I'm sorry for asking this incredibly daft question, but after reading a thread about JAL's 747 series and the confusing amount of variants they had back in the day, as well as another thread about the 747 side door vs. nose door, I must ask:
Can Boeing theoretically just swap any piece of the 747 (be it the engines, front section, upper deck, tail, etc) into any number of combinations? So far, there is 747-100, to the 100SUD, to the 200SUD, to the 200SCDSUD, to the 400D, to the 300SF, and so forth. But could Boeing make (again, purely theoretical) abominations such as the SPSUD, SPBCF, SPSUDBCF, 400DBCF, 100SUDBCF, 400F converted back into a passenger 400 with a short upper deck, 8BCF, SPM, 8M, SPER, 100ER, etc?
Better yet, could a customer send them an SP and ask them to convert it into a 747SPSUDBCFDMERSCALCF, aka an SP with a stretched upper deck, afterward swapped out with the LCF's fuselage-spanning hump (albeit shorter because it's an SP fuselage instead of a 400), outfitted with a freight door, partially left with passenger space for the M configuration, structural improvements of the 400D, the SCA's tail section, and increased range of the ER, possibly also complete with new engines from the 8, the Oman SP's top lump thing, and that 5th engine pylon that Pratt and Whitney's 747SP had? Let's call it the 747FRST (for Frankenstein).
Could/would Boeing do it, do you think? Although this would admittedly be a waste of money with no purpose whatsoever, it would be quite funny, which is a plus.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Is a 747-SP-SUD-BCF possible?
Unfortunately the final 747 assembly has happened already. Just for the fun you could go to Victorville or Marana and have them build it for ground use only?
Re: Is a 747-SP-SUD-BCF possible?
OSDIman wrote:Could/would Boeing do it, do you think?
No and no.
Re: Is a 747-SP-SUD-BCF possible?
Noshow wrote:Unfortunately the final 747 assembly has happened already. Just for the fun you could go to Victorville or Marana and have them build it for ground use only?
As long as you didn’t need it certified, and have sufficient cash, I’m sure someone would be willing to sell you a SP, and a -400 to smash together, you would need to add the cockpit from the SP to the 400 upperdeck and I’m sure you could find a few a&p mexhs to wire the thing up.
Even if you where allowed to fly it, I’m not sure it would be a good idea with the SP already needing a bigger tail and the SUD stretching further back could cause havoc on the aerodynamics of the thing
Re: Is a 747-SP-SUD-BCF possible?
In this case maybe Airbus could sell you some Beluga XL tail?
Re: Is a 747-SP-SUD-BCF possible?
So um, no
First off, the SUD was only fitted for 100 and 200-model aircraft
Second, the BCF/M/LCF options are mutually exclusive.
Third, the SUD/SCA/LCF options would not be feasible due to the SP's shortened length
But for the purpose of argument, you're missing a bunch of features like the self-loading cargo structure incorporated into the Iraqi 747-200Cs, a nose cargo door, the ICBM launch system, the parasite carrier system,the -400 vertical stabiliser tanks and the missile defence systems of El Al and many government aircraft (AF1)
First off, the SUD was only fitted for 100 and 200-model aircraft
Second, the BCF/M/LCF options are mutually exclusive.
Third, the SUD/SCA/LCF options would not be feasible due to the SP's shortened length
But for the purpose of argument, you're missing a bunch of features like the self-loading cargo structure incorporated into the Iraqi 747-200Cs, a nose cargo door, the ICBM launch system, the parasite carrier system,the -400 vertical stabiliser tanks and the missile defence systems of El Al and many government aircraft (AF1)
-
- VirginFlyer
- Posts: 5785
- Joined:
Re: Is a 747-SP-SUD-BCF possible?
Agreed with the previous posters that this would be an ungainly mix of too many different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, features. What would have been cool to see, for how much of a hot rod it would have been, would have been a 747-8SP - the wings, engines and systems of the 747-8I, but with the fuselage of the 747SP.
From: https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/ ... 6?page=377
V/F
From: https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/ ... 6?page=377
V/F
-
- WesternDC6B
- Posts: 1617
- Joined:
Re: Is a 747-SP-SUD-BCF possible?
Noshow wrote:Unfortunately the final 747 assembly has happened already. Just for the fun you could go to Victorville or Marana and have them build it for ground use only?
I suppose taking things to a silly degree, we could take a 747-8I, and fit it with JT-9Ds. One really WOULD have a ground-use only aircraft!
-
- B757Forever
- Posts: 1024
- Joined:
Re: Is a 747-SP-SUD-BCF possible?
Anything can be accomplished with massive amounts of money. Is it reasonable to even consider? No.
Re: Is a 747-SP-SUD-BCF possible?
Crazy things can happen, just look at "the Roc".
Re: Is a 747-SP-SUD-BCF possible?
Although it is only hypothetical, an upper deck stretch in the likes of a 747-400 or better a 747-8, would make the SP look like a mini A380. Could somebody do it in the computer, please. Make it in Olympic airlines colours. What better way to mark my 400th post in my 8th year of membership? Thanks!
Re: Is a 747-SP-SUD-BCF possible?
Understanding that this isn’t a question of economic viability, but rather what configuration mixes work:
The 747-400 and -8 already came with both short and long upper decks (purpose-built freighters with short ones, and the pax built ones with the stretched upper decks.
But the 747SP couldn’t “easily” get a stretched upper deck because, from an engineering perspective, its upper deck is already a stretch. Basically, the upper deck on the SP extends over the wingbox, vs. ending around the start of the wing on the -100/200. Boeing carried this concept over to the -300/400/8. If you wanted to stretch the upper deck on an SP, you’d be doing significant additional redesign at that point.
The SP also requires a modified tail design to accommodate a taller fin, which is necessary because of how short the fuselage is. Also, since there isn’t as much room between the trailing edge of the wing and the actual tail for the tapering that would be present on a normal 747, the SP had to have the weird shape at the rear where it suddenly narrows and has awkward angles, vs. the more graceful design of a standard 747.
The 747-400 and -8 already came with both short and long upper decks (purpose-built freighters with short ones, and the pax built ones with the stretched upper decks.
But the 747SP couldn’t “easily” get a stretched upper deck because, from an engineering perspective, its upper deck is already a stretch. Basically, the upper deck on the SP extends over the wingbox, vs. ending around the start of the wing on the -100/200. Boeing carried this concept over to the -300/400/8. If you wanted to stretch the upper deck on an SP, you’d be doing significant additional redesign at that point.
The SP also requires a modified tail design to accommodate a taller fin, which is necessary because of how short the fuselage is. Also, since there isn’t as much room between the trailing edge of the wing and the actual tail for the tapering that would be present on a normal 747, the SP had to have the weird shape at the rear where it suddenly narrows and has awkward angles, vs. the more graceful design of a standard 747.
-
- GalaxyFlyer
- Posts: 10332
- Joined:
Re: Is a 747-SP-SUD-BCF possible?
I believe there was talk of a B747-400SP—winglets, better engines, two-pilot cockpit on the SP frame. Never got far.
Re: Is a 747-SP-SUD-BCF possible?
hOMSaR wrote:Understanding that this isn’t a question of economic viability, but rather what configuration mixes work: The 747-400 and -8 already came with both short and long upper decks (purpose-built freighters with short ones, and the pax built ones with the stretched upper decks. But the 747SP couldn’t “easily” get a stretched upper deck because, from an engineering perspective, its upper deck is already a stretch. Basically, the upper deck on the SP extends over the wingbox, vs. ending around the start of the wing on the -100/200. Boeing carried this concept over to the -300/400/8. If you wanted to stretch the upper deck on an SP, you’d be doing significant additional redesign at that point. The SP also requires a modified tail design to accommodate a taller fin, which is necessary because of how short the fuselage is. Also, since there isn’t as much room between the trailing edge of the wing and the actual tail for the tapering that would be present on a normal 747, the SP had to have the weird shape at the rear where it suddenly narrows and has awkward angles, vs. the more graceful design of a standard 747.
'... the SP had to have the weird shape at the rear where it suddenly narrows and has awkward angles...' -- This part of the 747SP has always reminded me of one of those bodge jobs in a dodgy railway-arch garage where crooks weld together the undamaged back and front halves of written-off motors, what in Britain are called 'cut and shut' jobs.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests