Unbuilt, experimental and unusual Boeing 747s

[Stargazer]

And what about this fighter model next to the 747-300, looks like a F-86 but is an F-86 or not?

The stand says "NAA - Transonic Interceptor" (can't read the smaller type) so it's most certainly a preview model of what became the F-86D.

 

[Triton]

Cool you found another concept in the photograph.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


when I was searching in my old staff,I found this drawings to Boeing 747,with single,twin and triple fuselage,
and I don't remember from where file,may be NASA report.

 

[robunos]

And what about this fighter model next to the 747-300, looks like a F-86 but is an F-86 or not?

Radar-equipped Sabre 45 variant?

cheers,
Robin.

 

[carsinamerica]

Hi,


when I was searching in my old staff,I found this drawings to Boeing 747,with single,twin and triple fuselage,
and I don't remember from where file,may be NASA report.

Interesting find, hesham. Given the low resolution of the drawings themselves, it's hard to tell, but it looks like the one on the left is a stretched 747 with a full-length upper deck.

I'm not sure it's the same animal, but it reminds me of the reports of the four stretch designs from April 1973, one of which had a stretch of 160 inches forward and 140 inches aft, and a full-length upper deck. That could carry 624 passengers.

 

[hesham]

I'm not sure it's the same animal, but it reminds me of the reports of the four stretch designs from April 1973, one of which had a stretch of 160 inches forward and 140 inches aft, and a full-length upper deck. That could carry 624 passengers.

Thank you Carsinamerica,


and for this later design,I never heard about it,look great,do you have a drawing to it ?.

 

[carsinamerica]

Thank you Carsinamerica,


and for this later design,I never heard about it,look great,do you have a drawing to it ?.

Hello Hesham,

The only interpretation I've ever seen was this sketch, which has been published in several books on the 747. It turns out I had the wrong numbers, though: the stretched double-decker carried 732 passengers on long-range service.

What I would dearly love to know about any of these four proposals is this: did Boeing intend to use the same wing on these stretches? The drawing seems to imply that the wingbox stayed the same, but I cannot imagine how, for example, the 50-foot stretch variant could possibly use the same wing and engines as the 747-200B, not if they wanted it to fly appreciable distances.

These drawing still boggle my mind. That first stretch proposal is even larger than the 1996 747-600X, nearly three feet longer! It's the largest 747 proposal I know of.

 

[hesham]

Excellent and great work Carsinamerica,


I never saw like those drawings before,many thanks.

 

[GeorgeA]

In Guy Norris' excellent book on 747 development, for one.

 

[carsinamerica]

I came across this comment on an airliners.net post about the 747 once, and I wondered if anybody knew anything about it.

"There could have been a twin engine 747 and almost was. In the mid to late 70's Boeing was looking at a twin 747SP with the expected increases in engine thrust coming...."

I can find some references to an early idea for a 747 Twin in 1968 (Flight magazine called it the 747-200), but that was for an even shorter version than the SP (essentially, it was a version of the 747-300 trijet concept). Has anyone ever encountered a reference (magazine, book, whatever) to this 747SP twin? What would have powered it? Was it shrunk further? Any info greatly appreciated.

 

[fightingirish]

Early 747 Design ConceptSelect UsageWhat Type Of Order?Usage:In the initial development of the 747, several different configurations of double-decker designs were studied. The double-decker design had too many problems and required a different solution, and so the development team headed by Joe Sutter, "Father of the 747," eventually focused on developing a wide, mostly single-deck airplane with the flight deck on the upper level and a nose-loading cargo door below.

Permalink: http://www.boeingimages.com/archive/Early 747 Design Concept-2F3XC5HJIKA.html


More Boeing 747 concepts at Boeing Images.
Link: http://www.boeingimages.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2JRSN2PXVS25&SMLS=1&RW=1920&RH=950
From the topic
Secret Projects Forum » Secret Projects » Postwar Aircraft Projects » CX-HLS (Cargo Experimental, Heavy Logistic Support) designs & derivatives

Look like that once the passenger version of Boeing's C-5 CX-HLS would have been called "Boeing Model 757". :-\ Permalink: http://www.boeingimages.com/archive/Early Concept of the 757-2F3XC5KU425.html

 

[hesham]

It seemed to be that I discovered anther treasure,nice find my dear Rolf.

 

[Triton]

Boeing 747F Near-Term Airlifter proposal to the US Air Force, dated March 9,1981, found on eBay.

A fascinating piece, 79 pages packed with great text, photos and charts. To quote from the Introduction, "Boeing supports planned airlift improvement programs including a re-winged C-5 force with development of a C-X aircraft with outsize cargo and austere field capability. The timing for these new programs is sufficiently distant that a near-term augmentation of the current airlift force is considered necessary." This will make for a great addition to your collection, so bid now! Please feel free to email any questions that you may have.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Boeing-747F-Near-Term-Airlifter-Proposal-to-the-US-Air-Force-Dated-March-9-1981-/201177175457?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ed71815a1

 

[Stargazer]

Enhanced from 7th attachment above, the 747 family:

 

[Orionblamblam]

I've put in a bid. Let's see how badly I get sniped!

 

[Triton]

Sold for $24.95!

 

[Orionblamblam]

To me, no less.

 

[Triton]

To me, no less.

Congratulations!

 

[fightingirish]

Artist's conception of a 747-200F configured as a military transport.

Source: Boeing Images - US Air Force 747-200F

 

[Triton]

Not sure whether we will incur the wrath of Boeing by posting rights managed images with a Boeing watermark.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I wouldn't think so. Someone purchasing the high rez images and then posting them... *that* might make the Boeing attack lawyers get all fidgety. But reposting stuff that is openly posted on publicly accessible websites? I have difficulty seeing how that would be problematic.

 

[Triton]

I wouldn't think so. Someone purchasing the high rez images and then posting them... *that* might make the Boeing attack lawyers get all fidgety. But reposting stuff that is openly posted on publicly accessible websites? I have difficulty seeing how that would be problematic.

Thanks. I found some concept art on Corbis and was always afraid to post it on the forums fearing that we would have copyright problems.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, and who knows what sort of copyright troll might decide to get all stabby with lawsuits. But on the surface, the idea of someone getting upset that you are re-posting the images they are posting, so long as you don't alter them *and* you provide a link back to the original site, seems unlikely. But who the frak knows anymore...

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is the Boeing 747SP with its two variants 305B and 306B.

 

[carsinamerica]

Hi,


here is the Boeing 747SP with its two variants 305B and 306B.

Great images, hesham! Where did these come from?

 

[hesham]

Hi Carsinamerica,


the source is the book, Great Airliners; McDonnell Douglas DC-10

 

[hesham]

From the book; Boeing 747. Design and Development Since 1969,


here is the Boeing Model-747-3,Model-747-500X and Model-747-600X projects.

 

[lark]

I'm puzzled by the illustration of the Boeing model 757
in Fightingirish post no 138.

It seems to be a straight addaption of the Boeing's contender in the C-5 competition.
Is there any more info about this '757'... ?

 

[hesham]

I'm puzzled by the illustration of the Boeing model 757
in Fightingirish post no 138.

It seems to be a straight addaption of the Boeing's contender in the C-5 competition.
Is there any more info about this '757'... ?

My dear Lark,


it's only early concept for it;
http://www.boeingimages.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2JRSN2A5YWV8&SMLS=1&RW=1024&RH=624

 

[lark]

I have seen that too , but why a design so close to the
Boeing CX-HLS proposal with the number 757 that was again used later ..

 

[hesham]

I have seen that too , but why a design so close to the
Boeing CX-HLS proposal with the number 757 that was again used later ..

I think that's right my dear Lark,


because I have a complete book about Boeing 757,and they mention all early variants,
but no such like this is there.

 

[Stargazer]

I have seen that too , but why a design so close to the
Boeing CX-HLS proposal with the number 757 that was again used later ..

This should come as no surprise, since it's consistent with the way Boeing has always used these commercial designations. The company had a license whereby all commercial names following the 7*7 form were theirs by right. That left really only 10 possible aircraft types: 707, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787, 797 (all of which have been now used except for the last one).

At various times in the company's history, projects reached an advanced stage that seemed to justify the release of one of these numbers... However, when the program didn't materialize, Boeing was left with the choice or either jumping to the next number (and thus be short of designations pretty soon), or re-use the unused ones. If you browse through photos of the many designs saved in desktop form at Boeing, you can see this very easily. A more recent example was the reuse of "717" for the former DC-9 line, as that number had not been advertised and very few people would remember it was actually the designation of the KC-135/C-135 series! (not to mention the fact that it was more clever to have all the 7*7 designations applied to the commercial line of products).

At some point during the 1970s, someone must have cleverly remarked how risky it was to start using a designation for an aircraft that hadn't reached production, and those clever figure-letter-figure designations came about: 7X7, 7J7, 7N7.

On a side note, the very same reuse of designations for totally different projects also happened at Douglas, with designations from DC-4 to DC-10 being applied at various moments to projects of sometimes completely different size and form!

 

[lark]

It's not a question of ignoring, I know the explanation about the use of 7*7 and the re use
of typenumbers well. I just like to know in what time frame this 757 variant (post 138 ) fits.

This snippet of info should allow me to search for more about .

 

[Stargazer]

It's not a question of ignoring, I know the explanation about the use of 7*7 and the re use
of typenumbers well. I just like to know in what time frame this 757 variant (post 138 ) fits.

This snippet of info should allow me to search for more about .

I never really thought you were ignorant of this, it's just that your question really made it sound like you were very puzzled by this reuse of the 757 number, so I thought it might be appropriate to give everyone a reminder on this particular subject. Sorry for the awkward formulation which I've now edited out. :-[

 

[lark]

No problem Sky...I'm just puzzled because this '757' is so close to the
Boeing C-5 proposal..

 

[circle-5]

Pratt & Whitney Canada's Boeing 747SP engine testbed, spotted yesterday visiting the Southern California Logistics Airport in Victorville (formerly George AFB, until 1992).

 

[Triton]

747 M-X Air Mobile System Concept report from 1973 found on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1973-BOEING-747-M-X-Air-Mobile-System-Concept-Nuclear-War-BOOK-ILLUSTRATED-RARE-/151832096319?hash=item2359e5ee3f

 

[RAP]

$1,500 starting bid !!!!!

 

[Triton]

$1,500 starting bid !!!!!

The reserve is $1,500.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I've contacted the seller and am trying to work out a sale of a photocopy of the report. $1,500 is *juuuuuust* a little out of my reach.