Unbuilt, experimental and unusual Boeing 747s

AE220 said:
In an act of remarkble stupidity, I decided to take a front view of all things of this exact model.
Click to expand...
Not stupid at all. That photo captures something important. It shows just how narrowly the turbofans were placed on the early 747s. One of the last major design changes, if memory serves, was moving the engines further out on the wing and spacing them further apart.
 

Attachments

  • 19780024104.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 39
  • 19790017892.pdf
    695.7 KB · Views: 22
  • 19800009768.pdf
    590.7 KB · Views: 18
  • 19790011930.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 20
Tophe said:
Dear Sentinel Chicken,
is there in the book a picture to say if my interpretation below is right or wrong?
Click to expand...
I'd actually expect the single engine to be on the outboard pylon. You'd need less rudder trim designed in that way.
 
taildragger said:
Wingtip-mounted flying booms never seem to make it to the hardware stage and I can imagine some complications that might make them impractical. Similar placement of hose-and-drogue units has some precedent, but not in the USAF (for fixed wing aircraft anyway) although it's been proposed and even programmed several times. A cynic might point out that a multi-point hose-and-drogue refueling capability would make USAF-supported USN/USMC/NATO operations more competitive with all-USAF operations (simultaneous low-flowrate hose-and-drogue connections versus a single high-flowrate flying boom connection), but that would suggest that the USAF is institutionally unenthusiastic about it's assigned missions in support other services.
Click to expand...
Heaven forbid someone say the quiet part out loud...



circle-5 said:
Here's a clean Boeing 747 model (1/20 scale -- about 12-ft. long) with or without winglets. Made by Pacific Miniatures, it comes with its original carrying crate, visible in the background.

This is what collectors refer to as a "divorce model" because of what happens when you try to put it in the living room, where it belongs.
Click to expand...
:D :D :D :D




TomcatViP said:
[fixed gear 747 weirdness]

The question is then, why would you use a jet for something a turboprop would do much better?
Click to expand...
Think it's already been answered, but there aren't any 500pax turboprops, and not all of the major cities were linked via Shinkansen high speed trains at the time. I'm not sure some cities are linked yet, due to the distances between some of the islands.

Remember, Japan has 130mil people, all shoved into a total land area about equal to that of California. Or rather, 1/10 the area of California, because everything else is too steep to put houses on...
 
Triton said:
Artist's impression of Boeing 747 LCF (Large Cargo Freighter).

Wind-tunnel model of Boeing 747 LCF.

Via Internet Archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050206040440/www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/photos.html
Click to expand...
This variant was actually built and flown.


Close Call With B747LCF Vortices Nearly Claims C172 | Aero-News Network

Instructor Recovers After Aircraft Rolls 90 Degrees and Pitches Nose-Down Vertical And you thought YOU had some close calls? If you want a lit| Published: Fri, Nov 24, 2006 | Aero-News Network
www.aero-news.net

R.48aa73791937fe087328930972a28f6b


After getting paint

boeing_747_lfc.900x600.jpg


Atlas_Air_747_Dreamlifter_at_ANC-3000x1389.jpg
 
The payload-range graph comparing the C-5 to the 747 ATCA is interesting, because the curve of the 'maximum-weight' section of the graph is the same for the 747 and C-5, with a constant offset. The implication is either that the C-5 has near-identical fuel consumption characteristics to a 747, or that Boeing modelled the C-5 by assuming it was a 747 with a lower MTOW and smaller fuel tanks.
 
Yellow Palace said:
The payload-range graph comparing the C-5 to the 747 ATCA is interesting, because the curve of the 'maximum-weight' section of the graph is the same for the 747 and C-5, with a constant offset. The implication is either that the C-5 has near-identical fuel consumption characteristics to a 747, or that Boeing modelled the C-5 by assuming it was a 747 with a lower MTOW and smaller fuel tanks.
Click to expand...
Same engines (or close to it) and similar aerodynamics. So I'm sure the TSFC is within a % or two.
 
hesham said:
From Aviation magazine 1980.
Click to expand...
Google Translate: "Boeing project for a liquid hydrogen 747. For a range greater than that of the B-747-200B, this aircraft would only consume 41 tonnes of fuel, compared to 121 tonnes, resulting in a take-off weight of 267 t instead of 351 t."
 
Had the 747 used shoulder mount--could that provide enough clearance for 777 engines? Maybe not 4, just two inboard...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom