henpol747
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2001 5:53 am

747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:38 am

This is obviously a fake picture, but the question is:

Would it be possible? What do you folks think?

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/search/photo_search.php?id=00000543

Cheers,

Henpol747
Vive la France! ¡Viva México!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17058
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:40 am

Area ruling makes that kind of hard, but yes it is possible, and Boeing has looked into it several times, starting back in the 70s.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
scf158
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:22 am

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:42 am

If the A380 is possible, I dont think thats far off!
 
DutchFlyer
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 5:51 am

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:42 am

Possible: Yes
Realistic: No
 
User avatar
American 767
Posts: 3924
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 1:00 am

No, it's not a plausible scenario because, if you look at the wings and power plant they are the exact same of the existing 747-400 aircraft. I'm being picky about the wings because the invented aircraft seems to be much too heavy for the lift capability it has.
Lift versus weight is an important criteria when designing a new aircraft. In this case, the lift versus weight ratio is going way down, the weight is drastically increasing but the wing area or aspect ratio isn't increasing, neither is the power generated by the engines.

You folks can always dream of it, but it will never fly.

The A380 will exist in reality, yes, because the wing area is large enough to support all the weight of this giant double decker. I don't know how much power each engine will generate but I suppose each will generate a bit more than what a 747-400 engine generates.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium
Ben Soriano
 
Guest

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 1:23 am

Discussing the lift capability of say a 747-200 or -300...
A cargo aircraft of the type is capable to carry 112 metric tons of payload.
Each passenger averages 100 KG with his baggages.
xxx
So, the weight of 1,120 passengers could be carried in a 747-"700"...
They would not be "payload" limited. They would be "bulk limited".
Where would you put that many people even with that configuration.
xxx
In Japan, they have some 747-400D with nearly 600 seats.
"Sardines" class.
So, in stretching the upper-deck all the way back, that could give room to some 700-800 people.
That is much less than the lift capability of a 747...
xxx
Happy contrails  Smile
(s) Skipper
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 1:28 am

As I remember reading somewhere, Boeing looked into the possibility of expanding the capacity of the 747 into a proposed -500,-600,-700 series, but discovered an entirely new wing technology would be needed. Considering the limited need at that time for ultra-large transports, the costs far outweighed the possible benefits.

I am curious to see how Airbus will do with the A380 - I don't see the worldwide need for that aircraft at this moment, but if they want to build it, and airports think they can handle it, be my guest. I think the future is in the longer range planes like the 772LR and A340LR.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17058
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 3:01 am

Some of the original 747 concepts (60s vintage) were twin deck, but if you're only transporting 350 people with those day's materials, there is a weight penalty to two decks compared to one. Remember that in those days the 747 was a big single decker with a hump. Also, the twin deck proposals could not have been used for cargo like the 747. Since Boeing expected the 747 to become a cargo hauler after SSTs took over, cargo was a big priority.

Amusingly, one of the 747 proposals ("The Anteater") had a single deck like the 741, but instead of the hump it had a lowered flight deck in best Beluga style. The objective, just like with the hump, was to ease loading of cargo.


In the early 70s, after the 747-100 was well established, Boeing looked at the following:

Short-range:
1. 527 pax baseline - plain 741 with lots of seats.
2. 716 pax - 300 inch plugs fore and aft of the wing. Upper deck unchanged.
3. 666 Pax - 60 inch plug fore and 140 inch aft of the wing. Upper deck stretched to the wing.
4. 847 pax - double deck to the fin, where the fuse comes down in a way similar to the SP
5. 1000 pax - 160 inch plug fore and 140 inch plug aft of the wing, double deck to the fin, where the fuse comes down in a way similar to the SP.

Long-range (same bodies, other numbers of seats):
1. 385 - plain 741.
2. 544 pax - equivalent to 2. above.
3. 472 pax - equivalent to 3. above.
4. 624 pax - equivalent to 4. above.
5. 732 pax - equivalent to 5. above.

The oil crisis put paid to all these fun plans, but it's interesting to note how the A380 concept could have flown back in 1980 or so.

(Source - "Boeing 747 Design and Development Since 1969" by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner).

So it is definitely possible, but unlikely now. In the 70s, the 747 wing was state of the art. Nowadays it's rather dated. And if you're going to redo the wing, you've basically rebuilt the aircraft from the ground up anyway.


EDIT: The book has some interesting concept drawings of all this stuff, and pics of the 60s double-decker and anteater models. ISBN 0-7603-0280-4.


[Edited 2004-04-07 20:07:29]

[Edited 2004-04-07 20:15:01]

[Edited 2004-04-07 20:19:20]
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 7:36 am

Stalionblue, excellent analysis and I have that book, a great reference. Let me add that Boeing said when peddling its' 747X 3 1/2 years ago that it didn't make sense to the upper deck the full length of the aircraft due to the structural weight and aerodynamic penalty it would entail. Obviously, the wings would have to be completely redesigned and enlarge to support such a beast. This is a 'what-if' example that will never happen.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 3:21 pm

New landing gear and wing, engines are required?
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
kalakaua
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:23 pm

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 3:45 pm

What about this one? It looks interesting... But the 777 already has this role? How about a "Duchess of the Skies?" haha... I'm a loser.

"Qantas B747-400NUD"
Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
 
qantasguy
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:07 pm

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 4:11 pm

Ha Ha, These are really good. I especially like the last one. My friend doesn't get what's so funny about these, to me they look so odd, they're funny.
Airplanes Flown on..B-727-100, B-727-200, DC-9, F-27, B-707, B-717, B-737, B-747SP, B-747-100, B-747-200, B-747-300, B74
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17058
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 5:16 pm

Alessandro, you could go with new wing, new engines, new gear. But the 747 gains much aerodynamic advantage from area ruling, and this would be lost with a complete double decker. And that's why the stretch proposals (-500x and -600x) still only had the upper deck to the wing.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 6:18 pm

Anything is possible, we are all forced to follow the money though.

Realism is subjective and depends on what we believe is real, sadly again, we are all forced to follow the money.

That thing looks like a low-wing AN-124.

Wasn't Boeing competing and lost to Lockheed for the C-5 Galaxy transport contract and that plane was converted to pax load?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 6:28 pm

why be modest and just copy the a380!
go beyond it! 747 triple deck!
http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/search/photo_search.php?id=00001287
10=2
 
m404
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:43 pm

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 6:39 pm

In studies I've read it certainly is possible and studied by Boeing as a possible growth of -300. However, as has been said before, it was not the most efficient design. The -400 is supposedly the best compromise with that basic fuselage design and size and aerodynamic economies. That was published as the -300 was being made so what changes in propulsion options that are now available might barely make it more possible but, as Boeing has said many times and is trying to prove it with the 7E7, today's market choices must be made based on lowest operating price. And it was also written before todays fuel price hikes. But yes, It would fly.
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17058
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 747: Would This Be Possible?

Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:15 pm

Lehpron, Boeing did indeed lose the C-5 contract, but the engines on the C-5 were a revelation of sorts, and in the end led to the 747.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: airportugal310, Baidu [Spider], DOHspotter, FLIHGH, FlyKev, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], HBChris, hoons90, kgaiflyer, LFW, msycajun, N62NA, qfatwa, skyymarc, wjcandee, Yahoo [Bot], yellowtail and 266 guests