Unbuilt, experimental and unusual Boeing 747s

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."

https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/threads/most-beautiful-aircraft-ever-built.13032/page-30
Sounds plausible to me but can anyone confirm?
 
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:
TomcatViP said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
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.
 
sgeorges4 said:
air force one concept from boeing image secure website, the livery is different from both the classic and the trump one
https://secure.boeingimages.com/CS....iew&VBID=2JRSN2AER45IOB&PN=1&WS=SearchResults
Click to expand...
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.
 
ok so it's a concept of the 8i with the normal air force one livery, no the trump one
 
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
 
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/
 
I'm not sure whether it's been discussed before, but would the upper deck of the 747 Trijet project have effected the airflow into the middle engine? I always found it odd that it was considered, but I could have missed something completely.
 
sgeorges4 said:
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
Click to expand...
The 747-200C “Convertible” did have a nose door and full accommodations for passengers. Unfortunately it did not sell well and about a dozen were produced.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=735287
p500590396-5.jpg

https://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p934046062/h1DD6673C
 
sienar said:
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."

https://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/threads/most-beautiful-aircraft-ever-built.13032/page-30
Sounds plausible to me but can anyone confirm?
Click to expand...
It was real, when I worked 747-400 electrical design, mid-90s to early oughts, I worked with a fellow who had done
preliminary electrical design on the project. Martin had been in 747 electrical design since the late '70s.
 
747-400D (Domestic) LOPA showing why JAL was interested in a fixed-gear variant, as stated the all economy seating models of the 747 were used for city to city flights within Japan. The earlier short and long hump models were similar
in terms of layout.
From the 747-400 Airport Compatibility Handbook available here:
Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning
 

Attachments

  • 747400D_01.png
    747400D_01.png
    703.8 KB · Views: 334
Apologies if this has been covered but I didn't see anything with search or a quick skim. With the 2707 being canceled only a year after the 747's introduction, and it being launched in the middle of a recession, did Boeing ever look at a 'hump'-less 747 without the upper deck?
 
Anybody have info such as drawings or renders of the 747ASB (Advanced Short Body) which was a 1988 proposal for an SP with all the -400 upgrades? Plan was for 8000+ nmi with 250-280 pax.

Would have been a looker and a serious performer, especially with the extended tips/winglets and CF6-80C2's
 
N1011N said:
Air New Zealand 747-500X Pacific Miniatures 1/100 circa 1996.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's a fascinating model. What's the provenance of that?

From what I can tell by counting windows (never precise, I know, but should be close), that's the configuration from August of 1996.

In the 747 MD designs, the wing center section was stretched in three places in Section 44 (39 inches forward of the L3/R3 door at STA 1240, another 85 inches aft the doors at STA 1350, and a final stretch of 14 inches at the aft end of Section 44 at STA 1480) to accommodate the larger wingbox. This appears to have been consistent through the development of the 747-500X/-600X family, even though the span of the wing changed during that time.

What changed from June to August to November '96 was the length of the fuselage stretches at the aft end of Section 42 and the forward end of Section 46.

In the August '96 configuration, the forward fuselage was altered as follows:
  • A stretch of five frames (100") two frames in front of the L2/R2 doors at STA 740, stretching both the upper and lower decks.
  • The L2/R2 Type A doors were moved forward by one frame (20") to STA 780 through 840.
  • The upper-deck Type A doors (L6/R6 [?]) were moved aft two frames (40") to STA 700 through 760 [or 740A, presumably].
The aft fuselage was modified by removing a frame from the forward end of Section 46 at STA 1480. This is counter-intuitive, but that's what the math says.

The November '96 configuration was 20 inches longer than the August variant, by restoring the deleted frame at STA 1480. The L1/R1 and L2/R2 doors were moved aft.
 
terrible quality but here's the single 747 (The City of Everett) that was modified to test refueling systems.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4497.jpg
    IMG_4497.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 166
  • IMG_4498.jpg
    IMG_4498.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 163
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: 72
  • 19790017892.pdf
    695.7 KB · Views: 48
  • 19800009768.pdf
    590.7 KB · Views: 40
  • 19790011930.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 47

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom