747 super freighter takes shape.

They could have used the roof rack on top of the AN225 for the larger pieces 🙂

A225HVY

Just needed an AN-225 for it, and maybe that was the problem. I think to come up with such an ugly solution like the 747LCF, they ruled lots of other ugly solutions, for example the Beluga.

They could have used the roof rack on top of the AN225 for the larger pieces 🙂

A225HVY

Maybe just a “Poke” at Airbus then… 😀

Whereas Airbus outdone Boeing with the A380, so Boeing retaliate with a freighter that’s bigger than the Beluga. :p

“Anything you can do we can do better……….” 😀

Actually Boeing seriously considered the Beluga for the B787 transport. But for “political” reasons this was discontinueed.

So if Boeing want to cart large pieces of aircraft about, why not use the C-17?

Or even dig out some of them old C-5’s (although not Boeing) out of mothballs?

Surely these types are plenty large enough, rather than going to the expense of redesigning the 747 for the purpose.

I don’t think the 5.6m fuselage would fit in either of the transports, otherwise the would have done it. The 747LCA is another risk in the program and costs money, two things managers are scared of 24h a day.

Oh I’m sure this project will have its fair share of headaches. I mean, you can’t chop a plane half to bits and then put it back together with additional bits and expect it all to run smoothly.

The design was made by Russian engineers. Like so many things on the B787 it is as American as a Toyota Corolla.

The B307 Stratoliner (so-named because of it’s claim as the first pressurised, high-altitude airliner) was was actually based upon the B-17 Flying Fortress.

Quite right. I stand corrected. 🙂

The B307 Stratoliner (so-named because of it’s claim as the first pressurised, high-altitude airliner) was was actually based upon the B-17 Flying Fortress.

On the Guppy conversions, am I correct in thinking that they couldn’t convert KC-97’s because the different structure surrounding the refuelling boom?

Yes, thats the 307. But we were referring to the 377 Stratocruiser. Which is based on the B-29. Essentially it shares the wings and the lower fuselage cross section. They just bolted a nother fuselage on top of the thing. lol

I think you might be right about the fuel boom thing.

That was in the 60’s … And, for the space programs then, you needed such planes.

And, for info, Aero Spacelines had another project on the drawing boards… A WAY larger Guppy, based on the B-52 !

:confused:

But why?

When the 747’s Bigger, Better Payload, More Efficient, More Economical… :confused:

I think they would have looked at that.

The issue is with reliability. The C-5s are getting old, as are C-17s. The 747s they bought are not as old and if anything… this shows the world how more versatile the 747 just is. I mean… its essentialy a 40 year old airframe.

The C-17 old ? They are still being rolled out in Long Beach. The problem, I suspect, is that they aren’t large enough. And, they are quite expensive, to buy, and to operate (remember it is a STOL plane)
For th C-5, I agree, the retired examples have most likely nearly reached their fatigue life, and the “flying” fleet is already overstretched.

And, for info, Aero Spacelines had another project on the drawing boards… A WAY larger Guppy, based on the B-52 !

The B37 Stratocruiser was itself a development of the B-29 bomber, so the Boeing lineage of the Super Guppies can be traced even further back than Sandy realised! 🙂

The B307 Stratoliner (so-named because of it’s claim as the first pressurised, high-altitude airliner) was was actually based upon the B-17 Flying Fortress.

On the Guppy conversions, am I correct in thinking that they couldn’t convert KC-97’s because the different structure surrounding the refuelling boom?

Personally speaking, I agree.

I’ll take the 747 over the Airbus anyday… 😀

somones gotta i suppose lol 😉

It just shows what a tolerant and peaceful bunch we are in here, doesn’t it? 😉

😀 😀 😀

Personally speaking, I agree.

I’ll take the 747 over the Airbus anyday… 😀

Had this been A.net you will have been flamed to death quicker than your screen would refresh after posting that. LOL

Boeing could “outdo” Airbus by stating “Ours are better than yours” 😉 lol.

Personally speaking, I agree.

I’ll take the 747 over the Airbus anyday… 😀

I was just refering to the A380 vs B747…

The old “ours is bigger than yours” scenario.

I bet if Boeing realy wanted to compete…. they probably would have a double deck 747 online by now. It’s taken Airbus 10 years sofar.
An this “mine is bigger than yours” is pompous Airbus willy waving.

Boeing could “outdo” Airbus by stating “Ours are better than yours” 😉 lol.

Airbus outdone Boeing? How so?

I was just refering to the A380 vs B747…

The old “ours is bigger than yours” scenario.

Airbus outdone Boeing? How so?

Boeing saw, and still sees a limited VLA market, About 400 aircraft tops. That didn’t and still doesn’t justify a competitor of their own. So they focused their attention on a market ripe for aircraft with more than enough room for the both of them.

The 747s they bought are not as old and if anything… this shows the world how more versatile the 747 just is.

Maybe just a “Poke” at Airbus then… 😀

Whereas Airbus outdone Boeing with the A380, so Boeing retaliate with a freighter that’s bigger than the Beluga. :p

“Anything you can do we can do better……….” 😀