Trip to Paine Field: Two Boeing 747 DreamLifters, page 1

reply to post by FredT

---

Here's some info for ya, FredT.


747 LCF compared to 747-400





I have something else to add, brb.....
_________________________________________________



[edit on 20 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by FredT

The second DreamLifter was actually tractored onto the runway and then pushed to the very end of the runway before it started engines and took off. I suspect its turning ability is pretty poor? and it needs alot of the runway for sure.

Here is the Airport Diagram to show the taxiway configuration.

Looks like some corner fillets are missing, so it's just easier to tug the airplane. It's turn radius is the same, as the gear configuration is the key there. I would guess it was heavy for some reason, likely fuel for a long trip.

...assume its empty when its lifting off at Paine.

Probably no cargo/payload, yes.


{btw....I really abhor the "word" tarmac! I know, it's in the lexicon, but since it is actually a composite of "tarred macadam", and MOST airport surfaces are concrete...well, it's just a pet peeve, guess we all have sumthin'!!}

Hope you enjoyed your holiday here in the former colony!!!

[edit on 20 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

The takeoff as promised

reply to post by Harlequin

---

I did actually. Boeing has become an assembler these days. Create the concept then farm out the logistics, design, and assembly. Im betting it was much cheaper to do this this way than in house.

reply to post by FredT

---

except that as the 787 is showing - proof of concept does not mean the idea actually works

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by Harlequin

---

I did actually. Boeing has become an assembler these days. Create the concept then farm out the logistics, design, and assembly. Im betting it was much cheaper to do this this way than in house.

Not sure if it results in being any cheaper, it actually causes a lot of delays and problems when major components are not made in house. However, when dealing other other countries, often it is neccessary to contract out some of the work, to get international sales from those countries.

reply to post by Harlequin

---

I will humbly disagree with you, Harlequin, here because it is quite different to simply modify an existing design, than to design an entirely new airplane from the "ground up", as the saying goes!


[edit on 22 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

read a blog from boeing which explains why they didn`t do the work themselves - and its quite sound really:

to build the dreamlifter as a manufacturer they would have to build it from new, which would require would require them to certify a new aircraft type , build prototypes , crash test , destruction tests etc etc - all for a few aircraft;


so by outsourcing to a seperate company to convert the airctaft they can skip the entire `new build` process as its a special conversion of an existing aircraft



still - doesn`t help the debacle called the 787

[edit on 23/8/09 by Harlequin]

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by weedwhacker

---

read a blog from boeing which explains why they didn`t do the work themselves - and its quite sound really:

to build the dreamlifter as a manufacturer they would have to build it from new, which would require would require them to certify a new aircraft type , build prototypes , crash test , destruction tests etc etc - all for a few aircraft;


so by outsourcing to a seperate company to convert the airctaft they can skip the entire `new build` process as its a special conversion of an existing aircraft

Sorry, thats utter crap.

The Dreamlifter variant would require no more certification newbuild than it did as a conversion - there is no difference in the eyes of the FAA, conversions do not get free passes.

There are no requirements to build prototypes in any aircraft project these days, you can deliver MSN001 to a customer if you so wish, as Boeing is doing with the 787 - they will not retain *any* of the flight test aircraft, all of them are being refurbished and delivered to a customer. Boeing also did this with the 777, and the original 747-100.

You do not need to do crash testing or destruction testing of a variant, you only need to do the standard tests to increase the Maximum Takeoff Weight and handling tests, such as the Rejected Take Off and flutter tests. There is a flight test program, but its extremely short compared to a completely new aircraft, which the Dreamlifter is not.

Whomever you got your information from is talking rubbish.

Boeing holds the supplimental type certificate for the 747-400LCF, no one else, and as such the FAA has certified it as a 747 variant.

The only difference the LCF has over a standard 747 variant is it was agreed with the FAA that the Dreamlifter would be restricted in what cargo it could carry, in order to skip the requirements of fire suppression et al in the main cargo bay. As the cargo bay is unpressurised, the FAA agreed that Boeing could get a limited supplimental type certificate on the basis that it would only carry inactive, inert aircraft structures and supporting structures.

In Case Of Videos Of Flying People
  Posted 10 days ago with 9 member flags

First flight for \'flapless\' plane - the Evolution of Aviation
  Posted 13 days ago with 4 member flags

Boeing X-37 and X-40 - the ultimate history
  Posted 6 days ago with 3 member flags

F22 mishap or more that meeets the eye?
  Posted 2 days ago with 3 member flags

Dassault Rafale wins India\'s biggest fighter deal for $10.4 billion
  Posted 11 days ago with 1 member flags

Its a bird, its a plane, no its a ....
  Posted 15 days ago with 0 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: