Boeing Reveals Its Cargo Loader

SpeedNews ^ | June 16, 2006

[skeptoid]

***********BOEING REVEALS ITS CARGO LOADER ********************

Boeing has unveiled the first cargo loader to be used to transport large 787 Dreamliner assemblies.

The loader, the longest in the world at 118 ft., 1 inch, was designed and built by TLD at its facility in Sherbrooke, Quebec. Boeing will use the equipment to load three specially modified 747-400s that will allow Boeing to transport major Dreamliner components by air.

"Designing and building a cargo loader of this magnitude is a unique proposition," said Scott Strode, 787 vice president of Airplane Development and Production. "A robust transportation system is essential to meeting the unprecedented customer demand for the Dreamliner, and a safe and efficient cargo loader is critical. We couldn't be more pleased with the result."

An operator seated in a cab atop the giant loader will drive the machine to the parked Large Cargo Freighter (LCF). Sensors will perfectly align it to the LCF's cargo-handling system to ensure safe loading and unloading.

The LCF fleet will ferry 787 wings and fuselage parts from partners in Wichita, KS; Charleston, SC; Grottaglie, Italy; and Nagoya, Japan, to Boeing's Everett factory for final assembly. A cargo loader will be based at each facility. The first loader, and a second to be completed this month, will be disassembled and delivered by ship to Nagoya and Grottaglie for reassembly.

Two of the three LCFs are undergoing modification at Evergreen Aviation Technologies Corp. in Taiwan. The third will follow later. The freighter will make its first flight this summer and be certified by the end of the year. The first two airplanes begin supporting 787 final assembly in 2007.

747 LCF Cargo Loader Fun Facts: Length: 118 ft., 1 inch (36 meters) Width: 27 feet, 6 inches (8.4 meters) Overall height in full "down" position: 13 ft., 9 inches (4.2 meters) Height of cargo deck in full "down" position: 5 ft., 10 inches (1.78 meters) Overall height in full "up" position: 33 ft., 1 inch (10 meters) Height of cargo deck in full "up" position: 25 ft., 4 inches (7.7 meters) Loader Weight Empty: 220,000 pounds (100 tons, 100,000 kilograms) Loader Weight Capacity: 150,000 pounds (68 tons, 680,000 kilograms) Maximum speed: 10 mph (16 kilometers) Number of tires: 32 Number of steerable axles: 16 Number of steering modes: 6

You can view the Cargo Loader at http://www.speednews.com/a/cl/

[skeptoid]

Behold:

and

From Speednews This Week:
"Sign up to receive SPEEDNEWS THIS WEEK: An essential look at the aviation industry highlights via e-mail. Sent every Friday morning."
Go to this page and scroll to the bottom to sign up!
This week there's also an article on the 380.

[sharpee]

This is a connected article that shows the modified 747 and the loader. It is one difficult engineering task


http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2005/june/ts_sf05.html

[skeptoid]

Thanks...just the thing I've been looking for!

[Paleo Conservative]

If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.

[GBA]

I'm wondering about all of the control cable, hydraulic and electronics interconnects that would allow it to swing open and closed like that, not to mention how to lock the tail to make it a solid, one piece airplane again. The loads one those locks and fasteners must be tremendous!

[Paleo Conservative]

The loads one those locks and fasteners must be tremendous!

They would be worse if the cargo bay were pressurized. The cargo bay will be heated but unpressurized.

[GarySpFc]

Isn't there a major concern with the damage which can occur to the carbon fiber components during shipping? The Boeing engineers must be very confident in the durability of these new materials.

[NonValueAdded]

[printhead]

I'm breathing a sigh of relief. As I read the article I was expecting it to say assemblies were being flown to China for final assembly.

[July 4th]

Isn't there a major concern with the damage which can occur to the carbon fiber components during shipping?

I hope not! They're going to be "shipped" thousands of times over their lifetime.

[phantomworker]

Good article. Thanks.

[Professional Engineer]

I wonder what the turning radius is? Rhode Island?

[NavyCanDo]

Your assumption may not be far off. Look at the photo on post #4. It could be used to bring body sections in from China and/or Japan for final Assembly here. That is no secret, Boeing has been talking about the possibility of flying body sections in instead of putting them on a ship like they do now for the 767 from Japan. This shipping body sections in from an outside country is a trend among the larger double isle aircraft built in Everett. Cutting the shipping and lead time is a good thing. But there is a downside – manufacturing jobs in the U.S. are going over seas as we give up work airplane section at a time just as leverage to get big orders and compete with Airbus, (which is doing the same thing).
What worries me more is the next generation of the single isle aircraft. Today the 737 single body section is built in Wichita, shipped by rail to Renton where the wings, engines, landing gear, and interiors are installed. Could the body section of whatever model that replaces the 737 ten or fifteen years down the road fit in a cargo airplane? If so Wichita may have a fight on their hands trying to keep manufacturing from going to China.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Those concerns have already been addressed on other platforms.

[poindexter]

In related news, here's Airbus' new passenger loading system:

[phantomworker]

IMO, Wichita already has a fight on their hands, in more ways than one.

[Robert A Cook PE]

I'm not sure I agree with the "difficultly" or novelty of the engineering: looks like a scaled up version of the bi-sectioned planes flying since the early B-29's were converted after WWII.

Difficult and rigorous engineering certainly.

[GBA]

I know. As a kid, I had a motorized model of the Flying Tiger cargo plane that would stop, open the tail and slide out the cargo, reverse the process and taxi away. I'm just marveling at the engineering of the swinging tail approach. Compared to the FT's plane, the 747 is larger, faster and flies higher. Impressive. I think the Guppy's design would be easier as the aerodynamic loads would force it to stay together.

[sharpee]

There was another article that mentioned that the hinge with the hydraulics was being developed in Italy. There is an AIRBUS plane used for a similar function but on that plane the hydraulics need to be disconnected to open the door. I could not find that article.

[norton]

"I wonder what the turning radius is? Rhode Island?"

WAY better than the 380.