The first B 747 LCF has been in "test" for a fair period of time.
It is as I write this (Australia Thursday AM) flying in the US.
It has been at Edwards Base in recent days!
What is a benchmark time line for an Aircraft to be "signed off" as meeting design specifications?
Or does Boeing General Aviation have greater problems than first realised with this design?
Mike McInerney
Boeing 747 LCF Test Program
Moderator: Latest news team
...
delivered to Charleston by the Dreamlifter, a modified 747-400, even though the FAA has not yet certified it. That had been expected in early 2007, but Boeing said Monday that it won't happen for a "few months." Boeing has worked out a plan with the FAA that allows the Dreamlifters to haul 787 parts in the meantime.
One of the issues, Boeing has acknowledged previously, are vibrations that led to removal of the winglets from the first test plane that was used to haul the Fuji section to Charleston last week.
"The FAA told us that if certification could not be achieved, then those flights would be halted," Pietro wrote.
Also, Federal Aviation Administration certification of the Dreamlifter, the modified 747 that must transport large 787 structures for assembly of the plane, is behind schedule, Boeing confirmed.-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
Pretty sure the Beluga would do, only uncertainty would be the wing root.
Others would be C5 courtesy USAF or AN124.
The 787 sections are all volume sensitive, and very light in terms of payload capability, and any four engine aircraft is a bit of an overkill.
Often wondered if Boeing considered doing something with a 777. Much cheaper to operate.
As it stands the beluga is by far the cheapest option, but I guess it would stick in Boeings throat, even though Airbus started life using the Boeing based Guppy(C97)
Cheers
Achace
Others would be C5 courtesy USAF or AN124.
The 787 sections are all volume sensitive, and very light in terms of payload capability, and any four engine aircraft is a bit of an overkill.
Often wondered if Boeing considered doing something with a 777. Much cheaper to operate.
As it stands the beluga is by far the cheapest option, but I guess it would stick in Boeings throat, even though Airbus started life using the Boeing based Guppy(C97)
Cheers
Achace
some nice pictures of the Dreamlifter
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1175672/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1100715/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1175673/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1175672/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1100715/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1175673/L/
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
I would think that the 747 was the cheapest option when the costs of the airplane and the conversion work were also considered. Was the 747LCF a -100? -200? I can't imagine it being a -400. That would be like buying a Porsche for your weekly trip to the grocery store.achace wrote: The 787 sections are all volume sensitive, and very light in terms of payload capability, and any four engine aircraft is a bit of an overkill.
Often wondered if Boeing considered doing something with a 777. Much cheaper to operate.
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly an airplane?
The 747 LCF is indeed based on the 744. This has many advantages. The biggest of all would be the "younger" airframes, so the LCF can be used for the whole 787 program timespan (or as long as possible), and of course the newer flightdeck, longer fuselage, etc....
If they'd taken a 741/2/3 it would have been stupid because the airframe would have had a lot less potential in it, and in general the whole plane would have been fit for a refit with 744 technologies.
If I am correct one of the LCF's is an ex-Khalifa / Air Algérie 744 which never flew a lot, and was stored for most of its life
If they'd taken a 741/2/3 it would have been stupid because the airframe would have had a lot less potential in it, and in general the whole plane would have been fit for a refit with 744 technologies.
If I am correct one of the LCF's is an ex-Khalifa / Air Algérie 744 which never flew a lot, and was stored for most of its life
I think the use of the 747 type was driven by the size of the loads they had to carry. (not weight as mentioned). Or, more accurately, the fuselage and setup was the biggest they had so they could modify that bulge onto it to make it work.
The -400 is going to be more fuel efficient than any other type, and the pax choice pretty easy as they did not need (could not use) the front loader.
Fuel use wise, they probably are on max economy cruise for the deliveries, and not be nearly as fuel thirsty.
This program is going to last 20 years or longer (longer if Airbus doesn't get it in gear) so a newer aircraft is justified. Its going to be used heavily, probably as many hours as a high use Pax.
That also gives you the latest cockpit and systems.
As they are moving parts with it “uncertified” it would seem they can get a waiver while they work through any issues. There are probably flight restrictions (as there were when they moved it form Taiwan to Seattle).
I suspect its nothing that cannot be worked out, but until the whole system is up and running, its nail biting.
The -400 is going to be more fuel efficient than any other type, and the pax choice pretty easy as they did not need (could not use) the front loader.
Fuel use wise, they probably are on max economy cruise for the deliveries, and not be nearly as fuel thirsty.
This program is going to last 20 years or longer (longer if Airbus doesn't get it in gear) so a newer aircraft is justified. Its going to be used heavily, probably as many hours as a high use Pax.
That also gives you the latest cockpit and systems.
As they are moving parts with it “uncertified” it would seem they can get a waiver while they work through any issues. There are probably flight restrictions (as there were when they moved it form Taiwan to Seattle).
I suspect its nothing that cannot be worked out, but until the whole system is up and running, its nail biting.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
The design and production drawings for the Dreamlifter are documented and complete. I wonder if there is a market for the 747-400 LCF in civil use. There are a number a large load that are now carried by the Russian large cargo air carriers.
Might not there be a future for this design in commercial service???
Might not there be a future for this design in commercial service???
All the indications are that it is not very nice to fly.
I said some months ago that there could be control problems because of the blanketing effect of the new fuselage on the tail section, perhaps we will see further modifications other than the extra height of the rudder.
Another interesting scenario raises its head with the removal of the -400 winglets.
Those winglets were very important additions to the 400 to give it additional range over the 200 and 300, and of course upgraded engines.
Without the winglets, will there still be the required range for the Dreamlifter without adding additional tanks?
Undoubtedly the cruise power settings of the Dreamlifter will be higher than a -400 because of the additional drag, so the loss of winglets could be very significant?
Cheers
Achace
I said some months ago that there could be control problems because of the blanketing effect of the new fuselage on the tail section, perhaps we will see further modifications other than the extra height of the rudder.
Another interesting scenario raises its head with the removal of the -400 winglets.
Those winglets were very important additions to the 400 to give it additional range over the 200 and 300, and of course upgraded engines.
Without the winglets, will there still be the required range for the Dreamlifter without adding additional tanks?
Undoubtedly the cruise power settings of the Dreamlifter will be higher than a -400 because of the additional drag, so the loss of winglets could be very significant?
Cheers
Achace
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
I am sure that there are some issues with the pleasantness of the plane in flight, but range is not a terrably large issue. If the pane has to land for refueling more often than desired, it will only impact delievery so long as things arrive within a given timeframe - no passengers will gripe about being late!achace wrote:All the indications are that it is not very nice to fly.
I said some months ago that there could be control problems because of the blanketing effect of the new fuselage on the tail section, perhaps we will see further modifications other than the extra height of the rudder.
Another interesting scenario raises its head with the removal of the -400 winglets.
Those winglets were very important additions to the 400 to give it additional range over the 200 and 300, and of course upgraded engines.
Without the winglets, will there still be the required range for the Dreamlifter without adding additional tanks?
Undoubtedly the cruise power settings of the Dreamlifter will be higher than a -400 because of the additional drag, so the loss of winglets could be very significant?
Cheers
Achace
I beleive that any control issues will be worked out and the plane will become a real asset. There must be a market for outsized cargo lifter such as this.
Sorry Smokejumper, I do not agree that range is not important.
An intermediate stop will have an enormous impact on costs and availability. It isnt the one hour re-fuelling time, its letdown, air traffic issues, and take off delays is likely to add 3-4 hours to projected trip time, and that could intoduce crew duty hours issues, and loss of almost one day per week of productivity.
Cheers
Achace
An intermediate stop will have an enormous impact on costs and availability. It isnt the one hour re-fuelling time, its letdown, air traffic issues, and take off delays is likely to add 3-4 hours to projected trip time, and that could intoduce crew duty hours issues, and loss of almost one day per week of productivity.
Cheers
Achace
Is the LCF not responding to changes?
The continue to test and test the 747 LCF out of the various West Coat of the US airfields
It's a fortnight since the last comment and there are numerous flights of this aircraft logged on Flight Aware.
It must be proving to be extremely difficult to make any sense of.
Mike McInerney
It's a fortnight since the last comment and there are numerous flights of this aircraft logged on Flight Aware.
It must be proving to be extremely difficult to make any sense of.
Mike McInerney