Cargo loading for 747 freighter fans

[JammedStab]

And we are all 747 fans aren't we?

Created for Iraqi Airways way back when was a 747-200C with self-loading capability.

The lifting unit is carried in zone A and can be moved out of the aircraft via the nose for loading from the front or detached for loading at the side.

Takes 30 minutes to deploy or stow, weighs 6.6 tons, can handle a 13.6 ton payload, and is powered either by the aircraft or a GPU.

Interesante foto-reportaje del proceso de Carga/Descarga de un 747 de IA / IAW Iraquí Airways.

[bcgallacher]

I worked with 747s from 1977 until I retired in 2010 and this is the first time that I have seen this equipment. I suspect this was connected to the fact that the 747 was designed initially for a military contract.I doubt if it was ever used in anger as no company would want to fly around with a 6.5 ton penalty. I would appreciate any further info on this if anyone has any.

[soycowboy]

Back in the day as an aviation hack I flew to Baghdad to
interview Iraqi Airways, but they immediately clammed
up when mention was made of this particular hybrid and
of course refused any photos. Got back home, phoned
Boeing and asked if they had photos of self-loading
equipment for B747F freighters. Yes, there was one customer
out there who had ordered such.

It was my proud pleasure to mail a copy of next issue of the
magazine to Iraq with the said aircraft on the front cover and
the tag line -Iraqi Airways opens its big mouth.

[TowerDog]

Never seen that before, flown 747 freighters for 3 different airlines.
Thx for posting.

[Newforest2]

An interesting concept that appears to work! Presumably could have been used on any of the three 200 series that Iraqi used to operate.

[tdracer]

I vaguely remember hearing about this bit of self-loading kit for the 747F. What I didn't realize is that Boeing built 747 Combi's with the nose door.

[JammedStab]

Originally Posted by tdracer

I vaguely remember hearing about this bit of self-loading kit for the 747F. What I didn't realize is that Boeing built 747 Combi's with the nose door.

Actually, it is a 747-200C, that is......a convertible version that can be all pax or all freight. How can you tell the difference between a convertible and an all pax(or combi) machine from a bit of a distance with all doors closed? Simple, the convertible has 86 side windows instead of 88.

But before you start counting, wait. Take a look at the Iraqi 747 in the background. It is a convertible as well. You can tell because it has two side windows missing at the location where the nose cargo door opens.

So I think that this is in the all freight configuration. Otherwise, there would be cargo at the front, pax in the middle, and cargo in the back.

65 knot door fully open max wind limit sure seems like a lot.

[Anilv]

I seem to remember that in the early days of 747 ops something similar was available for the all pax aircraft.

Basically a smaller scale unit which occupied a door-side position on the lower deck. You would use a forklift to get it out and what you had was an elevator to bring the ULDs down to ground level and vice versa.

Remember back in the day a lot of airports did not have ULD handling capability as most of the planes were narrowbodies.

Anil

[grounded27]

Interesting as I recently learned the 747 was originally designed for the USAF as a freighter. The military applications of this load system seem very logical to outweigh the practicality of it back in that time. Juan Trippe may have mothballed the initial intent for the aircraft with Pan Am money yet one customer in later years had Boeing pull this old design plan out. Just speculation.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Does it lock/unlock the pallets as well? If so that's pretty smart stuff.

[Amadis of Gaul]

I remember reading about this waaaaaay back, but this is the first I see a pic of that contraption.

[742]

Interesting as I recently learned the 747 was originally designed for the USAF as a freighter. The military applications of this load system seem very logical to outweigh the practicality of it back in that time. Juan Trippe may have mothballed the initial intent for the aircraft with Pan Am money yet one customer in later years had Boeing pull this old design plan out. Just speculation.

This is an often repeated fact, but it is a bit off. Boeing competed against Lockheed for the CX-HLS contract, which Lockheed won with the C-5.

The Boeing airplane looked like a C-5 with a conventional tail. If you google "Boeing CX-HLS" you will find plenty of drawings and models.

The 747 took technology, but not the airframe itself, from Boeing's CX work.

Later Boeing did shop the 747-400F to the USAF as the "C-33", which confuses the issue. But when metal was cut for the first 747 it was a 100% civilian airframe.

[grounded27]

Thanks for the share 742, once again another surprise in aircraft development
.

[tdracer]

While the first 747s were designed as passenger aircraft, the design was always provisioned for the freighter version (which was the main driver for the upper deck flight deck).
A primary reason for that was, at the time the original 747 was being developed, SSTs were also being developed and were expected to be in common service by the mid 1970s. The thinking was that the SSTs would quickly make subsonic aircraft obsolete for long distance passenger service - so the 747 was designed to be readily converted to a freighter.

Of course we all know how that turned out

[mustangsally]

From Boeing

Boeing CX-HLS Model at Boeing Corporate Archives - 1963/64

In 1963, the United States Air Force started a series of study projects on a very large strategic transport aircraft. Although the C-141 Starlifter was being introduced, they felt that a much larger and more capable aircraft was needed, especially the capability to carry outsized cargo that would not fit in any existing aircraft. These studies led to initial requirements for the CX-Heavy Logistics System (CX-HLS) in March 1964 for an aircraft with a load capacity of 180,000 pounds (81,600 kg) and a speed of Mach 0.75 (500 mph/805 km/h), and an unrefueled range of 5,000 nautical miles (9,260 km) with a payload of 115,000 pounds (52,200 kg). The payload bay had to be 17 feet (5.18 m) wide by 13.5 feet (4.11 m) high and 100 feet (30.5 m) long with access through doors at the front and rear.

Featuring only four engines, the design also required new engine designs with greatly increased power and better fuel economy. On May 18, 1964, airframe proposals arrived from Boeing, Douglas, General Dynamics, Lockheed and Martin Marietta; while engine proposals were submitted by General Electric, Curtiss-Wright, and Pratt & Whitney. After a downselect, Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed were given additional study contracts for the airframe, along with General Electric and Pratt & Whitney for the engines.

All three of the airframe proposals shared a number of features. As the CX-HLS needed to be able to be loaded from the front, a door had to be included where the cockpit usually was. All of the companies solved this problem by moving the cockpit to above the cargo area; Douglas had a small "pod" just forward and above the wing, Lockheed used a long "spine" running the length of the aircraft with the wing spar passing through it, while Boeing blended the two, with a longer pod that ran from just behind the nose to just behind the wing. In 1965 Lockheed's aircraft design and General Electric's engine design were selected for the new C-5 Galaxy transport, which was the largest military aircraft in the world at the time. The nose door and raised cockpit concepts would be carried over to the design of the 747