It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

747 hump gets bigger

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
The Boeing 747 is distinquishable from all other commercial airliners because of its size and its "hump", which is its second deck.

Boeing is supersizing its jumbojet, making it capable of hauling much bigger payloads, There will be 3 of them built, the reason is for the transportation of large sections of their new 787 to be brought into the country by air.

Exact specs on it isn't yet released, but it will be the largest by cubic feet, capable of 65,000 cubic feet.
For some comparison the Airbus Beluga is under 50,000 cubic feet (aka: the ugly plane that looks smart). and the USAF C-5 Galaxy is 35,000 cubic feet.





posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
sorry.. but the best I can come up with when looking at this is.. DAMN.. that's big...

Wouldn't be half surprised if Boeing has a few enquiries from armed forces type people for that..

Osiris



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Cancerous?

They really need to do a biopsy on that thing.

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Gawdawful humor aside, that plane looks pretty darn cool!


[edit on 2/17/2005 by Majic]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   
They have been talking about it for a bit, but this is the first pic I have seen of it


It will be interesting to see how much cargo they can carry with it and if it becomes a freighter variant. I doubt it though cause it cannot be all that efficient for commercial cargo.

Cool plane though take that Beluga!



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
the picture that was posted no longer comes up



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Given its oversize configuration I wonder why they did not add the horizontal tail surfaces like the NASA 747's used to transport the shuttle?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Sweet now they need to make a ABL on that platform
Im sure they could have the extra fuel for a few more shots from the laser then.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Do you know why the 747 had a hump in the first place?

I read an interesting account of the design of the Jumbo several years ago and it stated that the Boeing designers used the layout of the F-86 as a reference point for the aerodynamics and the hump was an aerodynamic 'fix' that equated to the F-86's canopy. Having created this hump they then had to decide what to use it for.

I would guess that from the picture above, whatever the 'fix' was for is well screwed up, or more likely not an issue, now



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Wile I understand how jets work any why .I have aloways had a hard time immanging Just how such a monster can fly.
Man what a beast. Tecknolgy got to love it.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
The conversion will be done by Evergreen Aviation Technologies Corp. (EGAT) of Taiwan.

I am not an aerodynamicist, but my guess for not needing additional vertical stabilizers on the new aircraft is that the flight characteristics are not changed as drastically as they would be were the aircraft to carry on outside cargo like the shuttle.

waynos, I have never heard the story about the F-86 canopy before. I think the reason they put the cockpit on top was that the 747 is a sort of derivative of the losing competitor in the large military transport produrement (Lockheed won with the C-5). Our engineers realized that air freight would be a biggie and kept the idea of large-scale openings in both the front and back of the airdraft for RORO applications. That being the case, you have to have the cockpit up and out of the way.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Talking of flying monsters, I still think one of the best looking biggies is the AN-225. They should build more


Good images on this link....

www.air-and-space.com...



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Ah the AN-225 Nobody like to one up the US in the size department like the USSR.

They only built one correct?

BTW man you got to love the pics with the Russian Shuttle on its back, what a orginal design



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
ots, yes thats true (like I need to tell a Boeing man, lol) and I can see how it fits in with the 'F-86' story in how the hump was shaped behind the flight deck perhaps? After all the natural thing to do at the time would probaly to place the flight deck as high as possible withing the confines of a regularly shaped fuselage, after all the C-5 has no hump.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
ots, yes thats true (like I need to tell a Boeing man, lol) and I can see how it fits in with the 'F-86' story in how the hump was shaped behind the flight deck perhaps? After all the natural thing to do at the time would probaly to place the flight deck as high as possible withing the confines of a regularly shaped fuselage, after all the C-5 has no hump.


The C-5 has an upper crew and passenger deck, which runs pretty much the entire length of the fuselage. THe humps there, its just hte full length of the aircraft!



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
But if it runs the full length of the aircraft then it isn't a hump and doesn't give the aerodynamic benefits that Boeing put one on the 747 for.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
But if it runs the full length of the aircraft then it isn't a hump and doesn't give the aerodynamic benefits that Boeing put one on the 747 for.


That was sarcasm
Personally, I dont think a hump would do much positive for the aerodymanics - I shall look into this though.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Well, after looking into it, the hump apparently has no 'official' origion. The hump does improve drag characteristics of the aircraft, but marginally so. It was also designed with cargo versions in mind - but the aircraft wasnt origionally a freighter.

This should prove interesting to a few:

www.time.com...



By pure chance, it was Trippe (Juan Trippe - Pan Ams founder) himself who gave the jumbo its signature bulge. In a rare lapse of vision, Trippe thought the 747 would be superseded by a big supersonic jet, as cheap to run as a subsonic jet. Some hope.

He therefore decreed that on the 747, pilots should sit above the flight deck so the nose could be opened up and take cargo. The 747's ultimate fate, he thought, would be as a flying Mack truck. Boeing showed him a wooden mock-up of the 747's flight deck, in the hump above the nose. He foraged around and came upon the space behind the flight deck, the rest of the hump. "What is this for?" he asked. "A crew rest area," said a Boeing engineer. "Rest area?" barked Trippe. "This is going to be reserved for passengers."


So, it wasnt a design issue by Boeing, it was infact the launch customers request. Interesting!



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Well thats certainly opened up a can of worms. My 'F-86' story came from 'Flight' and I have believed it for over twenty five years.

Would Richard Branson know this for sure though or his he relating a legend I wonder?

[edit on 18-2-2005 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Looking at more sources, this is what Ive discovered:

Trippe origionally wanted a longer 707, but Boeing declined. Boeing then came up with an idea for a double decked aircraft, and built a fullsize mockup of the cabin and invited Trippe over. When viewing the upperdeck, Trippe declined the second deck idea because it caused him to suffer from vertigo (
) but said that he liked the flight deck on the upper deck because it would allow for greater cargo access through the nose. He then initially put a bar in the upper decked area, later putting paying passengers there instead.

Theres a lot of sources to back up this version of events, so Id be inclined to believe it.

www.flug-revue.rotor.com...

Trippe also wanted a forward viewing window in the nose of the 747, which was declined as too heavy, as well as a bar and lounge in the lower cargo deck, which was also declined by other airlines who put ... cargo there!

seattlepi.nwsource.com...



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
That all sounds perfectly reasonable and true.

I know I'm clinging to my story a bit but that can still be 100% true and not preclude the story that the shaping of the hump still came about the way Flight reported it, can't it? Or am I being too obsessive about this



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join