HOW UGLY !!!!

Interesting...

I just would like to see how that forward upper wing will interact with the docking systems. And how do you get the cargo in the back belly hold? You lift it? Or do you need a new cocept in the loaders? (Strange, that was always the argument against the A380). Also that rear exit will need some really intreresting slide construction. I also wonder how much runway that bird will use, I mean as a canard it cannot really have resonable flaps. Oh, and before I forget it, how sensitive is it going to be to changes in weight and balance? Probably rather...

------------------
There's nothing like a three-holer...

Looks a bit like an SR-71! One thing is for sure; that thing will never be a successful freighter. Look at the fuselage; can you imagine building dozens of different shaped (contoured) pallets to fit that??!! Any Loadmaster's comment would be "AAARRGHHH"; bit like the converted DC10CF's with their 3 or 4 different shapes.
Anyway, I'm sorry to see the end of the 747X(although yet another little dicky bird tells me that it's only "postponed". Apparently going back to the drawing board in order to safisfy customer (mainly -F operators) questions/concerns)).
THERE'S HOPE YET!

------------------
rgds Rat

Dutchie,

Whilst I agree with you that the 747X concept has somewhere along the line lost the impetus for change, I think it is a bit unfair and naive to suggest that Boeing is out of the loop so far as NGA designs are concerned.

Let's not forget how successful the chaps in Seattle have been so far...I suspect there's some life left in their R & D dept yet. Why else would they be investing a considerable no of dollars in relocating their plant elsewhere within the States?

SW

I Agree with CargoRat2. Apparently the 747-400 will remain in production and continue to undergo product developement. The 744ER is still a go at 910K pounds, 777 interior, LCD displays, new vertical profile display, new interior space utilization (above the main deck behind the hump), etc.

I understood as CargoRat2 did, that the main interest being shown in the 747X was the new standard length freighter, because of its enhanced range. With this change the 744 will remain the best freighter out there.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

Sounds like speculation to me…

And what exactly sounds like speculation?

I guess someone at Boeing HQ thought it is time to try to impress wall street. Just strange that the EADS shares climbet by a couple of percent after the announcement. I agree with CargoRat2, as some gremlins tell me similar things. The only problem is, that the really best freighter on the drawing board right now is the 747-X Stretch. That's the thing airlines really want! (At least the very few ones that understand something about cargo.)

------------------
There's nothing like a three-holer...

1) Why do you have to go so radical to get a paltry Mach 0.95 cruise? The Comet would do Mach 0.84, ferchrissake!

2) How can Mach 0.9-0.95 lop '90 minutes' off a Transatlantic journey? What typical cruise speeds are being flown today, and by what? How does Mach 0.9 represent a 20% improvement?

3) Is anything less than about Mach 1.3 a worthwhile improvement over today's 757s, 777s, A340s etc.?

4) Is this proof that Boeing has completely 'lost the plot'?

Tcas Climb ....

How about a nose cargodoor and one huge deck that is about as wide in the nose as it is in the rear. And the fact that you can use existing highloaders and other airport equipment. Sorry to upset you but I got all the facts... Called research ya know.

JJ

JJFlyer; somebody who understands freighter ops.

------------------
rgds Rat

The stretch 74 was just a shill to goad Airbus into throwing the EU taxpayers money down a rathole. Looks like it worked.

High sub-sonic cruiser?? Maybe Boeing is convincing its self into throwing money down a rathole too.

Will make for interesting times in the aircraft industry.