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

Skip to comments.

Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter Rolls Out; Prepares for First Flight
Boeing Commercial News ^ | Aug. 17, 2006

Posted on 08/21/2006 11:19:34 AM PDT by skeptoid

Boeing [NYSE: BA] has rolled the first 747-400 Large Cargo Freighter (LCF) out of the hangar at Taipei's Chiang Kai-Shek International Airport. The enormous airplane is the first of three specially modified jets that will be used to transport major assemblies for the all-new Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

"This is one of the most unusual modifications Boeing has ever done," said Scott Strode, 787 vice president of Airplane Development and Production. "We've relied on the world's best talent to design and build the LCF and we can all be proud today to see it standing on the tarmac."

Ground testing is under way to prepare the LCF for its first flight. After initial flight testing in Taipei, the LCF will fly to Seattle to complete the flight test program. First flight and the ferry flight to Seattle are expected to occur by the end of August.

The modifications have been performed by Evergreen Aviation Technologies Corp. (EGAT), a joint venture of EVA Air and General Electric and a part of Taiwan's Evergreen Group. The second airplane continues to be modified and will be completed this fall. The third airplane will begin modification next year. The first two LCFs enter service in 2007 to support the final assembly of the first Dreamliners.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: 747400; 787dreamliner; boeing; lcf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: Waverunner
I told you not to save thedesign models of the shuttle main fuel tank and the 747 on the same hard drive.

ROFL--thanks for tickling my funny bone.

41 posted on 08/21/2006 2:30:55 PM PDT by yhwhsman ("Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small..." -Sir Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Super Gup was a modified B-29/B-50 conversion.
I thought it was a modified variant of the Boeing Stratocruiser/ KC-97 aircraft.
42 posted on 08/21/2006 2:32:49 PM PDT by wjcsux (I would prefer to have the German army in front of me than the French army behind me- Gen. G. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: patton

Friend of mine used to fly a carvair but only at night hauling freight.That was an ugly plane. so many analogies...


43 posted on 08/21/2006 2:37:05 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wjcsux

True: Wing and engines were B-29 for the KC-97.

KC-97 Stratotanker
The C-97 was the cargo/transport version of the B-29. Fatten the B-29's fuselage, use the same wings, tail and engines and you have a cargo plane. The prototype first flew in 1944 with the first production C-97A in 1949. Boeing also developed a practical in-flight refueling boom about the same time. Previously, the Air Force had experimented with a trailing hose technique with some success, but Boeing's boom changed the state of the art overnight.

Very soon the basic C-97 Stratofreighter became a KC-97 Stratotanker refueling bomber aircraft, usually a B-47 Stratojet. The tanker version (KC-97) was introduced in 1950 using the "flying boom" refueling system and all subsequent USAF contracts were for tankers, having the capability of serving as a heavy cargo aircraft without removing the refueling gear. After 1956, USAF KC-97s were gradually replaced by KC-135 jet tankers, but some were modified for continued use in other roles. The KC-135 jet powered aircraft, with a greater capacity, took over the tanker role along with its name, Stratotanker. The KC-97 did all the pioneering work.

How did a piston engine tanker refuel a faster jet bomber? It "tobogganed". The refueling connection would be made high up and then the bomber and tanker flew "downhill" together enabling the tanker to pick up more speed. The KC-97L had an extra jet engine mounted under both wings which gave it the added speed required for flight and takeoff. This enabled it to refuel jet bombers without tobogganing. The KC-97 carried both AVGAS and jet fuel. The AVGAS was used to power its radial Piston engines while the jet fuel was carried to power its two jet engines and to be off loaded to its receivers.

In 1964, selected aircraft were returned to tanker configuration (KC-97L) primarily for the Air National Guard. Two jet engines were added to increase speed and altitude, making the tankers more compatible with high performance jet aircraft. Although the last USAF C/KC-97 was retired in 1973, it remained in use in the AFRes and ANG until the late 70s.


44 posted on 08/21/2006 2:37:08 PM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: imahawk
Friend of mine used to fly a carvair but only at night hauling freight.That was an ugly plane. so many analogies...


yeah - Them carvairs had a sharp leading edge, and a knife-like tail though... 8<)
45 posted on 08/21/2006 2:38:14 PM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
A stratoliner modification, which was a B-29/50 developmental follow on.
Essentially same wings and empennage as the bombers, I don't remember if they used the same engines but doubt it.
Look for the indentation down the sides - it was a double decker as a PAX hauler.
(Also KC-97 tanker developed from same airframe)
46 posted on 08/21/2006 2:43:49 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Dave Barry once had the pleasure of having use of that vehicle. Of course, being the dutifull father that Dave Barry is, he insisted on picking his son up at the local junior high school.

And what dutiful father wouldn't announce his arrival to a gaggle of google-eyed youngsters over the Wiendermobile PA system, that the king of cool had arrived (and that his son would have no mistake where his Dad was.

He'd always comply with the well established customs of the cool & "in" crowd by peeling rubber, er stalling, as he pulled away.

Wienermobile

Dave says that although his son, now 25, has forgiven him, to be safe, that's why he's still in the federal witness protection program. O.K., so I made that part up about Dave burning rubber in the Wienermobile, but it did sound cool, eh?

47 posted on 08/21/2006 2:49:49 PM PDT by raygun (Whenever I see U.N. blue helmets I feel like laughing and puking at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
You'll see.

Boeing has farmed out work over the years, for various reasons. Sometimes a sale to a State-owned airline, such as China, hinges on some of the work being thrown their way.
Sometimes it's a special project, like modifications to an existing aircraft in a small quantity (the 767 tanker and the 747 large cargo aircraft are examples).
But the majority of their planes were always made in the USA, until now. The majority of the 787 will be made overseas, on the order of 70-80%. With their new transport, they can farm out large assemblies, even entire fuselage sections. I expect this trend to accelerate.

If you don't see it, you are the one who's clueless.

I laugh when I hear someone say "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!" Well, guess what? It's not Boeing.

48 posted on 08/21/2006 2:57:31 PM PDT by ZOOKER ( <== I'm with Stupid...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: skeptoid

Saw this in email last week. An impressive beast. Wonder if it will be as trick to fly as the Super-Guppy.


49 posted on 08/21/2006 3:00:36 PM PDT by Paul Ross (We cannot be for lawful ordinances and for an alien conspiracy at one and the same moment.-Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
Boeing has partnered with foreign companies for decades. It is the only way, other than the government paying for it, Boeing can afford to develop a new aircraft

Actually that would not have been the case formerly, back when the 747 was developed, for example. And it should not be the case today, but for the almost totally-subsidized AirBus "Competition", and the extortionate practices of countries playing off their "business" against Boeing and Airbus...demanding co-production contractions as part and parcel of their order...but for that, Boeing could charge as needed and tell the market countries that want co-production deals to "take a hike."

The downsizing of U.S. commercial production capacity has seriously hurt the ability of the U.S. to turn around and produce for war. I don't believe it prudent to rely for such production on nations that regard us as "the Main Enemy." I'm sure you know who I mean.

50 posted on 08/21/2006 3:08:17 PM PDT by Paul Ross (We cannot be for lawful ordinances and for an alien conspiracy at one and the same moment.-Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: skeptoid

Yup. The 2 NASA ones were at Gulfstream Aerospace in Van Nuys when I worked there in the 70's. We mostly created cargo jets out of used passenger ones.


51 posted on 08/21/2006 3:17:30 PM PDT by BobS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: skeptoid

OMG. There used to be a Super Guppy parked at the Santa Barbara airport, back in the 70s.


52 posted on 08/21/2006 3:22:17 PM PDT by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† | Iran Azadi | SONY: 5yst3m 0wn3d, N0t Y0urs | NYT:Jihadi Journal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
"Wonder if it will be as trick to fly as the Super-Guppy."

You mean like the 377SG that lifted the mains well before the nosegear on takeoff? This 1959K QuickTime video supposedly shows it. I don't know if that was typical of all T.O. weights and C.G.'s, but I've heard the Super Guppy's fuselage made a lot of lift.


53 posted on 08/21/2006 4:24:42 PM PDT by skeptoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ZOOKER; COEXERJ145
" ...guess what? It's not Boeing."

Boeing.com states on the 787 Program Fact Sheet ...

US and non-US content on the 787
Roughly 75 percent US
Roughly 25 percent non-US

I've wondered about the definition of 'content'.

54 posted on 08/21/2006 4:40:14 PM PDT by skeptoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: skeptoid
A jumbo indeed.

Any Brits out there remember the Brabazon?

55 posted on 08/21/2006 4:44:53 PM PDT by Churchillspirit (We are all foot soldiers in this War On Terror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
.......or

......CORNDOG AIRFREIGHT, maybe?

56 posted on 08/21/2006 4:47:20 PM PDT by skeptoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: skeptoid; ZOOKER; COEXERJ145

Who cares where the parts are built?

Follow the money. The name of the game is large scale system integration.


57 posted on 08/21/2006 5:20:42 PM PDT by phantomworker (Don't accuse me of your imagination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Waverunner

That is funny.


58 posted on 08/21/2006 5:22:07 PM PDT by phantomworker (Don't accuse me of your imagination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Too bad they had to paint the fuselage that unbecoming yellow for its debut picture. LOL


59 posted on 08/21/2006 5:24:06 PM PDT by phantomworker (Don't accuse me of your imagination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: phantomworker
Too bad they had to paint the fuselage that unbecoming yellow for its debut picture. LOL

It hasn't been painted yet. It's got the green protective coating that protects the aluminum during the manufacturing process.

60 posted on 08/21/2006 5:25:55 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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