JAM747
Topic Author
Posts: 524
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:17 am

Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?

Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:55 am

It seems that eventually the all new 777-300 and 747 replacement wide body from Boeing will be called Y3. Would it make sense for Boeing to have such a replacement with a 747 like 'hump'? To me this would give Boeing the flexibility of having a large passenger widebody with double deck capability, plus a replacement for many 747 cargo aircraft especially for cargo carriers who need nose loading capability. I know the decision for Y3 is probably 10 to 15 yrs away and market and technology changes will really influence design. Versions of the 787 will eventually replace 767 and maybe 777-200 versions but what about the bigger Boeings? What do you guys and girls think?
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?

Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:12 am

I dont think it would have a hump but then again I am not completely sold over the fact that the a.neterz Proposed Y3 ( ranging from larger then 350-10XWB to the A388 size) will even be something that would sell well given that a larger XWB10-X or a 787-11 could well take the lower end of the market (given weight savings over a decade) whilest The 747-I holds on for about 8-10 years while the CASM for the heavier 787-11 and 350XWB-X become more favourable !! The market may fragment still !!

[Edited 2006-10-13 02:15:35]
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?

Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:19 am

If Y3 is 11 abreast, the crown space will be ample. I personally think a design where all crew operations are in the crown is a possibility. Cockpit, then pilot rest including W/C and avionics, then F/J prep galley, then Y ovens and storage galley, then crew rest including W/C.

Leaves entire main deck for pax, and the possibility of a nose door for a cargo version. Cargo version would cut the crown facilities off after smaller galley, for taller cargo like in current 747 design.

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 1):
the a.neterz Proposed Y3

It's a BOEING proposed Y3. Do your research.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?

Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:27 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
If Y3 is 11 abreast,

Oh, man. This would be a total nightmare.

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?

Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:28 am

I know it is a boeing proposed Y3 but my reference was to the fact that it keeps comming up frequently in discussions here ( i use it aswell) , boeing had a product strategy following project 20xx into yellowstone however no where is it rigid and the next decade could change their plans either way
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?

Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:43 am

Quoting JAM747 (Thread starter):
It seems that eventually the all new 777-300 and 747 replacement wide body from Boeing will be called Y3.

Not that it matters much, but it's called the Y3 today. "Eventually" it will be called something else, e.g. 797 or 808.

Quoting JAM747 (Thread starter):
Would it make sense for Boeing to have such a replacement with a 747 like 'hump'?

I believe that putting a hump on it would, in people's mind, mean that it's "just another 747," "a composite 747," or "a 747 for the 21st century." Whether that is good or bad, I don't know.

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 1):
given that a larger XWB10-X or a 787-11 could well take the lower end of the market

I'm no aircraft engineer, but I would guess that a 787-11 would be stretching the airplane too far. They will probably have to strengthen the airframe a lot, and thereby adding a lot of weight.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
If Y3 is 11 abreast,

If Wikipedia is correct ("Y3 will cover 300 passengers and beyond"), then I believe that 11-abreast will be too wide. The airplane would probably end up being extremely short if it's going to be so wide.
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?

Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:55 am

Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?

Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:13 am

Boeing originally put the hump there so the cargo can enter the nose with the cockpit on top, per original USAF C-5 proposal aircraft.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
Quoting Bringiton (Reply 1):
the a.neterz Proposed Y3

It's a BOEING proposed Y3. Do your research.

Boeing's Y3 is just a study it has no form, a few A.netters that act as armchair engineers and armchair-market analysts will somehow EXPECT things of the new airplane, if it is to exist. I can make up numbers, combine them with power and drag graphs, come up with a range and endurance parameter, etc -- all with out a shape. Preliminary engineering has nothing to do with image, it is all definition. Does anyone realize how much logic is lost when things are assumed? According to Boeing, (not wikipedia - I don't trust that shit), Y3 as it stands is for the 300-600 pax range - it is a range, nothing is set. Standard tube'n wing has its limits, which I would suppose people are familiar with stretching aircraft. But to insist that is how it will be deserves a beating, IMO.

What if an aircraft's cross-section varied throughout its length, any capacity possibilites there? This may be Boeing's last big aircraft, it will have to take the test of time, unless the world population suddenly explodes, Boeing has more than enough time to deicde if need be.

I'm not going to entertain the traditionalists with dreams of an oversized 777.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?

Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:50 am

Quoting SNATH (Reply 3):
Oh, man. This would be a total nightmare.

How so? 11 abreast would be 3-5-3. Many 777s already have 5 seat center blocks.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 5):
I'm no aircraft engineer, but I would guess that a 787-11 would be stretching the airplane too far. They will probably have to strengthen the airframe a lot, and thereby adding a lot of weight.

Strength is not the issue. Stiffness is the issue. CFRP is naturally very stiff. Anyway, a B787-11 would still be shorter than the A340-600 and have a taller fuselage. There may be other reasons to not build a B787-11, but fuselage strength and stiffness are not among them.
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?

Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:56 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 8):
How so? 11 abreast would be 3-5-3.

Are you kidding me? Three "prisoner" seats per row? YIKES!  scared 

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 8):
Many 777s already have 5 seat center blocks.

Yes, and I prefer them over the 3-3-3 config since I can get on the 2 seats by the window.... But, 3-5-3? AAAAARGH! Let me out! NOW!  Smile

Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
SNATH
Posts: 3049
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:23 am

RE: Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?

Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:58 am

PS Seriously, now, is there a real chance of the A380 going 3-5-3 downstairs? Does anyone know if any airlines planning this config for it?
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?

Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:30 pm

Quoting SNATH (Reply 10):
Seriously, now, is there a real chance of the A380 going 3-5-3 downstairs? Does anyone know if any airlines planning this config for it?

The seats would be about as narrow as 9 abreast in an A330. Also, it would have a serious negative affect on payload/range performance.
 
kbfispotter
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:56 pm

RE: Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?

Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:03 pm

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 7):
Boeing originally put the hump there so the cargo can enter the nose with the cockpit on top, per original USAF C-5 proposal aircraft.

Not quite true... Boeing transfered much of the design team from the CHX competition over to the 747 program when Boeing lost the competition to Lockheed, and that is where the simularities end. Per Joe Sutter's book, the hump was designed for the sole purpose of allowing straight in loading of cargo, and it was only going to be for the flight deck. It was Juan Trippe of Pan Am who decided that the space behind the flight deck should be used for pax.
Proud to be an A&P!!!