747-600X
Topic Author
Posts: 2492
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

747-(400)FUW

Mon Feb 21, 2000 5:19 am

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?
 
User avatar
sammyk
Posts: 1560
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 1999 11:31 am

RE: 747-(400)FUW

Mon Feb 21, 2000 9:55 am

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

Sammy
 
747-600X
Topic Author
Posts: 2492
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

More Advantages

Tue Feb 22, 2000 8:47 am

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!
 
User avatar
sammyk
Posts: 1560
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 1999 11:31 am

Its Neverending

Tue Feb 22, 2000 10:23 am

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
 
747-600X
Topic Author
Posts: 2492
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

Never The Less,

Tue Feb 22, 2000 2:23 pm

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.
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: 747-(400)FUW

Tue Feb 22, 2000 6:23 pm

The wings of a 747 have dihedral for a reason - lateral stability. You can't give it anhedral for no good reason
 
User avatar
sammyk
Posts: 1560
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 1999 11:31 am

RE: Never The Less,

Wed Feb 23, 2000 1:39 am

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
 
747-600X
Topic Author
Posts: 2492
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

VC-10

Wed Feb 23, 2000 5:42 am

What would be the effect of anhedral - wouldn't it have a similar effect to diahedral?
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

VC-10's Answer

Wed Feb 23, 2000 6:28 am

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.
 
747-600X
Topic Author
Posts: 2492
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

RE: VC-10's Answer

Wed Feb 23, 2000 6:30 am

Then why do you suppose Antonov designed their mega-freightors as they did?
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: VC-10's Answer 2

Wed Feb 23, 2000 7:15 am

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.
 
747-600X
Topic Author
Posts: 2492
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

RE: RE: VC-10's Answer 2

Wed Feb 23, 2000 1:31 pm

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.
 
futurepilot2b
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 1999 1:35 am

RE: 747-(400)FUW

Thu Feb 24, 2000 2:48 am

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.
 
Guest

High Wing Or Low Wing?

Thu Feb 24, 2000 3:59 am

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 ?
 
747-600X
Topic Author
Posts: 2492
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

Keeping In Touch

Thu Feb 24, 2000 5:19 am

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.
 
747-600X
Topic Author
Posts: 2492
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

Suggestions?

Thu Feb 24, 2000 2:43 pm

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
 
futurepilot2b
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 1999 1:35 am

RE: 747-(400)FUW

Thu Feb 24, 2000 11:12 pm

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!