Unbuilt, experimental and unusual Boeing 747s

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
4,312
From the link above :
Perhaps more dangerous would be the Soviet reaction. They’d be in a constant state of freaking out every time one of these took to the sky, and they probably would have difficulty telling an MC-747 from an E-4 or a civilian 747. And, of course, they’d have to have their own. the AN-124 would be the logical choice for an ICBM carrier, and chances are good they’d do as good of a job with it as they did with Chernobyl, the Kursk or the Polyus.
So true.
 

sgeorges4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2017
Messages
628
Reaction score
229
747 8F with a normal door at the rear that wasn't in the production aircraft
boeing_Boeing_747-8F_Large.jpg

 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
4,312
Correct:
James Bond's Skyfleet S570:
latest


 

sienar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
714
Reaction score
406
Interesting post on homebuiltairplanes

"Back in the early 90's JAL asked Boeing to develop a 747 variant with fixed gear for short runs to islands around Japan. Taking out the retracts saved 3,000 lbs that could increase seating capasity. No gallies, no lavs just seats. Buddy of mine worked on it, he was on the team that designed the worlds biggest wheel pants. In the end JAL backed out and the worlds most beautiful airliner wasn't turned into the ugliest."


Sounds plausible to me but can anyone confirm?
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
4,312
3000lb = 1300kg
A 747 sip 10t of fuel per hours
1300kg is enough fuel for 7 min and 20secondes (roughly 8 min).

The gradient of climb is dependent on excess thrust divided by the total weight.

With a non retractable gear, the drag would soar increasing the time to climb and reducing considerably the speed of the descent at the end of the flight.

So 8 min of fuel saved would have been easily swallowed by the extra time taken to gain alt, the slower cruise speed and the extra time needed for the descent unless the total distance b/w the two points was fairly low (20 min of flight?).

Either the 3000lb gain is vastly under estimated, either this doesn't sound credible on an engineering stand point but probable on some very specific cases. The question is then, why would you use a jet for something a turboprop would do much better?
 
Last edited:

Hobbes

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,081
Reaction score
604
3000lb = 1300kg
A 747 sip 10t of fuel per hours
1300kg is enough fuel for 7 min and 20secondes (roughly 8 min).

The gradient of climb is dependent on excess thrust divided by the total weight.

With a non retractable gear, the drag would soar increasing the time to climb and reducing considerably the speed of the descent at the end of the flight.

So 8 min of fuel saved would have been easily swallowed by the extra time taken to gain alt, the slower cruise speed and the extra time needed for the descent unless the total distance b/w the two points was fairly low (20 min of flight?).

Either the 3000lb gain is vastly under estimated, either this doesn't sound credible on an engineering stand point but probable on some very specific cases. The question is then, why would you use a jet for something a turboprop would do much better?

IRL, JAL used the 747-100SR:

Boeing developed the 747-100SR as a "short range" variant of the 747-100. The SR has a lower fuel capacity but can carry more passengers, up to 498 in early versions and more than 550 in later models, because of increased economy class seating. The 747SR has a modified body structure to accommodate the added stress accumulated from a greater number of takeoffs and landings. The -100SR entered service with Japan Airlines (then Japan Air Lines) on 7 October 1973. Specifically, the SR has extra structural support at the wings, fuselage, and the landing gear along with a 20% reduction in fuel capacity. Later, short range versions of the -100B and the -300 were also developed. The SRs are used primarily on domestic flights in Japan.


Two 747-100B/SRs were delivered to Japan Airlines (JAL) with a stretched upper deck to accommodate more passengers. This modification is known as the "SUD" (stretched upper deck).


All Nippon Airways (ANA) operated 747SRs on domestic Japanese routes with 455 or 456 seats but retired the last aircraft on 10 March 2006.

These were used on sub-1000 mile sectors. There are no turboprops with 500+ seats.
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
338
Reaction score
235

IRL, JAL used the 747-100SR:

Boeing developed the 747-100SR as a "short range" variant of the 747-100. The SR has a lower fuel capacity but can carry more passengers, up to 498 in early versions and more than 550 in later models, because of increased economy class seating. The 747SR has a modified body structure to accommodate the added stress accumulated from a greater number of takeoffs and landings. The -100SR entered service with Japan Airlines (then Japan Air Lines) on 7 October 1973. Specifically, the SR has extra structural support at the wings, fuselage, and the landing gear along with a 20% reduction in fuel capacity. Later, short range versions of the -100B and the -300 were also developed. The SRs are used primarily on domestic flights in Japan.
I wonder if the lower fuel capacity came from configuration changes (reduction in the installed tankage/piping, lightened structure) or whether it a was accomplished by simply limiting the permitted loadings. I'd guess the latter since it would require less development and would avoid creating an over-specialized machine with limited resale value.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
747

sgeorges4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2017
Messages
628
Reaction score
229

sgeorges4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2017
Messages
628
Reaction score
229
air force one concept from boeing image secure website, the livery is different from both the classic and the trump one
 

TimothyC

Arnie Holmes
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
21
Reaction score
23
air force one concept from boeing image secure website, the livery is different from both the classic and the trump one
It's a very shiny render which results in the image being blown out, but the pattern is an almost identical match to the one the VC-25As are flying in:
United_States_Air_Force_Boeing_VC-25_%2892-9000%29_landing_at_Dayton_International_Airport_%281%29.jpg


The engines might not be painted, and the shades might be different, but the pattern and the shapes are so close as to be functionally indistinguishable.
 

sgeorges4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2017
Messages
628
Reaction score
229
ok so it's a concept of the 8i with the normal air force one livery, no the trump one
 

sgeorges4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2017
Messages
628
Reaction score
229
I readed that boeing design the 8i in mind that it might be converted into a BCF, is that true and can it be applied to variant such as the 500X, 600X, 700X, 800X or advanced? https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1454323 Since boeing didn't sold as many passenger 8i as intende, I don't think it's economicaly justifiable for them to do that but they might've designed it to be converted just in case
 

sgeorges4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2017
Messages
628
Reaction score
229
Looking through the airchives boeing memorabilia, I came across a boeing 747 brochure from 1967 showcasing different option of convertible and I do wonder if these were suppose to have a nosecargo door or not
Boeing-747-Brochure-May-1967-P58.jpg

The brochure is from there and show that a full freighter (not a conversion) was planned for the 100 already before its maiden flight http://theairchive.net/boeing-memorabilia/
 

Similar threads

Top