Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747-300 With 3 Engines?  
User currently offlineBookin From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 75 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 8429 times:

Does anyone knoe the story behind this??

Looks pretty odd to me. Like a hybrid 747-L1011.

B747-400LCF - B747-200ST!!
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineQ330 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1460 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 8386 times:

It looks like a cross between a 747sp and an L1011 to me.

I have no idea what it is exactly, but I'm guessing that it was an early concept for the 747, before the 4 engine design was chosen. And I'm also guessing that it was called the 747-300 because of the 3 engines, not because it came after the -100 and -200.

I hope someone knows the answer.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


Long live the A330!
User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8537 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 8305 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The green fire training aircraft at Heathrow looks similar, except it has a DC-10 type tail engine

After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 8291 times:

It was an original concept for a 747SP (dubbed the 747-3) designed to compete with the recently-launced L1011 and DC-10 aircraft. The T-tail layout was, of course, dropped, for a number of structural reasons. I don't have time to type the whole story now, but, if you can wait, I'll try to tomorrow. In the mean time see if you can get your hands on a copy of "Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP" by Dennis R. Jenkins...it's part of the "Airliner Tech Series" published by Specialty Press.

Hope that helps,

User currently offlineLHcapt2007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 8214 times:

Previous discussion on this odd airplane:


User currently offlineQ330 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1460 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 8194 times:

Well, I was almost right. It is odd that Boeing considered a 747 variant with three engines, and still called it a 747. Usually if there's a different number of engines, it's a different plane!

Just to make it a little easier: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1062494


[Edited 2004-03-09 11:15:52]

Long live the A330!
User currently offlineBookin From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 75 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 8084 times:

Thanks guys! Very informative.

It looks like the body landing gear was ramoved.

Does anybody thing this a/c would've been successful?

Maintenance on #2 woul've probably been a nasty affair, since it would've been so far off the ground and a difficult access.


B747-400LCF - B747-200ST!!
User currently offlineChautauquasaab From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 7550 times:

Anybody recall a Lockheed L1011 variant that was to have two engines? As I recall hearing, it was based on the shorter -500 fuselage.

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17365 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7070 times:

Yes, a "Bistar" was indeed considered. The name was L-1011-600. Power from two 50k lb thrust RB-524B on the existing Tristar wing. Seating: 174-200. MTOW up to 297k lb. Range: 2000-2700nm. It was basically a L-1011-500 with two engines. I saw a drawing once. Goodness only knows where...

Info from "Lockheed Tristar" (Second Edition) by Philip Birtles. ISBN 0-7110-2666-1. There is also some info here: http://flytristar.tripod.com/page/history.html.

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30146 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7075 times:

Douglas actually designed the fuselage sections on the DC-10 to be modular so that design work on a 2 engine version would be simplified.

Makes you wonder if Airbus would have been near as big if Douglas has been able to get a twin derivative of the DC-10 off the ground before the A300.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 747-300 With 3 Engines?
No username? Sign up now!

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!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

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

Similar topics:More similar topics...
747-300 With CF6-80 Engines posted Mon Dec 13 2004 04:47:38 by MrFord
747-300 With GE Engs. And Rich Posn On Start Lever posted Thu Sep 4 2003 18:43:35 by Rohan737
747-200/300's With The 10 Fuel Tank Option posted Wed Dec 4 2002 05:33:41 by Rohan737
Is Re-engining A 747-400 With Trent 500s Possible? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 22:59:28 by LTU932
747-300 Damage posted Mon Mar 6 2006 13:34:04 by CCA
Saudi 747-400's With 2 Satcom Antennas posted Wed Feb 8 2006 01:13:12 by Xms3200
747-400 With LCD Display`s`? posted Sat Oct 15 2005 12:14:19 by Qantas744ER
Difference Between 747-200 Cockpit And 747-300? posted Tue Aug 16 2005 08:04:07 by Mozart
Questions About Operations With Engines Turned Off posted Fri Jun 24 2005 02:45:12 by BABUMUSHAI
Parked Jet With Engines Spinning posted Sun Jul 11 2004 06:58:47 by Flybyguy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format