Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747-(400)FUW  
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2785 posts, RR: 15
Posted (14 years 2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 993 times:

This is a hypothetical proposition, but it occured to me and it seems to make a lot of sense:

The 747-(400)FUW, 400 in parenthesis because that's given, it's the only version produced, would be an aircraft with the Fuselage Under Wings.
By doing this, similar to an AN-124, Boeing would create an airliner with a number of advantages.
1) The entire bottom of the aircraft could be used for cargo,
2) The fuel tank, by being atop the aircraft and through the wings, could extend into the presently un-used overhead space, giving the aircraft longer range,
3) The wings could droop downhill, reducing stress on them as they would not need a strong support to keep them on a sharp uphill diahedral,
4) The hump of the 747 could be streemlined down over the central fuel tank instead of dropping as quickly as it does on current models, thus acheiving two goals:
...a) The aircraft would become more aerodynamic,
...b) A 2-3 row extension of seats on the upper deck.
The aircraft would weigh considerably more than a 747-400, but with larger engines compensated for by the increased fuel tank as described, it would be superior airliner.

This is the AN-124, with it's drooping wings over the fuselage,

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Paul Dopson



What do you think?


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1688 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 2 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 819 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Maintenance of those engines would sure be a headache being so far off the ground.

Sammy


User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2785 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (14 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 793 times:

If the extra cargo space wasn't needed, it could be used for crew rest since the aircraft would fly farther, and galleys - the galleys would then be out of the way of passenger seats, so along with the extra rows on the upper deck, the aircraft would have up to 30 more seats and fly farther than a 747-400, with the exact same dimmensions!


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1688 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 790 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I bet, if Boeing could redo the 747 now after all they have learned in the 30 years since she has been gracing the skies, I bet they would. Only problem is that it costs too much, and it probably wont be common with what they have out there now, and since commonality is such a big issue lately, the idea probably wont fly unless Juan Trippe rose from his grave. Unfortunate, but true  

Sammy


User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2785 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (14 years 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 780 times:

Since no one has offered any complaints aside from Sammyk's about the engines, I'm going to go ahead and start designing it in Autosketch. I think it'll actually look pretty good aesthetically speaking.


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3695 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 777 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The wings of a 747 have dihedral for a reason - lateral stability. You can't give it anhedral for no good reason

User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1688 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 768 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

747-600X, I wasn't complaining, believe me, I would love it if they made a new plane, the more the merrier. I was just talking from a feasability point of view that it would cost too much, and such things as the high mounted wing and engine would be a problem, and now that I think of it, not only for the maintenance of the engine, but also for refueling. Although, other innovations can be used to offset these things. Would love to see a rendering of it.  

Sammy


User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2785 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 766 times:

What would be the effect of anhedral - wouldn't it have a similar effect to diahedral?


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3695 posts, RR: 35
Reply 8, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 764 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No, imagine looking at an a/c with dihedral head on, now if the a/c rolls to one side,the down going wing will "grow" in length to the oncoming airflow while the up going wing will "shrink", therefore the lower wing will produce the greater lift and re-stabilise the a/c.

Anhedral will give the opposite result. Why you would want anhedral escapes me for the minute.


User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2785 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 762 times:

Then why do you suppose Antonov designed their mega-freightors as they did?


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3695 posts, RR: 35
Reply 10, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 760 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe because of their bulk the Antenov's are inherently stable so to enable you to roll one you require some aerodynamic assistance. The other option to anhedral would be to have huge aileron's/spoilers which would require the wing to be made stronger and so increase the a/c structural weight.

Don't forget in flight the anhedral will be less than it is on the ground. In fact I believe, I stand to be corrected, that the Lockheed Galaxy wings are slightly dihedral in flight.

I will verify the above when I get to my text books tomorrow.


User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2785 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 756 times:

I don't know if they're dihedral, anhedral or anything else hedral while it's in flight. I haven't got these lovely books you mentioned. Please do let me know what you find out.


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineFuturepilot2b From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 2 months 12 hours ago) and read 753 times:

I would love to see a rendering of the 747-400 (FUW). I think it would be cool. Please get back to us 747-600X.

User currently offlineTripple Seven From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (14 years 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 755 times:

If we look back at the developement of the 747, back in the early 60's, the very same problem (high or low) nagged the developmental team. Pan Am chief engineer Bolger told the Boeing team that the 747 will have to survive in a situation whereby the plane comes back with engine problems. Bolger noted that the high wing version would cause a greater harm to the passenger because it would take a longer time for the fire crew to reach the engine area !
On the other hand a low wing version could be vulnerable in a wheels up
belly landing situation as it might set off the belly tank. A high wing design,
I think, would be impractical as the fore and aft upper deck compartment would have to be divided because of the wing center box and placing fuel above the head of the passengers would be scarry wouldn't it ?


User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2785 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (14 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 754 times:

I can't do a 3D rendering which AutoCAD can, but I can do schematics (profile, front, aerial (orthographic) views). It'll take a while.

BTW, anyone here interest in my L-1011-600 designs that hasn't seen them yet? The engines are a bit too far out on the wings, but that's the only problem I've heard yet.



"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2785 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (14 years 2 months ago) and read 743 times:

If anyone has any ideas for landing gear arrangements, winglet positions or presence, or a more aesthetic name than FUW, please let me know...

-747-600X



"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineFuturepilot2b From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (14 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 744 times:

Use a gear arrangement that is the same or something like the AN-124. No winglets.

I would enjoy seeing a rendering of the L-1011. My e-mail is on profile. Get back to me. Thanks!


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...
Question About 747-400 Freighter Conversions posted Sat Feb 24 2007 18:21:26 by AviationAddict
Why Do The Second 747 400 LCF Has No Winglets? posted Fri Feb 16 2007 23:56:39 by 747400sp
United 747-400's At Victorville posted Wed Jan 17 2007 18:34:08 by Dbba
Mahan Air 747-400 posted Sat Jan 6 2007 13:46:54 by Curious
United 747-400 Replacement posted Sat Dec 30 2006 19:25:36 by 1337Delta764
Why Did BA Fly A 747-400 On 24DEC To FRA posted Mon Dec 25 2006 13:57:55 by A340roy
BlueSky 747-400 posted Sat Dec 16 2006 11:00:36 by DID747
TNT's New B.747-400 Looks Sweet! posted Sun Dec 10 2006 04:46:10 by Duncank
Why Two AF 747-400's In JNB? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 22:41:23 by RootsAir
United's 747-400's posted Wed Nov 22 2006 17:52:40 by Qantas744ER