CV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4967 times:
In my humble opinion I think Boeing saves more money adapting and converting 744's in Dreamlifters than building new ones. I'm sure that these 744's had low flying time....so they can always save money!!!
ThePalauan From Guam, joined Oct 2006, 264 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4963 times:
It's probably cheaper for them to utilize existing frames rather than make a fresh one off the line just for a specific purpose. If anything, it basically gives a second life to these airframes that would otherwise be sent to the desert if no one else found a purpose for them.
You can take the boy out of the island, but not the island out of the boy!
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3469 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4833 times:
Boeing doesn't have any "spare" 744 frames they could convert new off the line. More over the time frame in which they need the plane demands them get one new.
The "cost" of the frames to be converted is near meaningless in terms of the value of the LCF once converted, but any money off is a good thing. The LCF will be low cycle aircraft, and since most of it is unpressurised anyway... It doesn't really matter what 744 they start with so long as its in decent condition and a passenger model.
DeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4231 times:
Quoting CV990 (Reply 1): In my humble opinion I think Boeing saves more money adapting and converting 744's
Think of the opprotunity cost of building a new one for themselves as oposed to gaining the profit from selling it. Also they had a limited number of 744 slots that were all grabbed up fast. The used ones were already sold at a profit to Boeing, earned lots of money via product support, and then purchased back at a reasonable price keeping all slots available to paying customers.
Smart business. I would bet they ended up just making less profit on those frames bottom line because the total profit on those frames probably exceeds the cost to buy them back when product support is included.
[Edited 2007-05-23 22:16:46]
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
I would say yes -- the dedicated freighter has the nose-loading door. There are two reasons why (I think) you wouldn't want this:
1) It adds unnecessary weight.
2) There may be structural problems with the modifications to the rear of the A/C and the lack of structural continuity at the front (which would, naturally, be unique to this A/C).
Finally, you need somewhere that is suitable for the non-flying crew to rest -- the PAX versions come with this already built under the cockpit area. If you look at the LCF, the upper deck appears to be cut off shortly behind the cockpit -- in a dedicated freighter, there's a crew rest area behind the cockpit area (in the freighter I saw, it had a small galley, three or four rows of standard business class seats and two "bedrooms"). The load area in the LCF in not pressurized, so there's no way of putting a crew rest area behind the bulkhead.
I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
CupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 843 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3716 times:
It is much more economical for Boeing to buy used 747s and convert them than to construct these planes from scratch. The LCF is not a Boeing production model and will not be sold to any customers or see any airliner operation, and will be for Boeing's exclusive use. Another reason for modifying existing planes is the minimum regulation and flight testing required by authorities such as the Federal Aviation Administration. If the 747 LCF were produced entirely within Boeing, it would face years of development and testing in the same manner as the upcoming Boeing 747-8. Rules on airworthiness allow for the faster approval of modifications to existing aircraft that are already approved than would be the case for the approval of brand new aircraft designs.
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26819 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3436 times:
Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 7): The cockpit section of the Beluga is actually from an A320! The A320 nose was modified though due to (obvious)differences in the aerodynamics of this unique aircraft.
Note the same cockpit windows as the A320:
What is your source for that information? And the A320 cockpit windows are NOT the same as on the Beluga. If you look closely at the rear window, the angled section at the upper right hand corner is significantly longer on the Beluga, and identical to other A300 cockpit windows. The simiilar angled portion of the A320 window is noticeably shorter.