... all about Guppies (not the fishy kind!)

[jcf]

Then again, what about getting rid of the cargo hold altogether to accommodate some truely out-sized cargo?

That was the point of the Lockheed Flatbed:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=wgktAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1742.msg44123

[PR19_Kit]

I wonder why so few Guppies are based on high-winged aircraft? There's a few on All About Guppies but they don't seem as well thought through.

The landing gear would have to be either very long or narrow tracked to work with a high wing Guppy.

I'm trying to imagine a low winged Guppy'd Beverley............. 

[Hobbes]

Also, with a high wing you'd have to have a large load-bearing structure to connect the wing to the cargo floor. The real-life Guppies don't need that, the huge envelope around the cargo bay only needs to be strong enough to withstand aerodynamic loads.

[PR19_Kit]

I'm surely tempted to build a Whiffed psuedo-Lockheed Flatbed out of a 747-400. I've got more than one in The Loft and I'm not going to build them all RW.

[GTX]

How about a Super[sonic] Guppie:



or am I just being silly...

Regards,

Greg

[PR19_Kit]

That's do-able too!

Swing nose or swing tail? I like the latter myself.

[Weaver]

The first Concorde Guppy was probably better area-ruled though......

To my mind, the limitation with all Guppies is the infrastructure. Because you need a special elevator truck to unload stuff from the high load bed, you can only really carry stuff from one "Guppy Capable" airfield to another. This is fine on regular runs (Chester-Toulouse with Airbus wings, for example: you'd be amazed how fast they turn them around at Chester), but it limits the ability to do one-offs because you have to fly the unloading gear into the destination first and then fly it out again.

[kitnut617]

but it limits the ability to do one-offs because you have to fly the unloading gear into the destination first and then fly it out again.

Yeah, it's much easy just to go and rent an AN-124.     I've always wondered why the US prohibited civilian C-5 sales, and who do you think will operate the first civilian C-17 ?  I can see that being put to good use just about anywhere.

[Weaver]

The loading/unloading situation is the principle reason for suggesting a high-wing one with a low floor. I wonder if it would be practical to make a square or rectangular -section one (like a giant Skyvan), which would allow suitably wide-track, fuselage-mounted undercarriage. It would probably have to be unpressurised.....

[PR19_Kit]

The loading/unloading situation is the principle reason for suggesting a high-wing one with a low floor. I wonder if it would be practical to make a square or rectangular -section one (like a giant Skyvan), which would allow suitably wide-track, fuselage-mounted undercarriage. It would probably have to be unpressurised.....

Now why does that sound familiar? 

The words 'Blackburn' and 'Beverley' keep coming to mind.

[jcf]

, and who do you think will operate the first civilian C-17 ?  I can see that being put to good use just about anywhere.

Nobody. McD-D and Boeing both marketed the hell out of the civil version and got zero sales.

A semi-civil government controlled and contracted heavy lift service using C-17s is a possibility,
however I'm not going to hold  my breath.

[PR19_Kit]

The Qatar C-17(s) look like civil ones.......... 

[kitnut617]

, and who do you think will operate the first civilian C-17 ?  I can see that being put to good use just about anywhere.

Nobody. McD-D and Boeing both marketed the hell out of the civil version and got zero sales.

A semi-civil government controlled and contracted heavy lift service using C-17s is a possibility,
however I'm not going to hold  my breath.

Yet the An-124's are kept busy ---  my wife even saw one down at Marine Base Yuma earlier this year when she was on holiday.

[jcf]

The Qatar C-17(s) look like civil ones.......... 

Nope, they have one painted in Qatar Airlines livery but its a standard C-17A and operated by the Qatar Amiri flight,
in other words the military.

[jcf]

Not quite true, a British company (Heavylift something?) wanted to buy a few. The order was too insignificant to be feasable for Boeing to develop. The market got flooded with cheap Il-76s, An-12s and An-124s, and lots of questionable operaters from Ukraine/Russia/Africa with low prices. There is hardly a thing the C-17 can do, that a Russian aircraft and company can't do cheaper.

HeavyLift wants what is basically a bog standard C-17A ( slightly de-milled in some areas, the original MD-17/BC-17 had more differences)
and FAA exemptions from civil airframe certification and operating standards. Such an aircraft would not truly be a civil C-17, especially as HeavyLift
would love to have the US government foot many, if not all, of the non-reoccurring costs, despite their rosy statements as to funding
sources and market potential. Frankly, I'm not keen on subsidizing a private cargo firm and exempting them from safety requirements.