one that has no idea what you're trying to say.
This is totally awesome! I have always liked the Boeing 747, but seeing it operate as a freighter is even a bigger testament to its strength and ability. This airport it took off from in Victorville was formerly George AFB. I still drive by it quite frequently when I am in the area. Hats off and congrats to this aviaton giant in this feat! Cool and insightful video!
1:37 oh c'mon.
THE most beautiful airplane I've seen. breathtaking, majestic
just a beautiful aircraft man...just beautiful.
That jet just took off at a weight that is about 50,000lbs heavier than the entire International Space Station. I wonder what the 747-8's wing bend would have looked like if they loaded her with minimal fuel load and made up the rest of the million pounds with more metal plates?
if airbus was able to make an a380 cargo plane, it wouldnt even compare to the 747-8 freighter. its a remarkable aircraft. airbus has nothing on the 747-8 program
I'd love to know how they got it back down again. That must have been way over the recommended landing weight.
You have to take in account the consumption of fuel...the plane lands lighter then it takes off.
Trailing cones (or trailing wires as they are often incorrectly called or trailing static cones), were first developed and tested in the 1950s and 1960's as a simple means of calibrating the static pressure (altitude reporting) error of an aircraft's pitot-static_system. It does this by giving an accurate measurement of the ambient atmospheric pressure (static pressure) well clear of the aircraft's fuselage.
*lifted from wikipedia
I think he might be comparing it to the old 400s in which case he would be right, but these new 8s are eerily quiet. There was a brand new cargolux 8f that made its maiden flight to our airport then popped out, and an embraer 190 was going beind it, and even when the 47 started its takeoff roll I could easily hear the embraer spooling its engines over it just to get moving. Its so weird to see something so big with 4 gargantuan turbines go full tilt so quietly.
you can basically see the wheight, look how much the wings flex up :)
The weight of the situation.. punny
Timeless classic updated and improved again. This will be the next best not only for pargo, but for pax use and enjoy.
wow look at the amount of flaps they had to use for takeoff!
Those GE engines 😍🔥💦
did they had to fly for hours in order to get to the appropriate weight for landing? and if so for what reason did they not load the plane with water instead and dump it somehow before landing? i'm curious about this...
it is always very exciting to see that they manage to develope Aircrafts for the Logistics means. in the Future this kind of Planes will be very important. Trading Planes are not really less Important than the Passenger Planes.People should always remember that.
paganviodio The strangest thing has happened over the last few weeks. It first started with a television reporter on a local station here in Los Angeles. This reporter was doing a story about LAX and the remodeling they are doing to it's main terminal, this reporter kept saying Aircrafts instead of the correct way, Aircraft which is plural and has no need to add an s to explain more than one Aircraft. I have seen this here on You Tube on several video captions using Aircrafts along with many in the comments sections. So folks it's always "Aircraft" and never "Aircrafts"
thanks, we are foreigner, i didnt know that. but it sounds to me as there is no diffirence at all...in other languages there is always a diffirent between singular and plural...i have to say, if i mean more than one aircraft ,then " more aircraft", and use more words, which sounds very underdeveloped to me ;;;)))
is it 1 million pounds including the weight of the plane or just 1 million pounds of cargo?
including the weight of the plane
that added some serious wing flex!
Boeing = Awoesome
I see what you did there xD
Nice going Boeing - Congratulations.
Fortunately I had the opportunity on July 25 to be in the plant of the Boeing Everett Tour the foundation of the future of the factory of Boeing, which saw the construction of the B787; B777 and B737 freighter, of which I am very proud because in calendas flew past the B720, B707 and Boeing 727-200 of this great American company for commercial aircraft. ASD
what is that black thing on the back rudder for?
Look at the wing flex at the point of getting airborne. You can tell the wings are loaded beyond recommended limit.
I love boeing and airbus for different reasons, but the 747 (any model) has the most iconic fuselage shape in the aviation industry today :)
Also.. what is that thing that trails off of the back of the tail on most test aircraft?
wow engines are huge!
1 million kilogram takeoff next! :P
Like water in containers?
They don't need to do that because the MTOW includes full tanks of fuel. Once they take off, and fly 4 hours, it most likely has burned off enough fuel so it is light enough to land even with the 1,005,000lbs on board. So they can land safely.
Notice the old QANTAS 747-300 ????? in the background at 2.38
@jasleil they actually did fed ex was going to have the a380 freighter but the delays caused fed ex to cancel and the a380 F didnt come to life
The best American Boeing we trust Bigger & Strong La mejor ingeniería del Boing Confiamos en su grandeza y fuerza En hora buena
WOW HAW I LOVE BOEING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
are they Qantas gets in the background at 1:52 ?
how land with this weight?
in the description it says "we loaded our aircraft with over one million pounds" but more accurately you loaded it "up to" just over one million pounds. Then after flying for 4 hours and burning off fuel, what was the landing weight?
Boeing: winner of WW II, the bringer of prosperity, and another name for wonderful technology and engineering.
Airbus not a competitor.
What about the passenger version?
Can't dump the payload to alter the weight. That would have defeated the whole purpose. If you load up with cargo, full fuel while in service, you can't just dump your cargo then, can you?
Somewhere between MTOW and ZFW is MLW, where it can't be heavier than this and still land.
Cant wait for the 747 LCF-8 Dreamlifter
65 Airbus engineers have seen this video :)
what are unique craft to carry that much is superior, the design of this craft make me want to get more involved into engineering, I build models crafts myself how can I get involved with Boeing?
That is truly remarkable.
in the 1950's the XC-99 st a world record of lifting 104,000 pounds. here we are lifting 1.05 MILLION POUNDS! WOW!
Fitz A - It's actually 1.005 Million Pounds
They are talkign about Gross Maximum Takeoff Weight right? Not the weight of the cargo? Because the MTW of a 747-8 is 975,000 pounds, and this is only about 2.5% over the that max. Not too crazy. The wording in the video is misleading. It would be really interesting to see what happens with 1 million pounds of cargo haha.
They already know what happens in that case. It's called a "runway excursion."
Its is only misleading if you can't comprehend english. Nowhere in the title does it mention anything about lifting a million pounds of cargo. All I see is a "million pound takeoff", which is pretty close to accurate.
sdguero28 im not very sure, but those Antonov Aircrafts CAN lift the Million Pound of Cargo in the Air, I guess...the Airbus 380, when there is a Cargo Version of that,then this Plane will lift more than that.With a little broader Wings, and stronger engines, you can even manage to lift the million Pound. I dont think , it is a big deal...
paganviodio Neither the An-225 nor the A380 can lift anywhere close to a million pounds of cargo. A380 Freighter's maximum payload is 330,000 lb. I'm not sure what the exact max for An-225 is, but it's far less than 1,000,000 lb. The largest cargo it has carried was 417,000 lb. Even the Stratolaunch Carrier Aircraft (the 'Roc') is 'only' designed to carry 500,000 lb. of payload (namely, the Pegasus II rocket stack.) An-225 holds the current record. If they count the rocket that Roc is carrying as payload, it will break An-225's record on its first flight test carrying the rocket stack.
vbscript2 Really? I didn´t know that. Thank you for explaining, but t is also very surprising for me to read that 380 also couldn´t...I don´t want to believe that, just because, the Aircraft is physically much bigger, i think , they ´d manage to let the 380 carry more than that., i cannot imagine that a smaller plane can carry more than the bigger one...
@PlaneSpotterGroup101 one?
@MoustachesAreEpic Try 1 Million pounds? Sorted, 1,250,000 pounds! I can verify that, SIN-LHR flights are nearly always MTOW. Still takes off well before the end of the runway and still with a good climb rate.
go go Boeing..i need to see in the skies the most beautiful bird..
@Firelife3 try and compare that to b747-8 size and no. of engines
If you'd listened to your JOUR professors, they were telling you not to be a walking box of cliches. "Soaking up" knowledge; "weight of the situation." Seriously?
How many years does it take to beat the An-225's takeoff weight?
The An-225 loses its useful load carrying enough air mechanics to keep it flying.
Just impressive. WOW.
@9gent 225 best looking plane in the world.
This plane is awesome!!!
Safety record cannot be compared to Boeing producing 5 times as many planes for twice as long.
With quite a few A380s now in service, words seem to be spreading that the Airlines ain't making money off it. Boeing's prediction that it's too big for the market seems to be coming true. HURRAY *dancing happy dance*!!! Hope this clears the way for more orders for the 747-8s. The A380s are simply too butt ugly. Can't even look at it without cringing.
Ah, the queen can rule both the passenager and the frieght sector. Let's see the A380 at attempting to become a frieghter.
@Pvjinflight have you been on the A380
@cirrussr221994 That's scaremongering to say the least. There's an obvious reason why Airbus are now the premier company in terms of sales worldwide and that's down to their approach to innovation and technology. You'll find more and more of the world's airlines prefer Airbus to Boeing these days and the sheer comfort levels in the A380s surpasses anything Boeing can currently offer. Airbus's safety record is every bit as good as Boeing's with both manufacturers doing a great job.
@Firelife3 no its 5,000,000
A small man flying a huge plane. You all know what we might say to that.
Thanks Google. Also they would have dumped fuel not cargo.
Love this airplane
Antonov An-225: Max takeoff weight 1,323,000 pounds =)
@chap6595 Retired 747s by the looks of it 747-300 to be exact
the plane simply flies to burn of fuel which reduces weight then it can land
Boeing is best. If it's not a Boeing I'm not going; )
+Rod Rocket the top two largest fatalities from an aviation related incident
guess the aircraft name?
+Bob Dylan Do your research, the KLM/Pan AM crash was 100% pilot error on the part of the flight crew from KLM.
rampking1 i did but they were still boeing planes
That is just throwing mud around, no reflection on the safety or airworthiness of the aircraft. I work with both A-330's and 767's, I'll take the A-330 anytime so I am not always a fan of Boeing. In fact I still believe the USAF made a big mistake ordering the KC-46 (767-200) over the KC-45 ( A-330) As of right now, Boeing is barely meeting the price and deadlines for their tanker.
rampking1 same
OKay, now get it back on the runway at that weight. You know they went offshore and dumped most of that fuel before they came back in......
Well, you don't see NORMAL flights just going around and then the flight ends. You see flights that cross oceans and the fuel burned reduce the weight, allowing it to land on normal 747 runways. Well, it was a demonstration from Boeing to see that the 747 can go over it's massive takeoff weight, so it's not that strict and if a pilot miscalculated by only small numbers, 400 people (if it's a 747-8i) won't die because of it. Well, you are right, they won't be brothered to fly 8 hours, so you are right on one point.
How do you even get a million pounds to fly???? .___.
You place Boeing into the equation, that's how!
Well then you put Airbus Into the equation....
3 QANTAS 747.400 in back ground @2.39
William cooper
it's wings were curving then flies
no problem for that aircraft
@IASPAG2MFAM VICTORVILLE OR edwards AFB or mojave. Something like that
At the time I'm commenting this.... The video has 911 likes
if you don't think this is awesome, you must work for AirbusIndustrie
+Britt Thomas because an a380 can carry much more
A380FAirbus originally accepted orders for the freighter version, offering the largest payload capacity of any cargo aircraft in production, exceeded only by the single Antonov An-225 Mriya in service.[260] An aerospace consultant has estimated that the A380F would have 7% better payload and better range than the 747-8F, but also higher trip costs.[261] However, production has been suspended until the A380 production lines have settled with no firm availability date.[66][67][68] In 2015 Airbus removed A380F from the range of freighters on the corporate website.[262]
He said Cargolux's hub was in Seattle.. lol
NICE ONE
very nice....
Open google, type "1005000lbs in kg", result = 455860 kg. Ah thanks Google.
Open calclulator, MTOW A380 = 569000kg, subtract the result= -113140kg. OK so the 747 freighter is still 113 tonnes lighter than the A380 pax aircraft.
Incredible
boeing 747- 8smillion pound takeo ff en linia castel
i like B747
Godspeed Boeing
GOD BLESS BOEING!!!!
B747 - 8
how try ti with double that.. lol
WOW!!! Still, flight based on air should be outdated technology by now. I'm sorry but it's true. We all know there's no money to be made with new tech.
LOL What? Exactly what else do you propose to fly on? Last I checked, our atmosphere consists of air, which makes finding something else to fly on rather difficult.
Let's see your flying machine keyboard warrior.
Hless421, Only the most arrogant and ignorant people presume to tell me what 'I' know - particularly when we have never spoken before. I deal in facts, not speculation. If indeed there is no money to be made, Boeing would have abandoned this airframe long ago. Apparently Boeing knows something that YOU don't, Hless - no surprises there.. Sit down, shut up, and admit (or at least pretend) that your knowledge is not as all-encompassing as you would have others believe.
Kevin Frothingham If one tries to make a point, making sense is crucial. I have a feeling I'm not the only one that has no idea what you're trying to say.
Hless421 He calling you a douche bag in a cordial way.
Amazing
this one the dreamliner
Knock off Disney planes
GO BOEING!
Jessica
@cd949604 lol
ح
d
l
Kl czz boo
At the time I'm commenting this.... The video has 911 likes
William cooper