Boeing 747X - The New Large Airplane Proposed By Boeing But Never Built
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2021
- Link to Boeing 747, Queen of the Skies for 50 Years by Lorenzo Valentina.
www.amazon.com.au/Boeing-Quee...
Two decks down the length of the plane, and carrying over 650 passengers, this 1990s proposed version of the Boeing 747x would not only be the biggest passenger aircraft flying in the sky, but it would put crush the efforts by Airbus to build their own double-decker forever.
But the 747x would never actually be built by Boeing, with its legend powering rumors about the next Boeing new large airplane for generations to come. We will look over what the New Large Aeroplane was, the other designed Boeing came up with, and why it was NEVER BUILT.
Boeing had dreamed of building a pure double-deck aircraft as far back as 1965. Designers at the time repeatedly ran into issues such as. where to place exists, how to service the plane with 1970s airports, and even how to load the bags on board. Boeing designer Joe Sutter, said that the double-decker 747 was a "a clumsy airplane" that was "short and stubby".
Boeing would go with a single deck 747, with the cockpit located in a hump, on a second level, only because it would allow a front cargo door for future freighter conversions. After all, the future of air travel surely belonged to the world of supersonic jets like the Concorde.
In 1993 that Boeing would revisit the double-deck design concept. They saw not only Airbus and rival MD working on double-deckers. Boeing predicted that this market would need 2,500 airlines with more than 350 seats between 1990 and 2005, its 747-400 had got a staggering 382 orders in five years, 130 of them in 1990.
There would be three different programs to create a new large airplane and a successor to the Boeing 747, the VLCT(Very Large Commercial Transport), The N650, and LAPD (Large Aircraft Product Development).
The first project would be a joint effort across the Atlantic. Detailed studies of the 500-seat plus market showed demand for between 400 and 500 aircraft, not really enough to justify billions in development for one company.
To bring this VLCT to the market Boeing was looking at working with a European partner, like Airbus. They butted heads on aircraft design philosophy, such as the cockpit fly by wire debate.
The next program, the N650, was started in 1991. It could carry 650 passengers with 18 seats across in economy! It would look very similar to what would become the Airbus A380.
The last program, LAPD, is possibly the most bizarre and truly deserves its own video. It was a long single deck monster plane dubbed the 763-241, based on the C-17.
The design they came up with had 69-foot-tall T-tail, a 262-foot span and a length of more than 250 feet. It would carry 450 passengers, and have sleeping berths above the seating cabin! However, the concept had structural issues and was too big.
With the Boeing 747-400 being its best seller yet, Boeing wanted to upgrade 747 platform and avoid the new design. Boeing reevaluated the passenger requirements to 450 to 650 seater.
They were the 747-500X -600X and -700x. they would use the cutting edge tech of the Boeing 777 and have a new cockpit.
The 747-500X concept featured a fuselage length of 18 ft (5.5 m) to 250 ft (76.2 m) long, and the aircraft was to carry 462 passengers over a range up to 8,700 nautical miles (10,000 mi, 16,100 km).
The 747-600X concept featured a stretch to 279 ft (85 m) with seating for 548 passengers, a range of up to 7,700 nmi (8,900 mi, 14,300 km).
A third study concept, the 747-700X, would have combined the wing of the 747-600X with a widened fuselage, to carry 650 passengers to a range as a 747-400.
But using all this new 777 technology proved a big gamble. The next tech doubled the cost of the 747x to $5 Billion US, and also made it no longer share a commonality with previously Boeing 747s. lastly, airlines knew about the Airbus A3XX program in the works.
In 2000, and Boeing reworked the -400 series into the 747x.
The 747X aircraft was to carry 430 passengers over ranges of up to 8,700 nmi (10,000 mi, 16,100 km). The 747X Stretch would be extended to 263 ft (80.2 m) long, allowing it to carry 500 passengers over ranges of up to 7,800 nmi (9,000 mi, 14,500 km). Freighter versions of the 747X and 747X Stretch were also studied.
But Boeing went for more outlandish concepts like the Boeing Sonic Cruiser.
From here, Boeing would focus on its twin-jet business like the 777 and 787. They did propose the 747-400XQLR (Quiet Long Range) which had an increased range of 8,056 nmi (14,920 km).
All of this research was put together for a final design of the Boeing 747 in 2004, based on the 787 technology and called the 747-8.
Was the Boeing 747X and New Large Aeroplane project was simply a ruse to get Airbus to commit to the A380 program. No, It cost Boeing too much.
At the end of the day, airlines wanted a plane that matched the RANGE of the 747, but not the capacity.
I recall as a child going to Everett around 1975 or so. On the tour there were pictures of what future versions Boeing was considering for the 747. Many of them featured longer upper decks, one going the full length of the fuselage. I was always disappointed that Boeing never went with any of those concepts.
I bet Boeing weren't disappointed though.
It’s sad enough seeing so many airlines sell off their 747s and A380s. These jumbo jets are a dying breed.
Quadjets will return when more efficient hybrid engines are developed, mark my words. Demand will return and bigger jets will be required at some point
@Akai Shigunaru I guess it all depends how demand/efficiency improves in the coming years.
A
Just purchased a 747 800 for customization to a VVIP.
Very sad indeed , I'm gonna miss them dearly at FAOR ............. the way they rumble like thunder during night takeoffs....... ☹
They didn’t design the 747 as a passenger plane. The cockpit wasn’t for cargo conversions, it just was a cargo airplane. It was made for a competition for the US militairy to get a new big cargo plane. The C-5 galaxy won and is also still in service today after which Pan Am ordered a few 747’s demanding that the hump would be turned into a special room for first and buisiness class passengers.
That's why Boeing built 747-400 freighters have the short upper deck. Converted passenger -400's have to have the floor of the upper deck strengthened to keep freight from penetrating upward during heavy turbulence. This adds a lot of weight but no more freight capacity.
@@Flies2FLL Yes.
No. Juan Trippe of Pan Am worked with Boeing to specifically design a jumbo passenger jet that could easily be converted to a freighter. That's how the 747 came to be.
@@RedLP5000S That’s not what I learned.
YES! and it lost out to the Lockheed C5 Galaxy! The better aircraft won. Why not convert Galaxy Aircraft to carry passengers commercially rather than carry on with a "Second Best" aircraft? Oh yes Diversion from killing hundreds with the 737 Max, designed to crash!
The KLM 747 PH-BFB featured here is preserved as a hotel annex in Corendon Air colors near Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. At retirement she was the oldest flying 747-400. She was flown to Rome as a KLM jet and returned as a Corendon jet for the first and only time. Alfter landing in Amsterdam she was towed to her last resting place.
I think a mistake is made here. The cockpit was not designed in a hump for ‘ future ‘ cargo applications. The 747 was originally designed as a competitor for the C5 Galaxy in a race to gain the contract for a new long range freighterplane for the US Air Force and the raised cockpit was designed to allow the nose section to open to allow easy acces for the cargo and vehicles ( rapid deployment ) . Like we all know, the C5 got the contract. So Boeing decided to recycle the design into a civilian passenger airplane and the B747 was born. ;-)
LH: I won hahaha!
Boeing several years later: Yes but how many C5s did you sell hmmm?
In fact, the opposite happened for Lockheed as well, it had a civilian designation L-500.
@@Claro1993 there's also a civilian version for the C-130, for the A 400M and for the C 295. However, only few civil C-130s were sold and none A400m or C295.
Military cargo aircraft are designed for military purposes, not for efficiency, so they are versatile for military use but inferior when they have to compete with airliners in the cargo market, as long as the destinations offer proper runways
1st Boeing attempt to sell its high wing C-X to the airlines: Are you nuts? If we ditch then the fuselage is underwater and all the passengers drown.
2nd attempt with a mid-wing version of Boeing C-5X: So now only half the passengers drown?
3rd Attempt with low wing version: Looks nice, not as much drowning, but how fast did you say passengers would going down the upper deck evacuation slides? Okay that's too dangerous an evacuation from the upper deck, so no regular upper deck seating, but keep the upper flight deck and nose door arrangements.
I thought a big reason for the hump was for crew safety when flying cargo missions. Being up in the hump, the crew wouldn't be crushed by the cargo in a hard landing.
I miss the old school Boeing house livery.
Oh well, aircrafts were never built always because of one reason: they won’t sell
My cousin is employed by Boeing (34 years). He said they feinted building the double-deck plane because they were sick of Airbus knocking off their '57, '67, '77, so they said 'here ya go fools'.
Not that it matters to a government owned, profit optional "company".
4:20 it’s not a joke 747-400D is a domestic version (with no winglets) only fly short 2-3 hour route within Japan to compete with Shinkansen bullet train. Japanese airlines used to often fly 747s on the lucrative Tokyo-Osaka route.
Chinese does that too. Air China Beijing-Shanghai route still often flown by 747-8 if not a 787
I love your videos!! So cool! I particularly love this one! Big beautiful four engine long haulers! Sweet!!
I never even made it on any 747... it was a bucket list I had planned to fulfill just before covid... sadly I am unlikely to ever to fulfill it now. Very sad. Farewell Queen of the skies.
Fly Korean airlines, I’m on the same mission
I’m pretty happy these were never built, it would be such a shame to watch them die out
I'm just waiting for the double decker 737. ;-)
ñe too
Loved that ,thanks a million .💗✈️🛫
747 magnifique meilleur avion du monde
It is amazing how many concepts Boeing worked on for the 747 after the 747-400’s entry into service: 747-400X, 747-400X Stretch, 747-500X, 747-600X, 747-700X, 747X, 747X Stretch and finally the 747-400XQLR which actually did make it to the market in a way as the 747-400ER, six of which were ordered by Qantas (and far more as freighters).
The 747-500X and 747-600X actually did secure MoUs for a total of 12 frames between Thai Airways and Malaysian Airways, but Boeing was really pinning the project on British Airways ordering it due to their significant 747-400 fleet. When BA decided against being a launch customer for the plane later that year, that effectively killed it. It also didn’t help that both the Rolls Royce Trent 600 and Engine Alliance engines planned for it were still themselves in development.
As for the idea that Boeing “tricked” Airbus into building the A380, the public record makes it quite clear that Airbus’ Charles Champion, if you will excuse the pun, championed that airframe within Airbus and successfully convinced the Board that it was the way for Airbus to become a “full portfolio” commercial aerospace OEM.
As for the 747-X, Lufthansa was the biggest proponent of that model, as they saw a role within their fleet for a frame between the 747-400 and the A380-800 and I believe they were the ones who kept Boeing at least looking at 747 updates. When GE started development of a bleed-air version of their GEnx for the original Airbus A350, Boeing saw a way to significantly reduce the fuel burn of the 747 by hanging them off a reprofiled and more aerodynamic wing and the 747 Advanced was born, which became the 747-8 and of which Lufthansa agreed to become the launch customer with an order for 20 (eventually reduced to 19).
Now the 747-8 replaces the 380 at LH, they could make a deal with Airbus to give some 380s back and there are only 6 or 7 left from the former fleet of 14, too little to keep them in service. Since the 747-8 passenger version is also more or less unsellable today in used condition (like the 380s) they keep them since they could give some 380 back but no 747s.
@@simonm1447 Airbus has no incentive to take back 380's from any carrier. They know they have little value anymore and they have moved on from the program.
@@johniii8147 they took back a couple of used 380 formerly owned by LH, they made a deal (details have been kept secret) and LH is buying 350s and could give back some 380 for them.
We don't know how much LH paid for the 350s and how much they got for the 380s, all details haven't been made public.
This is the only known deal regarding 380s.
These 380s will probably be scrapped, Airbus knows there is no realistic case to sell them
Boeing even considered a tri- jet version of the 747.
Omg
I see Philippines Airlines🇵🇭. 😲😲
Watching from Philippines 🇵🇭🇵🇭
If this ever did became reality,boeing would of probally stopped the 747 lineup there as why would airlines need a bigger jet?
Boeing 747 passenger version is already stopped the production
@@bocahdongo7769 He's implying that if we lived in a world where air travel demand was still largely high enough to support big quad jets and their operational costs, Boeing would've been smart to cancel the current 747 lineup in favor of this bigger jet
So basically in a Emirates universe
Excellent video
What a video, what a narration!..
👏👏👏🥇💐👍
Channel is growing and growing *thumbsup*
The idea at the time made the most sense since most of the engineering was already done. However as of today there are rumors that Boeing is considering building it next year (2024, or 2025), as there has been a resurgence in interest from customers in the 747-8
This one was a whole lot of fun to watch In fact, I'm definitely giving it a 10/10 for sure. That is how good this video was. I've been waiting for this moment since I first brought up my idea. I'm really proud of you for making this happen, my good sir. ;) And I can't wait to see more from you in the future. ^_^
Thank you sir!
@@FoundAndExplained No problem, my man, no problem at all. ;)
wow, i like this!! But i like the giant wing concept more. Lets go to the future!
4:48 It's things like these that make me love these videos
For the people who don't know what I'm talking about: he called "antonov" "anatov" in some earlier videos
Haha yes! Lots of inside jokes :)
beautiful model
Love ❤️ your video.
it always bugs me how the intro is plain and explained but the name is found and explained
Maybe he's in the process of rebranding?
It’s a tricky questions for sure
Epic vid bro 👍
Nice video
this 747 looks much better than the usual 747 with a semi-upper deck
I could not believe what I saw, but then I saw it!
when the A380 came out the 747 was the peasant of the skies
Not at all, the a380 was the ugly sister.
@@ethansaviation2672 i liek airbus more so boeings are ugly
@@fakebot1556 Airbus's are ugly especially the A380 and Beluga.
@@yoyoyoyoshua howe der yer
Looks good!
4:00 Can we get a video discussing the various positions of fly-by-wire in aircraft? Thanks for all you do!
from my point of view it was very silly not to have built it, they were close to completing the two decks, for example in the 747-800 that its deck almost reached the middle of the lower deck nothing would have cost them to extend it more
You couldn’t just extend the hump all the way along, if Boeing did a full twin deck it wouldn’t look anything like a 747.
Why though?
@@kenetickups6146 because you'd want the fuselage to be round, for more even stress distribution. The reasons for the hump are explained in the video, it only has that shape because it's not full length. If you design a double decker jet with the goals of actually have two full length decks you'd end up with the general across section shape the a380 has
@@krpajda But the pear shape is what some transport aircraft use, ie the an 225 and whatever the smaller version was
@@kenetickups6146 yeah but with cargo planes its slightly different. you want a wide floor area, and you wont have any structural braces across the width of the plane in the middle like a passenger aircraft would, but instead, they will be at the base of the neck of the pear. There you sort of end up with an oval cargo section with a spine on top.
Compared to that a fully double decked 747 would have a cargo hold in the lower third of the plane, a floor, the first passenger compartment, another floor, and a second passenger compartment. You dont really need either of these to be massively narrower or wider than the rest, so you end up with a round-ish plane, possibly a vertically oriented ellipse or whatever.
But Jon- The forward section of fuselage ...cockpit, nose, etc. are instantly recognizable as 747. Check again ...
I love this plane but i love the triple deck plane because its awesome
Yeaaass!!! I stand on the shoulders of giants too!!💖
The fact that even though the jumbos won’t be built anymore, they ll still be flying for some time.... this makes the 777 Prince Charles and the Jumbos Queen Elizabeth
New person here, glad I found this channel
Glad you found us!
@@FoundAndExplained :D
You know what, the one that hit me all of a sudden was the picture of Malaysia Airlines 777. It remembered me about the MH370 & 17 tragedies that eventually lead the MAS to let go all their 777s.
:(
At 9:32 that’s MRD, the 777 that was shot down as MH17 :(
@@fracturedmind8124 owh no, i just realised that :( now thats even more sad
Some of Malaysian's high-ups considered the 777s "cursed" after MH17 and were very eager to sell them according to internal memorandums.
If the 747x got built it will make Airbus abandoned
Imagine seeing this Landing at the airport.
And when did the LAPD said they want their own airliner??
Let's push this aircraft to the future
I'm confused. Were there actually a proposed full length double decker, as the one you animated, from Boeing? All examples of the models shown were more or less the traditional front hump, not a full length one.
Yes, from the earliest attempts to use Boeing's rejected C-X proposal there was a full length passenger upper deck.
A side note: There were airport gate proposals to use all the lower and upper doors for rapid load and unload of passengers. All 10 lower doors and 6 to 8 upper doors.
Big airplanes only work in hub and spoke system. The world moved to smaller planes with more direct point to point connections which saves passenger's time. Who wants to fly on a massive airplane that takes longer to load / unload and then have a connection to final destination in a hub and spoke system when they can go point to point in a single flight in far less time? It's like the choice between taking the crowded bus to work over 2 hours with multiple connection vs. driving directly from home to work in 30 minutes.
agreed. smaller and better jets, to fly to smaller airports. Why fly Manchester - London - New York - Boston, when a jet can fly between the two direct?
Delta still wants you to stop in Atlanta, to connect an A320 to a 737 🙄
The problem with the point to point idea is exactly that; it's still an idea. You might be able to fly from Manchester to Boston nonstop, but what about Manchester to Charlotte? There will never be enough demand on some routes for a nonstop flight, and hubs will never go away.
4:08, and 4:12 are actually an artist's impression of what British Airways' own superjumbo would look like and it interior, but it looks very similar to the Boeing NLA concept you tell about in this video, just far larger and with 3 passenger decks. Just wanted to point that out to you. ;)
10:30 ... well either way, it's a win win situation, Airbus hasn't lost its reputation or gone into bankruptcy from the A380, and Boeing hasn't distinguished its reputation or gone into bankruptcy, if they weren't to avoid on manufacturing the idea of the new 747 models.
747x will be a serious rival to the a380
I wish that could have happened 😢
The best jet ever !!!!!
There's a 747 aircraft that's similar enough to the 747x called the dreamlifter.
The Philippine Airline's 747 was starring in the vid, but sadly they're retired.
It's an interesting concept
o
I. Would like to see a new 747. Great plane.....
me too 747 fiyubgvhitel vrßioñ
Your subs are rising sooo fast. (1.5k a day)
I’m very lucky! Thanks for all your support
@@FoundAndExplained no problem man. You’ve been churning about a decent amount of videos about planes I’ve never heard of before.
Since the beginning of the Jet Age airlines wanted large aircraft for their range, less their capacity. But now smaller aircraft have the range (787 can do London Perth non stop) there is no real need for bigger aircraft.
The bigger aircraft also have been thought in the last 20 to 30 years for airports with limited slots, since you need less slots for 1 bigger aircraft than for 2 smaller ones.
However, this expectation haven't been met, a lot of airports have been extended by additional runways and other, new airports are now also used beside the hubs.
If you fly to Asia from Europe for example big aircraft are still used if the demand is high enough, since the time Windows for the flights are relatively small
The A380 is about to fight that.
I worked for Boeing for nearly 43 years with a lot of time spent on the 747-400 program. The joint Airbus-Boeing new large airplane study from the mid 1990s reveled to Boeing a safety issue with a full length upper deck. The problem involved egress in the event of an accident that required deployment of the escape slides. The area between the wing trailing edge and horizontal stabilizer would need to allow four slides to deploy into it. This configuration included the upper deck slide, over wing slide, and the aft two main deck slides. There just isn't enough room. FAA requirements stats the slides must deploy with the one or more of the landing gears collapsed. Boeing thought the technical risk was too high. Airbus went ahead with the A380. Unknowingly the FAA allowed Airbus to do the slide testing with the slides deployed before egress test period started. Also the A380 has a slide deployment time system. This was just too much monkey motion for Boeing to accept. Thankfully there has never been an accident requiring slide deployment on an A380 and with the A380 service life coming to an end, maybe there will never be one.
I don't understand why don't people want big planes, I seen a380 with beds and stuff you will not fit this into smaller plane, bit of a shame.
@@V8_screw_electric_cars this is the reason why Emirates has 50 % of all produced 380s, they can put luxury first class cabins into the aircraft and have still enough room for enough business class and economy class seats. 777s can't offer this.
The 380-800 is no payload king, but a king when it comes to internal space
@@V8_screw_electric_cars big plane are expensive people want cheap which small plane provide
Boeing correctly saw that the mega jumbo jet was about to become a white elephant because it was prisoner to only a small number of airports that could handle its size and passenger handling needs, as well as the need to serve city pairs that could support the number of passengers on each flight required to make it profitable.
Boeing's decision to go with the 787 correctly saw the need to accommodate fewer passengers on point to point routes with several models to match the load/range needed. The fact that the A380 production line closed without making a profit while the 787 continues production and is making money for Boeing demonstrates that Boeing called it right.
Boeing spent a deity's ransom on the 787 ironing out all the production issues with CFRP. They actually spent a lot more than Airbus spent on the A380, all for a decidedly less crowdpleasing aircraft.
And No, Boeing are not making money on the 787. They still need to produce and receive payment for hundreds more before that happens.
@@visionist7 "Crowdpleasing" means little to an airline... The prime measurement is whether it can earn its keep and make money. The A380 has proven not to be able to satisfy that major requirement.
Airbus bet the farm on a small number of big and long distance markets that required major airports and failed, while Boeing went with a smaller, more route-flexible airplane in several versions that is still being built. An airline can spec a new 787 but can only find A380s on the "used airplane" classified ads...
"In 2012, Airbus finally admitted that the program is never going to be profitable. According to the New York Times, the manufacturer spent over $25 billion in developing the Airbus A380. Initial studies predicted that airlines would have a demand of 1200 A380s in 20 years from 2005. As of now, Airbus has 313 orders secured, with 234 deliveries. At the end of its production cycle, experts have estimated the final production number to be at 251." While "The manufacturer estimated in 2005 that it needed 270 aircraft to not lose money on the project. A year later, with the wiring and production problems, that estimate rose to 420."
www.aerotime.aero/articles/22892-airbus-cancels-airbus-a380-program
@@jimmbbo it means a lot to the history of the industry. Decades from now when the 787's leaner, meaner, greener replacement comes along, few passengers will remember the 787. It's not a plane that engenders any sort of emotional response from the masses. Thousands won't line up to see the last ever 787 flight land. They probably will for the A380. And this tribal memory will outlast the same airlines that shunned the A380, too.
Cathay Pacific looks to be the first of them.
@@visionist7 A very romantic observation, but airplanes need to make money or they get parked. The A380s size wins it a spot on the important airplane list, but it will never occupy the same spot as a DC-3, a true classic airplane.
What sound does a crashing plane make?
"Boeing, Boeing, Boeing 😂😂
Tbh they could make 747X as full double decker plane after A380 was invented this could have brought a healthy competitions among themselves because they are true rivals😢
The top right man’s posture on 5:10, are you thinking what I’m thinking 🤨
You read out the line “air travel growth was growing rapidly,” and didn’t think to yourself that it might be time to edit the script?
nice catch!
Was
he's a Russell Coight fan ;-)
Yeah, your RUclips video on the 747 programs is much better!
Growing 2X
Miss that Boeing 747-400 from Philippine Airlines
It was perfect for a freighter
The hump unbelievably acted toincrease the speed through unintentional area ruling the front fuselage
I get all these Anthony Delgato ads, and I'm not even from New York! RUclips is going down the toilet.
I never got to fly in a 747. I'm sorry the largest planes are going by the wayside. The biggest I got was probably the 767, L1011, and DC10. I might have been once on a 777. Now I think pretty much everyone is done with the 747. I would have loved the double deck 747. It will never be...
Can you make a video about the VTOL X program by DARPA?
I heard the same rumor so must be urban legend stuff!!!
noice, just noice
It’s kinda sad that soon we may not have jumbo jets or the supersonic planes we were promised at the time
I'd love a model kit of this concept, would be fairly niche though since even I didn't know about this proposal as a 747 fan.
I'm working on a model kit atm!
@@FoundAndExplained hi!
@@FoundAndExplained Oh, thats fantastic. I'd love it as a fan of the channel. Keep us updated!
I definitely want it.
But with twin engine from 777
No one noticed how the footage at 9:33 of the Malaysia Airlines 777 is 9M-MRD, the exact same aircraft that was involved in the MH17 crash.
We did now
What App does this guy use to make this Amazing planes?
Blender! It’s free!
Too large. There was/is no market for it because the available city pairs that this would be profitable on are very very few.
Would aeroflot purchase the MC-41 if it was developed
(MC-21 but widebody version)
Boeing had proposed to build a super giant 1000 passenger airline. It's a nightmare! The boarding of passengers alone it will take time off the schedule flight and same thing on the arrivals de- planening.
The planners knows that the support infras/ facilities are also have a major impact.
It sad there was never a truly full length double decker version of the 747. I would have become a huge fan of the 747X for its passenger capacity, cargo capacity, military service, and be used as an air tanker for battling wild fires. The 747 is my all time favorite airplane, I wish it would continue to stay in the skies for more years to come.
Same!
Even it could be bigger than A380
Probably the A380's successor
I think they REALLY don’t build these awesome planes is because airports wouldn’t be able to handle the increased traffic that the inevitable low fares would mean.🧐
Nope, it is because of fuel costs , A350 and 787 are far efficiently in fuel costs. Any big Asian, middle Eastern, European can handle big wide bodies
Wouldn’t the 747X have it’s own freighter variant?
Well they already have the Dreamlifter and 747-8F, but maybe. 😊👍
No one ever planned this
How do you make these aircraft animations?
Blender!
@@FoundAndExplained thanks
Absolutely, this will solve the capacity problem that airlines are facing now: passenger numbers are exploding over the last 1.5 years and we definitely need high capacity aircraft with two decks... hell with 4 decks.
No passenger numbers have greatly DECREASED over the last two years years and will be slow to return, especially on long haul. Even pre covid, airlines expressed a very clear preference for lower capacity twin engines. That's been a long standing trend now.
@@johniii8147 Apparently you did not get my sarcasm….
How about high wing designs, so you can fit giant turbofans underneath them?
New engines is the future
A low wing offers advantages for airliners, in the case of the 747 they can put parts of the main landing gear into the wings (aircraft with wings on the top have it in the fuselage), which means the wingbox has to carry less weight if the aircraft is parked since they can put 250t of fuel into a big aircraft like the 380 (here the fuel is only in the wings, it has no center tank). The maintenance is simpler since the engines are better accessible, and the rudder don't need a T tail which is heavier than a conventional one. With wings on the top T tails are demanded since the wings disturb the airflow to the elevators.
Wings on top are used for military transport aircraft to put the engines as far away from the runway (which can be a gravel strip) to avoid FOD in the engines, which isn't demanded on concrete runways.
To fit bigger engines under the wings they don't build them straight but they make a swing upwards (like the 380 wing after the main landing gear).
Oh my god
wow PAL
id more say that boeing skillfully and cleverly sold airbus a pup... making them go down the a380 route when really boeing were all about the b777!!!! one of the most clever moves of all time on beoing behalf.
Meanwilne
RUclipsr boeing:😳A 747X?!
3:13 I heard that and was like “what the.are the L.A police gonna track down criminals with massive loud jets”
Wasn't a big issue with the full length upper deck 747 concept that it no longer complied with Whitcomb's Area Rule, so ruining the 747's then unique high speed cruise characteristics? If they had built those aircraft, the freighter variant would have ended up flying faster, as Boeing would have reverted back to the original short 747-100 upper deck on that model.
Boeing should have went ahead with this aircraft. Had they did, the Airbus A380 probably would have never built, nor could it compete with it.
If they would have gone ahead we would have today a big 747 sitting in the desert instead of the A 380s. The concept is the same and it would have suffered from the same problems.
Since the aircraft would have been much bigger and heavier it would have been more or less a completely new aircraft, with a new fuselage, bigger wings and almost everything else also new developed.
If aircraft get too big the structural mass per seat increases, a disadvantage over medium sized widebodies. Also the oval shaped frames have a higher depth (like at the 380), which is heavier and reduced the internal cabin space compared to a round shaped widebody.
wider or longer?
It's a good job these mammoth aircraft designs never went any further than the drawing board, had they actually been built the number of quad jets now going to the scrap yards would've mind boggling.
Aircraft lovers adore quad jets but the airline bean counters and eco nuts don't..... unfortunately, saving dolphins is more important than technology.
Should convert the lower deck to carry more cargo
Airbus 747neo 😍💅
The A380 is a joy to travel on. Quiet, roomy, luxurious. I don’t enjoy travelling ultra long haul on any Boeing plane. Regardless of carrier
Modern Airbus widebodies offer typically more cabin comfort than Boeing models, that's right. The A 350 is very similar in comfort to the 380.
👍
The airplane wasn’t tied in a knot like that ad for the movie “Airplane “ . So that is why they never built it. They couldn’t figure out how to tie the plane into a knot.😁