Bookin
Topic Author
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:27 pm

747-300 With 3 Engines?

Tue Mar 09, 2004 6:47 pm

Does anyone knoe the story behind this??

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




B747-400LCF - B747-200ST!!
 
Q330
Posts: 1425
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:30 pm

RE: 747-300 With 3 Engines?

Tue Mar 09, 2004 6:51 pm

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

-Q
Long live the A330!
 
andz
Posts: 7626
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:49 pm

RE: 747-300 With 3 Engines?

Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:02 pm

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...
 
QantasA332
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:47 pm

RE: 747-300 With 3 Engines?

Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:02 pm

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,
QantasA332
 
LHcapt2007
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:55 pm

RE: 747-300 With 3 Engines?

Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:12 pm

Previous discussion on this odd airplane:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1062494

cheers!
LHcapt2007
TNCM
 
Q330
Posts: 1425
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:30 pm

RE: 747-300 With 3 Engines?

Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:14 pm

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

-Q

[Edited 2004-03-09 11:15:52]
Long live the A330!
 
Bookin
Topic Author
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:27 pm

RE: 747-300 With 3 Engines?

Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:29 pm

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.

Cheers!
B747-400LCF - B747-200ST!!
 
chautauquasaab
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 1999 5:43 am

RE: 747-300 With 3 Engines?

Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:41 am

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17084
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 747-300 With 3 Engines?

Sun Mar 14, 2004 12:15 am

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." - John Ringo
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: 747-300 With 3 Engines?

Sun Mar 14, 2004 12:18 am

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.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests