Talk:Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Boeing 747-400 Dreamlifter

I don't quite understnad why this artcle has to have the "-400" in the name. I saw that it was moved to Boeing 747 Dreamlifter first, and I think that is a good, shorter name for the page. In fact, nowhere in the link that was given [1] is the aircraft called the Boeing 747-400 Dreamlifter. The headline refers to the old name as the 747 Large Cargo Freighter, while the text calls it the 747-400 Large Cargo Freighter. If the campany can call the aircraft by a shorter name, can't we? In addition, there is not likely to be another version of the 747 converted by Boeing like the Dreamlifter that would not be covered on this page, whlie a conversion by someone else, even using a -400, would probably have its own page. - BillCJ 04:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that I am a little unsure about the title, myself. I will leave this up for discussion. I think, though, that we should wait a few days after some more press articles about the name change surface. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning on waiting. We'll see what happens. I'm not going to try to move it on my own without a consensus. - BillCJ 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) ( Well, it looks like someone else did. - BillCJ 08:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the "Scott Carson" Link is broken. It comes up as a football player.


We (Boeing) are actually building 4 now.

After all, this thing is a modified 744. So it's not strange for numero-centric people to call it by its full designation. But according to a June press release by Boeing, the FAA has certified this behemoth under its new name for new service by Evergreen. Also in a February press release, Boeing PR mentions it as the "747-400 Dreamlifter". The fact that these things are being used to transport parts for the new 787 adds to its notability, and therefore we should use the word "Dreamlifter" somewhere in the title. I for one like the short Boeing 747 Dreamlifter. -- Emana 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cargo loader specs

I'm removing the specs for the LCF DBL-100 Cargo loader. This is ground hardware. I did add a couple sentences on it to the history section, since it is relevant to the LCF. -Fnlayson 17:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] KBIL Testing

They just had one of these big boys up here in Billings, Montana doing touch and goes, a friend grabbed some video footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kXexBmNqZc

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:070112a 2 lg.jpg

Image:070112a 2 lg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel efficiency

The new B787 is being touted as being "green" by Boeing because of its carbon fiber parts and new engines, but they are also using this mammoth (the Dreamlifter) to carry most of its parts. I am sure that the Dreamlifter is a gas guzzler compared to a 744 (dry weight of course), but what we don't know is how much fuel total will be used to build one 787. For Boeing's sake, I hope they do some positive campaigning to explain how flying whole fuselages ultimately makes things "greener". -- Emana 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • A few trips by the 747 LCF does not compare to a lifetime of trips by a 787. Besides that, it would take a fair amount of energy to move the same parts by train or other means. -Fnlayson 19:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Concur. In addition, Airbus uses its Belugas for the same purpose, so Boeing is not alone in the practice. Also, tha LCF is not modifed to allow it to carry more weight, but is merly larger to carry outsize cargo, just as is the Beluga. I sincerely doubt the LCF will use that much more fuel on a given trip than a regular 744, and may even weigh less on these trips than the max gross weight for 747 freighters. So please, go spend your time asking Algore not to fly on private jets to to speaking engagements where he tells people not to drive SUVs. :) - BillCJ 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You two are probably right. With the rising cost of fuel, Boeing probably thought this out very carefully when balancing the cost of fuel and the cost of parts, where the lower cost actually meant a greener solution. -- Emana 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel capacity

I guess the Dreamlifter lacks at least of the tail trim tank compared to 744, right? 84.173.230.75 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • DreamLifter has reduced outboard reserve fuel tank & without 3,300 gallon tail fuel tank. --71.227.145.175 23:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Actual Models of Airplanes

I have been doing some research and I have found that the LCF are not all the same model (or "dash" number) of air craft but only in the 400 series of aircraft. This can be verify on the following pages:

As this is the case I think the page should be changed to indicate that the LCF are only -400 series aircraft. Also, I think that cites should be made to the links above. (I didn't want to update the page untill there was some discussion on what you though about this information?)

As for it being green it is. I think you should consider the other options Boeing had. Boeing could have shipped the parts over the ocean. The currently regularly scheduled ships that travel the ocean are container ships that hold ISO containers. A "Dreamliner" hull or wing will not fit into one of these standard ISO containers. The size of the Assemblies being transported effectively removed the possibility of transporting the assemblies through any standard means. This in turn meant that that Boeing would have to purchase ships or contract for individual use of ships as required. The advantage of regularly scheduled freight is that the cost and environmental impact of the trip is spread across a large amount of products and vendors. As Boeing has embraced lean manufacturing (which includes just in time delivery) shipping more than two hulls or four wings at a time is most likely out of the question (shipping more than this can create Cash flow or liquidity problems.) Remember, a Carbon fiber wing or hull is extremely light. Ships are made to carry heavy bulky loads. The wings and the hull are only mildly bulky. This would mean that a large heavy ship would be spending great amounts of fuel to carry light loads across the ocean (think of all the water that must be displaced by the ship). If you were to calculate the environmental impact of both modes of transportation as a function of the fuel used per pound of cargo carried I am perty shure you would find that it is less for the airplane than it is for the ship. Also, the speed of the delivery time is also inline with the [lean manufacturing]] principles. (No I do not work for Boeing, I am a Manufacturing Engineer. I figure things like this out every day.)

Ctempleton3 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea whether it's greener to transport by air or by ship, though your arguments for air sound plausible. Ultimately, I don't think it really matters. Transporting the parts by air means only a small number of flights (three? -- one for each wing and one for the fuselage?) for each Dreamliner that's built and this is totally insignificant compared to the thousands of flights that the completed plane will make. Dricherby (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The fuselage sections require multiple trips. They are not assembled until they get to the factory in the Seattle area. Those are all -400s and are basically the same dash mumber. The last two digits are customer codes. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number Built

We seem yo have a discrepancy about how many are currently built/in service. In the information box it says there are 4 built as of February 2008. But in the Development it states that as of February 2008 3 are complete and operational, while 1 is near completion. Now I could fly over to Paine Field right now but i really don"t want to, nor do i think all of them would be there right now. So does anyone know the correct number of Operational Dreamlifters? Lets get this fixed shall we? (RC43 (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Uncorroborated Facts

I am concerned about the following text from the page:

It is much more economical for Boeing to buy used 747s and convert them than to construct these planes from scratch. The LCF is not a Boeing production model and will not be sold to any customers or see any airliner operation, and will be for Boeing's exclusive use. Another reason for modifying existing planes is the minimal regulation and flight testing required by authorities such as the Federal Aviation Administration. If the 747 LCF were produced entirely within Boeing, it would face years of development and testing in the same manner as the upcoming Boeing 747-8. Rules on airworthiness allow for the faster approval of modifications to existing aircraft that are already approved than would be the case for the approval of brand new aircraft designs.

I am concerned without proper citing this is not Neutral point of view|NPOV that Wikipedia requires. I have tried to search for data to back this claim up but have been unable to find them. Can we look into finding information to back this up or come to a consensus to remove it from the page.

Ctempleton3 (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


How is it not neutral? It doesn't really state an opinion about whether or not this is a GOOD situation- it merely states some facts. Namely, that Boeing will save money (this is a verifiable fact) by buying used aircraft; that it's not a production aircraft from the company; that modifying a plane has fewer regulatory issues than if they'd built it as an all-new model; and that it's quicker to get the plane into service this way than if they'd built it as an all-new model.
It seems to me that there isn't a POV problem with this section. It's not as though the author said "this situation points out that the rules suck". That would be a conclusion drawn FROM the facts. Instead, it merely states some facts. They are verifiable and probably should have some references to back it up, but by the same token so should anyone who wants to delete the material.
Instead, it seems to me that the material should have one of the "unverified" tags on it, not one about neutral POV. As such, I have changed the tag to "citation needed".
Enumclaw (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok that sounds like a better way to handle it.
Ctempleton3 (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)