Would you fly on this? 1200 passenger Boeing Super Clipper

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Would you fly on this? 1200 passenger Boeing Super Clipper (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 12/30/2009 3:47:52 PM EDT

Back when I was in college, one of my aeronautical engineering professors showed us this journal article written by John McMasters, which was about very large transport aircraft that could be built with existing technology.

One of the more interesting designs he he talked about was for a 1,200 passenger tri-fuselage seaplane, the "Super Clipper"

The 2 mid-wing fuselages are as big as a 747, and it would be sea-based due to the size.

Pretty interesting designs, if anyone has access to journals, I believe this is the article -

McMasters, J.H. and Kroo, I.M., ”Advanced Configurations for Very Large Transport Airplanes”, Aircraft Design, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1998, pp. 217-42.

Posted: 12/30/2009 3:51:10 PM EDT

[#1]

It would take an hour and a half to board/deboard.

Hell no.

Posted: 12/30/2009 3:52:19 PM EDT

[#2]

I'm not flying in an airplane that has mimes in it

Posted: 12/30/2009 3:52:42 PM EDT

[#3]

Where is the shooting range?

Posted: 12/30/2009 3:53:37 PM EDT

[#4]

mimes?

No.

Posted: 12/30/2009 3:54:04 PM EDT

[#5]

never happen....

Posted: 12/30/2009 3:55:03 PM EDT

[#6]

dats big

Posted: 12/30/2009 3:55:31 PM EDT

[#7]

That design has large quantities of dutch roll airsickness written all over it.

Posted: 12/30/2009 3:56:50 PM EDT

[#8]

Ditch the mimes and I would consider it.

Posted: 12/30/2009 3:57:45 PM EDT

[#9]

In this modern world that thing would be a target of opportunity like no other.
Cool engineering....fairly impractical for the average traveller.

A ballroom?
At 40,000 feet elevation?

Hopefully Obama doesnt ever learn of this or he will demand that one be built to become the 'new and improved' AF1

Posted: 12/30/2009 3:58:11 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Back when I was in college, one of my aeronautical engineering professors showed us this journal article written by John McMasters, which was about very large transport aircraft that could be built with existing technology.

One of the more interesting designs he he talked about was for a 1,200 passenger tri-fuselage seaplane, the "Super Clipper"

The 2 mid-wing fuselages are as big as a 747, and it would be sea-based due to the size.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1039/clipper1f.jpg

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3223/clipper2.jpg

Pretty interesting designs, if anyone has access to journals, I believe this is the article -
McMasters, J.H. and Kroo, I.M., ”Advanced Configurations for Very Large Transport Airplanes”, Aircraft Design, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1998, pp. 217-42.

Hydrogen/electric fans are "existing technology"? Really?

While I really like amphibous aircraft, I suspect that this airplane would have serious finacial problems. For one, how do you get 1200 passengers onto / off of such a plane without taking more time than the flight itself? I suspect boarding times of 2 hrs would be realistic. Consider the fact that people would get on, sit down, wait, wait some more, get up to go to the bathroom, get bored, check their luggage for something to entertain them...etc.

Maintainence would be another problem. Unless this plane is truly amphibious (it could roll up onto a tarmack instead of a dedicated seaplane that is always in the water) getting equipment out to the plane in order to maintain it would be difficult.

Also, what is the market for such a plane? It cannot land at inland airports, so many destinations are out of consideration.

I like unconventional designs, though. If the above questions could be answered I'd be all for it.

Posted: 12/30/2009 3:59:15 PM EDT

[#11]

[Ron White] "all the way to the scene of the biggest fucking crash in modern history" [/Ron White]

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:00:12 PM EDT

[#12]

Get rid of all the extra shit and you could fit another 1000 people in it.

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:00:36 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

I'm not flying in an airplane that has mimes in it

Wayne Newton would keep me off! That would be like landing a aircraft carrier....one big splash.

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:02:50 PM EDT

[#14]

Jogging track? Begs the question.....sooooo if you're on a treadmill IN an airplane how fast are you actually jogging?

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:07:03 PM EDT

[#15]

oh hell no

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:07:31 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Jogging track? Begs the question.....sooooo if you're on a treadmill IN an airplane how fast are you actually jogging?

If you were on a treadmill in an airplane, facing backwards, would you age slower than your fellow passengers?

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:08:08 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Back when I was in college, one of my aeronautical engineering professors showed us this journal article written by John McMasters, which was about very large transport aircraft that could be built with existing technology.
One of the more interesting designs he he talked about was for a 1,200 passenger tri-fuselage seaplane, the "Super Clipper"
The 2 mid-wing fuselages are as big as a 747, and it would be sea-based due to the size.
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1039/clipper1f.jpg
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3223/clipper2.jpg
Pretty interesting designs, if anyone has access to journals, I believe this is the article -

McMasters, J.H. and Kroo, I.M., ”Advanced Configurations for Very Large Transport Airplanes”, Aircraft Design, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1998, pp. 217-42.

Hydrogen/electric fans are "existing technology"? Really?

While I really like amphibous aircraft, I suspect that this airplane would have serious finacial problems. For one, how do you get 1200 passengers onto / off of such a plane without taking more time than the flight itself? I suspect boarding times of 2 hrs would be realistic. Consider the fact that people would get on, sit down, wait, wait some more, get up to go to the bathroom, get bored, check their luggage for something to entertain them...etc.
Maintainence would be another problem. Unless this plane is truly amphibious (it could roll up onto a tarmack instead of a dedicated seaplane that is always in the water) getting equipment out to the plane in order to maintain it would be difficult.
Also, what is the market for such a plane? It cannot land at inland airports, so many destinations are out of consideration.
I like unconventional designs, though. If the above questions could be answered I'd be all for it.

The 2nd picture was taken from a more humorous PDF overview of all the things he's written about, so take the mimes ans stuff with a grain of salt.
As for the engines, the GE 90-115B puts out 115,000 lbs of thrust, more than the 100,000 lb engines needed. Not sure why he put in the "Hydrogen/electric fans" note though, but a 100,000 lb thrust engine is existing technology.

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:08:20 PM EDT

[#18]

What with the new "rules" about no wandering around, no going to the restroom and keeping your hands visible, this aircraft won't see the light of day. It looks like it was designed for a different time..... the past.

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:11:09 PM EDT

[#19]

When I fly, I don't care too much about amenities. I just want to get from A to B, fast.

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:12:09 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

What with the new "rules" about no wandering around, no going to the restroom and keeping your hands visible, this aircraft won't see the light of day. It looks like it was designed for a different time..... the past.

I'd love to see a blended-wing (flying wing) aircraft, you could have something the same wingspan as a 747 and have tons more interior space... but people don't like being more than X feet away from a window, so not sure if we'll ever see those either.

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:15:49 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I'm not flying in an airplane that has mimes in it

+1

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:18:31 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

What with the new "rules" about no wandering around, no going to the restroom and keeping your hands visible, this aircraft won't see the light of day. It looks like it was designed for a different time..... the past.

I'd love to see a blended-wing (flying wing) aircraft, you could have something the same wingspan as a 747 and have tons more interior space... but people don't like being more than X feet away from a window, so not sure if we'll ever see those either.

Boeing has a design for that too.

I think they had something like a ceiling display to try to take care of that. The project was canned in favor of the Dreamliner I believe.

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:21:29 PM EDT

[#23]

No. Fuck no, and no way. I don't want to be that close to 1200 people. EVER

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:31:15 PM EDT

[#24]

Where the fuck would you land it?

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:33:52 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Where the fuck would you land it?

seaplane.

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:36:11 PM EDT

[#26]

That would be a terrorist magnet. No thanks...

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:37:43 PM EDT

[#27]

Yes I would, but it wouldnt be economical to operate.

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:41:55 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Yes I would, but it wouldnt be economical to operate.

Seaplanes and economical rarely go together

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:45:19 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yes I would, but it wouldnt be economical to operate.

Seaplanes and economical rarely go together

Hell, flying and economical dont go together very well.

Ask me how I know.

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:46:47 PM EDT

[#30]

Whatever happened to going from point A to point B in a few hours, in relative comfort?

What the fuck is the point of a ballroom and mimes?

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:49:15 PM EDT

[#31]

That would likely have to directly compete with ships in order to do anything profitably.

Posted: 12/30/2009 4:51:12 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Whatever happened to going from point A to point B in a few hours, in relative comfort?

What the fuck is the point of a ballroom and mimes?

Personally, I was trying to figure out the point of Wayne Newton long before this thread ever came up.

And no, I will not ride on your flying cruise ship.

_MaH

Posted: 12/30/2009 5:01:15 PM EDT

[#33]

I'd rather get there FAST.

Posted: 12/30/2009 5:04:53 PM EDT

[#34]

depends.....

Posted: 12/30/2009 5:05:22 PM EDT

[#35]

The luxury features would never be found on a production model. Airlines are out to pack 'em in, as many as possible, and still get acceptable

customer satisfaction ratings. That 1200 passenger capacity as designed would turn out to be 2400 in beast class, 200 in business class, and 50 in super luxury class.

The engines, no problem. Several engine types are in regular service now that are in the 100,000 pound plus thrust category. Such a large plane would carry very

adequate fuel reserves as well. This could easily hit any point on the globe from any other point without stopping to refuel. Its range could be around the world, easily,

and not even need to take the shortest route possible (Which is a great circle route).

Right now, the highest capacity variant of the 747 is capable of packing in 800 plus passengers. That's actually more than the Scarebus 380 in any configuration that

has yet been flown.

If a single 747 fuselage is good for 800 passengers, that design could be tweaked to top 4000 passengers if you went to full length double deck profiles on all three

fuselages. Assume 1200 each for the outboard pair and 50 percent more, or 1800, for the central pair.

Economy of scale works well for this. If you could fly a 4000 passenger plane at just HALF capacity and the passengers pay a very reasonable 500 dollars per ticket,

you're looking at a cool million in tickets per flight. Operating costs would be low per passenger mile, as here and now today, a Boeing 777 equipped with GE90

engines can achieve fuel economy of 86 passenger miles per gallon. A monster aircraft like this design would be even cheaper per passenger mile to operate,so long as Airbus didn't design it.

Posted: 12/30/2009 5:10:23 PM EDT

[#36]

A neat idea. I am wondering however that what would happen if everyone crowded into one of the highly modified 747 outriggers in flight? Will it become unstable in flight?

Posted: 12/30/2009 5:18:05 PM EDT

[#37]

I would only fly in that thing if I was allowed a blanket.

Posted: 12/30/2009 5:18:09 PM EDT

[#38]

The problem is not getting that thing to fly; I have no doubt Boeing could do it. The problem is finding a terminal big enough for it.

Posted: 12/30/2009 5:20:28 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
I'm not flying in an airplane that has mimes in it

Don't talk back. Mime is money.

Posted: 12/30/2009 5:24:04 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
The problem is not getting that thing to fly; I have no doubt Boeing could do it. The problem is finding a terminal big enough for it.

I don't doubt they could build it but how many major air terminals have docking facilities for water craft?

The only thing that plane is good for is ferrying Indians and Pakistanis to and from London.

Posted: 12/30/2009 5:24:11 PM EDT

[#41]

Uh, no.

But I would fly on something that offers a sleeper cabin.

Posted: 12/30/2009 5:27:25 PM EDT

[#42]

How long would it take to pat down that many passengers? I won't fly as it is now.

Posted: 12/30/2009 5:45:54 PM EDT

[#43]

Put me in the fuselage with hookers and blow!

Posted: 12/30/2009 5:56:52 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Jogging track? Begs the question.....sooooo if you're on a treadmill IN an airplane how fast are you actually jogging?

If you were on a treadmill in an airplane, facing backwards, would you age slower than your fellow passengers?

Is the plain flying with or against the rotation of the Earth?

Posted: 12/30/2009 6:00:19 PM EDT

[#45]

Boeing 314 Clipper? Hell fucking yes

Boeing Super Clipper? Fuck no

Posted: 12/30/2009 6:30:05 PM EDT

[#46]

The plane would have to make long, huge, very flat, very wide turns or the passengers in the outboard cabins would be really uncomfortable with the degree of banking. With that kind of arrangement, it would probably spend as much time turning as flying to the destination.