[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 40 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Happy 18th Birthday, 4chan!

Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1623179233084.jpg (400 KB, 1024x681)
400 KB
400 KB JPG
Post Jumbos
>>
File: 747 cockpit.jpg (223 KB, 735x560)
223 KB
223 KB JPG
747s always have the comfiest interiors.
>>
File: 797-1.jpg (37 KB, 920x613)
37 KB
37 KB JPG
How hard would it be for GE to develop a new 150,000 lbf class high bypass turbofan?

Specifically to power a twin engine double deck replacement for the 747, similar to this patent I dug up. Note the mid-mounted wings that intersect the lower deck, potentially allowing better ground clearance and thus bigger fan diameters.
>>
>>1707638
Decidedly, not that hard. The engine core could be updated but really your looking for the Fan to do all the work. New blades maybe?
>>
>>1707638
Actually I would prefer a wide long single deck. Upper decks are useless for freight. Also the main floor beams are additionally supported by the round /hemispherically shaped structures on the bottom and this adds a bit of strength.
>>
>>1707638
Engine-out right at take off will fuck you over. Also possibly ETOPS.
>>
>>1707638
Not a good idea to put the centre fuel tank in front of or behind a passenger cabin. At least that is what this design implies. Currently fuel tanks are underfloor/wing areas. Also don't like the nose, looks like a bad day at the barber.
>>
>>1707638
>How hard would it be for GE to develop a new 150,000 lbf class high bypass turbofan?
The fan tip speed dictates everything. A larger diameter fan must turn more slowly without material design improvements.
>>
>>1707638
I just noticed this, but your airplane looks like it has a wingbox leaves a dead space underneath. Another weird thing is that appears to be no wingroot fairing on the body. That could possibly eat into the space occupied by the 2nd forward lower deck door. The rear pressure bulkhead would need to be circular, so the contour of that tail will need to be adjusted. If you had done that you would probably see that the horizontal tail, could be brought lower with respect to the wing. The re contoured tail would lengthen it, if you were to include all the aspects just mentioned.
>>
File: 1918615.jpg (222 KB, 1280x865)
222 KB
222 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>
File: 1885972.jpg (538 KB, 1200x810)
538 KB
538 KB JPG
>>
File: 0046171.jpg (79 KB, 884x604)
79 KB
79 KB JPG
>>
>>1708026
i wonder what pan-am would have been like if it focused on the pacific instead of the atlantic.
>>
>>1708312
The Pacific Market was nothing like the Atlantic. The Atlantic Market was markedly influenced by the Ocean Liners, and carried with it a lot of 'prestige' to Europe. On the Pacific Side, there was nothing similar before or after WW2. So transpacific was not Pan Am's focus. Pan Am painted their planes with a blue stripe, reminiscent of the blue riband, a title held by steamships, going across to Europe. They were so many things about Pan Am's business that was heavily focused on the Atlantic (ie HQ New York) that trying to expect the same from the Pacific Division was asking a stretch. This doesn't mean a market didn't exist, just that Pan Am wasn't into it like Northwest or JAL etc etc.
>>
>>1708484
i should have clarified, i was referring to when pan-am cut their burgeoning pacific market for the (at the time) more robust atlantic market, only for said atlantic market to go to shambles due to Chernobyl and the 1st gulf war right after each other. I doubt it would have saved them, but i still think it would have been interesting.
>>
They were in a bad position to weather out the storm and they didn't. The early 90s were also a transition period for the market as a whole. They may have seen some sort of revival if they hung on just a bit longer to their Pacific division, but in order to profit from that, they would have needed the right equipment. IIRC, the mid 90s was boom time as the Asian economies were gathering steam, but you needed to have the 747-400 doing transpac flights in order to make a bit of money. Pan Am, operated the 747SP in that market, which may not have been a good fit. I agree that it would have been interesting, but not for very long, they just simply didn't have the right resources before they sold it off to United, which even after buying it out didn't really give the transpac market what it really needed, a robust American competitor.
>>
>>1708579
Pan-am honestly should have got in on the 743. 744s were too expensive and too close to the end, but the 743 had similar capacity for a lower upfront cost and could have provided some respite. Although NWA was doing just fine with 742s since they only retired them when they merged.
>>
>>1708625
I'm sure that would have worked. SQ pioneered them transpac. It wouldn't have been the best fit, but it would have opened new doors for sure and at the budget that they had, it may have had an impact on the business except that, that is where the real problems were. Not enough strategic planning and looking around to see what others were doing.
>>
>>1708632
>Not enough strategic planning and looking around to see what others were doing.
funny enough, thats what killed TWA in the end. even after carl left, the situation could have been easily recovered if they werent bouncing around leadership constantly.
>>
>>1708645
Yeah PA and TW. Almost rivals, funny how the businesses were so similar, and they almost both died in the same way. With PA it was 103 (lockerbie) and with TW it was 800. I mean where did the time fly? They had all that time to re-innovate their businesses moving forward and perhaps the failure was not seeing how the marketing part was more important to their continued existence. With the 2 tragedies notwithstanding, it would have been inevitable and it was.
>>
File: anet.jpg (282 KB, 1366x728)
282 KB
282 KB JPG
Censored by Anet.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1464881
>>
>>1708648
Id say TWA was pretty close to making it. their fleet renewal was getting good progress, albeit with some weird holes in it, and they were looking at getting new routes and regaining old ones, and they almost got a codeshare to bring up passengers, but in the end it was all for naught due to the leadership not having a clear vison of what to do and drawing things out.
>>
>>1708658
>topic deleted
the short-haul conspiracy is keeping discussion of jumbos down, this is big
>>
>>1708660
At one point, I had a feeling they were going to buy 777s. That might have made a difference. Your right about company leaderships failure to see the wood for the trees. They didn't even have to buy them new. Their branding was damaged imo because it failed to adapt. They had this 'yesteryear' image to me. I think that contributed too.
>>
>>1708691
777s at the time probably wouldn't have fit with them. The 747 was only retired in late 2000, just a few months before their decision to merge. For them id say the 744 would be the better option, if they either had the cash or bought it when earlier.
>>
>>1709078
Yeah most likely, I did see a graphic though of 2 777 tails one was CO and the other was TW. Thats where I got that idea from. That was 1999 i think. I also thought on the transatlantic that they picked the wrong Airport in London. Going for Gatwick instead of LHR. LHR was where there was where the real game was at. They AA, UA plus they also had BA and VS. All big players in the Transatlantic, with connectivity to SEA, ME India even Australia, Africa, but I also think that was a bit too expensive for them.
>>
>>1709214
TWA was trying to require their LHR routes in the late 90s, as well as getting more European routes in general. They also were trying to get routes from STL to Japan. They were really hopeful that the codeshare with AW would have helped them.
>>
File: 747-438_VH-OJU_SYDNEY.jpg (264 KB, 1170x660)
264 KB
264 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: 747.jpg (2.05 MB, 4032x1960)
2.05 MB
2.05 MB JPG
Oh nice I have something relevant.
>>
File: atlasair747.jpg (2.3 MB, 4032x1960)
2.3 MB
2.3 MB JPG
>>
File: luxoflux.jpg (1.17 MB, 4032x1960)
1.17 MB
1.17 MB JPG
>>
File: img.jpg (39 KB, 614x359)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>>
File: 6546049.jpg (213 KB, 1920x1292)
213 KB
213 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: 0107267.jpg (119 KB, 800x554)
119 KB
119 KB JPG
>>
>>
Elvis is Alive...!!!
>>
>>
>>
File: 797-2.jpg (39 KB, 1024x542)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>>1709705

Using reverse image search I found the original article that deescribes the patent, with more pics. The also describe a propfan variant.

>https://www.seattlepi.com/mount-rainier/article/Boeing-patents-design-for-double-decker-mid-wing-3720456.php
>>
File: 797-3.jpg (55 KB, 1024x682)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
>>
File: 797-4.jpg (60 KB, 1024x682)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>
File: 797-5.jpg (57 KB, 1024x682)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
>>
File: 797-6.jpg (76 KB, 1024x682)
76 KB
76 KB JPG
>>
File: 797-7.jpg (72 KB, 1200x800)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>
>>1709698
The 747-300 is an odd aircraft. It feels like boeing made it then immediately scrapped it in favor of the 744
>>
>>1709722
>When you’re so committed to the 707 fuselage you start using it for nacelles
>>
>>1707179
What do you get when you cross a jumbo jet and an accountant?

A boring 747.
>>
>>1707303
>flight engineer
F
>>
How much longer do we think jumbos will be in service? Obviously large passenger jets are in a decline, but cargo service only seems to gaining more steam these days. Will we still see cargo 747s in service by the year 2050?
>>
>>
>>1709728
The 747-300 was an attempt to consolidate 10 years of technical advancement into the 747. Well it amounted to very little. Improved reliability engines was the main benefit, but really nothing in terms of actual benefits. The range dipped a little and apart from large network route carriers, the standard -200B would have done the job just as well.
>>
>>1709719
Not sure what to say here about these. Aerodynamically I can see what they are aiming at. Of course for practical considerations, this is just another paper plane. The timeline is interesting though. according to the article, 2009 was when the study was carried out. This predates the GE9x engines, which can do about 90% of the job of the current set of quad engines on the 747-400. Obviously we know now that the engine diameter need not be so large, but the question is what engine proposals were these? The propfan one is obvious, but the giant twin is whose proposal? It looks like this patent was an insurance policy in case they were forced into a corner. It also looks like they are trying to reuse current VLA (747) structures, apart from the wing which looks like an upscaled 737 wing.
>>
>>1709772
What do you get when you cross a jumbojet with a politician?

A bowing 747
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>1709505
>>
File: 4789853.jpg (903 KB, 1280x866)
903 KB
903 KB JPG
>>1709789
Depends on how long long the spares are available. If they find a dependable alternative, it could be sooner, but I wouldn't put money on it. A350F? meh.
>>
File: Bq974A8CUAA8nQL.jpg (64 KB, 680x454)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
>>
>>1710127
I've read that any given 747 hull only has so and so many pressurization cycles in it before metal fatigue sets in, giving its service span a hard limit which for most users will be somewhere around 28 years, and the information that the oldest 747 in regular service is 32 years old seems to confirm the approximate ballpark of these numbers, so we can in fact expect the last 747s to be decommissioned in the 2050s.
>>
>>1709789
The 747 is the perfect freighter which makes sense, because it was designed as a freighter first. I would imagine cargo airlines will keep them in service as long as possible.
>>
File: 1343497-large.jpg (201 KB, 1024x649)
201 KB
201 KB JPG
>>
>>1710134
If there is any measure of lifespan its utility. Now I know that DC-3s aren't pressurized, but there is really few alternatives to that design. If the 747 falls into this category largely depends on whether the current set of manufacturers can build alternatives. So far every one that I have seen cannot offer the cargo market a suitable option. The issue is obviously going to boil down to money. Would it be cheaper to re-manufacture a 29 year old 747 vs a new design that can 'offer a better alternative'? The former is never going to be cheap or practical, but the latter may have drawbacks that reduce the competitiveness of that alternative its trying to replace and also these are bought new requiring financing. If there is a need for the current design to remain, there may be demand to find ways to extend that hard life cycle limit you mention. It won't be cheap, but it will be cheaper than buying new, if that is the metric that is going to be used to measure the likelihood that that will go ahead. Either way, the hard limit cycle depends entirely on utilization, and with cargo expect rougher utilization.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>1710120
kino combo 742, 732 and most likely a 722
>>
>>1711353
Why dont they paint planes like this anymore Everything is EUROTRASH WHITE.
>>
twin engine 747 will save the jumbos mark my words
>>
>>
File: obama_crop.jpg (199 KB, 1250x420)
199 KB
199 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: 860x394.png (491 KB, 860x394)
491 KB
491 KB PNG
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: crash011100f_3493.jpg (15 KB, 400x262)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
>>
File: crash031100c_6983.jpg (19 KB, 400x263)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
>>
File: 0381703.jpg (878 KB, 1421x874)
878 KB
878 KB JPG
>>
>>1712043
F
>>
>>1713496
It is very sad. These were some of the most beautiful jumbos ever painted. Heartbreaking.
>>
>>1710122
>small_dom_big_sub
>>
>>1713832
lmao
>>
File: 92697_1044110519.jpg (148 KB, 999x671)
148 KB
148 KB JPG
>>
>>1713832
>>
>>1713913
that livery looked really good on the 742
>>
>>1715050
I Saw a video of their base at PHX. It had Big Medium and Small planes. They looked like they had something going on there.
>>
>>1715097
shame that USAir ruins everything it touches.
>>
>>1716375
Yeah, they were all over it in the 80s and 90s. There was so much talk about how they were going to be huge after buying Piedmont. Well they actually amounted to a storm in a teacup. After that 737 crash, those numbers were covered in mud, reputations damaged, people dead, UsAir, we dont miss you at all.
>>
>>1716386
one anon mentioned earlier that AW was supposed to have a codeshare with TWA before they merged. i wonder if that would have worked out for both of them.
>>
>>1716510
AW probably had a better domestic Network than TW or if not had better regional connections. TW could have used those. It would have probably worked if TW got its act together. We will never know, because both are gone today.
>>
File: 1254676.jpg (317 KB, 1024x737)
317 KB
317 KB JPG
>>
File: 4865479.jpg (797 KB, 1200x813)
797 KB
797 KB JPG
>>
File: p444.jpg (14 KB, 354x506)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
>>
File: NW_747-200.jpg (616 KB, 1738x738)
616 KB
616 KB JPG
>>
File: 3a_0.jpg (161 KB, 519x335)
161 KB
161 KB JPG
>>
File: 2a_0.jpg (149 KB, 500x335)
149 KB
149 KB JPG
>>
File: 2b.jpg (151 KB, 526x335)
151 KB
151 KB JPG
>>
File: 3b.jpg (176 KB, 541x335)
176 KB
176 KB JPG
>>
File: 4a.jpg (176 KB, 521x335)
176 KB
176 KB JPG
>>
File: 4b.jpg (154 KB, 520x335)
154 KB
154 KB JPG
>>
File: 5a_0.jpg (161 KB, 521x335)
161 KB
161 KB JPG
>>
File: 5b.jpg (168 KB, 515x335)
168 KB
168 KB JPG
>>
File: 6a_0.jpg (173 KB, 521x335)
173 KB
173 KB JPG
>>
File: 6b.jpg (165 KB, 498x335)
165 KB
165 KB JPG
>>
File: 7a_0.jpg (158 KB, 595x321)
158 KB
158 KB JPG
>>
File: 7b.jpg (66 KB, 206x335)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
>>
File: 7c.jpg (85 KB, 303x335)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>
File: 8a_0.jpg (139 KB, 476x335)
139 KB
139 KB JPG
>>
File: 8b.jpg (177 KB, 557x335)
177 KB
177 KB JPG
>>
File: 9.jpg (72 KB, 244x335)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>
File: 10a_0.jpg (168 KB, 498x335)
168 KB
168 KB JPG
>>
File: 10b.jpg (142 KB, 549x335)
142 KB
142 KB JPG
>>
File: 12b_0.jpg (67 KB, 256x335)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: s-l500 (27).jpg (22 KB, 345x500)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
>>
File: IMG_0028.jpg (3.03 MB, 4608x3456)
3.03 MB
3.03 MB JPG
I will always miss the shining glow that a KLM 744 had passing over maho beach on a pristine tropical morning. SXM will never be the same without her...
>>
File: IMG_0146.jpg (2.92 MB, 4608x3456)
2.92 MB
2.92 MB JPG
>>1717503
>>
KATL
>>
Also KATL
>>
>>1717519
I can’t help but thinking the A380 would have looked infinitely better if they put the cockpit upstairs.
>>
>>1707179
Would there be a market for a new affordable 747-100, today?
>>
>>1718117
I’d be willing to bet a new SP would be a better seller, especially if they could make it a twin. A trijet SP would be sick but that’s basically a whole new aircraft at that point.
>>
>>1718117
No there isn't. However there is a market for 2nd hand 747-400's with Cargo Doors. If you want new go to the Boeing Website.....
>>
File: 6567771.jpg (190 KB, 800x1212)
190 KB
190 KB JPG
>>
>>1718414
did the bird shit on his head wtf?
>>
>>1718523
No the bird came on his head
>>
File: Cigarette-kid.jpg (15 KB, 244x271)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
>post jumbo
/n/ is a blue board. Go to /r/
>>
>>1718540
Now now now, no need to get all worked up. Wait until you see the one that was made look like 747...
>>
>>
File: 2663735-v40-10.jpg (85 KB, 770x521)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>
File: sabena-747.jpg (15 KB, 499x291)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
>>
File: DWpQ8zNWAAUqtv0.jpg (126 KB, 1200x800)
126 KB
126 KB JPG
>>
File: 0239080.jpg (267 KB, 1024x780)
267 KB
267 KB JPG
>>
File: 72875_1091217972.jpg (27 KB, 400x225)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>
File: YES_elal747-100.jpg (25 KB, 500x443)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
>>
File: 0870965.jpg (255 KB, 1000x689)
255 KB
255 KB JPG
>>
File: 1618010030981.jpg (76 KB, 1200x600)
76 KB
76 KB JPG
>>
File: s-l500 (20).jpg (16 KB, 500x318)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>
>>1719039
Great liveries, great picture
>>
>>1719029
AnaL?
>>
>>1719047
743?
>>
last day of Alitalia before it's closing down.
>>
>>1719068
Wont get to see them like that Anymore
>>
>>1719029
If you look properly, there is a 'STAR ALLIANCE' up there too.....
>>
>>1719754
yup
>>
>>1719785
There was an AZ BULGARI that was quite well known....
>>
>>1719785
FFFF
>>
>>
>>
File: FAqy1lgVkAI8vTL.jpg (453 KB, 1580x2048)
453 KB
453 KB JPG
>>
File: 1738834.jpg (319 KB, 1024x696)
319 KB
319 KB JPG
>>
File: 98823_1481438552.jpg (378 KB, 1200x830)
378 KB
378 KB JPG
>>
File: 1419065.jpg (271 KB, 667x1012)
271 KB
271 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: 2056614.jpg (514 KB, 1400x945)
514 KB
514 KB JPG
>>
File: 0056288.jpg (93 KB, 976x502)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>
>>1719785
AZ has kicked the bucket. Just realized, but considering they have been circling the hole for years now, I'm not surprised.
>>
>>
File: 6465125.jpg (823 KB, 1480x999)
823 KB
823 KB JPG
>>
File: 1 (1).jpg (959 KB, 900x1199)
959 KB
959 KB JPG
>>
File: 4X-AXG.jpg (41 KB, 1000x505)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>
File: abc_1466602430_81.jpg (302 KB, 1800x1200)
302 KB
302 KB JPG
>>
File: b7f9emwkzin61.jpg (107 KB, 960x645)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
>>
File: 4080799.jpg (695 KB, 1024x645)
695 KB
695 KB JPG
>>
>>
File: 51332408151_ef0ac219dd_h.jpg (163 KB, 1600x1067)
163 KB
163 KB JPG
>>
File: E2lJjGQUcAEncKV.jpg (593 KB, 2048x1536)
593 KB
593 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>1708658
Since last year LAX started receiving a wide variety of Jumbos. It's cool seeing all these retro paint schemes. It looks like they barely dusted them off and sent them flying.
>>
>>1722799
Jumbos are yesterdays stuff. We love them but they are going away. Its an inevitability now, unless someone dumps 40 frames into the orderbook, but I do love the mix n match combo effect, all cargo of course.
>>
File: 4802143.jpg (1.05 MB, 853x1292)
1.05 MB
1.05 MB JPG





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.