5 ms·

It isn't experimental or unique even if it's rare. It has been done before. I'm not sure why this instance alone got such attention. Regarding the cargo hold p

It isn't experimental or unique even if it's rare. It has been done before. I'm not sure why this instance alone got such attention. Regarding the cargo hold problem, the aircraft wasn't carrying just the engine core. The 'pod' is most likely the engine nacelle itself. I wonder if the entire thing would fit through the cargo door (mere speculation). While it's true that the 747 was originally meant as a cargo carrier, most of it was meant to be loaded through the nose of the aircraft. The nose could be opened for this purpose and the cockpit was above the cargo area to accommodate this.

Sakos 4y ago
It got so much attention because it's rare. We like to read about things that seem novel and interesting. I wasn't aware the 747 had this capability until reading this article today.
hef19898 4y ago
Normaly the nose loading is done oy when absolutely necessary. It's a pain, takes ages and is complicated. When possible stuff is squeezed through the fuselage cargo doors. Back the day we did it with a ten foot sea container, never thought it would fit...
- sreevisakh 4y ago
  I agree about the nose loading part. Meanwhile, how does an engine with its nacelle compare to a marine container in terms of dimensions? Would it be easier or harder to load through the fuselage doors? I also assume that they will need a fixture or container for the engine if it was to be loaded into the cargo hold.
  - jsjohnst 4y ago
    Engine is roughly 2.25m in diameter and 5.5m in length. So it would fit through the nose cone door, even with a modest fixture/container, with room to spare.
- jsjohnst 4y ago
  > Back the day we did it with a ten foot sea container, never thought it would fit How’d you end up doing it? Roll it on its side? Usually the height of a sea going container is ~2.6m and per the specs I’m seeing online the allowed height through the nose is only ~2.49m. Because they are just taller than they are wide, spec wise it would fit laying on its side, but still curious when doing it for real if that was necessary.
  - avar 4y ago
    Presumably they're talking about a 8x8x10 container. The 747 is specced for 8x8 w/h containers.
    - jsjohnst 4y ago
      Yeah, 8’ just barely fits in via the nose. You got maybe an inch or two to spare on height. Going via the main deck side doors on a cargo style 747 would be much easier imho for a container that size. Not only can you go a full 10ft high, you’ve got around 11’ straight in width clearance.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    They maneuvered it through the side door, with four people, inch by inch, millimeter by millimeter. Working for the airport at the time I didn't touch a thing, better to have crew damage a perfectly fine aircraft. Still impressive feat of loading, almost on par with the Russians, they use the cargo door to squeeze the cargo properly in, like avergae Joe slaming his trunk.
    - jsjohnst 4y ago
      Ah, side door. That should’ve been easy then, no?
kqr 4y ago
> While it's true that the 747 was originally meant as a cargo carrier I was surprised by this so I consulted Wikipedia. Apparently when the 747 was designed they were convinced enough that passengers in the future would not want to travel subsonically, so they designed the 747 to convert to a freighter, to not have to throw the design away when it's hard to attract passengers due to the "low" 0.8 mach speeds!
- sofixa 4y ago
  In general there was a time when supersonic flight was considered the future evolution that will displace the existing tech, like jets displaced propeller aircraft. The Concorde was supposed to be the first one, and it was designed as a general use plane, it wasn't until much later British Airways and Air France thought about marketing it for business/first class "luxury" experience. For a myriad of reasons ( Boeing failing to make their own supersonic airliner which helped the US Congress banning supersonic flights over the US being one of them), we never got there though, and it seems we never will since the currently planned crop of supersonic airliners ( Boom and co) are specifically targeting the business niche.
  - jsjohnst 4y ago
    > Boeing failing to make their own supersonic airliner which helped the US Congress banning supersonic flights over the US being one of them You sure about that order? I thought supersonic domestic flights got banned in the US and then the Boeing supersonic airliner was doomed. I’m not positive, hence asking.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      Nope, government funding of Boeing's SST was cut in 1971, while the SST ban over the US was enacted in 1973. It's fairly certain that had Boeing made an SST there wouldn't have been any ban.
      - jsjohnst 4y ago
        Thanks! I only knew the oft parroted version of the story from family members who worked at Boeing. I guess the detail I didn’t immediately recall was “plane over budget” (which likely lead to the government funding you mentioned being pulled). I still believe that the biggest reason for the ban was NIMBYs though, if you’ve ever been around sonic booms you know how intrusive they are. I lived just far enough away from a military base as a kid that we happened to be near where pilots would occasionally go super sonic as part of their training. After living in California years later and experiencing multiple earthquakes, I’d say the sonic boom was about like a magnitude 6, but only lasting for a couple seconds.

Sakos 4y ago

It got so much attention because it's rare. We like to read about things that seem novel and interesting. I wasn't aware the 747 had this capability until reading this article today.

hef19898 4y ago

Normaly the nose loading is done oy when absolutely necessary. It's a pain, takes ages and is complicated. When possible stuff is squeezed through the fuselage cargo doors. Back the day we did it with a ten foot sea container, never thought it would fit...

sreevisakh 4y ago
I agree about the nose loading part. Meanwhile, how does an engine with its nacelle compare to a marine container in terms of dimensions? Would it be easier or harder to load through the fuselage doors? I also assume that they will need a fixture or container for the engine if it was to be loaded into the cargo hold.
- jsjohnst 4y ago
  Engine is roughly 2.25m in diameter and 5.5m in length. So it would fit through the nose cone door, even with a modest fixture/container, with room to spare.
jsjohnst 4y ago
> Back the day we did it with a ten foot sea container, never thought it would fit How’d you end up doing it? Roll it on its side? Usually the height of a sea going container is ~2.6m and per the specs I’m seeing online the allowed height through the nose is only ~2.49m. Because they are just taller than they are wide, spec wise it would fit laying on its side, but still curious when doing it for real if that was necessary.
- avar 4y ago
  Presumably they're talking about a 8x8x10 container. The 747 is specced for 8x8 w/h containers.
  - jsjohnst 4y ago
    Yeah, 8’ just barely fits in via the nose. You got maybe an inch or two to spare on height. Going via the main deck side doors on a cargo style 747 would be much easier imho for a container that size. Not only can you go a full 10ft high, you’ve got around 11’ straight in width clearance.
- hef19898 4y ago
  They maneuvered it through the side door, with four people, inch by inch, millimeter by millimeter. Working for the airport at the time I didn't touch a thing, better to have crew damage a perfectly fine aircraft. Still impressive feat of loading, almost on par with the Russians, they use the cargo door to squeeze the cargo properly in, like avergae Joe slaming his trunk.
  - jsjohnst 4y ago
    Ah, side door. That should’ve been easy then, no?

kqr 4y ago

> While it's true that the 747 was originally meant as a cargo carrier I was surprised by this so I consulted Wikipedia. Apparently when the 747 was designed they were convinced enough that passengers in the future would not want to travel subsonically, so they designed the 747 to convert to a freighter, to not have to throw the design away when it's hard to attract passengers due to the "low" 0.8 mach speeds!

sofixa 4y ago
In general there was a time when supersonic flight was considered the future evolution that will displace the existing tech, like jets displaced propeller aircraft. The Concorde was supposed to be the first one, and it was designed as a general use plane, it wasn't until much later British Airways and Air France thought about marketing it for business/first class "luxury" experience. For a myriad of reasons ( Boeing failing to make their own supersonic airliner which helped the US Congress banning supersonic flights over the US being one of them), we never got there though, and it seems we never will since the currently planned crop of supersonic airliners ( Boom and co) are specifically targeting the business niche.
- jsjohnst 4y ago
  > Boeing failing to make their own supersonic airliner which helped the US Congress banning supersonic flights over the US being one of them You sure about that order? I thought supersonic domestic flights got banned in the US and then the Boeing supersonic airliner was doomed. I’m not positive, hence asking.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Nope, government funding of Boeing's SST was cut in 1971, while the SST ban over the US was enacted in 1973. It's fairly certain that had Boeing made an SST there wouldn't have been any ban.
    - jsjohnst 4y ago
      Thanks! I only knew the oft parroted version of the story from family members who worked at Boeing. I guess the detail I didn’t immediately recall was “plane over budget” (which likely lead to the government funding you mentioned being pulled). I still believe that the biggest reason for the ban was NIMBYs though, if you’ve ever been around sonic booms you know how intrusive they are. I lived just far enough away from a military base as a kid that we happened to be near where pilots would occasionally go super sonic as part of their training. After living in California years later and experiencing multiple earthquakes, I’d say the sonic boom was about like a magnitude 6, but only lasting for a couple seconds.