787engineer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1691 times:
This topic has already been discussed before, you can probably find it by doing a search. In short the 747LCF that ships the 787 fuselage sections is unpressurized. It would not be suitable for most cargo and definitely not for passengers. Considering it's shape it isn't the most aerodynamic (thus inefficient) and it would be very difficult to pressurize the LCF considering its shape. It's the only thing big enough to carry the 787 fuselage barrel sections so that is what Boeing will have to go with no matter how unaerodynamic it is (it's faster and probably cheaper overall than shipping by boat).
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1013 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1579 times:
Quoting 787engineer (Reply 2): It's the only thing big enough to carry the 787 fuselage barrel sections so that is what Boeing will have to go with no matter how unaerodynamic it is (it's faster and probably cheaper overall than shipping by boat).
Considering how expensive airplane components are, it is indeed more economical to ship by air.
The alternative involves an overhead of billions of dollars of equippment and people, continously in transit and essentially contributing nothing to overall productivity. For example, you want some sort of insurance when shipping fuselage barrels that cost several million dollars. Faster ship time means less insurance costs.
Haggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1545 times:
I was always wondering if it is really a good idea to ship the sections of the A380 by ship and land from Hamburg to Toulouse as Airbus is doing at the moment... on the other hand, of course, there is no frighter large enough to put an A380 section in...
DL787932ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1477 times:
Also keep in mind that the LCF modification added lots of space, but AFAIK didn't add to allowable MTOW. The 787 fuselage sections are big, but they are hollow tubes that are pretty low-density when you factor in all the air inside them. If you put two or three decks of seating inside an LCF, even assuming the structure itself could support the weight of passenger decks, you'd have a fuel capacity of about ten gallons before you were over MTOW.
Other posters also made valid points regarding the lack of pressurization and relative aerodynamic inefficiency (it was designed to be quick and cheap, not streamlined). The converted ships probably aren't certified in the transport category either. The biggest passenger Boeing will be the 747-8i at least until the Y3 days.