Boeing 747

[Kevin Scott]

Short final after a successful first flight.


Cheers,

Kevin

[JClark]

A few of the approach and landing - the lighting was sublime

[Anthony Richards]

Just a pair of photos from her flight over Port Angeles earlier:

[Kevin Scott]

On approach flanked by Boeing Co T-33


Cheers,

Kevin

[jplphoto]

[jplphoto]

Cargolux LX-DCV:


First Korean Air Cargo - with some work yet to go:

[gfydad]

Caught Japan's "Air Force One" at LAX this morning.

[Bernardo Malfitano]

The first 747-8 getting ready for its second flight:

[Bernardo Malfitano]

Off it goes! Next up for this guy are weeks of testing out of Moses Lake and possibly some southern California locations.

[BigRedDogATL]

I am curious, did Boeing have to go through all of the same types of testing as the 747-8 when they developed the Dreamlifter or did it get special FAA permitting becaused it was based on an already tested airframe?

[f18e777]

The Dreamlifter had to go through the same type of FAA testing as any other airplane would have to go through.

[Bernardo Malfitano]

I'm pretty sure that the Dreamlifter did not require the extensive testing that the 747-8 is going through.

I'm not sure why. I think it mostly has to do with the fact that the Dreamlifter is basically a 747-400 minus the winglets and plus a big hump on the fuselage. The 747-8, on the other hand, has new engines and a mostly-new wing (and almost everything else got tweaked a little bit, judging from the "only 30% of the old 747, by weight" numbers) and it's bigger, so it will probably fly differently enough to require all these tests. It's possible that the difference also comes from how the Dreamlifter is flown only by Boeing in small numbers for a specific purpose (rather than being operated by companies making money from carrying paying customers and/or their stuff) so that could have been the cause of some regulatory exceptions. But I think it's primarily because the Dreamlifter is so close to the 400. I could be wrong, though; I've never heard anything through Boeing about Dreamlifter development or certification, so this is just an educated guess on my part.

[f18e777]

I think you need to deal with facts not fiction! The Dreamlifter is a 747-400 airframe yes. It is a totally different type of aircraft! There is a new book out called Boeing 787 Dreamliner buy Guy Norris and Mark Wagner. There is chapter devoted to the Dreamlifter the Dreamlifter had to be certified by the FAA and it took just under a year to certify the Dreamlifter about 9 months or so. It is crewed by Evergreen Aviation crewmembers not Boeing. It is allowed to carry parts for the Dreamliner and nothing else! The 747-8 is totally different than the other versions. It has a new wing longer biggest wing on a Boeing yet. It has a RAT first 747 to have a RAT. Wiring inside totally redesigned than other 747 models. Looking is one thing reading is another!

[Bernardo Malfitano]

Now that I look into it, ok, I guess this does sound pretty substantial:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q2/070604a_pr.html

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2006/november/mainfeature.pdf

(I think the reason why I thought this would be less work is because I keep hearing about all the stuff they have to do to certify the 747-8 and I never heard any of that about the LCF. I guess I just wasn't paying attention).

But I'm sure that not being certified to carry passengers must have allowed them to skip that part of the process.

[f18e777]

It was never intended to be certified to carry passengers because the hold is not pressurized!