Boeing 747-400LCF

[chornedsnorkack]

What is the fuselage cross-section of 747-400LCF?

When is it supposed to have first flight?

[dcunning30]

There's not much. Hope this helps:

http://boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q2/060413c_pr.html
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/200 ... 2d_pr.html
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/ ... R0602e.htm

[dcunning30]

[Theis]

Oh my.. The Beluga meets the Boeing 747!!

[ChuckMajik]

That thing is an abomination!
It needs to die, plain and simple.

[chornedsnorkack]

I am not sure the Flug Review picture is accurate. Looking at the brow, does it seem to you that it is steeper on the Flug Review picture than at the construction of real plane?

As for the cross-section... hm... wider than A380? Definitely wider then than a normal 747 - but Beluga also is wider than A380. Anyway, Beluga has a smaller wing, and is probably shorter.

Also, it is said that the 787 is 574 cm wide... but it is said the be higher than wide. And the location of 787 windows on the Flug Revue picture indicates it would be loaded right way up. Another constraint on the cross-section...

[Jakemaster]

I saw a pic of it in construction, so Id assume it wont be too long.  Its only being built to carry sections of the 787, I guess it just isnt right for Boeing to use an Airbus to carry sections of their new plane

[Theis]

But I would be very surprised, if Boeing didn't used that aircraft for other kind of largescale transports in the future!

[Jakemaster]

But I would be very surprised, if Boeing didn't used that aircraft for other kind of largescale transports in the future!

Ya, probably for moving pieces of the 747-8

[Mictheslik]

it's just a plain rip-off of the Beluga, I don't see why some trans national co-operation cant take place and Boeing can swallow their pride and buy a Beluga. it would save them a few years of not being able to transport their parts due to design test flights etc.

Also that thing looks disgusting compared to the Beluga, they tried to keep the 747 shape which really doesnt work, and makes it much bigger.

.Mic

[dcunning30]

It makes no sense on a number of points for Boeing to buy a Beluga.  It's silly to even suggest such a notion.  Both airplanes are ugly.  But they serve a specific purpose.

[elite marksman]

Mic, the odds of Boeing buying a Beluga, or Airbus even building them one for that matter, are about the same as Airbus buying a BBJ to cheufeur their board members around. You do agree that they would convert one of their own A319s correct? Thats like asking M$ to use Mac-based programs to design Vista. It never has happened, and probably never will. Competetive companies generally shy away from helping their competetors, and in that case, they would both help each other. Boeing would help airbus short term by suppling capital, while Airbus is helping Boeing by suppling them with a means to facilitate the construction of a plane to compete with one of thier own planes.

Although I do agree that it is one butt-ugly plane.

[Nexus]

Boeing buying a Beluga would only be "returning the favor"  ;)

See, the Beluga's "predessecor"; the Guppy was in fact a Boeing stratocruiser

Airbus transported their precious parts in a Boeing aircraft .

But I agree, Boeing would never buy a Beluga, let alone Airbus allowing them to
Times have changed

[elite marksman]

I wasn't around then, but Airbus wasn't nearly the competitor to Boeing that it is now, was it?

[Nexus]

No, over the years Airbus has grown from a minor annoyance to a major worry.
It used to be the "big three", Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas and Lockheed

But like I said, times have change, Lockheed produced their last civilian airliner in 1984 with their 250th TriStar, MDC was acquired by Boeing in 1997.