TommyBP251b From Germany, joined Apr 2006, 460 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6843 times:
Never forget that there were more things in the movie than you can see on the pictures.
1. It had 747-400 Winglets
2. It had a stretched upper deck
3. and on the side, it looked like the part of the A380 with all the airline stickers of the buyers as you can see in on the last picture of the link above.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26792 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6631 times:
Quoting Legs (Reply 6): I actually kinda like the idea, kinda like a 747 and a B-52's lovechild! Not so sure about its feasibility in the real world though.
It worked on the B-47. First flight 60 years ago, December 17, 1947. Over 2000 built through 1957. I think it was the first production aircraft with jet engines suspended on pylons below the wings. Provided a lot of inspiration for subsequent Boeing types, military and commercial.
Legs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6498 times:
Good point, but I was thinking more along the lines of the commercial world where the almighty dollar reigns supreme. I would imagine that a dual engine pod would make maintenance a bit of a headache, or at the very least you would need two different accessory configurations for the engines
ZBBYLW From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 2003 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6468 times:
Quoting B78710 (Reply 3): stationed at dunsfold airfield.....where they film top gear also!
Did anyone see the Top Gear episode where they were testing out tractors and Jeromy decided to pull the 747 with his tractor haha!
Edit: WOW thats embarrassing... the link is the Top Gear episode in where they do it... I should click the links before posting...
Rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2598 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6433 times:
Another issue for a commercial aircraft with pairs of engines in a pod would be certification requirements in case of engine failures. I don't know if any standards currently exist, but I could easily see that the regulators might hesitate to count those two engines as completely separate. Just think if you had a fire in one of them - could you really expect not to shut down the other engine in the same pod?
Also, as I understand it, the B-52 experience (admittedly built to rather different standards) is that the failure of the second engine in the pod is more-or-less assumed (not that it always happens, of course), and the aircraft is flown more like a quad.
You'd probably be able to certify an aircraft with four engines in two pods on more-or-less that same basis as a twin, but then you'd end up with the worst of both worlds - a quads fuel consumption, and a twins need for extra power. You might find a situation with an extremely large aircraft where the lack of suitable single engines might make that a practical option (for example a 2.5 million pound aircraft with eight GE-90s in four pods). Much smaller than that, and you could just build an ordinary quad.
3MilesTOWro From Poland, joined Mar 2006, 282 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6383 times:
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 11): Another issue for a commercial aircraft with pairs of engines in a pod would be certification requirements in case of engine failures. I don't know if any standards currently exist
Well, Il-62s keep flying. So did Concordes not so long ago.