Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could There Ever Be A Twin-engined 747?  
User currently offlineDeltaXNA From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 200 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 6615 times:

Is it possibly? GE90's?

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyingGoat From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 6594 times:

Nope. Max thrust on a 747 is roughly 60,000lbs per engine, give or take a bit depending on engine manufacture. Aircraft must be designed to take off with one engine out. Max engine thrust on a 747 with one engine out is around 180,000lbs. If you were to place two GE90s on a 747, your max engine thrust with an engine out would be 115,000lbs. This is no where near enough.

The 777-9X is pretty much a twin engine 747.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6468 times:

The payload-range of the proposed 777-9X surpasses the 747-400. If built, it will be a twin-engine 747.


Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6435 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting DeltaXNA (Thread starter):
Is it possibly? GE90's?

If your question was whether the 747 can operate despite being equipped with only two engines, then the answer is no. The 747 is not designed as a twin.

The A330/A340 was unique in the sense that they were designed specifically as a twin and a quad. I could be wrong, but I do not believe that the same can be done with other aircraft families that are not designed specifically with this interchangeability. There cannot be a twin engine 747 any more than there can be a quad engined 767 (for example).

If your question was whether there can be a 747 sized twin, then the answer is yes. There already is one, the 777-300ER, and two more on the way: the A350-1000 and 777-9X.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 2):
The payload-range of the proposed 777-9X surpasses the 747-400.

The 777-300ER's payload-range already surpasses that of the 747-400.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1591 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6386 times:

Quoting DeltaXNA (Thread starter):
Is it possibly? GE90's?

There could have been a twin engine 747 and almost was. In the mid to late 70's Boeing was looking at a twin 747SP with the expected increases in engine thrust coming. The original 747 only has about 46,000 pounds of thrust.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6336 times:

Truly a fascinating and engrossing topic...a quick glance at the bottom of the page shows four threads, no less.....


Twin Engined 747...is It Possible? (by Jcchristie Aug 3 2008 in Tech Ops)

Is It Possible To Make A Twin Engined B 747? (by United Airline Nov 17 2005 in Tech Ops)

Could The 747ADV Be A Twin? (by Tockeyhockey May 13 2005 in Tech Ops)

A Twin Engined 747? (by Trent_800 Jan 13 2002 in Tech Ops)


Doubtless we're in for many more.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...hy-would-boeing-design-a-mid-.html

.....in various configurations.    ...not sure when it would cease being called a 747 though...    .



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2403 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6321 times:

Even if such engines could be built, the most striking argument...

Bigger engines need more ground clearance, which needs longer landing gear struts. Which needs a huge redesign.


And IMHO, the even more striking argument is that any real airliner should have four engines. Or at least three. 


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineBuyantukhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2899 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6289 times:

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 1):
The 747 is not designed as a twin.

But seems to have been evolving in that direction  
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Kings




I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlinePapaChuck From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6239 times:

It could be done, but not in a way that would make any economical sense to any airline.

Start with a basic 747-8 so we can take advantage of the new wing. Let's assume that a GE-90 could be shoehorned under each wing and the ground clearance issues could be resolved without needing a complete wing or landing gear redesign. The rudder/vertical stabilizer would need modification as well to provide increased control authority in an engine-out scenario.

Now we have a basic airframe, but the weights are now going to work against us. Given the available thrust, let's assume that the MTOW would have to be restricted to the 777-300ER range, around 750,000 lbs. Boeing lists the OEW for the 777-300ER and the 747-8 as 370,000 lbs. and 434,600 lbs. respectively. Right away the 747 twin will have about 65,000 lbs. less useful load given a similar MTOW. Economically, that's enough to kill the project right there. The basic 747 airframe is just too beefy. I suppose you could do a fuselage shrink and find other ways to save weight, but it will always be heavier than the basic 777 airframe.

Back to the original question: could a 747 twin be built? Sure, but it would be a lame duck compared to the competition. The 747 was designed as a quad, and thus it shall always be.

PC



In-trail spacing is a team effort.
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6204 times:

Technically, a 747 sized twin is tricky. You'd need to have engines that produce 40%+ more thrust than the current largest engines.

The economical conundrum is that, the larger the engine (or aircraft for that market) the smaller the market but the larger the investment. Developing a GE90 is much bigger gamble than developing a CFM56. Look, for example, at the difficulties experienced by P&W when the JT9D was developed. Unless engine technology changes rather drastically, it does not make sense to invest in developing a 160000lb thrust engine.

This leads us to "what's the point?" There's nothing inherently evil about four engines. Yes, very large twins have in the past twenty years shown themselves remarkably economical. However plenty of first line airlines are very happy operating very large quads. There is a weight point at which even the economy of a twin doesn't enable the construction of a twin.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5846 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 3):

The 777-300ER's payload-range already surpasses that of the 747-400.

Indeed, as the 779X will likely have the same relationship to the 748, especially once evolutional upgrades come online as well.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 3):
There cannot be a twin engine 747 any more than there can be a quad engined 767 (for example).

I think there could be; it would just be a question of how useful it is. Enough Boeing customers would really have to love that hump to make it worthwhile.

It would almost certainly need a new wing; not just to accommodate the engines, but as well the effected center of gravity. With two fewer engines, that wing box will either have to be set a good deal further aft, or airlines will just have to be ok with tail-standing their planes until fueled.

There would also have to be a pretty comprehensive materials and processing upgrade as well, along with whatever further lightening they could get away with in order to have it so that a variant of today's GE-90 could actually loft that thing. On the plus side, that and larger tires would probably also allow for a simpler, dual carriage, six wheel bogie set up instead of what's there now, so we'd see further weight savings there.

I really think that a 160,000lb engine being required is total nonsense, as enough structure redesign would be required to effectively void that anyway. And I also think that designing a 747(I guess 9) in this fashion is not only feasible, but likely less costly than the 380 was for Airbus, and the 787 was for Boeing.

It would even be totally worth a look into... If there were not going to be a 779 or A350.

And so... This topic is a very good and interesting one, as a thought exercise, but it does fall firmly under the "Well, if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle" category.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinemmo From Qatar, joined Apr 2013, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5775 times:

There is another factor that has not been mentioned. The entire rudder would have to be redesigned to allow for control with one engine out. Currently the 744 can handle two out on one side with the existing rudder. However, with the thrust available you would need the rudder would have to be redesigned to allow for a reasonable VMCA.

Too expensive and market is not big enough given existing or even potential products.



If we weren't all crazy we would all go insane
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5564 times:

Quoting DeltaXNA (Thread starter):

Already have one. the 777-300ER is basically a 747. Sounds like a 777-9 will fully be able to do everything + what the 747-400 will do.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9):
Technically, a 747 sized twin is tricky. You'd need to have engines that produce 40%+ more thrust than the current largest engines.

I guess I am a little confused at what you mean here.

2x GE90-115BL2=230,000lbs of thrust
4x PW4060=240,000lbs of thrust.

thats 10,000lbs of differences



yep.
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5561 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 12):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9):
Technically, a 747 sized twin is tricky. You'd need to have engines that produce 40%+ more thrust than the current largest engines.

I guess I am a little confused at what you mean here.

2x GE90-115BL2=230,000lbs of thrust
4x PW4060=240,000lbs of thrust.

thats 10,000lbs of differences

You're calculating based on all engines running. You need to calculate based on one engine out while climbing out. In a worst case scenario, i.e. an engine out at V1, you will have three engines in a quad, but only one in a twin.

1x GE90-115BL2= 115,000lb of thrust.
3x PW4060= 180,000lb of thrust

With those numbers it is actually more like 56.5% than 40%, and that doesn't account for the extra drag of going sideways on one engine while climbing out. However I am willing to stipulate an airliner made of lighter materials than a 747-400, so I think the 40% number is reasonable.

[Edited 2013-04-23 03:03:46]

Quoting mmo (Reply 11):
There is another factor that has not been mentioned. The entire rudder would have to be redesigned to allow for control with one engine out. Currently the 744 can handle two out on one side with the existing rudder. However, with the thrust available you would need the rudder would have to be redesigned to allow for a reasonable VMCA.

I don't think a rudder redesign need be so dramatic. Besides, they have the 747SP fin and rudder as a starting point. The 747SP fin was taller and the rudder had a double hinge for more authority given the shorter moment arm.


[Edited 2013-04-23 03:10:28]

[Edited 2013-04-23 03:11:03]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9400 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5545 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):

You're calculating based on all engines running. You need to calculate based on one engine out while climbing out. In a worst case scenario, i.e. an engine out at V1, you will have three engines in a quad, but only one in a twin.

ahh didn't even think about n engine out.



yep.
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5543 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 14):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):

You're calculating based on all engines running. You need to calculate based on one engine out while climbing out. In a worst case scenario, i.e. an engine out at V1, you will have three engines in a quad, but only one in a twin.

ahh didn't even think about n engine out.

No worries. Most people don't. A twin has way more power than "needed" when all engines are running. That's why a 757, 330 or 777 can blast off from the runway compared to a 747 or 340. With an engine out it is another story. This is one of the reasons the 340 has been favored by airlines with lots of hot and high ops, for example SA out of JNB.

[Edited 2013-04-23 04:02:56]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinemmo From Qatar, joined Apr 2013, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5533 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):
I don't think a rudder redesign need be so dramatic. Besides, they have the 747SP fin and rudder as a starting point. The 747SP fin was taller and the rudder had a double hinge for more authority given the shorter moment arm.


Actually, I think it would be quite a redesign. The SP rudder was for a much shorter body. The SP was shorter than the 100/200 while the 400 is longer and the -8 even longer. Most likely the redesign/production and certification would make it just too expensive when you have the 773ER and the 779X waiting in the wings. With over 10,000 hours in all models it is truly a great aircraft. However, it really can not compete with the 773ER.



If we weren't all crazy we would all go insane
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5527 times:

Quoting mmo (Reply 16):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 13):
I don't think a rudder redesign need be so dramatic. Besides, they have the 747SP fin and rudder as a starting point. The 747SP fin was taller and the rudder had a double hinge for more authority given the shorter moment arm.

Actually, I think it would be quite a redesign. The SP rudder was for a much shorter body. The SP was shorter than the 100/200 while the 400 is longer and the -8 even longer

The SP rudder and fin were indeed for a much shorter body. For this reason the fin was longer and the rudder had more authority than the ordinary 747 fin and rudder. A longer body means you can get away with a shorter fin and less powerful rudder. However given more powerful engines you need a longer fin and more powerful rudder.

I think the 747SP fin would do just fine, but I don't think Boeing would go for a 40 year old design. The 777-900X would be longer but have more powerful engines, design features that work in different directions with regards to fin and rudder. The current 777 fin/rudder design probably works, perhaps with a fin extension and worst case with a double hinged rudder.

[Edited 2013-04-23 04:25:09]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinemmo From Qatar, joined Apr 2013, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5512 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 17):
The 777-900X would be longer but have more powerful engines, design features that work in different directions with regards to fin and rudder. The current 777 fin/rudder design probably works, perhaps with a fin extension and worst case with a double hinged rudder.

Not quite. The 779X will actually have a lower MTOW than the current 773ER, with less powerful engines than the current GE115s. However, on paper, it will have a better range/payload combination than the current 773ER.

Believe me, after flying the SP for about 450 hours, I know how it works. My point was the SP rudder is for that length body. More importantly, the adverse thrust and asymmetrical yaw would require a very robust rudder. The rudder for all of the various models was not designed for that type of situation.



If we weren't all crazy we would all go insane
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5506 times:

Quoting mmo (Reply 18):
Not quite. The 779X will actually have a lower MTOW than the current 773ER, with less powerful engines than the current GE115s. However, on paper, it will have a better range/payload combination than the current 773ER.

Believe me, after flying the SP for about 450 hours, I know how it works. My point was the SP rudder is for that length body. More importantly, the adverse thrust and asymmetrical yaw would require a very robust rudder. The rudder for all of the various models was not designed for that type of situation.

Fair enough. However my point was that Boeing have a lot of rudder design experience. If you say that the 779X will have less powerful engines than the 773ER then presumably the current 773ER rudder will be more than enough.

My 747SP comment was half in jest. Sorry that was not clear. Besides, this thread is about a twin 747, not the 777-900X. Two quite different beasts.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5477 times:

Quoting mmo (Reply 16):
The SP was shorter than the 100/200 while the 400 is longer and the -8 even longer.

The 400 is not longer than the 100/200. It has the extended hump like the 300 & some 100s & 200s, but the aircraft is identical in length. For that, you will need the LCF or the 8.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinemmo From Qatar, joined Apr 2013, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5477 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 19):
My 747SP comment was half in jest. Sorry that was not clear. Besides, this thread is about a twin 747, not the 777-900X. Two quite different beasts.

I do realize that. However, the issue is the 779X will most likely cannibalize what little 747-8I sales are left. The economics on that aircraft will be just too hard to beat. In reality, almost anything can be done from an engineering perspective, but the economics just aren't there anymore. The 779X will, I am afraid, be the last nail in the coffin for the 747 family.



If we weren't all crazy we would all go insane
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5412 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 3):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 2):
The payload-range of the proposed 777-9X surpasses the 747-400.

The 777-300ER's payload-range already surpasses that of the 747-400.

Yes but with some 50 less seats, the 773ER could be argued as not quite a 744 replacement. Since the 779X and 744 seat counts are virtually identical, the 779X is more effectively a 744 replacement.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2438 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5216 times:

Here is a great photo of one:

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...earch/photo_search.php?id=00005184




Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5071 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 3):
The A330/A340 was unique in the sense that they were designed specifically as a twin and a quad. I could be wrong, but I do not believe that the same can be done with other aircraft families that are not designed specifically with this interchangeability. There cannot be a twin engine 747 any more than there can be a quad engined 767 (for example).

Certainly aircraft families have evolved different numbers of engines at times. The B-36, BN Islander, Hawker Trident and Sikorsky CH-53 are examples, and you might consider the An-124/An-225 another. And while never built, there was a proposal to re-engine B-52's with four modern turbofans (replacing the eight old TF-33s).

So while the A330/340 were certainly designed with both options from day one, it's not out of the realm of possibility that such a change could occur on a different aircraft.


ed: "An-123/An-224"?? Sheesh!

[Edited 2013-04-24 23:52:23]

User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5161 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 24):
Certainly aircraft families have evolved different numbers of engines at times. The B-36, BN Islander, Hawker Trident and Sikorsky CH-53 are examples, and you might consider the An-123/An-224 another. And while never built, there was a proposal to re-engine B-52's with four modern turbofans (replacing the eight old TF-33s).

So while the A330/340 were certainly designed with both options from day one, it's not out of the realm of possibility that such a change could occur on a different aircraft.

Absolutely agreed. However I think it might be simpler to start from the 777 than from the 747 if you need a 747-400 capacity twin. Perhaps a hybrid with 747 body plus 777 wings with a root insert?

If they really want to scare people, Boeing could go back to the Hunchback of Mukilteo design, adding a rear hump to the 777.         




"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5011 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 22):
Yes but with some 50 less seats, the 773ER could be argued as not quite a 744 replacement.

Depends on the configuration. KLM's 77Ws (10-abreast in Y) have 425 seats, 10 more than their all-passenger 744s. 7 fewer J seats but 17 more Y.

77W - 35J, 390Y (including 40 34-inch pitch "economy comfort", total 425.
744 - 42J, 373Y (including 36 35-inch pitch "economy comfort", total 415.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4911 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 26):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 22):
Yes but with some 50 less seats, the 773ER could be argued as not quite a 744 replacement.

Depends on the configuration. KLM's 77Ws (10-abreast in Y) have 425 seats, 10 more than their all-passenger 744s. 7 fewer J seats but 17 more Y.

77W - 35J, 390Y (including 40 34-inch pitch "economy comfort", total 425.
744 - 42J, 373Y (including 36 35-inch pitch "economy comfort", total 415.

Ah, the 10 ab 777, so dreaded by Anet readers combined with reduced seat pitch. Not a convincing argument for equivalent pax capacity between a 773ER and a 744.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 3
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4651 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 27):
Not a convincing argument for equivalent pax capacity between a 773ER and a 744.

How is it not convincing? More is more. There are quite a few 400+ 77Ws out there, and they all carry more cargo (and further) than any 744 can. I'd say that makes it an effective 'better' 744 as it stands.

If you were to say it's not as comfortable, I would have to agree with that (although KL's 744s are certainly nothing to write home about in Y; at least not any of the 74Ms I've been on). But, as a.net is all too happy to point out, comfort doesn't matter for paying PAX anymore. I guess...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4583 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 28):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 27):
Not a convincing argument for equivalent pax capacity between a 773ER and a 744.

How is it not convincing? More is more. There are quite a few 400+ 77Ws out there, and they all carry more cargo (and further) than any 744 can. I'd say that makes it an effective 'better' 744 as it stands.

Yes, it can carry more pax, but you can make a 744 just as dense and then it would carry more pax.

For an airline, numbers alone aren't enough. Airlines would be happy putting ten seats on a 744 if it made a better profit than one with 400 seats. You have to compare apples to apples, meaning a 744 and a 773 with the same class mix and seat size.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 28):
But, as a.net is all too happy to point out, comfort doesn't matter for paying PAX anymore. I guess...

This is not true in East Asia. If comfort didn't matter, we would not have business class or economy plus.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Could There Ever Be A Twin-engined 747?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Could The A390 Be A Twin Engine A380 Replacement? posted Thu Jan 5 2012 07:33:48 by 747400sp
Could A340 300 Be Re-engined With 4 PW1000G posted Sat Apr 23 2011 20:54:32 by 747400sp
Will There Ever Be An ER A380 posted Tue May 4 2010 12:49:30 by overloaduk
Will There Ever Be An A380 900F? posted Mon Nov 10 2008 19:48:41 by 747400sp
Twin Engined 747...is It Possible? posted Sun Aug 3 2008 21:54:35 by Jcchristie
Is It Possible To Make A Twin Engined B 747? posted Thu Nov 17 2005 20:25:49 by United Airline
Could The 747ADV Be A Twin? posted Fri May 13 2005 20:26:09 by Tockeyhockey
A Twin Engined 747? posted Sun Jan 13 2002 15:13:25 by Trent_800
Will A Prop Ever Be Able To Go As Fast As A Jet? posted Fri Jul 23 2010 15:05:08 by c5load
Was There Ever An MD-85/86 Or -89? posted Fri Jun 11 2010 16:09:15 by c5load

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format