I used the clone in Adobe photoshop to put the windows and fix the doors. I also tried to save the playe on the fuselage but couldn't. I also fixed the paint and logo too that was ghosted on.
I really don't think they will tryit out, but it doesn't hurt to try-Well they could loose money from the program and end up in Chapter 11, well it still doesn't hurt to try and extend it a little. Some airlines who do passenger and cargo are looking into seeing a longer 747, but not this long.
[Edited 2004-07-19 02:40:40]
"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
Solnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 12791 times:
Boeing had the chanse in late 60´s with the double-decker, but scrapped it, and I personaly think B is out of ideas right now to buildt a bigger 747-SMURF
but..........I can be wrong! Lets wait ´til 2010-2015
Time will tell, and B will have to make one hell of a airliner to compete with A388 / 389 / 387........
UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8320 times:
What did Boeing have on the drawing board for the Super Transport it was going to make out of the 744 for transporting the 7e7 parts? That would take a whole lot of work and I saw the picture for it and it's way bigger than your modified pics. So maybe it is still possible. I think they will want to get the 7e7 out of the way and then maybe think about an A380 competitor.
I think the issue is really that not too many are in the market for such a large airliner. Boeing might have missed their chance in that market. And really, the 744 is turning into a cargo a/c than a pax a/c. 777-200/ER-300/ER are taking over those pax routes with more high tec gear and better reliability.
Rupesnz From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7715 times:
"What did Boeing have on the drawing board for the Super Transport it was going to make out of the 744 for transporting the 7e7 parts? That would take a whole lot of work and I saw the picture for it and it's way bigger than your modified pics. So maybe it is still possible."
Yes, but the 744 Super Transporter would be carrying items of large bulk but of ( relatively ) small weight so new gear, wings etc are not needed, also in their case efficiency is of less importance than that of a commercial carrier.
Mark777300 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7597 times:
A 747 with a full length upper deck is something that has been mentioned a few times in the past. In fact, I have a book on the 747 which shows one of the proposed 747 expansion models which showed a 747 with a full length upper deck and a 747SP style tail. While I'm sure these modifications can be made to the fuselagr itself, the wing would have to be changed, the type of engines would be much like the ones used for the A380, and the landing gear would have to be heavily modified to compensate for the larger engines. I'm sure it's possible, and it would probably be cheaper for Boeing to do than to come up with a completely new design. But Boeing would most certainly have to make this aircraft comparable in economics to the A380 to be a good sell.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 7137 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7515 times:
As L.1011 correctly stated, a heavier 747 will not only need a new fuselage, but also a new wing. The 744 is really stretched to the limit of the current wing.
When taking off with a heavy load the 744 cannot stick to the 250 kts. speed limit below FL100 without flaps extended. Some upgraded engines won't do the job.
It's no big problem on the 744. But anyway flaps means both drag and noise. Drag means also higher power needed for the same climb profile, and therefore even more noise. (And of course increased fuel burn).
Still no big problem, but on a significantly heavier 747 the problem would escalate.
In that respect the 380 is in a different class since it has a 50 feet wider wing span.
The bump, area ruling and the last 0.01 or 0.02 Mach number will not be the deciding factors for future large airliners.
Any future large ship will at least have to match the noise properties of the 380. Otherwise they will have to pay a significant noise penalty at many airports, or they will be banned altogether.
Revised fuselage, new wings, larger engines, tail to fit, you see, there isn't much left.
It is common practice to regard the 747 and the 380 as sort of competitors, where the former is just a little smaller. And efficiency factors are compared down to fractions of cent per seat/mile. But in the long run the 380 may be the winner simply because noise rules make it the only realistic choice for the airline companies.
And in the other end of the size scale the 777 will the same way outperform the good old 747.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs