User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 5:36:15 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crownvic96: Could you do a weird 777 variant with 4 engines? I'm sure Boeing would like that cost plus shit show to keep them busy for a few years.  Before that there's at least a $10M trade study to look at doing that vs buying a used 747-8. I do BD/Capture for the military industrial complex and I approve this message.  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 5:45:26 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOoh, that could look kinda neat. Reminicent of the podded engines on a B-52. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 5:46:13 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crownvic96: Could you do a weird 777 variant with 4 engines? I'm sure Boeing would like that cost plus shit show to keep them busy for a few years. Before that there's at least a $10M trade study to look at doing that vs buying a used 747-8. I do BD/Capture for the military industrial complex and I approve this message. We'll destroy the B&P budget then turn around and tell you it would be cheaper to design a whole new airplane. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 6:19:15 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Ooh, that could look kinda neat. Reminicent of the podded engines on a B-52. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Ooh, that could look kinda neat. Reminicent of the podded engines on a B-52. it's the new B-52 F130 engines |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 6:26:38 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chokey: it's the new B-52 F130 engines That's what I figured. Pairing up engines under a 777... I suppose someone could make a Photoshop of that. If it was the stock engines that would mean an awful lot of power. I imagine they would use something smaller in this absurd scenario. Perhaps a 777 trijet? 777-11?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 6:30:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grendelsbane: It will probably go well if they don’t sub too much back to Boeing. He's got a point. I remember a while ago Airbus was having problems and people jokingly said "if it ain't boeing I'm not going". Now it's "If it's boeing I ain't going". 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 7:15:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AeroE]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Boomer: @AeroE Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Boomer: Originally Posted By crownvic96: Could you do a weird 777 variant with 4 engines? @AeroE You're looking for a low observable twin jet that cruises at 1.4 Mach. One crew plus 'puters. It'd be party if the Air Force bought A380's. Or how about dusting off one of the MDC airplanes drawn with two engines on the wings.    |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 7:58:18 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheAvatar9265ft: I disagree! 1. Why would you split Looking Glass back out from TACAMO? Now you need more planes to do the same missions. This is not the Cold War, STRATCOM is a joint command, and efficiency matters. 2. A jet has over 50% faster dash speed than a C-130J, rather important when trying to unass the blast radius of Russian/Chinese warheads targeting your NC3 base and departure corridor. They should not choose C-130J for TACAMO. They should choose a new jet to continue Looking Glass and TACAMO, and probably it could be the same airframe for the SAOC, E-4B replacement. The Navy wants out of the Looking Glass Mission. It's an Air Force mission and it should stay with the Air Force. The last thing the Navy needs is to have to have a complete new pipeline for a 747 airframe. From what I have heard is that the Air Force may take the E-6B's, divest them of the TACAMO mission gear and fly them like the old C-135's. The E-6B's are getting "used" flying the TACAMO mission. Spare parts are unavailable and most of the civilian 707-200's were bought by the USAF and used for parts when they did the -135A to 135E upgrades. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 8:07:54 PM EDT
[#9]
I'd look for low time -400's with CF6 engines. The -800 is an odd duck, which means that's probably what they'll go for.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 9:08:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: The A340 had the same demise. The airline industry would go for a single engine airliner if there was a ESOPS certification. ETOPS Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Specification or Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 10:18:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: WinstonSmith]
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: A 4 engine 777 sounds like it would be Boeing's take on the A-340. I expect the only customers would be military. It would probably take a lot of cheddar for Boeing to bother with such a thing. I suspect that it would demand a new wing, that wouldn't be cheap. You can't just hang two extra engines off a triple seven tho. Not in any reasonable fashion anyway.  ETA- to me, in my happy world, this sounds like reason to squirrel away every wrung out 747. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 10:21:08 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WinstonSmith: You can't just hang two extra engines off a triple seven tho. Not in any reasonable fashion anyway. Reasonable? In GD? There are people on this site who wanted to build and fly Project Pluto. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 10:31:16 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Reasonable? In GD? There are people on this site who wanted to build and fly Project Pluto. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 10:56:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Reasonable? In GD? There are people on this site who wanted to build and fly Project Pluto. That's fine. They aren't talking about hanging two more engines off a twinjet. That's just silly. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 11:02:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By high_order1: SNC makes a... lot of stuff. Kinda like Tandy for the secret squirrel / I don't exist crowd. We should go there and knock on the door. Maybe they will give us a tour? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By high_order1: Originally Posted By JimEN: I think they did the USSS ECM suburbans too. We should go there and knock on the door. Maybe they will give us a tour? Ask for a Pepsi. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2024 11:10:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gary123: Agree. I worked with them a bit on projects out at Palmdale/Edwards. Pretty squared-away outfit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gary123: Originally Posted By Caboose314: Good. Systems integration is something Sierra Nevada does well. It seems like a fun place to work. You get to design and build crazy shit but no one gives a fuck if the drawings are any good.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 6:28:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Houstons_Problem]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WinstonSmith: You can't just hang two extra engines off a triple seven tho. Not in any reasonable fashion anyway. ETA- to me, in my happy world, this sounds like reason to squirrel away every wrung out 747. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 1:43:41 PM EDT
[#18]
Fascinating and depressing topic for me. As a child of the cold war, I great up with SAC/B-52's/Looking Glass/Chrome Dome and so much more. Now we are evolving away from that to new platforms, great. But, this is the fucking US of A.....why is it so damn difficult to find/design/modify or build airplanes to carry out these missions? and don't get me started on Navy shipbuilding, today's USNI article is just stunning, but not new news.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 1:54:29 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NukeThemTillTheyGlow: Fascinating and depressing topic for me. As a child of the cold war, I great up with SAC/B-52's/Looking Glass/Chrome Dome and so much more. Now we are evolving away from that to new platforms, great. But, this is the fucking US of A.....why is it so damn difficult to find/design/modify or build airplanes to carry out these missions? and don't get me started on Navy shipbuilding, today's USNI article is just stunning, but not new news. Review the development of the British Nimrod in the context of its socialist society. That is a huge part of the reason. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 1:56:26 PM EDT
[#20]
No love for the 787?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 2:07:44 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AeroE: Review the development of the British Nimrod in the context of its socialist society. That is a huge part of the reason. I did a thread about the AEW Nimrod a few years ago. I think they wound up costing about a third as much as a Space Shuttle orbiter and had less computing power for their radar than a bargain model Casio wrist watch of that era. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 6:54:25 AM EDT
[#22]
https://theaviationist.com/2024/05/09/snc-buys-5-b-747-8s/ The five former Korean Air B-747-8s are likely going to be converted for the replacement of the U.S. Air Force E-4B Nightwatch “Doomsday” plane. Korean Air announced in a filing on Wednesday that it will sell five of its aircraft to U.S. aerospace firm Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC), Reuters reported. The aircraft being sold by Korean Air are Boeing 747-8s, according to a source familiar with the matter. The transaction, valued at 918 billion Korean won (approximately $674 million), aligns with Korean Air’s strategic plan to phase out older aircraft and introduce newer generation models, as stated in the airline’s filing. The sale is scheduled to be completed in September 2025. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 12:55:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Boomer:Nobody was buying them, despite Boeing keeping the program in life support for several years. The best part will be in 10 or so years when people start floating conspiracy theories that Boeing purposely killed the 747 to encourage 777 sales. See the existing retardation about the discontinuation of the 757. 
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
