The Biggest Jet Engines in History Are Finally Ready to Power Boeing's Biggest Plane

[slacktide]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Boeing looked at making the Large Cargo Freighter - aka the 'Dreamlifter' - available 'for hire' for transporting outsized cargo. Two things killed that - first off it would have complicated the certification and operation of the LCF relative to having it dedicated to moving 787 bits (read more time and money).

I'm sure that you know this, but most people do not - the LCF has a restricted type certificate. Only cargo that supports Boeing business can be transported, and only the specific cargo that is documented in the FAA approved W&B manual may be carried. Engines most likely could not be approved to be carried because they contain flammable fluids, and the LCF does not have a main-deck cargo fire suppression system. Ref TCDS A20WE, section XIV. TCDS A20WE Rev 60 Boeing Company, The

Point of note, I personally detest that nickname "Dreamlifter". If the 747 is "Queen of the Sky", then the LCF is "Drag Queen of the Sky."

[SeenItAll]

Originally Posted by Turbine D

It will be mainly by truck using the interstate highway system or other roads where clearances have been thoroughly checked out, day or night. If need be, engines can be shipped by heavy lift aircraft, e.g., AN-124s. This was done in the early days of the GE90 production to support Boeing's 777 aircraft schedules at the time.

A post above says that their carrier is 14 feet wide and 13 feet tall. While the 14 feet wide can be handled as special wide-load transport, 13 feet tall plus about 2 feet of truck bed height gives you a need for at least 15 feet of clearance. I don't know what interstates they travel on, but the ones that I travel on have a lot of bridges that don't exceed 14-some feet of clearance. It must end up being a pretty convoluted route.

See https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/data/tools/...mainline=false for the final push through Washington State.

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by SeenItAll

A post above says that their carrier is 14 feet wide and 13 feet tall. While the 14 feet wide can be handled as special wide-load transport, 13 feet tall plus about 2 feet of truck bed height gives you a need for at least 15 feet of clearance. I don't know what interstates they travel on, but the ones that I travel on have a lot of bridges that don't exceed 14-some feet of clearance. It must end up being a pretty convoluted route.

See https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/data/tools/...mainline=false for the final push through Washington State.

You are entirely correct, routing this kind of truly outsized cargo is a major effort and the Interstates are not useful generally, because they were designed with insufficient bridge clearance.
Often the convoy creeps through the countryside at very low speeds in the wee small hours, over some weeks. So leasing an An 124 is massively more efficient.
I think the airship delusion gets reinvigorated every time one of these big lumps must get moved from A to B.

[JLWSanDiego]

Rail? That's how they get the 737 fueselage from spirit

[Lord Farringdon]

Originally Posted by JLWSanDiego

Rail? That's how they get the 737 fuselage from spirit

Same problem as Interstate but even more restrictive as to gauge. eg tunnels, bridges, catenary systems. While 737 fuses might move this way (by the way, didn't they have a few come off the rails recently and go down an embankment nearly into a river?) the 737 fuse is a lot smaller in diameter than the G90. Just take a look at the picture that starts this thread.

[Water pilot]

It might not make it through the tunnels through the Cascades, which are already woefully inadequate for modern shipping needs. (US infrastructure lags the rest of the world, but I digress.) I suppose it is possible that they plan to ship it through the Panama Canal, that might end up being cost effective

[runner1021]

Surely you could squeeze a 9x into a C-5, no?

[atakacs]

You guys are quite funny.

Seriously is the C5 up for corporate chartering?

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by atakacs

You guys are quite funny.

Seriously in the C5 up for corporate chartering?

I don't think so. Maybe Boeing should have hung on to one of those last C-17s.
Educated guess is that they might ship the production GE9x as two modules (the fan module separate). The plan was to use a similar modular design to the GEnx, so it wouldn't add that much work to attach the fan to the rest after it arrived at final assembly. Certainly cheaper than charting an A124 for every single engine delivery.

[Winemaker]

Originally Posted by samusi01

Winemaker,

The two principle railroad tunnels are unsuitable (Stampede) and marginal at best (Cascade/Stevens Pass). The latter has been slightly enlarged but clearances are still quite close. I don't recall if the snow sheds on Snoqualmie would be limiting at all for this type of load.

There are no longer any snow sheds on Snoqualmie. It's now three lane through the pass, although, of course, there is always road work going on.

[Sevarg]

I guess an AIRBUS BELUGA is not PC for the job. I'm sure they would be only too pleased to do the job for Boeing.

[Smythe]

Winemaker, there is no rail through Snoq Pass any longer... the main rail line goes to Easton, then turns South through Lester...

the fuselage train goes through Stevens Pass..

Remember this?



Here is the route:

[JimNtexas]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

Well most of the time.

A friend took off in an F-4 with one wing unlocked. The jet crashed just out the base. Fortunately both guys got out, but had a lot of explaining to do.