JJMNGR From Brazil, joined May 2004, 1018 posts, RR: 16 Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9671 times:
Sorry but there is something wrong with your eyes. May a suggest a dark sunglass and a guide dog? I´m joking of course...sorry for the joke!
It is a B744F. All the B744F don´t have the longer upper deck. What for? Just to carry extra weight and loose in payload? Also the engines are brand new and are totally different from the older B741...
Wukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1013 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 9598 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4): As for a 741 with winglets, you will see one soon as they are tested out, and eventually, you will see 741/2/3 and possibly 400 with new blended winglets somewhere around 20 feet tall.
Wasn't there a study release from Boeing a couple of months back saying that raked wingtips were their "way of the future" for their larger craft, as they were just as efficient in the longterm and the widebodies weren't as gate-restricted as the winglet and blended-equipped narrows (since raking adds to wingspan)?
That also could have just been a shot at the aftermarket winglet manufacturers, as well (although the concept photos of the 787 with rakes as opposed to winglets/blended would lead me to believe otherwise).
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1604 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9438 times:
One 747-200 has been flown with winglets by API. However, the design was not taken to certification:
Quoting Levg79 (Reply 6): I remember reading that 777's wing is designed to be efficient without winglets.
Propaganda from The Empire. Any wing can benefit from a span extension. A winglet is just a non-planar span extension.
Quoting Wukka (Reply 8): Wasn't there a study release from Boeing a couple of months back saying that raked wingtips were their "way of the future" for their larger craft, as they were just as efficient in the longterm and the widebodies weren't as gate-restricted as the winglet and blended-equipped narrows (since raking adds to wingspan)?
B744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9211 times:
Quoting Eg777er (Reply 13): I thought that one of the reasons for putting the extended hump into the 747-300 was that it reduced drag and increased range/payload....so why not incorporate into the 744F?
No easy way of getting cargo up there to the top deck
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1604 posts, RR: 52 Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8952 times:
Quoting Wukka (Reply 15): I'm sorry... I guess that I didn't include that in my post when I said, "That also could have just been a shot at the aftermarket winglet manufacturers..."
Ooooops - sorry about that. I read the beginning of your post and jumped to conclusions too quickly. Your last paragraph is dead nuts on. BTW - the short range 787-3 will have winglets (Boeing designed, not APB designed), while the 787-8 and 787-9 will have raked tips.
Quoting Halophila (Reply 17): IIRC they also tried the blended winglets on a L-1011 a while ago too (seem to remember it being in CO old c/s), but the winglets never materialised on the a/c in production and were not retrofitted.
No L-1011 has ever been flown with winglets. I think you are thinking of the NASA testing of a DC-10 with winglets.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21313 posts, RR: 60 Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8497 times:
Quoting Bhmbaglock (Reply 18): That's the newer ones with raked wingtips. Older standard wings would definitely benefit particularly since 777s tend to fly long routes.
Exactly. Any winglets you see on the 777 would be 772ER and 773 retrofits, not on new planes (though theoretically, they could be on newly delivered 772s in the future, still as a retrofit). B has decided raked tips are their factory option for widebodies.
I had never seen that pic of the 747 with blended winglets. Av Partners said they thought it would be good for cargo ops, so why did they stop the certification process? as for 20 feet, that was an educated guess, but those winglets look to be a bit less than that, maybe 15 feet. But it's hard to tell. The 10 foot winglets on the 757 don't look that tall, so those could be 20 feet and just seem smaller next to the tall 747. Would be easier to tell from a direct side view.
I think the next plane they are looking at certifying, now the the 757 is working out and the 737 line is not incorporating winglets in all NG models, is the 762 and 763.
Quoting LeanOfPeak (Reply 21): Just to confuse things further, some -100's and -200's have been converted to the stretched upper deck.
It's not just that, as while the SUD was available as a retrofit, the 741 and 2 were also made available in SUD versions, and JAL took 2, IIRC.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
25 ZK-NBT: Not sure on 741's but KLM had several 742's converted to SUD in the mid 1980's. Just trying to think weather AF or UTA's 742SUD's were delivered like
26 Ljungdahl: "SUD" means Stretched Upper Deck, also a conversion. So the answer is that not a single 742SUD was delivered as such. /Johan
27 RobK: Because all the extra metal involved to make it a full length "pod" adds a significant amount of weight and more weight means a higher fuel burn so e
28 LorM: It does not increase payload. In fact it restricts bulk pallet height under the forward hump section by a few feet which is exactly why Boeing does n
29 SpeedbirdEGJJ: IIRC there is also an issue with the available cargo space being reduced directly underneath the upper deck. Therefore the shorter the upper deck the
30 Ikramerica: No, the term SUD does not indicate a conversion. It is Boeing term used for the option to have the SUD, and they made that offer available on the 741
31 LeanOfPeak: PlaneMad doesn't have any conversion date, so it would appear they were actually made that way, but JAL has JA8170 and JA8176, cn 23390/636 and 23637
32 Lemmy: Off topic, but where is the light coming from in the picture that SpeedbirdEGJJ posted? I looked at exterior shots of that aircraft and it doesn't hav