Zero chance. They have all their eggs in the 777X basket, and it's still desgined to accommodate an additional stretch to a -10X that will take it to lineball 747-8i capacity. Yes, that could be 7-10 years away but how long do you think it would take to completely rebuild a line and certify a much older, less efficient airframe to accommodate two engines (that don't yet exist on the market)? Sorry, there's more chance of a A380NEO than a Queen of the Skies comeback.
Great! You did your homework reading every single comment to understand what aviation is all about. Keep it up and best of luck monetizing. P.S.: Use more AI.
I've asked a former Boeing employee, and he was around when this was a thought, he said that "it would be worthless at this point, it's a much better idea to just invest in the 777-9 or something similar and the thrust to weight ratio would be off. Even though the GE-9X is powerful it doesn't really sit right. Again, at this point just buy the -9."
You must be an airbus lover. Boeing has been in business a lot longer than airbus. If the US government will get their finger out of their ass and release the 777X to fly remember the United States government only came use Bowie. They cannot use airbus.
If you watch this please understand that these videos about various "game changing" upgrades to existing planes or out of production planes AND are obviously AI generated are all made up. This is totally fake and much of the info included is totally made up, mixed up or just hilarious. The claim that the 747 came after the DC-10 and L-1011 and was much more efficient is totally untrue. The 747 was in service ahead of the DC-10 or L-1011 and was enough larger that it simply was not comparable in terms of efficiency with either of the smaller competitors. There is no twin engine 747 in the works or considered. The 777-X (9-10) replaces the 747, that is that. So, this is all fake, and should be flagged as such. Oh, and the RR Ultrafan is much too large to fit UNDER the wing of a 747.
There is one big thing to consider. The Boeing 747 Jet was designed and built to be a 4 engine airplane. There will need to be a number of significant design changes to the Boeing 747 to make it a 2 engine airplane. By that point the newly designed airplane might as well be given a new designation number other than 747. It is reasons like this that the B-52 bomber is being re-engined as an 8 engine airplane. It is very complex and costly to go to 4 engines on a B-52 bomber.
Everything you've pointed out is true. Where the viability question comes in is which is more economically feasible and desirable? Is it designing an entirely new aircraft or upgrading a known successful design? It's not _all_ about the plane. I submit the A-10 Thunderbolt as an example. If it works, milk it for all it's got. Also, I would like to point out that modifying the design is limited to the wings except for beefing up the wing mounts on the fuselage to handle the additional thrust (but far less weight). All things considered, I think that design change is less technically daunting than designing an entire aircraft.
The GE-9X already tested to 135,000 pounds, and will likely be certified at 125,000 pounds of thrust. So, Rolls Royce at 110,000 pounds is not the biggest.
4 engine airplanes are twice as safe as a 2 engine. At least that's how I see it. I've been on hundreds of airplanes, all the way up to the 787 and the A380, to go around the world. The only American airport I flew into, in a A380 was in New York city. The other jumbos were the C-17, C-141 and the C-5. I learned about the "Elephant" effect in a C-130, in the war zone of Iraq. That is when I found out about pulling G's. It was both negative and positive G's. Glad I had the seat belt on! I didn't think a propeller airplane could do that. 1 time we ran into trouble in a 737. It was running out of fuel, near the Himalayas. Ran into trouble trying to land at 2 places. Ended up having to go to Pakistan.
Thanks, you saved me 9 minutes. I hate these videos which try to milk your attention span so squeeze some ads. Eventually you'll realize the author actually have mostly knowledge on how to make a good title, and good thumbnail, but there is just no content.
A 747 with 2 engines is a good idea, the 777X can’t be longer then what it is. The only thing that is needed is a redesign of the wings so that the wheel wells are longer so that the taller landing gear can be used to accommodate the large engines. The newest aircraft are using engine with no bleed air, is the ultra fan designed with no bleed air ?
@@douguyehata7062 ok but the 747-8 max passenger capacity is 467 and the 777x can have up to 426 depending on the layout so not really worth the redesign to make the happen unless we're talking about the 747-8f
I hope the 747 resumes production with this engine. It can also power a future cargo planes for the military or Amazon type cargo shipping. The 747 is my first choice for this.
Very interesting thought experiment. I do think we should leave the 747 legacy as is. Don't mess with it. She will always be the Queen of the Skies for all time. Create a new airframe for this monster engine and call it 7X7 (after the 797) that resembles the 747 in some ways but very modern fly-by-wire design. I think the 747 is a a fully hydraulic driven flight controls so it wouldn't be a good idea to just slap a couple of monster engines on a rickety old airframe.
IMHO, repower with two large high bypass engines will change the center of gravity and thrust line. This is very similar to what Boeing did with the 737 update. With the 737 MAX, Boeing tried to bypass doing a clean slate redesign to get it into production quickly, and they sold it as a minor update so full recertification and pilot training was not required. We know how this has worked out. Now the Boeing space capsule has failed and the crew has to wait until next year to return on the SpaceX Dragon after compatible space suits are sent up. This tells me to trust nothing from Boeing.
The 747's that I flew on were magnificent and I think the flying public would appreciate their return. My only concern would be if the plane could still fly on a single engine? If that were the case I think it's return would make a lot of sense both performance and cost wise .....
Would a large diameter Ultra fan engine fit under the wing? Developing a new engine and testing it takes up to 10 years. The 747 first flew around 1970. The shape of the wing and body is more efficient on a new plane. Changing from aluminum to composites saves a lot on labor. Emerites airline wouldn't buy enough planes to make it worthwhile.
I have seen it in my dreams, everything I have dreamed with has become reality in the production line, from Volvo trucks to aircraft’s , time will tell if I was right or wrong!
Bowling needs to re-engine the 747. It is a beloved aircraft and should never have been taken out of service. They’re having problems so much with the 777X just re-engine the 747. It would make sense all the airlines love the 747. Don’t let airbus take overwith aircraft
Re engine means the same number of engines. If you go to 2 engines it’s a new aircraft to be certified. And the 747 is way too old to be efficient compared to a 777X or a A380. There were plans to offer an A380 neo but the market is scared of a new Covid type of constraint. Look at Emirates latest choices.
The only way to see if 2 of these new engines will work is to build a prototype from a used 747 in a twin engine configuration….. Also, I’ll believe it when I see it!
A 2 engine 747 will never work because it requires 4 engines which in total requires 66,500Lbs of thrust just to take off and if you take away 2 of it's engines and decrease the LBS of thrust, The aircraft would have to use up an entire Runway just to take off... and of course the Fuel Passengers and Luggage adds to the weight as well...
One engine needs arround 3/4 of all the 4 old ones, because of aviation rules. If one engine fails one instead of the other 3 need to be able to bring it to the sky.
Surely no engine on the market powerful enough to allow a twin engine setup at present? Even if the plane is re-engineered to be lighter I can't see this is possible.
It will need an engine with at least 150,000 pounds of thrust to be able to fly on one engine. It would never get certified for single engine service. The 747 gross weight is almost twice what a 787 is.
Please take the time to get your facts straight. The DC-10 and L1011 were not "already established." The 747 went into service more than a year and a half before the DC-10.and two years before the L1011. Channel Blocked for multiple wrong claims.
A plane is a plane, and if they decided to built it again, it would still be a 4 engine aircraft, it’s one of the first things that come to mind when we think about the Queen of the skies.
Truly, to re imtro a 747 with twin engines would be a huge task, the engineering would be considerably expensive and require a lot of new in such a plane. Might be cheaper to just do the next one, 797
It will never get certified for single engine take off as it is too heavy. The 747-8 has a take off weight of 400,000 pounds more than a 787. To fly on one engine it would need an engine of at least 200,000 pounds of thrust.
That is really strange comment what difference does the aircraft size have to do with you riding in when you are at 40000feet. Seems like a superstition rather than any logical thinking, when you have 350 to 500 passengers with 2 engines over the oceans every day without problem. I gather thus you only ever fly on an A380 nowadays or a BA146e? Oh BTW the 747 safety record is unmatched to date so a two engine version should be no less safe given same engineering standards and better engines.
It doesn't really matter what you would do. The punters will always fly on the airline that offers the cheapest prices, the punters don't really know or care how many engines it has. It is what the punters do that matters.
@coxdenton true, and the punters do not really have any interest in what the airframe is. And neither should they care about which airframe it is. If it does the job, then it does the job.
Not a chance of that happening. The cost of redesigning the wings and that the C 5 has been out of production since 1987 means the cost would not be beneficial.
possible for modifications, but no new airframes will ever be built again. IF someone wanted to waste of bunch of money, it probably could be retrofit with 2 GE9X turbofans. GE's test bed 747 has the #2 engine mount modded for GE9X testing..
Another 747 video with hope for its revival. I already posted a comment on another similar vlog that even if the development of the 2 engines for the 747 is already existing, the renovation would be a nightmare as Boeing will have to redesign the structural, electronic, instrumentation and re-wiring of the plane that it would almost mean that Boeing will have to build a new 2 engine 747 from the ground up to make it feasible. Well keep dreaming if this wish will come true.
@@craigwall9536 There was a documentary that I watch here on TH-cam about a Boeing 737 that crash in Algeria after one of it's engine failed . Another turboprop aircraft crash after one of it's two engines also failed
They are proposals from engineers to management, many of them like the md12 did not make it to production, the new engines with propellers or the electric 737 wont happen
A twin engine aircraft needs more thrust than the same aircraft with 4 engines. Look at the Airbus A330 and A340. Same fuselage, same wing and two configurations. The A330 for short and medium range and the A340 for long range. Because a big engine is good for takeoff (80% of the thrust coming from the fan) but in cruise it generates a lot of drag (less than 50% of the thrust coming from the Fan) and also an aircraft must be capable of takeoff with 1 engine off. So for a twin you need much more thrust. The 747 is way too old to be modified like that and it wouldn’t be fuel efficient compared to the competition.
the only reason I think Boeing might consider it would be to get their reputation back after the accidents their newer planes have been involved with due to their misconstruction and new features that caused crashes. Go back to a oproven product they know inside out and customers trust.
Rolls royce is making the engine because downscaling an engine is easier then upscaling one and they were already developing it for airbus because airbus wanted to upgrade the 380 before it got canceled
I don't know, but I'll bet they'd have to redesign the wings entirely, it's doubtful that a single engine pylon on an existing wing could handle the full take off thrust of one of those new engines. And with Boeings current quality issues, I'd be afraid of any redesign they made.
Actually the 747 has 3 engine mounts on each wing. The extra is for ferrying engines to repair facilities. It's between the two normally used mounts, so no redesign would be needed, only plumbing.
@@craigwall9536 I'm not saying it wouldn't have the requisite center engine mount, what I'm saying is that the current designed mounts probably wouldn't be able to handle the stress of a new engine with more than double the rated power of one single current engine. Those pylons, even if they could handle it a few times would probably start cracking from the repeated stress. The wing structure and associated mounts would need to have a full redesign.
They would have to re-design the wing and increase the size of the rudder (to start). And then they would have a ship roughly equivalent to the 777X. I love the Queen but the modifications required would make no fiscal sense. Not to mention it would have to be re-certified as a new hull and all the time that would take.
Not the rudder, the size of the vertical stabilizer would need to be increased as it is currently designed to pick up the thrust lost (50%) in one engine fails. With only two engines the vert stab would have to compensate for the loss of all power on one wing. That was 60% of the reasoning behind retaining the eight engine configuration on the BUFF. Personally I would love to see them build a two engine 747 but the economics are against it.
In the form of a 747-SP, maybe,I mean, they brought back the Ford Thunderbird auto once ,anything could happen,Boeing better concentrate on quality control, and that space tourism problem with overbooking ,air bnb yall better have insurance for this problem if you plan on setting up shop in the future.
Why? 4 pneumatic system, fully independent, 4 hyd system fully independent, forget ETOPS, 1 eng out 25% power lost, 3 ac packs, that’s the beauty of 747 Does not make any sense!
Now undertake some study and write an essay on what happened to the BOEING 747 that made the first flight to LONDON LHR. That is your homework fro this week.
Zero chance, because the airframe already exists and is awaiting certification. B-779. More passengers than the 747, two efficient engines, long haul carrier.
Nah probably not any time soon, Boeing already has so many problems on their shoulder, like the MAX issues and the 777X program, and since the 787 also is in high demand, Boeing will have to focus more on their current problems other than working on a problems that can be fixed by their current projects (777X) So maybe this might happen, but definitely not until 2050
Don’t think Boeing cares about reviving the 747 but lets see they have far to many issues like Starliner & 737 max and SLS they are in over their heads & have lost alot of talented engineers
The 747-8 couldn't be reconfigured to have Fly by Wire because that would need a new certification process. But now you think they're turning it into a twin engine aircraft. Stop spreading these nonsense.
![[DRIP] ‘Really Like You’ PREVIEW](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6KYxQ-Udrj0/mqdefault.jpg)
![TEEDEE TADA - DIAMOND NARAKORN X LEGO LYKN [Special Dance Performance]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QgtZedFeumA/mqdefault.jpg)
Zero chance. They have all their eggs in the 777X basket, and it's still desgined to accommodate an additional stretch to a -10X that will take it to lineball 747-8i capacity. Yes, that could be 7-10 years away but how long do you think it would take to completely rebuild a line and certify a much older, less efficient airframe to accommodate two engines (that don't yet exist on the market)?
Sorry, there's more chance of a A380NEO than a Queen of the Skies comeback.
Concorde was queen of the skies
Right up to the point of that pesky "turned itself into a smoking hole in the ground" Rapid Unplanned Disassembly thing.
Great! You did your homework reading every single comment to understand what aviation is all about.
Keep it up and best of luck monetizing.
P.S.: Use more AI.
@@ant2312
Not really. It was a commercial failure and just flew a small number of rich people across the Atlantic.
a380NEO not only require a lot of people the required runway is also a big issue to me 747x have the higher chance to be untilize
I've asked a former Boeing employee, and he was around when this was a thought, he said that "it would be worthless at this point, it's a much better idea to just invest in the 777-9 or something similar and the thrust to weight ratio would be off. Even though the GE-9X is powerful it doesn't really sit right. Again, at this point just buy the -9."
Bro stop that's not happening
You must be an airbus lover. Boeing has been in business a lot longer than airbus. If the US government will get their finger out of their ass and release the 777X to fly remember the United States government only came use Bowie. They cannot use airbus.
Shut up no one asked your opinion
Why
Fr
@dailydoseofvines1295 Boeing can't produce the.747 ITS NO LONGER BUILT
747 went in history and will stay there!
If you watch this please understand that these videos about various "game changing" upgrades to existing planes or out of production planes AND are obviously AI generated are all made up. This is totally fake and much of the info included is totally made up, mixed up or just hilarious. The claim that the 747 came after the DC-10 and L-1011 and was much more efficient is totally untrue. The 747 was in service ahead of the DC-10 or L-1011 and was enough larger that it simply was not comparable in terms of efficiency with either of the smaller competitors.
There is no twin engine 747 in the works or considered. The 777-X (9-10) replaces the 747, that is that. So, this is all fake, and should be flagged as such. Oh, and the RR Ultrafan is much too large to fit UNDER the wing of a 747.
There is one big thing to consider. The Boeing 747 Jet was designed and built to be a 4 engine airplane. There will need to be a number of significant design changes to the Boeing 747 to make it a 2 engine airplane. By that point the newly designed airplane might as well be given a new designation number other than 747. It is reasons like this that the B-52 bomber is being re-engined as an 8 engine airplane. It is very complex and costly to go to 4 engines on a B-52 bomber.
Everything you've pointed out is true. Where the viability question comes in is which is more economically feasible and desirable? Is it designing an entirely new aircraft or upgrading a known successful design? It's not _all_ about the plane.
I submit the A-10 Thunderbolt as an example. If it works, milk it for all it's got.
Also, I would like to point out that modifying the design is limited to the wings except for beefing up the wing mounts on the fuselage to handle the additional thrust (but far less weight).
All things considered, I think that design change is less technically daunting than designing an entire aircraft.
Very true, not to mention that 747 with two engines is very strange and ugly. It's like DC-10 without tail engine.
The re-engined B-52 will still have 8 engines.
Recycled Clickbait Trash vid.
Not really thi
@@Idklol-i3d Yes, in fact it is, "Recycled Clickbait Trash"...
The GE-9X already tested to 135,000 pounds, and will likely be certified at 125,000 pounds of thrust. So, Rolls Royce at 110,000 pounds is not the biggest.
4 engine airplanes are twice as safe as a 2 engine. At least that's how I see it. I've been on hundreds of airplanes, all the way up to the 787 and the A380, to go around the world. The only American airport I flew into, in a A380 was in New York city. The other jumbos were the C-17, C-141 and the C-5.
I learned about the "Elephant" effect in a C-130, in the war zone of Iraq. That is when I found out about pulling G's. It was both negative and positive G's. Glad I had the seat belt on! I didn't think a propeller airplane could do that. 1 time we ran into trouble in a 737. It was running out of fuel, near the Himalayas. Ran into trouble trying to land at 2 places. Ended up having to go to Pakistan.
two engines 747 = 777X
Thanks, you saved me 9 minutes.
I hate these videos which try to milk your attention span so squeeze some ads. Eventually you'll realize the author actually have mostly knowledge on how to make a good title, and good thumbnail, but there is just no content.
@@huyxiun2085 agree
Lol so true
A 747 with 2 engines is a good idea, the 777X can’t be longer then what it is. The only thing that is needed is a redesign of the wings so that the wheel wells are longer so that the taller landing gear can be used to accommodate the large engines. The newest aircraft are using engine with no bleed air, is the ultra fan designed with no bleed air ?
@@douguyehata7062 ok but the 747-8 max passenger capacity is 467 and the 777x can have up to 426 depending on the layout so not really worth the redesign to make the happen unless we're talking about the 747-8f
I hope the 747 resumes production with this engine.
It can also power a future cargo planes for the military or Amazon type cargo shipping. The 747 is my first choice for this.
Very interesting thought experiment. I do think we should leave the 747 legacy as is. Don't mess with it. She will always be the Queen of the Skies for all time. Create a new airframe for this monster engine and call it 7X7 (after the 797) that resembles the 747 in some ways but very modern fly-by-wire design. I think the 747 is a a fully hydraulic driven flight controls so it wouldn't be a good idea to just slap a couple of monster engines on a rickety old airframe.
IMHO, repower with two large high bypass engines will change the center of gravity and thrust line. This is very similar to what Boeing did with the 737 update. With the 737 MAX, Boeing tried to bypass doing a clean slate redesign to get it into production quickly, and they sold it as a minor update so full recertification and pilot training was not required. We know how this has worked out.
Now the Boeing space capsule has failed and the crew has to wait until next year to return on the SpaceX Dragon after compatible space suits are sent up. This tells me to trust nothing from Boeing.
If like having four engines. If one goes down there are three more working. If one goes down in a two engine jumbo, you are toast.
The 747's that I flew on were magnificent and I think the flying public would appreciate their return. My only concern would be if the plane could still fly on a single engine? If that were the case I think it's return would make a lot of sense both performance and cost wise .....
AI narration mispronunciation is hilarious. Blocking this channel.
lol
Same
Would a large diameter Ultra fan engine fit under the wing?
Developing a new engine and testing it takes up to 10 years.
The 747 first flew around 1970. The shape of the wing and body is more efficient on a new plane. Changing from aluminum to composites saves a lot on labor.
Emerites airline wouldn't buy enough planes to make it worthwhile.
I have seen it in my dreams, everything I have dreamed with has become reality in the production line, from Volvo trucks to aircraft’s , time will tell if I was right or wrong!
Bowling needs to re-engine the 747. It is a beloved aircraft and should never have been taken out of service. They’re having problems so much with the 777X just re-engine the 747. It would make sense all the airlines love the 747. Don’t let airbus take overwith aircraft
Nostalgia doesn't please the bean counters unfortuntately. Beautiful aircraft but relegated to the history books.
What is Bowling (besides a fun game with beer)?
@@j.heilig7239 Autocorrection of "BOEING"
They are more likely to develop a helicopter version than a twin version.
Re engine means the same number of engines. If you go to 2 engines it’s a new aircraft to be certified. And the 747 is way too old to be efficient compared to a 777X or a A380.
There were plans to offer an A380 neo but the market is scared of a new Covid type of constraint. Look at Emirates latest choices.
The only way to see if 2 of these new engines will work is to build a prototype from a used 747 in a twin engine configuration…..
Also, I’ll believe it when I see it!
A 2 engine 747 will never work because it requires 4 engines which in total requires 66,500Lbs of thrust just to take off and if you take away 2 of it's engines and decrease the LBS of thrust, The aircraft would have to use up an entire Runway just to take off... and of course the Fuel Passengers and Luggage adds to the weight as well...
One engine needs arround 3/4 of all the 4 old ones, because of aviation rules. If one engine fails one instead of the other 3 need to be able to bring it to the sky.
I will like the 747 comeback with the new engines,
DC10 n Tristar came AFTER the B747 Monsieur 😂😂😂
Surely no engine on the market powerful enough to allow a twin engine setup at present? Even if the plane is re-engineered to be lighter I can't see this is possible.
RR Ultrafan be like: Bro, you r Cooked 😂😂💀💀
It will need an engine with at least 150,000 pounds of thrust to be able to fly on one engine. It would never get certified for single engine service. The 747 gross weight is almost twice what a 787 is.
@@Chris_at_Home he talked about TWIN-Engine 💀💀💀. No Jet is safe with Single Engine
@@Chris_at_Home RR Ultrafan is nearly a 150K lbf engine.
Almost anything is possible given enough time and money. And don’t call me Shirley!
That would mean emergency operation with just one engine for an entire 747?
Please take the time to get your facts straight. The DC-10 and L1011 were not "already established." The 747 went into service more than a year and a half before the DC-10.and two years before the L1011. Channel Blocked for multiple wrong claims.
A plane is a plane, and if they decided to built it again, it would still be a 4 engine aircraft, it’s one of the first things that come to mind when we think about the Queen of the skies.
Concorde was queen of the skies
What the hell is a Boeing 700 7? 🤣
707
@@rickheaton9136 I figured that..just hate the digital commentary and the way it attempts to interpret numbers.
707
@@UBP22 I get it…I just hate these “automated” dialogues content creators use. I prefer actual voice overs VS AI generated commentary.
me when the the seven hundred seventy seven
Truly, to re imtro a 747 with twin engines would be a huge task, the engineering would be considerably expensive and require a lot of new in such a plane. Might be cheaper to just do the next one, 797
Both L1011 and DC10 flew after the 747
Yup!
Well…. Boeing scrapped all the tooling for that plane. Won’t be happening.
Would one of these engine be able to safely fly a 747 during an engine out event? That should be the question...
It will never get certified for single engine take off as it is too heavy. The 747-8 has a take off weight of 400,000 pounds more than a 787.
To fly on one engine it would need an engine of at least 200,000 pounds of thrust.
Even if this were true, given the size of the 747 & the 380, I wouldn’t fly on either plane of those types if they only had “two” engines
That is really strange comment what difference does the aircraft size have to do with you riding in when you are at 40000feet. Seems like a superstition rather than any logical thinking, when you have 350 to 500 passengers with 2 engines over the oceans every day without problem. I gather thus you only ever fly on an A380 nowadays or a BA146e? Oh BTW the 747 safety record is unmatched to date so a two engine version should be no less safe given same engineering standards and better engines.
It doesn't really matter what you would do. The punters will always fly on the airline that offers the cheapest prices, the punters don't really know or care how many engines it has. It is what the punters do that matters.
You don’t book a plane you book a flight.
@coxdenton true, and the punters do not really have any interest in what the airframe is.
And neither should they care about which airframe it is. If it does the job, then it does the job.
The new engine is destined for the Lockheed Galaxy.
Not a chance of that happening.
The cost of redesigning the wings and that the C 5 has been out of production since 1987 means the cost would not be beneficial.
possible for modifications, but no new airframes will ever be built again. IF someone wanted to waste of bunch of money, it probably could be retrofit with 2 GE9X turbofans. GE's test bed 747 has the #2 engine mount modded for GE9X testing..
With Boeing's history of 'success', no way.
Boeing ain't Going ! ! !
Wow i love boeing and airbus plane❤😂🎉😢😮😅😊
Do I think a 2-engine Boeing 747 will make a comeback? Not sure, but I'd sure like to see it happen.
Another 747 video with hope for its revival. I already posted a comment on another similar vlog that even if the development of the 2 engines for the 747 is already existing, the renovation would be a nightmare as Boeing will have to redesign the structural, electronic, instrumentation and re-wiring of the plane that it would almost mean that Boeing will have to build a new 2 engine 747 from the ground up to make it feasible. Well keep dreaming if this wish will come true.
Why two engines ?
What if one of it's engine fail
What are the ranges of the Boeing 747 ,787 and the Airbus 350
They fly just fine on one engine. Ya'll aren't pilots or you'd know this.
@@craigwall9536 There was a documentary that I watch here on TH-cam about a Boeing 737 that crash in Algeria after one of it's engine failed . Another turboprop aircraft crash after one of it's two engines also failed
But if the engines are bigger, will the 747 have the same problems as the 737 with bigger engines.
They are proposals from engineers to management, many of them like the md12 did not make it to production, the new engines with propellers or the electric 737 wont happen
A twin engine aircraft needs more thrust than the same aircraft with 4 engines. Look at the Airbus A330 and A340. Same fuselage, same wing and two configurations. The A330 for short and medium range and the A340 for long range. Because a big engine is good for takeoff (80% of the thrust coming from the fan) but in cruise it generates a lot of drag (less than 50% of the thrust coming from the Fan) and also an aircraft must be capable of takeoff with 1 engine off. So for a twin you need much more thrust.
The 747 is way too old to be modified like that and it wouldn’t be fuel efficient compared to the competition.
lol A330 is medium to long range, Virgin fly them UK- to Vegas
Okay so technically you can make it like 3 engines BUT you need a strong 2 engines and reduced the capacity to make it lighter
Bro if 747 had two engines it would not take off well at all that thing is massive it can still take off but now efficient
the only reason I think Boeing might consider it would be to get their reputation back after the accidents their newer planes have been involved with due to their misconstruction and new features that caused crashes. Go back to a oproven product they know inside out and customers trust.
I hope Beoing will resuscitate the queen of the skies! The best airplane ever built!
Rolls royce is making the engine because downscaling an engine is easier then upscaling one and they were already developing it for airbus because airbus wanted to upgrade the 380 before it got canceled
I don't know, but I'll bet they'd have to redesign the wings entirely, it's doubtful that a single engine pylon on an existing wing could handle the full take off thrust of one of those new engines. And with Boeings current quality issues, I'd be afraid of any redesign they made.
Actually the 747 has 3 engine mounts on each wing. The extra is for ferrying engines to repair facilities. It's between the two normally used mounts, so no redesign would be needed, only plumbing.
@@craigwall9536 I'm not saying it wouldn't have the requisite center engine mount, what I'm saying is that the current designed mounts probably wouldn't be able to handle the stress of a new engine with more than double the rated power of one single current engine. Those pylons, even if they could handle it a few times would probably start cracking from the repeated stress. The wing structure and associated mounts would need to have a full redesign.
5:50 Hey, it’s my screenshoot for 747twin on X-Plane 11 😇
W
They would have to re-design the wing and increase the size of the rudder (to start). And then they would have a ship roughly equivalent to the 777X. I love the Queen but the modifications required would make no fiscal sense. Not to mention it would have to be re-certified as a new hull and all the time that would take.
Not the rudder, the size of the vertical stabilizer would need to be increased as it is currently designed to pick up the thrust lost (50%) in one engine fails. With only two engines the vert stab would have to compensate for the loss of all power on one wing. That was 60% of the reasoning behind retaining the eight engine configuration on the BUFF.
Personally I would love to see them build a two engine 747 but the economics are against it.
@@denali9449 Good catch!
Yeah, right! Boeing needs to focus on their Starliner.
December 6 was my birthday and im sad that they ended boeing 747 :(
The 747 flew with 4 engines also bevause back then they didnt fly twin engines over the Atlantic or any large Ocean
In the form of a 747-SP, maybe,I mean, they brought back the Ford Thunderbird auto once ,anything could happen,Boeing better concentrate on quality control, and that space tourism problem with overbooking ,air bnb yall better have insurance for this problem if you plan on setting up shop in the future.
I bet It's Boeing will redesign it's 747 that all it's Interiors will look like 777X!
Yes
Ignore this video. There's never gonna be a two engine 747 and Boeing will never make any version of a 747 again
Why?
4 pneumatic system, fully independent, 4 hyd system fully independent, forget ETOPS,
1 eng out 25% power lost, 3 ac packs, that’s the beauty of 747
Does not make any sense!
had no idea London Heathrow was in North Carolina
Ben speculated way back, and the answer was no. The wing would have to be new, so it would cost way too much.
Now undertake some study and write an essay on what happened
to the BOEING 747 that made the first flight to LONDON LHR.
That is your homework fro this week.
Zero chance, because the airframe already exists and is awaiting certification. B-779. More passengers than the 747, two efficient engines, long haul carrier.
GE had that idea tested years ago. Its doable but why use the old airframe design?
You'd need need wings never mind necell mounts.
Interesting but modern craft need to be light and efficient. After endless patching the 737 this is rather unlikely.
cool program..
Now when an engine falls off, you're really hosed!
Nah probably not any time soon, Boeing already has so many problems on their shoulder, like the MAX issues and the 777X program, and since the 787 also is in high demand, Boeing will have to focus more on their current problems other than working on a problems that can be fixed by their current projects (777X)
So maybe this might happen, but definitely not until 2050
Give me 4 engines every day of the week.
Don’t think Boeing cares about reviving the 747 but lets see they have far to many issues like Starliner & 737 max and SLS they are in over their heads & have lost alot of talented engineers
'
yeaa boeing airplane 747 is the best top airplane in the world...
slmost simlar to C-5 galaxy
Oh… that’s what’s gonna convince me to gen onboard Boeing… them taking half of engines off.
I was not shocked. So it is everyone minus 1 and I think many more. Don't be silly.
Watched this for nothing😔
No type of engine can carry the 747 with just two of it
Here comes 747 Max 8
Seria FFFFF Formidable con dos motores muy potentes.
Boeing 777X is the 747 replacement.
No more Boeing 747.
Halfway through your program and the subject has not been approached !
747 whitout Four Engines would Not Be an 747
"747-400 Further" LOL
pie in the sky, how can it shock anyone if it does not exist ?
777-300 ER engine GE90 115B is good enough
Nonsense. No point whatsoever. There's the 777 and the A350 available.
Reported the vid for misinformation.
The 747-8 couldn't be reconfigured to have Fly by Wire because that would need a new certification process. But now you think they're turning it into a twin engine aircraft.
Stop spreading these nonsense.
not likely, since the Jigs for the B747 have been destroyed.
Is this confirmed by Boeing?
I’m schocked!
The maps are all messed up... New York is not New Orleans...
ITS a 747 MAX !!!
That's not going to happen 747 with only two engines I don't think so
Another Boeing makeshift plane instead of thinking it from the ground up.
No, we DONT have to go back to the beginning...bye
There's a reason 777 exists 💀
Rip 747😢😢😢😢😢😢
Emirates uses 777-300ER not 777X