C-5 / B747

[elmayerle]

I'd be willing to wager, though, that a lot of the same R&D that supported Being's C-X entry also supported the 747.  By nature of their different roles, though, I'd definitely agree that each does represent a clean-sheet design.

[kitnut617]

I would like to find out if there is any three-view drawings of the Boeing 747 in it's guise as the competitor to the C-5 Galaxy.  We all know that the 747 offering lost the competition, but what did it look like?  Did it use the same wing?  What was the undercarriage arrangement?

I've read that it had a high wing, not as we know the 747 today.  I think this would be a nice conversion to do someday if I can find some decent drawings of it.

AAAAHHHH!!!!  RUN AWAY!  Contrary to *MUCH* misinformation and popular belief, the 747 DID NOT stem from the Boeing C-X entry!  Trust me on this.  My ex-wife's uncle is Joe Sutter, father of the 747, and he has assured that the 747 was a totally, 100% clean sheet of paper.  Boeing submitted a design for the C-X competition, but when Lockheed won the competition, Boeing started COMPETELY FROM SCRATCH designing the 747 as a passenger aircraft from day one.

Sorry, now I feel better..

J

Hi Jennings,

I was just trying to find out what it did actually look like, as I said I've read somewhere it had a high set wing and from this I know it wasn't what the 747 is today.  Would you have any information that might clear this up or some three views of what was offered.

Cheers,  Robert

[Ollie]

Gee, did you had to yell to feel better?

 

[Archibald]

In every case, and as promised to you kitnut, here's the answer fom secret projects.
Here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...msg1426#msg1426

And here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...php?topic=523.0

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...tach=1984;image

Cheers  

[kitnut617]

In every case, and as promised to you kitnut, here's the answer fom secret projects.
Here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...msg1426#msg1426

And here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...php?topic=523.0

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...tach=1984;image

Cheers

Well done Arch,  I think I'm going to sign up over there and have a browse around.  Evan also came up with that link and while reading some of the text I suddenly realized where I had seen the references to the Boeing entry.  I have the book it mentions.  What a bonehead I am, I had forgotten I had the book.

Unfortunately, I can't get to it right now though, it's packed away and in storage.

buddy.

Robert

[Jennings]

I'd be willing to wager, though, that a lot of the same R&D that supported Being's C-X entry also supported the 747.  By nature of their different roles, though, I'd definitely agree that each does represent a clean-sheet design.

Nope.   The Boeing C-X entry was a proposal only.  No engineering (actual design) had gone into it.  It was purely an artist's conception and a bunch of numbers.  No actual design work had been done at all.

J

[Archibald]

In every case, and as promised to you kitnut, here's the answer fom secret projects.
Here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...msg1426#msg1426

And here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...php?topic=523.0

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...tach=1984;image

Cheers

Well done Arch,  I think I'm going to sign up over there and have a browse around.  Evan also came up with that link and while reading some of the text I suddenly realized where I had seen the references to the Boeing entry.  I have the book it mentions.  What a bonehead I am, I had forgotten I had the book.

Unfortunately, I can't get to it right now though, it's packed away and in storage.

buddy.

Robert

Aparently this forum is not very old, it date back from last January... administrator is Overscan which is also member of this forum... Tons of interesting stuff there, and some brilliant people.    

[kitnut617]

I was studying the Boeing XC-X over the weekend and it would seem that the original thoughts for it, would have given it a variation of the B-52 wing.  It's got the same shape and it's only 20 feet or so wider where some of that could be soaked up by the fuselage width.

The inboard engines seem to be positioned where the B-52's bomb pylons are and the outer engines, where the B-52's inner engines are.  I don't know, perhaps Jennings could comment?

I think if I could get hold of a 747-400 kit and blend some B-52 wings behind the upper deck, it would come close to whats in the pictures.

Robert

[kitnut617]

I stopped by the LMS today and saw they had one of those new Revell 1/144 scale B-52H's so I grabbed it and an Airfix 747 in the same scale.  I thought I would knock up a Boeing XC-X in 1/144th before committing to 1/72 and see what is involved.

Well, big discovery, while the B-52 wing has the right shape it's nowhere near what is needed for the XC-X.  I did some quick scaling and measuring and found that in the picture of the XC-X that the scaled measurment at the root of the wing for 1/72 is about 6-11/16 inches.  My 1/72 B-52 only measures at 5-1/2 inches although the span is nearly right.

So I started to play with the 747 wing and offered it up to the fuselage to see if it was what is needed when I realised that the plan form of the wing at the root is too long, but if I drew a line on the wing which was an extension of the trailing edge of the outer wing panels back to the root and then measured it, I got 6-11/16 inches, (3-5/16 in 1/144).  Now I know that the wing on the 747 was originally envisioned for the XC-X or something very close to it.  The engines though are postitioned much closer to the fuselage on the XC-X.

I think once that has been sorted out all that has to be done is raise the rear fuselage a bit to give it the step you can see in the picture Archie has posted here.

Robert

[Archibald]

Kitnut, I'll watch your progresses on these projects with much interest.

You made subscale models before building the full-scale thing? Hell, that the way many aeronautics firms follow (remember the Arrow subscales models on the Nike SAMs over lake Ontario... ? )

[kitnut617]

Kitnut, I'll watch your progresses on these projects with much interest.

I'll keep you up-to-date as I go along.  I really want to do this one in 1/72 too.  

In the drawing you posted Archie, the position of the wheels and where they fold away is a bit ambiguous.  I think this was something more or less pulled out of the hat (as Jennings said, just a few sketches and numbers being crunched).  For starters there's only 12 main wheels, (the Lockheed C-5 has 24) and there's nowhere for them to go.

I'm going to study my 1/72 C-17 I've got, the wheel groups on that have three wheels to each leg, maybe if these were used on the XC-X only have three or four groups down each side and the sponsons on the C-17 (they come seperate in the kit) would also work for the XC-X, I'll just have to elongate them.

Hmm!  this seems to be coming together.

Robert

[Archibald]

Ok! Let's the madness start...  :f16:  

[elmayerle]

Kitnut, when you're looking at that drawing, think of the rotations involved in the B-52 gear retraction sequence.  I can visualize at least one way the three double-wheel bogies on each side would retract to work with the under-fuselage contours shown, but it'd make for some high-drag conditions during the retraction.

[kitnut617]

Kitnut, when you're looking at that drawing, think of the rotations involved in the B-52 gear retraction sequence.  I can visualize at least one way the three double-wheel bogies on each side would retract to work with the under-fuselage contours shown, but it'd make for some high-drag conditions during the retraction.

Hi Evan,

Yes I see what you mean.  I'm going to hook out one of my B-52 kits and have a look at the parts for the undercarriage, I'll get a better idea what it does and how it works, IIRC the wheels when folded away are set at a 45 degree angle or something like that, that would fit into the area shown on the sides where it is flat.

The 1/72 scale drawings that came with my C-17 kit has some very detailed 3-views of the C-17's undercarriage and even though these would work very well on the XC-X, I realized that I had made a blunder, the C-17 is a Macdonnell Douglas aircraft, not a Boeing.  MD had their own offering to XC-X competition didn't they.

Do you think though that 12 main wheels would have been enough, considering the Galaxy has 24.

Robert

[kitnut617]

So I'm looking for photos of the B-52 undercarriage sequence as suggested by Evan on Airliners.net (and finding loads to look at BTW) and I came across this photo:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1070...=1064789&size=L


Has anyone seen this in the Bond movie and if so, which one is it because I've never seen it before.

Robert

Edit:  I guess this is the answer:

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...6lr%3D%26sa%3DG