Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: avg_freeper; RatSlayer
In addition, my less condescending/smart-a$$ tone is probably an improvement over my last post.
47 posted on 12/01/2004 1:56:43 PM PST by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: avg_freeper

As you said, I think the GW problem is the biggest issue.

The fuel burn during climb out would definately be brutal. And it would probably need a couple of JATO bottles and using Groom Lake in winter to get off the ground.

I suspect it would also need some kind of dolly, which would fall off at take off, because I doubt the landing gear would support that much weight (or the rolling resistance would be way to high at that weight).

I did find some other specs for the 747-400ER, which also improved on your numbers, but it wasn't clear to me under what conditions those numbers were valid, so I didn't quibble with your numbers. For instance, I found a specs on the Boeing website of over 7000 nautical miles, a cargo weight of just under 200,000 lbs with a gross weight of almost 1,000,000 lbs for the 747-400ER.

So a 747-400ER can do almost 8000 statute miles and the cargo weight is about twice your estimate, so I'm getting close, but I'd still have to load it well above spec.


51 posted on 12/02/2004 10:31:25 AM PST by RatSlayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson