Are BOEING planning a 747 with 2 ENGINES?!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 дек 2022
- Keep exploring at brilliant.org/MentourNow/ Get started for free, and hurry-the first 200 people get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Is it possible, or even likely, that we will get to see an aircraft with the size and configuration of the 747, but with only two engines? Who would make such an aircraft? And, who would actually buy it? Stay tuned!
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward! 👇
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Check out our other channel here: / mentournow
Get the Mentour Aviation app and discuss what You think about this! Download the app for FREE using the link below 👇
📲
📲 Join the Mentour Pilot Discord server here! 👉🏻 / discord
I have also created an Amazon page with Aviation books, material and flight simulator stuff that I think you will enjoy!
👉🏻 www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot
Follow my life on instagram and get awesome pictures from the cockpit!
📲 / mentour_pilot
To find the right HEADSET for YOU, check out BOSE Aviation 👉🏻 boseaviation-emea.aero/headsets
Get some Awesome Mentour Pilot merch 👉🏻 mentour-crew.creator-spring.c...
Sources
• Boeing 2707-100 SST Pr...
• Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet P...
• 50th Anniversary of A3...
• We Carry the World
• Boeing 707 Jetliner Pr...
• United Douglas DC-8 - ...
• The A330-200: from sta...
• A380 MSN272 First Flight
• Boeing 787 Dreamliner ...
• Designing Delta: Episo...
• Rolls-Royce | Advance ...
• Special ITV News Centr...
• 25 years of carbon fib...
• Why Hydrogen-Powered P...
www.reuters.com/business/aero...
www.eastmidlandsbusinesslink....
www.business-live.co.uk/manuf... 
Наука
Realistically you need to redesign the wings for new engines and mounts, and at that point you would want to redesign the fuselage, for improved efficiency. At that point you would a new aircraft.
There are already FIVE engine mounts on a 747
747's have an extra mount hidden by panels for when they want to ferry engines.
Boeing added the fifth mount when airlines complained about the difficulty of shipping a replacement engine to 747's stranded at distant airports.
So Boeing just added an extra mount to the left wing
On seeing the huge size of this new engine it points to a radically different design. It looks basically too large even for a 747. Either the wing has to be very high above the ground (4 metres +) or there has to be some kind of centre mount or even upper mounts (crazy).
I think the easiest way would be to redesign and extend the landing gear.
In a perfect world that's what would happen. Also, Boeing would have developed a new narrow body parallel to the 787 (think 757/767 development) with carbon fiber fuselage, common avionics, etc. Instead, we got 737 rehash which will sell short term but lose out long term. The 747 twin-engine will have a very narrow market demand and thus not warrant a clean sheet design.
redesign the wings will be same as the 777, so 747 may as well be the 777
One can only dream that the Queen would be modernized with two monster engines and live on for decades more. You really hit the nail on the head in the video when you said passengers prefer point to point over hub and spoke. I would pay a premium for that. Anytime you can eliminate a connection, your odds of having an on time flight just doubled.
The problem is that if you can't get the air crews to support that system then hub and spoke is your only real option though.
Also the odds of not loosing you bag!
@@Hybris51129why wouldn’t crews support it…? its work, which they want, and get paid for doing it….
Some routes require aircraft of the size of the 747 - even with point to point operations.
The long haul transpacific routes are an example. Smaller aircraft just can’t hold enough fuel to make the trip without intermediate stops.
I'd LOVE to see a duel engine 747!
I worked at Boeing for 35 years, including a short stint on the 747 program where I was supporting major structural modifications including conversion to the Airborne Laser (ABL) test bed. When I was working in Preliminary Design in the late 1980s, rumor had that Alan Mulally when he was responsible for new product development had a model of the 747 where he removed two engines and proclaimed to everyone "This is what the customers want!". That essentially is what the airlines got with the design of the 777-200/300. The original 747-200 had a three-class passenger capacity of 366, and the extended upper deck 747-300/400 increased the count to 400. The Japanese airlines with the 747SR increased the passenger count up to 498 to 550 for domestic flights. The 777-200 has a three class passenger capacity of 305 passengers, and the 777-300 has a three class passenger capacity of 368, although the exit configuration would permit up to 550 passengers. The 777-9 will have three class seating of 357 and two class seating of 426 passengers. Other than Emirates though, there is very little demand for ultra large capacity airplanes. Airlines might have a need 10 or 20 for slot constrained airports currently. That is not a large enough customer base to justify a new airplane program. Airbus when they launched the A380 was betting on slot constraints favoring very large aircraft. Airbus may be eventually proven right but they missed the timing by 20 years or so.
Yep sense at last
I have never traveled on 747 or A380. Could someone please answer this. Are they still boarded through a single door? The boarding time is too long as it is on 737, I cannot imagine boarding half a thousand passengers through a singe door.
Hub and spoke and point to point are not competing models. They are complimentary models. Mass transit in a wide body is very different than commuter traffic.
I'll never forget crossing the border in a school bus on a road trip to Everett to tour the Boeing plant in grade 10, 1970. The "parking lot" was full of new planes in livery and not. The films on the special train going up the hill, the going through one being built, etc. All these years later I am still impressed.
and those planes are still parked there
Just imagine what Boeing as well as Grumman and other aircraft manufacturers were like during the Second World war when they were cranking fighters, bombers and other aircraft out at an unprecedented rate.
There wasnt a parking lot, they were being delivered to the military as fast as they could get pilots (many were women) to fly them to bases.
I miss the sound of 747 flight BA49 (I think) from Seattle to Heathrow. At 6pm every day I could hear it grinding it's way up towards the University of Washington where I was doing my PhD. Then it always took a right turn to London precisely above the Chemistry Dept as I stood underneath, smoking a cigarette. It used to make me feel homesick.
@@errorsofmodernism7331Don’t be silly. Merry Christmas!
You'd be surprised how many green planes already had the start of their livery. Constructing "white tails" is an embarrassment because money up front is better plus it's way easier to paint the leading edge of the rudder before installing in the vertical stabilizer. That flash of color is how you spot the plane's owner.
I had a poster of her cockpit in my bedroom when I was a kid. Later, during High School, I flew her to Europe shortly after her introduction. Then, I worked in the oil industry and flew her monthly all around the globe for hundreds and hundreds of hours (I even sat in 1A a few times). And finally, I retired, moved to the Seattle area, and saw the final '47 on the ramp just after rollout from the Everett factory. Now, I just plain miss her.
Pun intended?
@@dummgelauft Oh dear, no...
Lmao. I wonder how many other people’s minds went to the pun.
@@ScottESchmidt HAHAHA!!!
Where you there in the video Petter showed? Or nearby?
I am 62 years young, travel a lot, and have flown on many different aircraft in my lifetime, including many trips on 747s . My very first trip over the pond was on one (and I even got to sit in the cockpit for a few minutes, sure miss those days). Though newer, twin designs, are much more efficient I still think that there has never been, and probably will never be in my lifetime, a more beautiful aircraft. I just got back from Europe a few days ago, having flown through Frankfurt. This is a very busy, very large airport and I spotted virtually every plane currently being flown, including A-380s and 747s...and the 747 STILL stands out among them all! SO sad that it will no longer be produced. It is only a matter of time before every one is in the scrap heap but as they say, all good things must come to an end.
There will never be a more beautiful commercial aircraft than Concorde -
I was cabin crew for half my life and flew on 747SPs with a crew bunk room in the tail. Engineers were required, who became 2nd officers after 747-100s and '47SPs were replaced with 747-200s and 747-400s. Of course, I liked DC-8s and 707s too. 727-100s had tail stairs that DB Cooper used.
I started in 1982, but got maimed for life onboard my carrier and terminated in 2010. American companies are allowed to kill employees on the job or maim them for life in order to terminate them to reduce payroll costs. They seek to kill you in retirement too, as they maim you and leave you with a permanent pre-existing condition, and no insurance at age 55, preventable onboard with a simple boarding protocol that may be redundant but works with proven efficacy.
However, killing a few passengers is fine for commercial carriers based in ORD, as they are covered by a risk management company and $10K is the standard death benefit offer. I think it's wrong, but OSHA, NTSB, ABA, CBA, UALHR, EXOSW, UALMD, UALSW, and AFA allow dead passengers and crew as an acceptable loss on their spreadsheets I thought it wrong, but I was fired and on SSDI, thanks to my carrier.
Fltyng is the greatest career one can have if you are a seeker and believe in the goodness of mankind as displayed by all passengers with passports getting out of their bubbles.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” Mark Twain- "Innocents Abroad". Air travel is the finest salve to promote a civil society. Even Americans accept that you don't need to be armed onboard. The passengers, duct taped in their seats over masks and too much murdoch, might have suffered from hyperventilation and needed to put a sick bag over their mouth and nose. Also, as I suffered a pneumothorax in-flight, aka collapsed lung, and cervical spondylosis trauma from an onboard preventable accident that almost killed a passenger, I suffered from a couple of Alkalosis attacks at 36,000 ft, or 8000ft cabin pressure. It can leave you confused, shaky trembling hands, and unsteady gait, which is why I flew with my own breathalyzer as Americans think higher power rehab can fix bone spurs, and MRIs are denied efficacy in ORD, as is Karolinska Institute's Orthopedic Rehab, which works, but without a higher power, so denied legitimacy.
I'm alive after my ORD based carrier denied my Karolinska Inst. MRIs and fired me for faking my own sick leave status, even as I was on private LTD, then FICA's SSDI.
Americans prefer faith healing to science. 90% of men age 60 have bone spurs, and chronic pain, but in Chicago, pain is a revered state of being, and obviously God's Plan, as they deny orthopedic rehab in favor of 12 steps...to skirt occupational injury claims. The fact is that ORD based unions accept faith healing and deny MRIs, orthopedic rehab, pneumothorax risk, alkalosis risk, and bone spurs because those are male specific and cabin screw risk profiles are for a female crew, not the 90% of men with bone spurs.
Always use two hands if opening an overhead bin on a United Airlines flight. I saved a baby on the floor at the bulkhead by blocking a carry-on bag with my face after a hinge detached due to hinge migration which turned the contents into missiles from a slingshot, and easily preventable. European carriers try to save the lives of those at risk in flight. Killing employees and passengers when it is preventable is not a European thing.
for anyone who wants a summary : The core source of their frustration and rambling seems to stem from getting seriously injured while working as cabin crew, which they attributed to negligence by the airline/employer.
They feel the employer did not properly protect employees from occupational injuries, terminated them after the injury to reduce costs, and then denied proper medical treatment and compensation after the fact.
So while the employer's actions may not have been outright malicious, the commenter believes they showed a lack of concern for employee safety and health. This experience left them disabled and on disability, which understandably led to an angry reaction against the system/policies they felt failed to properly support injured workers. So the various criticisms and topics tie back to that core grievance over their injury and aftermath.@@dthomas9230
@@internetincorporated Thanks for the summary! Flying is till worth the effort, and only American companies have normalized killing employees and passengers as an acceptable loss. See the GOP seeking to push retirement to age 70? Killing those due to retire is a goal for the donors/owners of America. Morticians' lives matter.
Two completely different marvels of technology and massive travel, 747 will always be the best as it can take ,4 Concorde loads of passengers at same time , while the supersonic bird strikes for speed and beautiful lines ,and for Cargo nothing beats the 747 while the SSC has a small compartment mostly for passengers skinny bags and not overweight baggage
It’s amazing how large the bypass ratio of modern passenger jet engines have become compared to corporate jets and much older 737 and 707 passenger jets
Thanks so much for some quality Christmas viewing Petter! All the best to you and your family :)
It's unlikely that Rolls Royce would get that far ahead developing a new engine unless they had a target aircraft in mind.
Yep!
@@MentourNow Making the largest engine possible, even if there is no demand for it, makes sense from engineering and business perspectives; its much easier to scale down the design, than it is to scale it up.
In which case it seems that it has to be Airbus. Boeing's 777X has a 426 seat configuration, whereas the a350 series tops out at 369 passengers. There's a gap in the 370-450 seat range, particularly for a plane optimised for belly cargo. If Airbus can build one with the range to do extreme point-to-point (eg. SYD-LHR) then it has another huge advantage for current a380 operators. I'm skeptical (sorry Petter) that a twin deck plane is of interest, given the requirements for airports and the disadvantages of loading, but might be very wrong about this.
The major question for me is whether Airbus have the engineering resources for this and a clean-sheet a320 series replacement. Which comes first in the development cycle?
@@Secretlyanothername an a360 with at least 15% more capacity than the a350 would make sense. it would be a strong competition to the 777X.
maybe this is the time where they extend the body in the section where the wing is and use that space for the toilets or the kitchen on the sides of the plane, inside the wing. so that wing and fuselage melts together?
i am wondering what current plane could serve as a test bed.
usually they used an a380 to have 3 working engines and one test engine. but where should they mount that monster?
@@MentourNow But is it Boeing or Airbus they have in mind? It's possible they are doing an "if you build it they will come" approach. Given the much later development of the 380 compared with the 747 it would seem to be an easier target airframe. Plus a huge ultraefficient engine would be useful for militaries too (think of loiter time for an AWACS).
Very in-depth view and comprehensive way of easily laying down the information.
Keep on the good work!
This video is super-informative! Besides the actual topic, you gave a huge amount of data on many past, current, and future Boeing and Airbus models, and related engines.
Rolls Royce is likely developing a big, big engine to accommodate newer, bigger airplanes and smaller airplanes, as well. We have seen issues arise when smaller engines have been scaled up. It might be easier to avoid issues to scale down an engine rather than scaling up an engine. For instance, the engine core may remain the same while the fan and gears may be changed out.
Also possible they are looking at the retrofit market, where a larger engine run at lower power setting can be a lot more fuel efficient, allowing an older airframe to get a low cost boost mid cycle to improve operational costs, and offset the massive expense of a new airframe with just a minor engine upgrade, providing there is still enough life in the original airframe to allow the saving in fuel to recoup the cost.
@@SeanBZA I think cargo conversion could make the engine upgrade an option too. Cargos have been converted to passenger, too.
Spoken like a true ignoramus.
@@dthomas9230 .
This engine is so big it looks like it would even have trouble fitting under a 747 without some heavy modification.
There is one specialist application I know of where such huge engines could already be in demand - aircraft designed for carrying spacecraft. Especially for climbing to high altitudes for launch..
Went to the factory tour for the 747 10 years ago. Have also seen the dreamliner assembly. Totally different setups 747 was like a old car factory everything is put together on the line. The dreamliner is like a simple model kits of a few parts glued together.
That is because none of the body nor wing assembly work was performed in Everett for the 787, wings from from Japan, while the bodies come from elsewhere in the US and Italy. Where as the wings and fuselages are assembled in Everett before then being Joined on the 747.
@@mikerounds2287 now that you mention it... how freaking cool would it be if the final 747s flying were the dream lifters? i know MP only touched on conventional 747s in his video on what would be the last, but for non conventionals, they'd probs be some of the last. i haven't seen anything about boeing making or designing new lifters, and with preassembled sections still coming from all over the world they're a necessity.
I'd love that. Never flew on one.
That's incorrect. Those parts are PREassembled sections of hundreds of other parts. Those were assembled elsewhere and then shipped as a component to the factory for final assembly.
It does not mean anything. The 747 like the 737 is totally mechanical, and controlled by and large by cables. Newer planes are fly by wire.
Guess which one I would rather be in if there was an electronic failure?
Biggest impressions of the Jumbo - 1) being on the top deck for a long haul through sheer luck 2) watching the Space Shuttle being flown piggyback over Glasgow (Scotland) many years ago. Still a favourite plane, so iconic. I compare the A380 to a flying brick - and think of Douglas Adams' book "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" when I see it flying in to Glasgow airport. Amazing machine.
glasgow (prestwick) code egpk. pik.
One of the main reasons Emirates A380 are full between UK and Dubai is because of the clientel flying between the UK and India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. I have often flown from Birmingham to the far East, via Dubai, the A380 leg to Dubai is always packed. The same can be said for LHR to Dubai.
What's surprising is that once in a while even the A380 isn't big enough for Emirates! There have been rumors that they want an even bigger A380+ and may have been in talks with Airbus to get one. I doubt Airbus will go through with it. I think instead, they'll offer them another few A380s at a price Emirates can't say no to.
Also a feeder for Australasia for Emirates, who also have feeders from most of the European cities.
They operate a Hub and spoke system contrary to the point to point system preferred by the US airlines, and of course the European airlines have to compete similarly on the transatlantic routes.
I'm not a huge fan of stopovers but as long as they keep their air fares low I'm prepared to put up with a stop, that said I've found it cheaper in the long run to fly direct to Bangkok since just before the pandemic. Emirates have priced themselves out of consideration for flights.
I wonder whether the expansion of Air India and other South Asian Airlines will significantly affect the Emirates.
I worked LHR to Dehli, and always full.
Can they make the 777-300 longer ? If they make it any longer I think tail strike will be a problem. I saw the photoshop picture if the 2 engine 747. The fuselage could be used but the landing gear would/ should be made longer for the larger engine and incorporate the latest “ NEW” wing technologies and use more carbon fiber use on both the fuselage and wing. The old 747 aircraft is a proven technological design and would not present a big risk in development project and the main focus would be the wing up date for the future new 747 - 9i ?
15:27 Regarding gear-driven fans - assuming the graphics are accurate, that's a basic planetary (aka epicyclic) gear set, invented by the Greeks over 2000 years ago...and is the same as is used in everything from traditional automatic transmissions in cars, to drive chucks in hand drills. There many be some detail of construction or materials P&W may have patented, I guess...but the basic layout is up for grabs as far as I can tell.
I was thinking the same that it might be hard to patent; not to mention that GT to blade gearboxes are "fairly common" in turbo prop planes and helicopters.
My reaction too. Just about every turboprop has a geared reduction, I suspect P&W are just 'trying it on'.
@@cr10001 I'm wondering if it's a variable speed gearbox, on enable the fan blade speed to be varied to maintain blade pitch angle as airspeed changes. Props and rotors are constant speed variable pitch.
That, and geared fans have existed for 30+ years on bizjets. P&W's innovation was the scaled up power handling with small size that didn't grenade itself but there are several ways to skin that cat
This video just turned up on my feed and interestingly ruclips.net/video/2kAMo07cb3M/видео.html
A great video. I'm impressed that you covered so many of the issues and considerations that manufacturers and operators are analysing in under 20 minutes and without a single thing that I would query.
Phillip, he is just great !
I always come away intellectually satisfied after watching your videos. I'm an aviation geek at heart, and absolutely love your videos.
Steph, please DO NOT change your content. I fly out of Moorabbin
SR20 TPS and SVS. Watching you makes flying very local, I have learned so much from you. Just keep up the great work.
As of 4 days ago they announced completion of the Ultrafan and that it runs on SAF, Sustainable Aircraft Fuel, and are already beginning testing
it will be awesome to see first videos of a running monster in 2023. maybe we don't have to wait long.
I am not a pilot, but as a mechanical type person your videos are awesome. Thank you so much.
My grandfather worked for Boeing from the P26 to 1971 when he was forced to retire by Boeing. Great video as always
Always a good informative Story, thanks Mentour! 👀👌
The 747 in the Museum of Flight in Seattle has an extra-large engine, I believe from a dreamliner. This was for testing the engine on an existing airframe.
A production run of about 50 years over the different variants. That's the mark of a great concept.
I never thought I would see the end of jumbo-jet production. I thought the planes would get bigger and bigger.
@@johnbergstrom2931 I have never flown on jumbo-jet. Would love to try it. I have only flown with small narrow body planes and the seats are so small and crap. It's honestly such bad experience. Jumbo-jets probably has much bigger seat space
@@megapet777 Seat space is really dependent on class - it's the airlines that determine that. The economy-class seats on a jumbo are just as cramped as on any other plane... And if you wind up in the center seat, between the aisles, you're 2 seats away from an aisle and 10 feet away from a window.
All those early images of a 747 with lounges, bars, lots of space to move around, etc. are just marketing B.S. They did the same thing with the A380, even the 787 to some extent. Promised a civilized, luxury flying experience. They all ended up just packed with seats...
@@johnbergstrom2931 ah I see. that sucks. I guess there's option to fly first class if you can afford it :D
No, its the sign of underfunding new and better design concepts by shoe horning inappropriate fixes into out of date airframes.
The Max series, for instance, makes as much sense as bolting a jet engine to a Tiger Moth.
Fantastic research to put this together. Happy New Year!
Hi, thanks for sharing this. So please keep us updated with the latest developments.
Ive stood in front of the Ultrafan in its new test bed and she is massive. That said the RB 211 seems massive too but is now the norm. We can only hope to see the Queen of the skys fly into the future with a new lease of life.
I wonder if this engine is being planned for a the eco liner or something like it
@@domp5014 The Ultrafan is scalable. It can be shrunk down for any future model. That's why they're making it so big - if they can make this work they can do it for smaller sizes more easily.
There is a two engine 747, it doesn’t have a hump, it’s called the 777.
Lol
Except in it's humped configuration it allows for cargo configurations the 777 cannot.
@@ughhly The 777 can’t be a freighter??!! Then what is all this news about the 777 freighter AKA 777F. They take cargo out of a side cargo door. Yes the 747 can carry more but at a price, two extra engines. Plus the 747 even features a side cargo door just like the ones the twin engines jets have. Just the noes door is usually used more.
@@awesomeaircraft3215 The nose door and full height for the full length of the fuselage was a design masterstroke for the 747.
There are cargos the 747 carries the 777 cannot. (Including military vehicles).
It's for good reason military transports have either a nose door or rear ramp.
That's not to say being couldn't build a humped 777… which would be an interesting path.
Hump 😂😂😂
Great video Petter. Thank you 🙏
Merry Christmas Petter!
Thank you for yet another absolutely fantastic podcast.
A fun video; I hadn't known about such a big engine in development.
I was a 767 body structures mechanic and I was awestruck by the size of the 777 engines and the wing tests videos
I was born in Seattle in 1967, and my dad was laid off in 1970. Our family had to move out of the region because he couldn't find decent work anywhere (Aerospace engineer). My parents struggled, and we moved to several states between 1970 and 1979, when he moved us all back to Seattle.
I wonder if that massive RR Engine would be better suited to a AN-124/225 style large aircraft with overhead wings.
It gives plenty of room for the 3+ meter cowling.
During the video it did occurred to me that these engines might go on the next AN 225. Wouldn't that be amazing...
I don’t travel much (and never internationally and I’m in the US if that helps), but I’ve always dreamed of flying on a 747 or even an A380. Heck, I’ve never even flown in a two aisle aircraft. Just makes me sad to see these giants retiring. When I do fly, I talk to the flight attendants about which planes they’ve been on. I’m 35 years old and feel I’ve missed on the best aviation has to offer (let alone flying on a Concorde but that’s a whole different world).
Book an international flight with Emirates, Qantas, Singapore, Korean, or Lufthansa. You'll get to fly on something large.
It may feel like you've missed the boat, but, you really haven't. The 747 passenger version (operated by Lufthansa and five other airlines) will still be flying for years to come, and, the A380 will be flying for even longer. Missing flying on the Concorde is understandably a source of regret, but, Boom Supersonic's Overture will basically be a smaller concorde, when it enters service. And, there are still amazing long-haul aircraft flying at present, that will be around for a long time -- the 787, A350 and 777.
You certainly missed the days of the 747 piano lounges, but if I recall correctly, they were in the smoking section (or the whole plane allowed smoking).
@@jimk5145 Smokin!!!
@@alancats : Don't bet too much on Boom just yet- I expect that they'll at least move us _closer_ to having supersonic airliners again, but it's still too early to be a sure thing.
Thank you for making this video❤❤❤❤
I love this channel. Thank you!
In 1980s the 767 was Boeing's first widebody twin and it also had ETOPS for North Atlantic ops.
I would love videos contrasting and comparing Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, and whatever other mfg/series planes are significant. (One vid per mfg/series/category (biz jets, popular GA aircraft, fighter jets, etc)).
Much of the military aircraft information is classified, but comparisons of the retired military aircraft would be interesting.
Petter, I would also love videos comparing and contrasting the larger manufactures like Boeing and Airbus. I’m also curious to learn how much wiggle room commercial airlines have to outfit their particular jet
Fascinating "teaser" presentation. Bravo! Cannot wait to find out the outcome..
I started flying on the 747 in the 1980’s and it has always been my favourite aircraft. My last flight on 747 was in February 2020 with British Airways to Chicago return, although at the time never knew it would be my last on that wonderful aircraft. Now starting to fly again post Covid, the A380 is my preferred aircraft to fly, I will be in a BA 380 to Washington DC in a couple weeks.😮
How was your a380 flight?
Hi Petter. I really want to buy a shirt, but I always feel a little scruffy in a crew neck tee shirt. I wonder if other people would be interested in a branded Polo shirt? I'd love something subtle that shows my appreciation for your work in Aviation and education.
Or a V neck
Wear the shirt with an ascot to make it fancy.
Great idea, I’d probably get one. Just want to say there’s no need to feel scruffy in a crewneck. It’s all about confidence, you can even come off as better dressed than someone in a suit if you carry it properly. After all, if you are in a space where people feel the need to “dress fancy” but you’re looking good in a crew neck, that’s a great power move.
@@munroegarrett I'm going to Google Ascot
Mentour pilot polo sounds great! Sign me up
All I know is Rolls Royce are recruiting pretty heavily in the U.K. right now. They’re definitely pretty confident that their nuclear/jet order book will remain full for awhile.
The name "Rolls Royce" is a *Singular* entity.
*IT* is not plural.
@@manifold1476 But it is a natural way for me, as a native English speaker to talk about a "company" which is actually a collective noun?
@@manifold1476 businesses are always referred to as though they are “collective” nouns in the U.K., is English not your first language, or is this some weird American English thing?
Thanks for the video 👍
Love your program 😊
I always wondered if a re-engineering of the existing 747 with new composites, materials, engines and fly by wire systems could make it more efficient and cost effective. Giving the air-frame a new life.
Composites would be a major redesign. There wouldn't be much original left if you upgrade everything you suggest. I think both Boeing and Airbus realise currently that the status quo is good for both of them and they don't need to spend unless the other does for a few years. I believe several new technologies are expected to be available by the 2030s that will be a worthwhile improvement.
"I've had this axe forever, it's has two heads and five handles."
Be careful what you wish for. Last time boeing redesigned an ovbiously outdated model to the modern needs didn’t start well.
There comes a point where the airframe life doesn't justify it; also, the engineering involved in various upgrades is often better spent on new aircraft lines.
@@dukeofgibbon4043 That would be the 737...
The A380 is one of the most comfortable and quietest planes in existence (as a passenger). I love flying Emirates for that very reason. I'm always delighted when I see that my Emirates route is onboard an A380 v.s. a B777.
You are spot on, sir
@@user-oj4xp2lh4d Thank you :)
Flew Qantas on an A380 in 2009. It was beautiful, and very impressive, even in economy.
Last flew on a 747 on a KLM flight Amsterdam to Rio in 2015. Nostalgic, but she really felt her age. Would love to see her modernised and competitive once again.
It was always impressive watching the early morning AerLingus arrivals from New York into Dublin. My childhood home has a beautiful view of the 26 approach into Dublin.
@@capnskiddiesI agree with you. I also wish we could modernize the B747 for sure.
I was on a 747 once and the number 1 engine gave out. The captain assured us we'd be fine but the flight would take an extra hour.
Later the number 4 engine died. The captain said he was experienced and could still make the trip but it would take another two hours. A freak lightning strike took out the number 3 engine, but the captain assured us that we could still make it to the destination on one engine. It would just take us an extra 5 hours.
I turned to the guy next to me and said, "I hope nothing happens to that last engine. We'll be up here all day."
I love the 747. I have fond memories of flying to Asia from San Francisco many times in the early 2000s 2017. There was no better feeling than settling in for a long flight on a foggy Friday night ❤
I’m surprised you didn’t bring Kelsey into the discussion given that you were talking about the 747. It would have been interesting to hear what he would say about the prospect of flying a jet as large as the one he does with only two engines, especially in light that the same day you released this video he released one about a small jet loosing both of its engines and having to try to land.
Kelsey sent me a message two years ago, saying that he wanted nothing to do with me or my channels.
He gave no explanation and I haven’t heard from him since.
It really hurt me at the time so, no, I didn’t reach out to him for this.
@@MentourNow I’m surprised by that since I know you have done videos together in the past. You have really good content on your channels and I’m befuddled as to why he would do something like that.
@@deadfirefighter I hate RUclipsr drama, especially between creators I like. Hopefully Kelsey will change his mind someday.
@Mentour Now! Sad! I had a similar thought while watching your intro. I also appreciate how each of you has differentiated yourselves on YT and certainly can see why you wouldn't reach out to him again. The internet is large enough for both of you.
@@MentourNow That was 2 years ago. Maybe things have changed.
If the autoclave was not require for composites it would open the wing design for advanced types. A 747 with cranked delta wing optimized for high subsonic cruising. Combined with the new engines & redesigned nose would yield a incredible aircraft.
Excellent video. Thanks!
Thank you for sharing
Merry Christmas Peter, hopefully we could see the 747 with 2 engines, I'm just curious about their exact placement in the wings though.
Boeing have had problems with low space under the wings for years on the 737 which was never designed for ' Big Fan ' Engines , so recently they have come up with a folding knee . so it could fit in the original space under te wing.
We are looking at the Boeing 777X with an extended upper or, rear deck to accommodate additional passengers. It is doable, based on research carried out years ago on the proposed Boeing 767X. Super video. ❤️
The 777 has the toilets in the cargo floor. I wonder whats above the passengers. Would be cool to retain the tube fuselage. Then we have 3 floors. The old xtra wide in the middle. Cargo / luggage in the cellar , and a row with roof windows on top. Maybe some people also like down-pointing windows lik in an air ship.
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt i’m an engineer at boeing working on the 777x, in the rear above the cabin is a crew rest area but it’s not as tall as the main cabin, you would have to crouch, and unfortunately it can’t extend further as above you is completely full of ducts, wires & pipes as well as structural support braces (that’s about as far as i’m at liberty to say lol)
Awesome episode, explains a lot why the changes in aviation plane models
i spent over 25 years working in aviation at Manchester Airport,one of my greatest failures is never being able to fly on a 747,for me better than concorde,loaded pushed back 747s,but never flew in one,beautiful aircraft,alas i will never get that chance,disabled so unable to afford to fly on one
Shame that the A380 and 747 have gone... Certainly the main standout feature of the Jumbos is the ability to make the most of a landing slot, so for some places there will still be a demand for a really large aircraft... It's also worth bearing in mind that Rolls Royce make jet turbines for other purposes than aircraft (although that is their main market) such as ships for examples.
Fascinating
What about an upscaled passenger jet version of the A400M?
Would have enough space for huge engines, and would demonstrably also work for freight.
What an excellent analysis.
The point to point vs hub and spoke discussion is an interesting one. I honestly see point to point making sense for continental travel and hub and spoke for intercontinental travel like say JFK to Heathrow. It will be interesting to see how things change in the coming year with ever more efficient small aircraft.
I absolutely LOVE both of your channels. You were born to do this…..and fly, of course!
A modern composite weight saving 747-400 with monster twins would be so sick.
Why do you young guys call good "sick". Sick means bad, even gruesome.
@@michaelbenardo5695 Take a nap, Boomer...
@@johnbergstrom2931 tsk tsk weak move to call out
@@twinkieerella Well, I thought it was fucking hilarious... If you're gonna be a grumpy old man on the internet, expect people to rag on you.
@@johnbergstrom2931 it doesn’t mean you have to be a bum on the internet
Could Rolls-Royce be developing that huge engine for a military cargo plane?
They tend to have their wings on top of the fuselage and would, therefore, have the room for such a large engine.
Just a thought
P s. I love your channel, and, Merry Christmas!
Darnit, that makes a lot of sense. I'm still going to hold out hope for a reboot of the 747 though!
Military freighters also need to operate from unprepared airstrips. Having a massive engine hanging from the wing defeats the purpose of having the high wing.
They stopped buying the C-17 because they had enough. Doesn’t make sense to design and build a new one.
Would it fit on the B-52? I mean, that thing needs a LOT of thrust and it only operates from large, smooth, runways.
Maybe 4 Rolls-Royce engines instead of the 8 it now has?
Again, just a thought. I'm NO expert.
@@arlo0011 they've been fighting for decades just to re-engine the BUFF. The current plan is corporate jet engines because changing the number would effect the wing structure. Designing and manufacturing new wings is too great a cost for what could already be your grandfather's airframe.
Drove past Longreach in Queensland, Australia the other day on my way north to Darwin and saw a massive structure on the right side of the road. It was of course the open hangar for the Qantas 707 and 747 on display near their original hangar. Would have stopped in but I had a few kilometres to cover that day.
Nearly the entire time you were talking about business cases for a twin engine 747, I was yelling at my screen that cargo is the perfect business case, and I was so relieved when you actually addressed it. The real selling point would be if either Boeing or Airbus could release a plane with the capacity of the 747 (especially with the front cargo door) that could take off from shorter runways currently served by 767 cargo planes. I'm imagining a solid business argument to be made in favor of having a cargo plane that could skip right past LAX or Seattle and land instead in a less crowded (and thus less expensive) airport further inland.
I love that emirates can keep flying the titanics of the sky in the configuration that fits the title. Not carrying freight, but passengers
I don't think that referring to airplanes as titanics of the sky is a good idea. It will give the passengers a sinking feeling!
@@annyer262 Ok, 'Hindenburgs Of The Sky'. Better?
@@johnbergstrom2931 we just need to power them with hydrogen gas and this would be perfect!
How about plus sized American style airplanes!
Would you like to fly on plummet airlines?
My dream is the big planes coming back.
A world with only little bangers stinging around like wasps would be heartbreaking. There's nothing better than seeing massive objects seemingly just hanging in the air, floating.
So beautiful 💙💛
Actually airplane design will most likely change, long gone are the days of massive planes with high drag.
Large planes will in the future most likely become flying wings with large internal volume and the ability to fly very high.
Whatever makes a profit is what it's gonna be...
@@johnbergstrom2931 With one addition, whatever makes a profit and follows international standards.
I think the Slot constraints at airports will be the driver of a huge twin engined A380/747. The A380 is rather compact in size for the number of passengers it carries. Also Airport size constraints may also bring in the big double floored jets. Stretcht versions of widebodies take up way more parking space, and I think that a lot of airports are in need of more gates for their Passenger volume. So shorter double story aircraft may be the only way to go.
Also if you were building a monster twin with 3.56m engines you'd probably want it to be high winged. That complicates design of the empennage and rear fuselage (to avoid tail strike) but offsetting that means the landing gear can be much lighter and more compact. Plus loading/unloading is simpler (you don't need airbridges to be so high and may be able to have a ramp for freight and luggage). But this means you would make a clean sheet design rather than modify the 747.
Yup, something like a more efficient Antonov
Maybe for the C5 Galaxy or the next C17. Why not a passanger airplane in the wing configuration of a C17 or an Airbus A400? Would be great and enough space for bigger engines i guess.
While the C17 was a fairly big aircraft by 1991 standard, by 2022 standard, its not that large. IT would only need a bit more then ONE (1) engine of a 777x to fully power it,
@@matsv201 c17 is a hurc on steroids....about 4ft wider and 8 ft longer but if you put turboprops on a c17 then u got a400m lol
I believe the major disadvantage of overhead wings is that it feels odd; when you sit above the wing during banking, we perceive it as the ground tilting below us and we're quite used to that sensation, whereas when the wing is above us, we are swinging around underneath, which isn't a good feeling.
@@cdocker3070 A400M is a tacktical redeplyer, but the C17 is strategical, hence its also larger, but its still much smaller than civilian airliners.
Cargo plane is surprisingly much smaller for it's volume.
Simply because just how less dense human + luggage compare to... a tank?
I like your reasoning! The Queen of the Skies was the first aircraft I boarded when I was a kid. I cried a river when I heard she would slowly but surely disappear from our skies. I hope this new version of an iconic aircraft will come to be.
Merry Christmas! 🎅 ✈ 🎄🎇🎁
Very insightful.
I’m happy to say I flew on the 747, DC-10, and L-1011 many times. In my family’s lore, they enjoy reminding me that when I first stepped into the 747, I exclaimed, “This is like The Paradise Theater taking off!”
Let's begin a _"KickStarter"_ Campaign to build an all new composite body 747X *3* engined Tri-Jet Combi airplane with an *"S"* duct engine inlet in a T-Tail configuration where the customers can choose to mount engines 1 & 3 in nacelles either under the wings or mounted to the aft fuselage like a MD 80. In addition it would need to have an aft cargo ramp too and air stairs integrated into the fuselage.
It was considered in the 80s and cancelled.
@@roaklin We are in 2023, things change.
I knew it. They should redo the 747-SP with 2 engines. Big passenger load smaller foot print...very efficient and versatile...
Take the hump away, and that's technically the 777-200LR/-8
@@yudasgoat2000 Really, the 777 has the same beam? Leave the hump for crew rest and ultra first class.....thanks for the info.
@@thereissomecoolstuff You don't even need the hump if it's not for passenger access - the 777-300 has upper level crew rest with two bunks and two rest seats.
@@g.tucker8682 you may not love humping but I do. Keep the hump. There would be know Boeing w/o the hump.
@@g.tucker8682 Hey, don't go messin' around with my hump...
I saw the maiden flight of the 747, coming down Hood Canal, and making a turn to go back over water, and back the way it came, right over my grade school ball field. Ya don't forget stuff like that!
4:21 ❤ the 747-SP.
Could probably find a market in East Asia with the high population, major tourist destinations, and popularity of short overseas vacations to nearby countries. The 747SR was developed to demand from Japan, after all.
I've flown in B777 between Singapore and KL; it's also served by ATR-72s; B747 from SIN to HK; and B747 to SF & LA via S. Korea, & Japan; and A340 SIN to SF; although now either A350s or A787s; SIN to Australia and NZ is B777 (probably a lot to A350 and B787s now) and around Malaysia on B737s. So really a mixed bunch of planes in use. Malaysia domestic flights are always packed, but the airports aren't designed for anything bigger.
Countries in Asia are not buying planes from Boeing anymore especially China after the 737 super max deboggle.
The 747SP was mainly produced to compete with the smaller DC-10s and L-1011s.
I say it’s a very strong chance that we’ll see a 747 variant later on as there’s 777x
Merry Christmas 🎅
Efficiency made the first B747, maybe efficiency makes the new one? What I have come up with is the following:
1. All advanced composites. As pointed out before, this usually points to smaller aircraft due to development costs and smaller planes tending to be made in higher numbers than large planes. But maybe when combined with some other things, the numbers of large planes needed will go up.
2. LNG cooled superconductors for hybrid electric engines. The reason why gear reductions were not used in the past is higher maintenance. You can put a superconducting electric motor driven by advanced superconducting power electronics (the latter a recent development) in the cowling of a ducted fan for greatest efficiency while doing an electronic gear reduction from the main jet engine. As these fans can be made relatively easily and reliably, maybe you stick with 4 of them for a large airliner, but cut down to two separate jet engines driving compact superconducting generators that are also used to start the main jet engines. As the LNG coolant boils off, it gets fed into the jet engines and burned. The plane will fly somewhat slower than a B747 and thus have less wing sweep, but find the right speed with an electronic gear reduction combined with a straight through jet engine and you have a much more efficient plane. There is also the advantage with engine out capability in that if a complex jet engine fails, the electrically driven ducted fans can get power from the remaining jet engine and thus balance the toque on the plane. It is also easier to have counter-rotating ducted fans to balance torque on the plane the other way. If cryogenics fail, you would still have conventional electrical power for main systems like the B747 and the jet engines could act alone without the big fans and with the superconducting generators freewheeling, thus generating a fair amount of thrust and generating more and more thrust as the plane descends. Planes have already been known to glide up to 100 miles (160 km) and this would be more of the plane slowly descends and then what altitude it levels off depending on load in the plane such as fuel load.
3. Use a battery power supplement. Say 20% (or possibly more) of TOGO power comes from batteries and the jet engines are focused more on heavy super alloys and in general designed to run near full throttle all of the time. The higher the throttle, the more efficient the jet engine runs. Also downsized as batteries help to obtain max power, the engines may end up lighter even with a more heavy duty design to better take running at higher throttle settings on average throughout flight. The battery of choice at this point in time would be LiS (lithium sulfur). The reason for this is recent reported advances make them 3x more energy dense and several times more power dense (capacity and instantaneous power output respectively) than the next most commonly used lithium chemistry while having excellent cycling capabilities, something LiS has historically been terrible at. Going for a more B787 electrical setup also increases efficiency overall. May even leave the APU off for the most part because there are sufficiently big batteries to cover what an APU would do or may even do away with the APU as the batteries fulfill the role just fine. Dumping the APU overboard will save on a lot of weight and space used in the air-frame. Then the two main engines could have something useful to do on the taxiway, which is to recharge the batteries while taxing because there is no APU and the batteries drained down some while fulfilling that role.
4. When you deal with long haul, up to 50% of a B747's takeoff mass is fuel for the trip. If you make all of these changes, while the hybrid system adds weight, the composites take it back off and probably then some along with other structural changes, and then you are using a lot less fuel. So either you fly the same routes and the plane is a lot lighter because it carries a lot less fuel or you start selecting even longer non-stop flights for the plane.
5. With all of the advancements you can have with such a hybrid system, it may even be deemed overall safer than a B747 with 4 jet engines. No A380 has ever been lost in flight so far and this may even exceed the overall safety of the A380. For example, need to do a go-around / get caught in wind-sheer and the batteries provide a very quick boost to 20% of maximum power or whatever the battery system is designed for.
Having flown on the 777, 747 and A380 Airbus always wins. Such an amazing experience
Considering that the 747 and 777 have a combined 3600 total orders compared to 250 for the a380 , I don't really know . Haha
My best flight experiences have been on the upper deck on a 747✈
Maybe RR is doing these engines for future new Mriya version? 🤔😆 It will be a fantastic experience to see an engine bigger than my home...
That would certainly be a niche application, but hardly a viable sales volume - particularly as a freighter only. A 4-engined Mrya could even have a higher MTOW than the current 6-engined version, and have a couple of spare carrying hardpoints - because how else are you going to carry spares around for such a colossal beast? And the improved efficiency over the current version could open new markets, as it would be easily the most fuel-efficient large freighter in the world. I'd expect a military version, too. Hardpoints in the roof for space launches from the equator? No problem - Mrya already has them! Travelling eastwards at an easy 900km/h, the platform would have the orbiter up to a real speed of 2,500km/h before even firing its own engine! Virgin Galactic sign here, please! (I wonder if a legal way could be found to carry passengers onboard to watch the release/launch of the orbiter up close?) Could pay a lot of the bills.
It could be then developed into a passenger version, to deal with the slot congestion at major international hubs like Heathrow, JFK, Dubai, Singapore, Frankfurt, Schiphol and Paris CDG, etc.
I wonder how many passengers it could potentially carry - 600+ seems entirely possible, even with some hefty freight allowance, although the terminal capacity for handling that many passengers hitting security and baggage claim in one horde might need some work. I'd expect it to use two gates, so departure lounge capacity would be less of a problem.
I foresee a major potential for an Antonov/Airbus collaboration on a whole new series based around the An-124 & An-225 designs - possibly using Airbus composites and RR engines to put efficiency through the roof. Heck, a military version could have one or two engines dedicated purely to electrical power, for a major AEW/AWACS installation, or the colossal power needed for directed energy systems. A ground-level optimised version of the engine would make an awesome emergency fly-in generator for any disaster zones, and could be marine-adapted for ships as well. The uses for such a large and efficient turbine engine go well beyond aviation, although in combination with Airbus's expertise in composite construction and Antonov's unrivalled knowledge of heavy-lift cargo aircraft it undoubtedly could have a major impact there.
Several years ago at Casper WY I saw a 747 with a 777 engine on the left inboard wing. They were testing the 777 engine. Not much ground clearance.
Wyoming is where they do the 'cold-soak' testing for Boeing planes.
I work with the electricity industry and despite the rise of renewable energy the heavy frame industrial gas turbines running in combined cycle gas turbine power stations are the workhorse of the industry. The general rule is that the bigger the turbine the more efficient it is. Using that logic, making really big jet turbines for planes is an obvious next step.
Excellent and Outstanding!!!!!
I remember when i was a kid and my dad used to take me to Heathrow to watch he planes come in to land. You had so much variety, twin jets, trijets, quads, double deckers and of course Concorde.
It won't be long before every aircraft is a boring single decker twin. Such is the price of progress.
When I was a kid it was Constelation's, when only military jets flew.
@@billboyd4051 Merry Christmas granddad
@@N330AA And to you as well.
Totally
Problem is at the moment something like 2 Trent xwbs could power and A380. But once you’re over V1 on takeoff you have to go around if you have an engine failure therefore a 2 engined jumbo would have to be able to perform a go around on one engine which is very difficult.
You could have auxiliary engine and not use it unless needed.
I've been speculating the possibility of this ever since the introduction of those new Monster GE engines!!
So sad that the final 747 has been produced! I was fortunate enough to ride a few planes that had ended production years earlier but were still in service in great numbers! 727s and DC9s mostly. I did ride a DC10 from Baltimore to London.
There are only a few 747s carrying passengers today. But there are hundreds of them in the air at any given moment carry freight. IIRC Lufthansa and Korean Air are the only airline using them for passengers.
Forgot to mention, I rode on 2 747s. Going to and from Tokyo! I think they may have been 747 SPs. Y'know.. Those short ones!
15:20 confirms that when a jet engine is running there is no radial load on the bearings.
That little ball bearing can carry the weigh and rotation of the great heavy rotor shaft for many years so long as it gets clean oil.
Excellent analysis. I'd love to see a 747 rebirth.
Cargo UPS & Fed ex DHL uses them. Conversions no seats.
I recently flow LGW SIN on completely packed Emirates A380s. Really love that plane. Flew in 747s in the late 90s, and upper deck was cool, but still A380 is nicer.
I think point to point is only applicable to the US, most countries only have one or two busy airports
The A380 "Flying Manatee" also cancelled production.
There are plenty of busy airports in Europe and East Asia where people want to go from everywhere to everywhere.
Hub&Spoke is so extremely attractive for Emirates (and Etihad, and so on) because they fly people between East Asia and Europe with a stop in Dubai (or Abu Dhabi or whatever): You connect everything in Asia with everything in Europe and you only need one airplane per airport.
@@whocares2277 Most / all of the airports outside of the capital cities in SE Asia I've been to can't handle anything bigger than a A320 / B737, so there aren't going to make point to point outside of SEA, and I don't think there is that much demand for direct flights to Europe from SEA. I think there are a number of round robin routes in Malaysia and Indonesia.
Great video 😁
I think Boeing Could make a profitable twin engine 747 👍🏻
The 747-8 wing design was adopted from the 787, so it shouldn't be a problem for it to accommodate 2 engines instead of 4, as it does on that on the 787, then they could make the fuselage from Composites which would make the 747 a lot lighter and thus saving fuel as a result, plus they could probably enlarge the windows like they did on the 787 then too.
I think if they did that, it could potentially be the end of the 777-8/9 as the 747 would have more cargo capacity and likely be more fuel efficient too.
Not sure where you got your info that the 747-8 design came from the 787. I did the cost estimate for the -8 wing and it was not built out of composites or have anything to do with the 787.
Thank you, RB, Canada.
For example GE90-115B has more than double the thrust compared to the JT9D from a 747, but I guess that's not enough then, how much more thrust do we need to basically turn a quad jet into a twin jet?
I'm an engineer, but not in aviation. From a logic standpoint I'd want to know the plane could fly on one engine if it only had two to start with. That's actually a requirement for commercial aviation I believe, to be able to lose one and still fly.
I’m not an engineer, but I do work in aviation and that is indeed a requirement for commercial passenger jets. I think losing an engine does require the aircraft to fly at a lower altitude though.
Yes. However the surface area that you loose from taking 2 engines off means you need less trust overall. I believe the 747 was fine on 2 engines. So replacing 2 engines on one wing with 1 engine should work.
Well, a 2-engine airplane has to have higher thrust-to-weight ratio, in case of engine failure it can still fly and land safely. A 747-8 or A380 has a T/W ratio of about 0.25 whereas 2-engine jets are around 0.30. So a 4-engine 747-8 with total thrust of 266,000 lbs, would need 2 engines of 160,000 lbs thrust to do the same job, assuming the same gross takeoff weight.
I'd be interested in a deeper dive into P&W/Raytheon's patent claim. I know the graphic used in the video isn't completely comprehensive, but at first glance it seems the crux of the model is a planetary gear assembly. Planetary gears are not revolutionary by any stretch since they have been used for centuries, but I don't know what other technologies were included in the patent.
Perfect Engine for a 2 or 3 Engine Blended Wing Body aircraft. Placing the Engines on top eliminates the ground clearance problem. Also, a possible perfect fit for a 2 Engine high wing aircraft (next gen C-17, C-5 version or 4 engine AN-225 next gen?)
With composites at the forefront of wing technology like they've become, one could design the wing AROUND the giant engine (flowing above and below) so it wouldn't have to be slung under the wings but rather the center of the shaft would be centered on the wing. Maybe that would be the time to switch to a flying wing design as has been speculated for decades as being the most efficient.