Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Possibility Of 747-8 Dreamlifter?  
User currently offlineei737ng From Ireland, joined Feb 2007, 48 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5535 times:

Does Boeing have any future plans to make convert any first build 747-8's not taken by the ordering airline to become Dreamlifters?

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2311 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5419 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While nothing is impossible, I don't think there are that many early frames that are available, now that it appears that homes have been found for some of the early Atlas birds.

The biggest problem with doing a 748-LCF would be cost - you'd have to design and certify a major new design, *and* buy an expensive new airplane (yes, Boeing already may own the frame, but they're currently expecting to sell it). The 744-LCF design and certification are already done, and plenty of cheap airframes are available for conversion should Boeing need more. Nor are the LCFs racking up hours in any huge hurry, and they're not really being worn out, so any actual need for doing a 748-LCF is many years down the road. Even a slightly overweight 748-F will likely find a customer, even if it needs a bit of a discount.

OTOH, a dozen years from now, Boeing may need to start considering something to replace the 744-LCFs.


User currently offlinefinnishway From Finland, joined Jul 2012, 307 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5237 times:

It is interesting that there are quite much demand for outsize cargo operations and most of them are operated by Russian airlines with Il-76 or An-124. Why doesn't Boeing offer civil version of the C-17?
I remember reading that there hasn't been demand enough, but I think that situation has changed.

Nowadays it seems there is much more need for cargo aircraft than there is production. If cargo airline wants additional aircraft fast they need to buy used aircraft or lease one. Ordering new cargo aircraft from Boeing or Airbus probably means years of waiting.


User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5048 times:

Quoting ei737ng (Thread starter):
Does Boeing have any future plans to make convert any first build 747-8's not taken by the ordering airline to become Dreamlifters?

At least two of the Atlas Air NTU's have already new owners - Saudi Arabian Cargo. Take a look in the #11 747-8 production thread.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2422 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks ago) and read 4845 times:

Quoting finnishway (Reply 2):
Why doesn't Boeing offer civil version of the C-17?

They did at one point but I think they wanted a rediculous amount of money for it.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7057 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4639 times:

Quoting finnishway (Reply 2):
It is interesting that there are quite much demand for outsize cargo operations and most of them are operated by Russian airlines with Il-76 or An-124.

It is a niche market, not many planes needed. Also keep in mind that after the fall of the Soviet Union these planes were available for a nickel and a dime (roughly speaking). Building a new aircraft just to fill that niche is too expensive.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4639 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting finnishway (Reply 2):
Why doesn't Boeing offer civil version of the C-17?

Both McD and Boeing offered it, but the operating costs are extremely high since it is based on a military airframe.

It's much the same with the An-124. There are only 28 in service with civilian operators (with another 10 on order).


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6524 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4554 times:

I expect the current dreamlifters to last as long as the 787 will be made.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7057 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4404 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 7):
I expect the current dreamlifters to last as long as the 787 will be made.

Or fly as long as the Super Guppies did  



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2311 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3818 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 7):
I expect the current dreamlifters to last as long as the 787 will be made.

Thinking about this, I have to agree. Each 787 requires what, four LCF deliveries? Giving us about eight cycles and roughly 36 flight hours per 787? Assuming 3000 787s get built, that would be 24,000 cycles and 108,000 hours spread across the four LCFs now in existence. Those numbers would barely wear out *one* 747, although perhaps the limits for an LCF are lower. Of course those airframe were not new when they were converted to LCFs.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3191 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 9):
Each 787 requires what, four LCF deliveries?

Five, I think:
-One to deliver wings to final assembly
-One to deliver nose to final assembly
-One to deliver center fuselage to final assembly
-One to deliver empennage to final assembly
-One to deliver center wing box to the ex-Global Aeronautica plant for integration into the center fuselage

It's that last one that usually gets missed, since it never goes to a final assembly site.

Tom.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7571 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3084 times:

Quoting finnishway (Reply 2):
It is interesting that there are quite much demand for outsize cargo operations and most of them are operated by Russian airlines with Il-76 or An-124. Why doesn't Boeing offer civil version of the C-17?

Because the vast majority of IL-76 and An-124 are surplus aircraft available dirt cheap.

There is no way to sell a new aircraft as cheap as one 10-20 years old. And labor costs for the very few latest builds put the cost of those new IL-76 / An-124 at about 1/2 the cost of a C-17.


User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

Quoting finnishway (Reply 2):
Why doesn't Boeing offer civil version of the C-17?
I remember reading that there hasn't been demand enough, but I think that situation has changed.

The C17 isn't in the scale of things that large, it is of course a supremely efficient military transport, but in weight terms only a medium sized transport with a payload half that of the A124, on that basis its use for outsize cargo is limited, an A124 can always replace a C17, but not the other way round.

As to a 747-8 dreamlifter, at present there's plenty of half lifed 744's available for which all the development work for the conversion has been carried out and certified, if Boeing need more lift capability they can buy some 2nd hand airframes and end up with planes with at least 20 years service ahead of them. A 747-8 variant would require additional design and ceftification work and only provide a small capability increase


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1500 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2978 times:

What about the 787-10--isn't the tube too long for the dreamlifter--assuming they don't build all of those in CHS?

User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2311 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2914 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 13):
What about the 787-10--isn't the tube too long for the dreamlifter--assuming they don't build all of those in CHS?

As near as I can tell, the longest parts on the -8 and -9 are the wings. Not sure about the -10 (obviously, since Boeing hasn’t decided how long it’s going to be yet), but it might depend on where the put the plugs. But I’m sure if it’s an issue, it’s been taken into account. I’m sure there’s someone at Boeing whose job it is to make sure the can actually “get the new airplane out of the garage”.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
Five, I think:
-One to deliver wings to final assembly
-One to deliver nose to final assembly
-One to deliver center fuselage to final assembly
-One to deliver empennage to final assembly
-One to deliver center wing box to the ex-Global Aeronautica plant for integration into the center fuselage

It's that last one that usually gets missed, since it never goes to a final assembly site.

Thanks. The planes built in CHS would require one less flight, then. And it looks like they could get two forward fuselages in one LCF without too much trouble, if they were so inclined.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2795 times:

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 12):
an A124 can always replace a C17, but not the other way round.

That's assuming you have adequate runway for an An-124. I think the C-17 has considerably better short/unimproved runway performance.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 13):
What about the 787-10--isn't the tube too long for the dreamlifter--assuming they don't build all of those in CHS?

There's no particular reason that all the addition length needs to go on the center section...if they add it to the nose or tail they've got tons of room in the Dreamlifter.

Tom.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3391 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

only way I see a 748 based dreamlifter is if they move some of the 777x supply chain airborne and need much higher capacity.

I still doubt we will see one for 15-20 years when Boeing should be looking at a "all new" plane larger than the 787.


User currently offlineHBGDS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2561 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 3):
Why doesn't Boeing offer civil version of the C-17?
I remember reading that there hasn't been demand enough, but I think that situation has changed.

They did indeed offer it, but as MCD. In 1995 at the Paris Air Show, the hostesses were handing out stickers for the "MD-18," the civilian counterpart to the C-17. WIth the Boeing take-over, that all disappeared, but the project was there. I still have that sticker somewhere in my mess.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2278 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 17):
They did indeed offer it, but as MCD. In 1995 at the Paris Air Show, the hostesses were handing out stickers for the "MD-18," the civilian counterpart to the C-17. WIth the Boeing take-over, that all disappeared, but the project was there.

When Boeing took over McD, they continued to try and sell a commercial version as the BC-17X.


User currently offlineStudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1904 times:

Here's a (dumb?) question or two~

Could Boeing (or anyone else with an older '47) re-engine them with the new engines of the -8F/I?

Would the swap gain anything?





StudeDave



Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3391 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

Quoting StudeDave (Reply 19):
Could Boeing (or anyone else with an older '47) re-engine them with the new engines of the -8F/I?

Would the swap gain anything?

yes, it would gain them lower fuel burn, but the cost to do so even in the easier to certify relm the dreamlifters operate in... They would never pay back the costs in the aircrafts lifetime.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
History of 747's @ Griffiss Int'l Airport, Rome, NY posted Thu Aug 30 2012 18:13:45 by sancho99504
Possibility Of New N/S Service To EU From BDL? posted Tue Jan 17 2012 12:46:56 by olddominion727
The Possibility Of TG Starting TLV? posted Fri Jan 13 2012 09:22:40 by staralliance85
Cargolux To Not Take Delivery Of 747-8F On Monday posted Fri Sep 16 2011 12:46:06 by QANTAS747-438
Possibility of UL/EK To Stockholm? posted Thu Nov 11 2010 21:00:51 by KFlyer
Possibility Of Southwest B738s To Hawaii? posted Sat Sep 4 2010 14:48:49 by mrskyguy
Timelapse Painting Of A 747 posted Fri Sep 3 2010 19:57:22 by blueangel5
With The New United Font - Any Pics Of 747? posted Mon Aug 16 2010 16:36:52 by adambrau
Ten Percent Of 747-400 In Storage posted Tue Mar 2 2010 10:24:54 by b741
Production Of 747-8 Intercontinental Has Started. posted Wed Feb 17 2010 23:58:34 by 747classic