Trex8 From United States, joined Nov 2002, 2908 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week ago) and read 9439 times:
Quoting AvroArrow (Reply 2): I know these will run from Seattle to Japan, but where else do they intend to run them?
won't the Italian subassemblies need to be flown to the US and then from wherever it is in the southern US where the largest fuselage assembly is made from the Italian ones
M404 From United States, joined Nov 2003, 2054 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9073 times:
As for the LCFs flying duties, here is a paragraph from the Boeing website.
The LCF fleet will ferry 787 wings and fuselage parts from partners in Wichita, Kan.; Charleston, S.C.; Grottaglie, Italy; and Nagoya, Japan, to Boeing's Everett factory for final assembly. A cargo loader will be based at each facility. The first loader, and a second to be completed this month, will be disassembled and delivered by ship to Nagoya and Grottaglie for reassembly.
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
Centrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3342 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7404 times:
Can't wait to see this thing at NGO. We have a chance for A380F from Fedex, 7478F from All Nippon Cargo, but before those we will get this big mother picking up 787 parts.
What is the estimated date of completion for this first bird...pterodactyl.
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
Mham001 From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1486 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6705 times:
Boeings worst nightmare is that these things stay grounded for one reason or another. They are betting the company on these three planes. What would be their backup plan to transport from NC to Seattle?
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18424 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5883 times:
Quoting Mham001 (Reply 8): Boeings worst nightmare is that these things stay grounded for one reason or another. They are betting the company on these three planes. What would be their backup plan to transport from NC to Seattle?
I doubt they would do this project without plans in place for when they only have 2 out of 3 available, etc. And with production increases planned, expect the family to grow to 5 jets.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Mham001 From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1486 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5728 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
I doubt they would do this project without plans in place for when they only have 2 out of 3 available, etc. And with production increases planned, expect the family to grow to 5 jets.
One loss of one plane is easily worked around, what about the grounding of the entire fleet for some unforseen problem?
A grounding of the entire fleet is a nightmare for both A and B, and I think it's a strong demotivation for Airbus to replace their Belugas anytime soon. BTW, how long did Airbus keep their Super Guppies after the Belugas came?
A350
Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
EI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5265 times:
Looks great. It will have more capacity than a Beluga or AN124, right? And how does it compare to those in terms of max payload? Will Boeing charter it out on occasions?
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18424 posts, RR: 60 Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5229 times:
Quoting Mham001 (Reply 13): One loss of one plane is easily worked around, what about the grounding of the entire fleet for some unforseen problem?
And the likelihood of that is so remote, it's like saying "what happened if the factory burned down?"
You can't plan for catastrophe, and I don't have any understanding of WHY you think the whole fleet would be grounded for any length of time other than trying to find a negative in the project...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Leezyjet From United Kingdom (England), joined Oct 2001, 3889 posts, RR: 60 Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4979 times:
Quoting EI321 (Reply 16): It will have more capacity than a Beluga or AN124, right? And how does it compare to those in terms of max payload?
Could possibly have more volume than both the Beluga and AN124, will certainly have a payload/MTOW greater than the Beluga, but would have thought the AN124 has a higher payload/MTOW.
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
Gr8Circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 2380 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4773 times:
I had asked a question on this forum as to why these monster transporters designed by A and B are not offered as commercial cargo aircraft.....answer was that they are not suitable for regular cargo ops....
In that case, why don't A and B just opt for surface transport or sea transport for their huge parts..? One obvious answer is the time factor, but won't that be offset by the considerable savings from avoiding building of these huge transporters?
NYC777 From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4291 posts, RR: 46 Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days ago) and read 4537 times:
Well this is an old picture which was released by Boeing earlier this spring.
The first airplane should be (By Boeing's estimates) close to be ing finished by now and should be flying within the next 8 weeks (Boeig said this summer). Who knows and Boeing might decide to surprise everyone and have it fly past Farnbourogh next month if it's ready. That would be totally cool! Maybe even park it next to the A380.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18424 posts, RR: 60 Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days ago) and read 4526 times:
Quoting Gr8Circle (Reply 21): why don't A and B just opt for surface transport or sea transport for their huge parts
time.
and no, the cost is not offset. Look at how costly it is for Airbus to transport A380 sections via surface, constantly paying fees to close down roads, building special road transports for all the pieces, etc.
It's expensive to move the stuff no matter what. The 747LCF gives them more flexibility because it allows Boeing to choose suppliers from all over the globe as long as they have a 14000 airstrip nearby.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7507 posts, RR: 51 Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days ago) and read 4485 times:
The crossection of the B-747-400LCF is suppose to be wider and taller than the A-300-600F Bulga. So, maybe Boeing can ship some A-380 barrel sections for Airbus.
BTW, Boeing has been considering adding 2-3 additional airplanes to the LCF fleet, bring the total to 4-6 airplanes. Airbus maintanes a fleet of 7 A-300-600F Bulgas.
Mush From United States, joined Jun 2006, 97 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4403 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24): BTW, Boeing has been considering adding 2-3 additional airplanes to the LCF fleet, bring the total to 4-6 airplanes. Airbus maintanes a fleet of 7 A-300-600F Bulgas.
I would have thought that Airbus had less than that. One would think that the stage length of the Belugas is shorter than the LCF will be meaning they could make more turns per day. Does anybody know the optimization of the Belugas (how many hours do they spend in the air)?
Thanks,
mush
Sprung from cages out on highway 9
26 2H4: ...And in terms of AOG/mechanical downtime, Boeing can get parts and support from..........Boeing! Something tells me those issues will be handled ra
27 Litz: These parts, remember, are going to be large enough that any kind of land transport would be rather difficult. The 737 sections transported by rail al
28 RedFlyer: Ikramerica, that is a pretty long airstrip. Is that what is required for the LCF fully loaded? How many airports have 14000 feet of runway?
29 Texfly101: The new dock and associated railroad spur that is being built in Everett as a part of the 787 governmental approval package is sized to handle large
30 Dw747400: It is more likely you could fit a C-130 fuselage into a 787! As for the C-5, I believe that it would be close but not quite large enough. Either way,
31 SirOmega: The hold is not pressurized or temperature controlled, which means freight companies would avoid it.
32 NYC777: Does anyone know when the first LCF isdue to be rolled out?
33 Texfly101: Actually, the military is legally blocked from helping private companies with military assets. Using tax payers dollars to help private, for profit,
34 Dw747400: I believe you are correct, which is why I left that intentionally vague. The military does occasionally use assets to support civilian activities (of
35 Brendows: First flight will be in August IIRC, and I guess the middle of July is a good guess then
Sponsor Message: 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 6043 posts, 
From United States, joined May 2005, 18424 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 860 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 27 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 397 posts, 
From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3342 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 9848 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1095 posts, 
From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Oct 2001, 3889 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
