Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747: Would This Be Possible?  
User currently offlineHenpol747 From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 588 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4730 times:

This is obviously a fake picture, but the question is:

Would it be possible? What do you folks think?

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/search/photo_search.php?id=00000543

Cheers,

Henpol747


Vive la France! ¡Viva México!
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17030 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4690 times:

Area ruling makes that kind of hard, but yes it is possible, and Boeing has looked into it several times, starting back in the 70s.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineScf158 From Switzerland, joined Dec 2003, 413 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4665 times:

If the A380 is possible, I dont think thats far off!

User currently offlineDutchflyer From Netherlands, joined Feb 2004, 169 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4641 times:

Possible: Yes
Realistic: No


User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3761 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4449 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

No, it's not a plausible scenario because, if you look at the wings and power plant they are the exact same of the existing 747-400 aircraft. I'm being picky about the wings because the invented aircraft seems to be much too heavy for the lift capability it has.
Lift versus weight is an important criteria when designing a new aircraft. In this case, the lift versus weight ratio is going way down, the weight is drastically increasing but the wing area or aspect ratio isn't increasing, neither is the power generated by the engines.

You folks can always dream of it, but it will never fly.

The A380 will exist in reality, yes, because the wing area is large enough to support all the weight of this giant double decker. I don't know how much power each engine will generate but I suppose each will generate a bit more than what a 747-400 engine generates.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineB747Skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4308 times:

Discussing the lift capability of say a 747-200 or -300...
A cargo aircraft of the type is capable to carry 112 metric tons of payload.
Each passenger averages 100 KG with his baggages.
xxx
So, the weight of 1,120 passengers could be carried in a 747-"700"...
They would not be "payload" limited. They would be "bulk limited".
Where would you put that many people even with that configuration.
xxx
In Japan, they have some 747-400D with nearly 600 seats.
"Sardines" class.
So, in stretching the upper-deck all the way back, that could give room to some 700-800 people.
That is much less than the lift capability of a 747...
xxx
Happy contrails  Smile
(s) Skipper


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4232 times:

As I remember reading somewhere, Boeing looked into the possibility of expanding the capacity of the 747 into a proposed -500,-600,-700 series, but discovered an entirely new wing technology would be needed. Considering the limited need at that time for ultra-large transports, the costs far outweighed the possible benefits.

I am curious to see how Airbus will do with the A380 - I don't see the worldwide need for that aircraft at this moment, but if they want to build it, and airports think they can handle it, be my guest. I think the future is in the longer range planes like the 772LR and A340LR.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17030 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3961 times:

Some of the original 747 concepts (60s vintage) were twin deck, but if you're only transporting 350 people with those day's materials, there is a weight penalty to two decks compared to one. Remember that in those days the 747 was a big single decker with a hump. Also, the twin deck proposals could not have been used for cargo like the 747. Since Boeing expected the 747 to become a cargo hauler after SSTs took over, cargo was a big priority.

Amusingly, one of the 747 proposals ("The Anteater") had a single deck like the 741, but instead of the hump it had a lowered flight deck in best Beluga style. The objective, just like with the hump, was to ease loading of cargo.


In the early 70s, after the 747-100 was well established, Boeing looked at the following:

Short-range:
1. 527 pax baseline - plain 741 with lots of seats.
2. 716 pax - 300 inch plugs fore and aft of the wing. Upper deck unchanged.
3. 666 Pax - 60 inch plug fore and 140 inch aft of the wing. Upper deck stretched to the wing.
4. 847 pax - double deck to the fin, where the fuse comes down in a way similar to the SP
5. 1000 pax - 160 inch plug fore and 140 inch plug aft of the wing, double deck to the fin, where the fuse comes down in a way similar to the SP.

Long-range (same bodies, other numbers of seats):
1. 385 - plain 741.
2. 544 pax - equivalent to 2. above.
3. 472 pax - equivalent to 3. above.
4. 624 pax - equivalent to 4. above.
5. 732 pax - equivalent to 5. above.

The oil crisis put paid to all these fun plans, but it's interesting to note how the A380 concept could have flown back in 1980 or so.

(Source - "Boeing 747 Design and Development Since 1969" by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner).

So it is definitely possible, but unlikely now. In the 70s, the 747 wing was state of the art. Nowadays it's rather dated. And if you're going to redo the wing, you've basically rebuilt the aircraft from the ground up anyway.


EDIT: The book has some interesting concept drawings of all this stuff, and pics of the 60s double-decker and anteater models. ISBN 0-7603-0280-4.


[Edited 2004-04-07 20:07:29]

[Edited 2004-04-07 20:15:01]

[Edited 2004-04-07 20:19:20]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3654 times:

Stalionblue, excellent analysis and I have that book, a great reference. Let me add that Boeing said when peddling its' 747X 3 1/2 years ago that it didn't make sense to the upper deck the full length of the aircraft due to the structural weight and aerodynamic penalty it would entail. Obviously, the wings would have to be completely redesigned and enlarge to support such a beast. This is a 'what-if' example that will never happen.

User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3319 times:

New landing gear and wing, engines are required?


User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3161 times:

What about this one? It looks interesting... But the 777 already has this role? How about a "Duchess of the Skies?" haha... I'm a loser.

"Qantas B747-400NUD"



Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
User currently offlineQantasguy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3028 times:

Ha Ha, These are really good. I especially like the last one. My friend doesn't get what's so funny about these, to me they look so odd, they're funny.


Airplanes Flown on..B-727-100, B-727-200, DC-9, F-27, B-707, B-717, B-737, B-747SP, B-747-100, B-747-200, B-747-300, B74
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17030 posts, RR: 67
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2892 times:

Alessandro, you could go with new wing, new engines, new gear. But the 747 gains much aerodynamic advantage from area ruling, and this would be lost with a complete double decker. And that's why the stretch proposals (-500x and -600x) still only had the upper deck to the wing.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2726 times:

Anything is possible, we are all forced to follow the money though.

Realism is subjective and depends on what we believe is real, sadly again, we are all forced to follow the money.

That thing looks like a low-wing AN-124.

Wasn't Boeing competing and lost to Lockheed for the C-5 Galaxy transport contract and that plane was converted to pax load?



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2675 times:

why be modest and just copy the a380!
go beyond it! 747 triple deck!
http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/search/photo_search.php?id=00001287



10=2
User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2226 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2590 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In studies I've read it certainly is possible and studied by Boeing as a possible growth of -300. However, as has been said before, it was not the most efficient design. The -400 is supposedly the best compromise with that basic fuselage design and size and aerodynamic economies. That was published as the -300 was being made so what changes in propulsion options that are now available might barely make it more possible but, as Boeing has said many times and is trying to prove it with the 7E7, today's market choices must be made based on lowest operating price. And it was also written before todays fuel price hikes. But yes, It would fly.


Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17030 posts, RR: 67
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Lehpron, Boeing did indeed lose the C-5 contract, but the engines on the C-5 were a revelation of sorts, and in the end led to the 747.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Would This Be An Aviation Accident? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 22:35:05 by 4holer
Would This Be The 3rd Or 4th A380? posted Sun Aug 14 2005 04:06:12 by Squirrel83
Could This Be Possible? posted Sat Dec 11 2004 10:32:37 by Soups
Would It Be Possible To Buy A Permanent Seat? posted Tue Jun 18 2002 22:41:18 by LanPeru
London - Sydney Non-Stop - Will This Be Possible? posted Mon Jan 21 2002 15:42:52 by Hkg_clk
Would It Be Possible To.... posted Tue Jan 1 2002 13:34:33 by LanPeru
Would This Be Realistic? posted Fri Nov 23 2001 19:11:34 by Lubcha132
MX: Will This Pic Ever Be Possible? posted Wed May 12 2004 02:09:04 by Henpol747
What Would This Plane Be? posted Tue Jul 23 2002 03:09:42 by Beckaru
Would This Legally Be Called A Near Miss? posted Mon Mar 4 2002 21:48:08 by Ikarus