A highly theoretical idea from NASA-Langley, 1976, was to build a freighter aircraft using two 747 fuselages. This would create an aircraft with twice the payload of the 747, but at less than twice the gross weight and less than twice the drag. Range would be improved as would fuel economy. It would of course also be a bit of a problem to land on many runways, and unloading at standard terminals might be a bit trickier.
A new wing center-section would be used to nail the two fuselages together. Four standard turbofans would be attached to the center section; the outboard wings and engines would be stock 747. The outboard wing-mounted landing gear would be deleted and replaced with gear built into the center section.
10 Responses to “Twin-body 747”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
At Mach 0.91 I don’t think that non-swept thick new wing section is going to do so well.
Still, a couple of -8s glued together with a walkway in the wing would be cool.
I would look better then the -100SP.
-G.
The top-mounted engines might present a maintenance and replacement problem.
> don’t think that non-swept thick new wing section is going to do so well.
It was to have a relatively thin laminar flow airfoil for low drag at high speed.
Wonder why they didn’t join the inner horizontal tail surface? I’d think the extra rigidity would help and there’s going to be some turbulent flow at the inside ends of those two surfaces.
Which side does the pilot ride in? 😉
I couldn’t figure out why they didn’t join the tails together either; but the Germans never did on the twin-fuselaged He-111Z either:
http://www.aviastar.org/air/germany/he-111z.php
This Boeing design bears a passing resemblance to the giant aircraft out of the movie “Things To Come”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPJsnTegGlA&NR=1
Which I think were some of the coolest sci-fi creations ever.
Remember, the bigger the control gauges, the better the aircraft.
This wasn’t Boeing’s first foray into twin-fuselaged aircraft either; in 1935 they designed the twin-fuselaged Boeing Model 320 flying boat for the Navy, but the Navy didn’t want it.
It would have been big, with a 200 foot span and a length of 116 feet, powered by six R-2600 engines.
In that case the pilots rode in a separate nacelle on the wing section joining the fuselages, like on the TTC one, and the horizontal stabilizer was between the fuselages.
How would planes like that react to buffet problems…(rough weather,air pockets,etc.?
Reasonably well. A multibody plane is sturdier than a conventional plane of the same weight. For the conventional plane, you have really long wings attached (obviously) at the center of the planform. For a multibody, the overall span might be about the same, but the dead weight of the fuselages are attached somewhere outboard of dead center; the result is effectively shorter-span wings, with consequently less moment arm at the roots when dealing with shear and whatnot.
Serious question: if it’s such a great idea, why aren’t all (large) planes built like this?
—
Chas C-Q
Because it would be wider than many runways.
[…] from Boeing aircraft at the very least). The “Twin” from 1980 was previously shown HERE. The “Spanloader” appears to be the Boeing Model 759-165A shown HERE. The […]