Boeing to make a full size 747 ?

[phiggsbroadband]

I just wonder when Boeing will make the full size 747, with the full length upper deck.


There have been so many variants of the 747 from short stubby ones, to long ones, and some with hardly any upper cabin (747-8F)..
So is it possible to add a full size upper deck, or would the airflow adversely affect the control of the tail?


Add a set of RR Trent 1000s for the increased weight, and 'The Job's a Good-Un'

[mrmrsmith2]

They did, sorry Airbus did lol:D oh sorry thats Europe did eh

[JammedStab]

Well, there is the Dreamlifter. Saw one the other day. It has the equivalent of a full length second and third deck.

Not sure what the crosswind limits are though among other potential limitations.

[gcal]

I'd ask Emirates as they seem to know who to buy them from :)

[flyboyike]

Does anyone want such an aircraft?

[DaveReidUK]

So is it possible to add a full size upper deck, or would the airflow adversely affect the control of the tail?We'll never know ...

[flyboyike]

This is similar to people asking why there was never a 727-300 or why Delta doesn't fly from Jacksonville to Novosibirsk nonstop.

[RTN11]

well, they made this

Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter)

so surely a passenger equivalent would be possible, but would there actually be the demand or money for it?

[Airbubba]

Here's an earlier proposal for a double decker B-747:

Boeing 747 "Double Decker" Early Proposed Design Model - late 1990s (http://airchive.com/html/museums/boeing-archives-bellevue-washington-usa/boeing-747-double-decker-early-proposed-design-model-late-1990s/19082)

[Dash8driver1312]

Not to mention the original 747-300 trijet...until someone tried it in a wind tunnel...

[gcal]

Yes Boeing might have done it but they didn't realise the game had changed.
In the Middle East people expect to fly on a big 'un even on a short hop.

[Lone_Ranger]

Not worth the hassle, it would need at least a new wing, new landing gear, systems etc etc, it would end up a whole new design.

[toffeez]

Planemaking is not about building the least wanted variant at the greatest development cost and with the fewest sales.

Boeing have done that before with the 747-SP and the -8i.

Even they aren't stupid enough to try again.

Let it RIP.

[John Farley]

phiggsbroadband

Regarding your concern about possible effects on the airflow round the tail you might be reasured by this version - which seems to work OK.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/johnfarley/747shuttle_zpsa430c3f6.jpg

[Machdiamond]

Whether there was a business case for it or not was a moot point. Boeing looked at it of course and the issue was transonic drag rise. The 747-400 hump ends where the wing begins, so far so good (and actually even better as it smoothed out the area rule curve). If you extend it any further, the cross section curve spikes and drag goes up quite a bit.

The Dreamlifter just doesn't care about drag.

--M

[Una Due Tfc]

Both the VLAs will struggle to break even. They would lose a fortune if they tried it. With the amount of money they are making on the widebody twins, you don't need to be a genius to know the four engined behemoth is dying. Twins are the future

[daikilo]

There was nothing major preventing Boeing building a 747 derivative with a full-length upper deck. The 747-500X and -600X were crebible, but would however have been a very major change, but possibly not that much greater than what the 747-8 actually became.

However, at the time it was judged as viable only if Airbus did not build the A380, and not even needed if they didn't. Boeing decided to play poker and Airbus decided to build the aircraft. Quite why they thought the "cheap" substitute (-8i) might make the grade in the presence of the A380 remains a mystery.

[Just a spotter]

There was the Boeing NLA (New Large Airplane) concept

NLA Boeing - Pictures & Photos on FlightGlobal Airspace (http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/miscellaneous/nla-boeing-96204.aspx)

and also the McDonnell Douglas MD-12 proposal

Mcdonnell Douglas Double Decker MD-12 Aircraft Airliner History and Facts (http://www.aviationexplorer.com/md-12_facts.htm)

JAS

[Tank2Engine]

Well let's be honest, the current 747-8 is hardly a commercial success with <100 in operation, mostly freighters, so why would Boeing even consider stretching the existing design's upper deck even more?

I always thought that Boeing never really believed in the projected market for an A380 size aircraft and was therefore betting more on the thinner point-to-point (Jacksonville to Novosibirsk if you will ;) ) kind of routes, instead of the big hub-and-spoke trunk routes requiring massive volumes like the A380.

[Una Due Tfc]

One of the Russian manufacturers tried to sell one in the early nineties IIRC. There just isn't a market for more than one aircraft of that size to be profitable for the manufacturers, hell there might not even be enough market for 1

[LNIDA]

Without sales of the A380 to Emirates the program would have been another Concorde, the A380 is ideal for nearly full European airports and LHR in particular, Boeing would stupid to follow this market. Any 747 replacement is more than covered by the 777X, its about making money not making aeroplanes, i cannot see anyone ever making another quad jet, the biggest mistake BAe made was not re-engining the 146 as a twin.

[grounded27]

Boeing wanted to do it back in the 80's, the negative feedback from the FAA concerning the potential loss of life of 600 pax shut them down. Really successful aircraft, i think they are happy with it and it has outlived it's usefulness as a pax bird (great freighter). A.B. can have the flying pig, it will outlive it's usefulness as the twin is the future (pax per mile/kilometer cost).

[DaveReidUK]

A.B. can have the flying pig, it will outlive it's usefulness as the twin is the future (pax per mile/kilometer cost).That's an interesting metric, how is it worked out?

That the majority of future jet airliner deliveries will be twins is a no-brainer. But it's equally obvious that for markets where you need to move very large numbers of people at the same time, the only game in town is the A380 (well OK, plus the faltering 747-8) and we're not about to see a 600-seat twin competitor in the foreseeable future.

[grounded27]

But it's equally obvious that for markets where you need to move very large numbers of people at the same time, the only game in town is the A380 (well OK, plus the faltering 747-8) and we're not about to see a 600-seat twin competitor in the foreseeable future.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8260848&noquote=1)

For most carriers the challenge of operating a few very large aircraft is not worth the operating cost. Government funded fat cat airlines have had their fun with the aircraft, one small economic downturn and the craft becomes a very large liability. I am saying I simply do not see any further growth in the market, I see it shrinking. Boeing really has something with the 777X, the -9 moves a lot of meat for the money.

[Tank2Engine]

Here's Tim Clark's (CEO of Emirates airline) opinion about the 747-8 with some very interesting quotes:

Clark: 777-300ER responsible for sparse 747-8I sales - 2/10/2011 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/clark-777-300er-responsible-for-sparse-747-8i-sales-353042/)

"What Boeing is up against is not the A380, it is their own machine - the 777-30ER," Clark says.
and

Clark points out that Emirates carries 420 passengers on its 777-300ERs in a two-class configuration. He believes the 747-8I will only be able to carry slightly more passengers.
"Now look at the economics. We can get the ER to operate 17.5h with that kind of payload. It's cheap to operate. The engines are hugely fuel efficient," he says. "You've an amazing capability."

[LiamNCL]

Airbus beat them to it and as the 748 shows there really isnt a market for the two of them ! The 747 is fast approaching its sell by date im suprised they even went ahead or continue to produce the -800

[PAXboy]

Both companies knew that there was only enough market for one double decker. Since the airline market had experienced clashes of sizing before (if I recall correctly, the MD-10 and TriStar overlapped too much and so neither became a big money maker).

So both companies put forward ideas and dropped big hints and waited to see what the carriers said and who would put some cards down. Unsurprisingly, it was Airbus and Boeing then continued with their well publicised alternative view of long routes but thinner.

A great success all round.

[grounded27]

Both companies knew that there was only enough market for one double decker. Since the airline market had experienced clashes of sizing before (if I recall correctly, the MD-10 and TriStar overlapped too much and so neither became a big money maker).

Quite a bit off the mark, while many loved the L1011 it never performed as well as the DC-10 especially with production of the -30 and beyond. The best production numbers I can find are 386 commercial DC10's with an additional 60 military KC10's and if you will the evolution of the MD-11 adds another 200 craft for a total of approx 650 aircraft. There were approx 250 L1011 produced. The MD-11 and converted MD-10's are still being flown with plans for replacement by the US based FedEx cargo company (hundreds still flying), you may find a few L1011's operating.

[parabellum]

Before the first metal was cut for the A380 Boeing did evaluations for the VLA and came to the conclusion that it could be a risky project for a limited market but, nevertheless, offered airbus the chance to join forces and produce a VLA as a consortium.
Airbus refused their offer and Boeing immediately cancelled all plans for a VLA.


Airbus still have a long way to go with the A380 just to break even and it hasn't proved popular with the American market or the traditionally Boeing market, like Japan, two markets essential to the success of most airliners.


The 787 and the many variants of the 777 are the way ahead for Boeing's long haul market.

[NWA SLF]

Americans always need to be concerned about liability. Take for instance accidents that have triggered the demise of what were once premier US carriers. Lockerbie with the loss of a 747 load of passengers was a major piece to the end of PanAm. Flight 800 with the loss of another planeload was a large nail in the coffin of TWA. Even if you aren't responsible for the accident accidents with heavy loss of life strikes fear into passengers plus lawyers are vultures heading for the deepest pockets. Is that a consideration as to why US carriers have shunned the 380? Then there is the flexibility of multiple flights with different timings - one daily flight might not fit the schedules that 3 smaller flights with large twins, so due to convenience you end up with say 3 350 passenger loads instead of 1 550 passenger load just because you meet the customer demand. Would Airbus have been better served to have developed a competitor to the 777 instead of making the huge investment in the 380 and now still being a year away from airline passengers in a twin that has over 800 pre-orders? I remember the old days when I thought of a twin as always having one engine to get you to the scene of the crash but my last flight on anything with more than 2 was one of Northwest's last DC-10 flights. I also remember dreading arrival at an airport just behind 2 747's and getting stuck for what seemed like ages getting through immigration.

[Torquelink]

The A380, like the 747 before it, is a 50 year programme and, as the 747-8i fades, will eventually be re-engined and stretched (in that order). The 777-9X will be tough to beat but, with new engines and denser configurations the A380 will continue to gain sales where slot restrictions exist. It may never sell in the same numbers as the big twins but it will be Airbus' trump card for years to come and may even, eventually, make them some money!

[JammedStab]

The A380 will continue to do successfully the two things that it was only ever designed to do. Satisfy Gallic pride and provide a lot of European jobs regardless of cost.

[DaveReidUK]

Satisfy Gallic prideAre you suggesting that the good folks at Broughton and Derby aren't equally proud of their contribution?

[PAXboy]

I do know that Boeing looked at all the numbers for a long time and found they did not add up. No surprise. The offer to build with Airbus was always going to be turned down - how would Boeing have reacted if MD or Lockheed had suggested such a deal in the 1960s/70s? Of course it was a different era but Boeing have been taken down a peg or two since then.

There was always a small market for a VLA and Airbus were, in my view, always going to build it and, eventually, it will make some money.

That is why I said 'a great success all round'.

[phiggsbroadband]

What I don't really understand is why the 747-8F a completely different fuselage shape to the 747-8 passenger aircraft.

Cargo...
http://img.planespotters.net/photo/427000/original/LX-VCE-Cargolux-Airlines-International-Boeing-747-8_PlanespottersNet_427299.jpg




Passenger...
http://img.planespotters.net/photo/421000/original/D-ABYI-Lufthansa-Boeing-747-8_PlanespottersNet_421878.jpg




Also why have Airbus not yet created the freight version of the 380, is it that freight flights are not so profitable anyway... I remember the recent demise of Emerald Airways who use to carry postal services around UK and Europe.

[galaxy flyer]

Simple--the freighter doesn't need the extended upper deck. On the freighter, it's the crew rest, limited company pax seating.

GF

[phiggsbroadband]

Galaxy Flyer.. Thanks for that explanation, agreed... no need to have unused space in a freighter.

However I think there is possibly another reason why Boeing have not put any more top deck behind the wing, and that is most likely for Weight and Balance reasons. Most aero-modellers know it is acceptable to put lead weight in the nose of a plane or glider, but not to put any in the rear.


If they did add more to the top deck, then the wing position might need altering for W+B checks, also the undercarriage would need re-doing, and all in all it would be a costly re-design, not just a bit more cosmetic sheet-metal bashing.

[Curious Pax]

Nope, I think GF had it correct. As he says apart from a bit of room for crew rest and a small number of seats for such as a loadmaster/company pax it would be pointless to put any bigger area up there. It is far too high up to put additional cargo without airports investing in new very high lift equipment, which for the sake of a couple of pallets at best would never happen.

The same difference in upper deck lengths was already used on -400 and -400F models.

[grounded27]

However I think there is possibly another reason why Boeing have not put any more top deck behind the wing, and that is most likely for Weight and Balance reasons. Most aero-modellers know it is acceptable to put lead weight in the nose of a plane or glider, but not to put any in the rear.

Quite the opposite phiggs, many modern aircraft have fuel tanks in the tail for the main purpose of obtaining a more fuel efficient aft CG. There are many reasons Boeing did not build a full upper deck 747, W&B was not one of them.