747-400`s future
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A local airport must weigh the cost of improvements - moving taxiways, providing adequate clearance etc. against the hoped-for increased business.
And this article is primarily focused of freight ops.
And this article is primarily focused of freight ops.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USofA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed it is. It's interesting to see Toledo in that article, since that's my hometown. They have had a surprising number of 747 freight ops (considering Toledo's economy is dead) and with the way the cargo side of the airport is laid out I don't think they would have to do anything at all except repaint the ramp.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Southgate, Michigan
Age: 72
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another point
As the 747 was initially to compete against the Lockheed and McDonnell/Douglas as a design competition for the CX-HLS program.
The C5A won mainly because of the straight in nose and aft loading feature. The Boeing had nose and side loading..
The big problem was the main fuselage mounted main gear assembly which at the time was so big that it split the lower main deck in two. That would have been a passenger loading and emergency evacuation nightmare.
If the FAA was involved it would have been in respects to this original design not capable of the mandated 90 second evacuation. So in spite of dropping the original high wing to a low wing configuration, that split main deck was a no no for the airlines, in addition to the airlines not liking the upper deck and considered it too much capacity for market conditions.
The main gears were made more compact and allowed a flat fore to aft main deck, and thats what the airlines wanted, this still barely made the 90 second evacuation requirement.
Yes the civilian market was a big consideration during the design stage for the 747. At the time the airplane was coming together, Boeing was working on the SST, and it was felt that the 747 would only serve on the front line until replaced by the 2707 SST, Concorde etc. To preserve their service life. the 747 was designed from the git goe as a freighter, with the raised upper deck fuselage "hump" to allow straight in nose loading capability for its second life. Although the nose door would not appear until later in production.
In fact the first 25 747s ordered by Pan Am included two 747F versions.
The C5A won mainly because of the straight in nose and aft loading feature. The Boeing had nose and side loading..
The big problem was the main fuselage mounted main gear assembly which at the time was so big that it split the lower main deck in two. That would have been a passenger loading and emergency evacuation nightmare.
If the FAA was involved it would have been in respects to this original design not capable of the mandated 90 second evacuation. So in spite of dropping the original high wing to a low wing configuration, that split main deck was a no no for the airlines, in addition to the airlines not liking the upper deck and considered it too much capacity for market conditions.
The main gears were made more compact and allowed a flat fore to aft main deck, and thats what the airlines wanted, this still barely made the 90 second evacuation requirement.
Yes the civilian market was a big consideration during the design stage for the 747. At the time the airplane was coming together, Boeing was working on the SST, and it was felt that the 747 would only serve on the front line until replaced by the 2707 SST, Concorde etc. To preserve their service life. the 747 was designed from the git goe as a freighter, with the raised upper deck fuselage "hump" to allow straight in nose loading capability for its second life. Although the nose door would not appear until later in production.
In fact the first 25 747s ordered by Pan Am included two 747F versions.
Last edited by Mark Meeker; 16th Apr 2011 at 07:47. Reason: Punctuation
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the 747 was initially to compete against the Lockheed and McDonnell/Douglas as a design competition for the CX-HLS program.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Southgate, Michigan
Age: 72
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better do your research
I got my information from Boeing..the CX-HLS program had just been rejected in favor of the C5A, and Bill Allen had discussed the program with Juan Trippe on a fishing trip on board John Wayne's former boat. Juan in essence stated that if Boeing will build it, Pan American would buy it.
The original design was modified and submitted to Pan American and rejected for the reasons stated above. It was basically returned to the drawing board and reconfigured. It did help that a more compact and lighter main gear assembly allowed the new main deck.
The original design was modified and submitted to Pan American and rejected for the reasons stated above. It was basically returned to the drawing board and reconfigured. It did help that a more compact and lighter main gear assembly allowed the new main deck.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact the upper deck was originally a lounge, not occupied during TO & landing because there were no evac slides operable at that elevation. Only after slide technology had advanced were the airlines able to sell legal seats upstairs.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got my information from Boeing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Southgate, Michigan
Age: 72
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats a good book
However,I did specifically ask that question, since my contact at Boeing was so forthcoming. He said no, the 747 was based primarily on the CX-HLS design competition, and that this concept was considered as a civilian airplane from the start. When Pan American said they would buy it, both Pan American (including Charles Lindbergh) teamed up with Boeing to develop the airplane.
The stretching of the 707 airframe was not feasable (like the DC-8) without an expensive redesign, and projected market growth was such that the "707-500" would have still been too small.. The CX-HLS was envisioned for civilian use from the outset, and it was just a matter of converting it for passenger use and convincing Pan American to buy it.
Like the 707 (and Stratocruiser) Pan American was the most influential airline in the world, so if Pan Am bought it, the other airlines would as well just to compete.
The stretching of the 707 airframe was not feasable (like the DC-8) without an expensive redesign, and projected market growth was such that the "707-500" would have still been too small.. The CX-HLS was envisioned for civilian use from the outset, and it was just a matter of converting it for passenger use and convincing Pan American to buy it.
Like the 707 (and Stratocruiser) Pan American was the most influential airline in the world, so if Pan Am bought it, the other airlines would as well just to compete.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: WSSS
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B747-400
Hi 747Forever,
Looks like I've finally found someone like me. I too love and adore the 747, especially the 400 series. I personally don't fancy the new aircrafts they come up with these days although they are more technologically advanced, and I think Airbus built the A380 just to compete with the 744 and to keep up with the competition. Anyways, I don't think any aircraft will come anywhere close to what the 747 has achieved. Today, the 747 has transported the most number of passengers around the world and the 400 series has one of the best safety records. Most of the incidents with this aircraft type were due to pilot error or some external issue like weather, not with the plane itself. It has not been long since the launch of the A380 and it has already been giving so many problems - The excuse I've heard most is "teething problems". But teething problems don't go to the extent where lives are being threathened, like in the Qantas case. Unfortunately, most airlines are phasing out the 747-400s, including Singapore Airlines. Well the next best thing now I guess is the 747-8I. It is a nice aircraft too but unfortunately, it does not have the winglets of the 400 series.
Looks like I've finally found someone like me. I too love and adore the 747, especially the 400 series. I personally don't fancy the new aircrafts they come up with these days although they are more technologically advanced, and I think Airbus built the A380 just to compete with the 744 and to keep up with the competition. Anyways, I don't think any aircraft will come anywhere close to what the 747 has achieved. Today, the 747 has transported the most number of passengers around the world and the 400 series has one of the best safety records. Most of the incidents with this aircraft type were due to pilot error or some external issue like weather, not with the plane itself. It has not been long since the launch of the A380 and it has already been giving so many problems - The excuse I've heard most is "teething problems". But teething problems don't go to the extent where lives are being threathened, like in the Qantas case. Unfortunately, most airlines are phasing out the 747-400s, including Singapore Airlines. Well the next best thing now I guess is the 747-8I. It is a nice aircraft too but unfortunately, it does not have the winglets of the 400 series.
Guest
Posts: n/a
yeah, quite sad. But all I know is currently that the "fancy airlines" are retiring them. Whens the peak of -400 retirements going to be? My goal is to fly a 747-400 once in my life. Its a dream of mine. I have been to the simulator down it london and it was soooooooo fun.
