747 sort of back from dead

Some of the original hype before the 747 was built was that a freighter version could fly fresh fruits and vegetables from all parts of the world and deliver them still fresh. Wasn't off base at all. I worked a lot of loading studies for outsized cargo on the 767 and this airplane but there were a lot more problems on the 767 that is also a great freighter.

 

Boeing was very smart to move the flight deck upstairs to allow the addition of a lift nose. I think that Airbus will ultimately regret not doing the same thing with the A380.

 

Boxerman, one of the reasons why Boeing chose to submit the 767 as a candidate for an air tanker was that the 767 design was old. Boeing had already had years of selling it, they had already gotten good money out of the design. It was cheap for them to adapt the 767 design to military uses.

And I am not saying it is a bad aircraft. It's just that Boeing, as a business, chose a cheaper, more profitable alternative to offer the Air Force than, say, a new design like a 787. A military 787 air tanker, without a lot of sales of the civilian version, would have been a much more expensive (for Boeing) offering.

 

Not quite dead yet. Was wonderful to see this one leaving Austin last night.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

For anyone looking to take one final trip:

https://www.knaviation.net/guide-to-flying-boeing-747-airlines-routes-2018

>8^)
ER

 

I can't take a trip but it was a treat to see the downward curvature of the trailing edge in the extension of the -400 tip. That clearly shows the change in wing tip geometry to remove the -2 deg incidence in the old tip and down to zero in the -400 tip. I was assigned to prepare a drawing of it to convince people of the change.It stopped a lot of arguments in the non-engineering population,

 

I love watch 747's fling into McCarran, they are beautiful birds for sure. Mainly I see Virgin Atlantic 747's

 

A 747 is way too big to fling...

 

May have been cheap for Boeing, but very expensive for the American taxpayer.

 

Very expensive for Boeing, not as much for the taxpayer. There were already 767 tankers flying when the program started, but not with booms that could refuel our entire fleet.

 

I know an electrical cable installer who said several years ago that they couldn't keep up with the changes that the Air Force kept making. They would rip out wiring that didn't fit the new equipment that was coming in and when the equipment got there, it didn't fit the wiring changes that had been re-installed. He said that there were all kinds of problems like this. I'm not sure that Boeing is totally responsible for the delays in this program.

 

Not that this creates huge demand for 747s, by any stretch, but a 747 is being prepared to provide a launch platform for small satellites into low earth orbit. Virgin Galactic recently spun off this division, now called Virgin Orbit. Really informative presentation was just posted here:



He quotes a $12 million price tag per launch, seems cheep to this layman.

This platform seems far more operationally scalable and reliable than the stratolaunch platform, of which there is only one example. Stratolaunch may have payload advantages, I haven't done a side by side comparison.

 

Bob- I agree, not totally Boeing's fault. They are getting stuck with the majority of the bill, though. We came really close to having Airbus tankers, so Boeing pretty much signed up to a money-losing program in the initial stages.

 

I much rather take pictures of 747's any day over the A380 that flies into DFW

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Boeing screwed themselves when they hired Darlene Druyun, former deputy undersecretary of the air force, and was inflating prices to benefit Boeing and ended up with a felony conviction, and others at Boeing including the CFO and CEO, Boeing had to make things right somehow including their $615m fine... so I have little empathy for Boeing in the tanker debacle...

 

Different times, different situation, different people. Are the current players to be blamed for what happened years ago and caused by someone else? So, Boeing will be punished forever regardless of what it is doing well at present? Boeing is guilty of having bad management and some bad players in the past but the company has made a lot of changes in upper levels since.

 

I don't disagree there has been changes for the better, when it comes to govt contracts though the memory can be lasting for a long time...