Boeing 747X - The New Large Airplane Proposed By Boeing But Never Built

Link to Boeing 747, Queen of the Skies for 50 Years by Lorenzo Valentina.
www.amazon.com...
Two decks down the length of the plane, and carrying over 650 passengers, this 1990s proposed version of the Boeing 747x would not only be the biggest passenger aircraft flying in the sky, but it would put crush the efforts by Airbus to build their own double-decker forever.
But the 747x would never actually be built by Boeing, with its legend powering rumors about the next Boeing new large airplane for generations to come. We will look over what the New Large Aeroplane was, the other designed Boeing came up with, and why it was NEVER BUILT.
Boeing had dreamed of building a pure double-deck aircraft as far back as 1965. Designers at the time repeatedly ran into issues such as. where to place exists, how to service the plane with 1970s airports, and even how to load the bags on board. Boeing designer Joe Sutter, said that the double-decker 747 was a "a clumsy airplane" that was "short and stubby".
Boeing would go with a single deck 747, with the cockpit located in a hump, on a second level, only because it would allow a front cargo door for future freighter conversions. After all, the future of air travel surely belonged to the world of supersonic jets like the Concorde.
In 1993 that Boeing would revisit the double-deck design concept. They saw not only Airbus and rival MD working on double-deckers. Boeing predicted that this market would need 2,500 airlines with more than 350 seats between 1990 and 2005, its 747-400 had got a staggering 382 orders in five years, 130 of them in 1990.
There would be three different programs to create a new large airplane and a successor to the Boeing 747, the VLCT(Very Large Commercial Transport), The N650, and LAPD (Large Aircraft Product Development).
The first project would be a joint effort across the Atlantic. Detailed studies of the 500-seat plus market showed demand for between 400 and 500 aircraft, not really enough to justify billions in development for one company.
To bring this VLCT to the market Boeing was looking at working with a European partner, like Airbus. They butted heads on aircraft design philosophy, such as the cockpit fly by wire debate.
The next program, the N650, was started in 1991. It could carry 650 passengers with 18 seats across in economy! It would look very similar to what would become the Airbus A380.
The last program, LAPD, is possibly the most bizarre and truly deserves its own video. It was a long single deck monster plane dubbed the 763-241, based on the C-17.
The design they came up with had 69-foot-tall T-tail, a 262-foot span and a length of more than 250 feet. It would carry 450 passengers, and have sleeping berths above the seating cabin! However, the concept had structural issues and was too big.
With the Boeing 747-400 being its best seller yet, Boeing wanted to upgrade 747 platform and avoid the new design. Boeing reevaluated the passenger requirements to 450 to 650 seater.
They were the 747-500X -600X and -700x. they would use the cutting edge tech of the Boeing 777 and have a new cockpit.
The 747-500X concept featured a fuselage length of 18 ft (5.5 m) to 250 ft (76.2 m) long, and the aircraft was to carry 462 passengers over a range up to 8,700 nautical miles (10,000 mi, 16,100 km).
The 747-600X concept featured a stretch to 279 ft (85 m) with seating for 548 passengers, a range of up to 7,700 nmi (8,900 mi, 14,300 km).
A third study concept, the 747-700X, would have combined the wing of the 747-600X with a widened fuselage, to carry 650 passengers to a range as a 747-400.
But using all this new 777 technology proved a big gamble. The next tech doubled the cost of the 747x to $5 Billion US, and also made it no longer share a commonality with previously Boeing 747s. lastly, airlines knew about the Airbus A3XX program in the works.
In 2000, and Boeing reworked the -400 series into the 747x.
The 747X aircraft was to carry 430 passengers over ranges of up to 8,700 nmi (10,000 mi, 16,100 km). The 747X Stretch would be extended to 263 ft (80.2 m) long, allowing it to carry 500 passengers over ranges of up to 7,800 nmi (9,000 mi, 14,500 km). Freighter versions of the 747X and 747X Stretch were also studied.
But Boeing went for more outlandish concepts like the Boeing Sonic Cruiser.
From here, Boeing would focus on its twin-jet business like the 777 and 787. They did propose the 747-400XQLR (Quiet Long Range) which had an increased range of 8,056 nmi (14,920 km).
All of this research was put together for a final design of the Boeing 747 in 2004, based on the 787 technology and called the 747-8.
Was the Boeing 747X and New Large Aeroplane project was simply a ruse to get Airbus to commit to the A380 program. No, It cost Boeing too much.
At the end of the day, airlines wanted a plane that matched the RANGE of the 747, but not the capacity.

[@paulalexander9445]

I recall as a child going to Everett around 1975 or so. On the tour there were pictures of what future versions Boeing was considering for the 747. Many of them featured longer upper decks, one going the full length of the fuselage. I was always disappointed that Boeing never went with any of those concepts.

[@brianb8516]

I bet Boeing weren't disappointed though.

[@mefarmer46]

They didn’t design the 747 as a passenger plane. The cockpit wasn’t for cargo conversions, it just was a cargo airplane. It was made for a competition for the US militairy to get a new big cargo plane. The C-5 galaxy won and is also still in service today after which Pan Am ordered a few 747’s demanding that the hump would be turned into a special room for first and buisiness class passengers.

[@Flies2FLL]

That's why Boeing built 747-400 freighters have the short upper deck. Converted passenger -400's have to have the floor of the upper deck strengthened to keep freight from penetrating upward during heavy turbulence. This adds a lot of weight but no more freight capacity.

[@mefarmer46]

@@Flies2FLL Yes.

[@RedLP5000S]

No. Juan Trippe of Pan Am worked with Boeing to specifically design a jumbo passenger jet that could easily be converted to a freighter. That's how the 747 came to be.

[@mefarmer46]

@@RedLP5000S That’s not what I learned.

[@trevorhart545]

YES! and it lost out to the Lockheed C5 Galaxy! The better aircraft won. Why not convert Galaxy Aircraft to carry passengers commercially rather than carry on with a "Second Best" aircraft? Oh yes Diversion from killing hundreds with the 737 Max, designed to crash!

[@Whitehousebeetle]

The KLM 747 PH-BFB featured here is preserved as a hotel annex in Corendon Air colors near Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. At retirement she was the oldest flying 747-400. She was flown to Rome as a KLM jet and returned as a Corendon jet for the first and only time. Alfter landing in Amsterdam she was towed to her last resting place.

[@janbuyck1]

I think a mistake is made here. The cockpit was not designed in a hump for ‘ future ‘ cargo applications. The 747 was originally designed as a competitor for the C5 Galaxy in a race to gain the contract for a new long range freighterplane for the US Air Force and the raised cockpit was designed to allow the nose section to open to allow easy acces for the cargo and vehicles ( rapid deployment ) . Like we all know, the C5 got the contract. So Boeing decided to recycle the design into a civilian passenger airplane and the B747 was born. ;-)

[@wiryantirta]

LH: I won hahaha! Boeing several years later: Yes but how many C5s did you sell hmmm?

[@Claro1993]

In fact, the opposite happened for Lockheed as well, it had a civilian designation L-500.

[@simonm1447]

@@Claro1993 there's also a civilian version for the C-130, for the A 400M and for the C 295. However, only few civil C-130s were sold and none A400m or C295. Military cargo aircraft are designed for military purposes, not for efficiency, so they are versatile for military use but inferior when they have to compete with airliners in the cargo market, as long as the destinations offer proper runways

[@davidhoffman1278]

1st Boeing attempt to sell its high wing C-X to the airlines: Are you nuts? If we ditch then the fuselage is underwater and all the passengers drown. 2nd attempt with a mid-wing version of Boeing C-5X: So now only half the passengers drown? 3rd Attempt with low wing version: Looks nice, not as much drowning, but how fast did you say passengers would going down the upper deck evacuation slides? Okay that's too dangerous an evacuation from the upper deck, so no regular upper deck seating, but keep the upper flight deck and nose door arrangements.

[@ddegn]

I thought a big reason for the hump was for crew safety when flying cargo missions. Being up in the hump, the crew wouldn't be crushed by the cargo in a hard landing.

[@AaronShenghao]

4:20 it’s not a joke 747-400D is a domestic version (with no winglets) only fly short 2-3 hour route within Japan to compete with Shinkansen bullet train. Japanese airlines used to often fly 747s on the lucrative Tokyo-Osaka route. Chinese does that too. Air China Beijing-Shanghai route still often flown by 747-8 if not a 787

[@noneofyourbuisness7]

It’s sad enough seeing so many airlines sell off their 747s and A380s. These jumbo jets are a dying breed.

[@thomascote9781]

Quadjets will return when more efficient hybrid engines are developed, mark my words. Demand will return and bigger jets will be required at some point

[@thomascote9781]

@Akai Shigunaru I guess it all depends how demand/efficiency improves in the coming years.

[@beckiverson1531]

A

[@bohemoth1]

Just purchased a 747 800 for customization to a VVIP.

[@davidcastle8234]

Very sad indeed , I'm gonna miss them dearly at FAOR ............. the way they rumble like thunder during night takeoffs....... ☹

[@s.z.x.01]

Oh well, aircrafts were never built always because of one reason: they won’t sell

[@WayneLynch69]

My cousin is employed by Boeing (34 years). He said they feinted building the double-deck plane because they were sick of Airbus knocking off their '57, '67, '77, so they said 'here ya go fools'. Not that it matters to a government owned, profit optional "company".

[@MasterSanders]

I miss the old school Boeing house livery.

[@paulshepherd1348]

I never even made it on any 747... it was a bucket list I had planned to fulfill just before covid... sadly I am unlikely to ever to fulfill it now. Very sad. Farewell Queen of the skies.

[@mylespsp]

Fly Korean airlines, I’m on the same mission

[@lindsaypickett6146]

I love your videos!! So cool! I particularly love this one! Big beautiful four engine long haulers! Sweet!!

[@fabrealain579]

747 magnifique meilleur avion du monde

[@giraudy221]

I’m pretty happy these were never built, it would be such a shame to watch them die out

[@dbfry1449]

I'm just waiting for the double decker 737. ;-)

[@sharonbraselton4302]

ñe too

[@riliryrimaddyvia9630]

If this ever did became reality,boeing would of probally stopped the 747 lineup there as why would airlines need a bigger jet?

[@bocahdongo7769]

Boeing 747 passenger version is already stopped the production

[@thomascote9781]

@@bocahdongo7769 He's implying that if we lived in a world where air travel demand was still largely high enough to support big quad jets and their operational costs, Boeing would've been smart to cancel the current 747 lineup in favor of this bigger jet

[@droppingemstv4283]

So basically in a Emirates universe

[@fakebot1556]

when the A380 came out the 747 was the peasant of the skies

[@ethansaviation2672]

Not at all, the a380 was the ugly sister.

[@fakebot1556]

@@ethansaviation2672 i liek airbus more so boeings are ugly

[@yoyoyoyoshua]

@@fakebot1556 Airbus's are ugly especially the A380 and Beluga.

[@ihatefurries194]

@@yoyoyoyoshua howe der yer

[@farbodafrassiabi9255]

it always bugs me how the intro is plain and explained but the name is found and explained

[@the4fibs832]

Maybe he's in the process of rebranding?

[@FoundAndExplained]

It’s a tricky questions for sure

[@damoncarr6779]

The idea at the time made the most sense since most of the engineering was already done. However as of today there are rumors that Boeing is considering building it next year (2024, or 2025), as there has been a resurgence in interest from customers in the 747-8

[@justjustin7060]

4:48 It's things like these that make me love these videos For the people who don't know what I'm talking about: he called "antonov" "anatov" in some earlier videos

[@FoundAndExplained]

Haha yes! Lots of inside jokes :)

[@abrahamreyesdelamora4052]

from my point of view it was very silly not to have built it, they were close to completing the two decks, for example in the 747-800 that its deck almost reached the middle of the lower deck nothing would have cost them to extend it more

[@from_unknown8895]

Omg I see Philippines Airlines🇵🇭. 😲😲 Watching from Philippines 🇵🇭🇵🇭

[@TheSwanlake2009]

wow, i like this!! But i like the giant wing concept more. Lets go to the future!

[@canadianragin]

You read out the line “air travel growth was growing rapidly,” and didn’t think to yourself that it might be time to edit the script?

[@FoundAndExplained]

nice catch!

[@presidentluigi7174]

Was

[@sausagesmcgee7079]

he's a Russell Coight fan ;-)

[@machupikachu1085]

Yeah, your KZbin video on the 747 programs is much better!

[@Leviathan-me5qd]

Growing 2X

[@matthewslee910]

This one was a whole lot of fun to watch In fact, I'm definitely giving it a 10/10 for sure. That is how good this video was. I've been waiting for this moment since I first brought up my idea. I'm really proud of you for making this happen, my good sir. ;) And I can't wait to see more from you in the future. ^_^

[@FoundAndExplained]

Thank you sir!

[@matthewslee910]

@@FoundAndExplained No problem, my man, no problem at all. ;)

[@MyEmpire91]

I could not believe what I saw, but then I saw it!

[@stacky512a]

beautiful model

[@faisalsaeed7303]

If the 747x got built it will make Airbus abandoned

[@CausticLemons7]

4:00 Can we get a video discussing the various positions of fly-by-wire in aircraft? Thanks for all you do!

[@kaiserammar3720]

You know what, the one that hit me all of a sudden was the picture of Malaysia Airlines 777. It remembered me about the MH370 & 17 tragedies that eventually lead the MAS to let go all their 777s.

[@FoundAndExplained]

:(

[@fracturedmind8124]

At 9:32 that’s MRD, the 777 that was shot down as MH17 :(

[@kaiserammar3720]

@@fracturedmind8124 owh no, i just realised that :( now thats even more sad

[@visionist7]

Some of Malaysian's high-ups considered the 777s "cursed" after MH17 and were very eager to sell them according to internal memorandums.

[@portuguesnomundo]

Nice video

[@Jeff-ej4wp]

Big airplanes only work in hub and spoke system. The world moved to smaller planes with more direct point to point connections which saves passenger's time. Who wants to fly on a massive airplane that takes longer to load / unload and then have a connection to final destination in a hub and spoke system when they can go point to point in a single flight in far less time? It's like the choice between taking the crowded bus to work over 2 hours with multiple connection vs. driving directly from home to work in 30 minutes.

[@FoundAndExplained]

agreed. smaller and better jets, to fly to smaller airports. Why fly Manchester - London - New York - Boston, when a jet can fly between the two direct?

[@MikeLikesChannel]

Delta still wants you to stop in Atlanta, to connect an A320 to a 737 🙄

[@visionist7]

The problem with the point to point idea is exactly that; it's still an idea. You might be able to fly from Manchester to Boston nonstop, but what about Manchester to Charlotte? There will never be enough demand on some routes for a nonstop flight, and hubs will never go away.

[@seanavery7265]

Loved that ,thanks a million .💗✈️🛫

[@donaldcarpenter5328]

Excellent video

[@merafirewing6591]

Imagine seeing this Landing at the airport. And when did the LAPD said they want their own airliner??

[@cjjenson8212]

What sound does a crashing plane make? "Boeing, Boeing, Boeing 😂😂

[@ertanozmerdan3634]

What a video, what a narration!.. 👏👏👏🥇💐👍

[@kyleZA]

Epic vid bro 👍

[@stephenlane9168]

The A380 is a joy to travel on. Quiet, roomy, luxurious. I don’t enjoy travelling ultra long haul on any Boeing plane. Regardless of carrier

[@simonm1447]

Modern Airbus widebodies offer typically more cabin comfort than Boeing models, that's right. The A 350 is very similar in comfort to the 380.

[@Jhan.Aballe]

10:30 ... well either way, it's a win win situation, Airbus hasn't lost its reputation or gone into bankruptcy from the A380, and Boeing hasn't distinguished its reputation or gone into bankruptcy, if they weren't to avoid on manufacturing the idea of the new 747 models.

[@Getalife2908]

747x will be a serious rival to the a380

[@allanoluko2390]

I wish that could have happened 😢

[@lindsaypickett6146]

Yeaaass!!! I stand on the shoulders of giants too!!💖

[@jimpalmer1969]

I worked for Boeing for nearly 43 years with a lot of time spent on the 747-400 program. The joint Airbus-Boeing new large airplane study from the mid 1990s reveled to Boeing a safety issue with a full length upper deck. The problem involved egress in the event of an accident that required deployment of the escape slides. The area between the wing trailing edge and horizontal stabilizer would need to allow four slides to deploy into it. This configuration included the upper deck slide, over wing slide, and the aft two main deck slides. There just isn't enough room. FAA requirements stats the slides must deploy with the one or more of the landing gears collapsed. Boeing thought the technical risk was too high. Airbus went ahead with the A380. Unknowingly the FAA allowed Airbus to do the slide testing with the slides deployed before egress test period started. Also the A380 has a slide deployment time system. This was just too much monkey motion for Boeing to accept. Thankfully there has never been an accident requiring slide deployment on an A380 and with the A380 service life coming to an end, maybe there will never be one.

[@V8_screw_electric_cars]

I don't understand why don't people want big planes, I seen a380 with beds and stuff you will not fit this into smaller plane, bit of a shame.

[@simonm1447]

@@V8_screw_electric_cars this is the reason why Emirates has 50 % of all produced 380s, they can put luxury first class cabins into the aircraft and have still enough room for enough business class and economy class seats. 777s can't offer this. The 380-800 is no payload king, but a king when it comes to internal space

[@Whooperrboi]

@@V8_screw_electric_cars big plane are expensive people want cheap which small plane provide

[@Angry.General1461]

There's a 747 aircraft that's similar enough to the 747x called the dreamlifter.

[@lawrencegatt4515]

Love ❤️ your video.

[@philippebenz2643]

The Philippine Airline's 747 was starring in the vid, but sadly they're retired.

[@caltrain910]

Wouldn’t the 747X have it’s own freighter variant?

[@ohlawd3699]

Well they already have the Dreamlifter and 747-8F, but maybe. 😊👍

[@philsspace69]

I'm confused. Were there actually a proposed full length double decker, as the one you animated, from Boeing? All examples of the models shown were more or less the traditional front hump, not a full length one.

[@davidhoffman1278]

Yes, from the earliest attempts to use Boeing's rejected C-X proposal there was a full length passenger upper deck. A side note: There were airport gate proposals to use all the lower and upper doors for rapid load and unload of passengers. All 10 lower doors and 6 to 8 upper doors.

[@jimmbbo]

Boeing correctly saw that the mega jumbo jet was about to become a white elephant because it was prisoner to only a small number of airports that could handle its size and passenger handling needs, as well as the need to serve city pairs that could support the number of passengers on each flight required to make it profitable. Boeing's decision to go with the 787 correctly saw the need to accommodate fewer passengers on point to point routes with several models to match the load/range needed. The fact that the A380 production line closed without making a profit while the 787 continues production and is making money for Boeing demonstrates that Boeing called it right.

[@visionist7]

Boeing spent a deity's ransom on the 787 ironing out all the production issues with CFRP. They actually spent a lot more than Airbus spent on the A380, all for a decidedly less crowdpleasing aircraft. And No, Boeing are not making money on the 787. They still need to produce and receive payment for hundreds more before that happens.

[@jimmbbo]

@@visionist7 "Crowdpleasing" means little to an airline... The prime measurement is whether it can earn its keep and make money. The A380 has proven not to be able to satisfy that major requirement. Airbus bet the farm on a small number of big and long distance markets that required major airports and failed, while Boeing went with a smaller, more route-flexible airplane in several versions that is still being built. An airline can spec a new 787 but can only find A380s on the "used airplane" classified ads... "In 2012, Airbus finally admitted that the program is never going to be profitable. According to the New York Times, the manufacturer spent over $25 billion in developing the Airbus A380. Initial studies predicted that airlines would have a demand of 1200 A380s in 20 years from 2005. As of now, Airbus has 313 orders secured, with 234 deliveries. At the end of its production cycle, experts have estimated the final production number to be at 251." While "The manufacturer estimated in 2005 that it needed 270 aircraft to not lose money on the project. A year later, with the wiring and production problems, that estimate rose to 420." www.aerotime.aero/articles/22892-airbus-cancels-airbus-a380-program

[@visionist7]

@@jimmbbo it means a lot to the history of the industry. Decades from now when the 787's leaner, meaner, greener replacement comes along, few passengers will remember the 787. It's not a plane that engenders any sort of emotional response from the masses. Thousands won't line up to see the last ever 787 flight land. They probably will for the A380. And this tribal memory will outlast the same airlines that shunned the A380, too. Cathay Pacific looks to be the first of them.

[@jimmbbo]

@@visionist7 A very romantic observation, but airplanes need to make money or they get parked. The A380s size wins it a spot on the important airplane list, but it will never occupy the same spot as a DC-3, a true classic airplane.

[@PauloSergioMDC]

Wasn't a big issue with the full length upper deck 747 concept that it no longer complied with Whitcomb's Area Rule, so ruining the 747's then unique high speed cruise characteristics? If they had built those aircraft, the freighter variant would have ended up flying faster, as Boeing would have reverted back to the original short 747-100 upper deck on that model.

[@cds1110]

I love this plane but i love the triple deck plane because its awesome

[@MegaWatering]

No one noticed how the footage at 9:33 of the Malaysia Airlines 777 is 9M-MRD, the exact same aircraft that was involved in the MH17 crash.

[@kingboagart899]

We did now

[@dustinpatrickpeters8824]

Let's push this aircraft to the future

[@BestEachDay]

I never got to fly in a 747. I'm sorry the largest planes are going by the wayside. The biggest I got was probably the 767, L1011, and DC10. I might have been once on a 777. Now I think pretty much everyone is done with the 747. I would have loved the double deck 747. It will never be...

[@Ror55555]

I'd love a model kit of this concept, would be fairly niche though since even I didn't know about this proposal as a 747 fan.

[@FoundAndExplained]

I'm working on a model kit atm!

[@ArnBrickJeff]

@@FoundAndExplained hi!

[@Ror55555]

@@FoundAndExplained Oh, thats fantastic. I'd love it as a fan of the channel. Keep us updated!

[@bocahdongo7769]

I definitely want it. But with twin engine from 777

[@geographyjawade6655]

Boeing should have went ahead with this aircraft. Had they did, the Airbus A380 probably would have never built, nor could it compete with it.

[@simonm1447]

If they would have gone ahead we would have today a big 747 sitting in the desert instead of the A 380s. The concept is the same and it would have suffered from the same problems. Since the aircraft would have been much bigger and heavier it would have been more or less a completely new aircraft, with a new fuselage, bigger wings and almost everything else also new developed. If aircraft get too big the structural mass per seat increases, a disadvantage over medium sized widebodies. Also the oval shaped frames have a higher depth (like at the 380), which is heavier and reduced the internal cabin space compared to a round shaped widebody.

[@Armymenandplanez]

The A380 is about to fight that.

[@ByWire-yk8eh]

I get all these Anthony Delgato ads, and I'm not even from New York! KZbin is going down the toilet.

[@magnummax78]

I think they REALLY don’t build these awesome planes is because airports wouldn’t be able to handle the increased traffic that the inevitable low fares would mean.🧐

[@DonGivani]

Nope, it is because of fuel costs , A350 and 787 are far efficiently in fuel costs. Any big Asian, middle Eastern, European can handle big wide bodies

[@HB-C_U_L8R]

747-8 is actually the plane Boeing built to screw over Airbus. In the late 90's Boeing asked Airbus to work together on a study of the future of Jumbo/Super Jumbo aircraft. Boeing basically snowed Airbus by using "theoretical sales data" and "estimates" to make Airbus think the demand for 747-8/A380 aircraft would be over a thousand, when the actual market has been around 300 passenger planes and about 100 747-8 cargo variants and no A380 cargo variants. But selling 747-8s wasn't Boeing's primary reason for building the plane. The R&D cost for the 747-8 was only about 5 million dollars because it recycled research from 747X program. The reason for the 747-8 was to get Airbus to go all in on the A380, because real research showed that airlines were actually looking for a midsized widebody aircraft. So while Airbus was spending billions on the A380, Boeing was developing the 787 Dreamliner. Boeing has delivered over 1,000 Dreamliners, while Airbus is still playing catchup with the A350.

[@danielmeador1991]

The a350 is playing catch-up with the 777 it doesn’t compete with the 787

[@Zackman217]

It sad there was never a truly full length double decker version of the 747. I would have become a huge fan of the 747X for its passenger capacity, cargo capacity, military service, and be used as an air tanker for battling wild fires. The 747 is my all time favorite airplane, I wish it would continue to stay in the skies for more years to come.

[@FoundAndExplained]

Same!

[@allanoluko2390]

Even it could be bigger than A380

[@garyhughes9649]

Simply put the market was not near big enough for a passenger jet of that size. Boeing did the research and point-to-point flying was coming of age rather than hub-and-spoke which the A380 was betting on. Boeing obviously made the right choice, ask Airbus for confirmation on that. I'm not criticizing the A380 it's a fine jet was just 30 years too late. Criticized the Airbus engineers they knew the operating cost of the A380 I am still pressed forward, egos were obviously involved. With the public leaning strongly towards point-to-point flying the A380 could not be kept full enough to make it profitable to fry it in the numbers Airbus wanted it to be flown. Simply put the 747 was way ahead of its time and a beautiful sleek jet also.

[@chriswinduran5576]

Miss that Boeing 747-400 from Philippine Airlines

[@ouns5192]

It was perfect for a freighter

[@radiumdude]

Absolutely, this will solve the capacity problem that airlines are facing now: passenger numbers are exploding over the last 1.5 years and we definitely need high capacity aircraft with two decks... hell with 4 decks.

[@johniii8147]

No passenger numbers have greatly DECREASED over the last two years years and will be slow to return, especially on long haul. Even pre covid, airlines expressed a very clear preference for lower capacity twin engines. That's been a long standing trend now.

[@radiumdude]

@@johniii8147 Apparently you did not get my sarcasm….

[@glennso47]

The airplane wasn’t tied in a knot like that ad for the movie “Airplane “ . So that is why they never built it. They couldn’t figure out how to tie the plane into a knot.😁

[@matthewslee910]

4:08, and 4:12 are actually an artist's impression of what British Airways' own superjumbo would look like and it interior, but it looks very similar to the Boeing NLA concept you tell about in this video, just far larger and with 3 passenger decks. Just wanted to point that out to you. ;)

[@oscaralo9818]

Boeing had proposed to build a super giant 1000 passenger airline. It's a nightmare! The boarding of passengers alone it will take time off the schedule flight and same thing on the arrivals de- planening. The planners knows that the support infras/ facilities are also have a major impact.

[@goldgeologist5320]

The 747 best plane ever. I miss flying the queen. The 777 is a poor replacement.

[@danielmeador1991]

The 777 is a great airplane unlike the a380 and a350 those are beyond overrated

[@Perich29]

they need to invent E Fan before building passenger quadjet, a hybrid while two of the engine are electric while the other two are regular jetfuel powered.

[@sheereenaali8448]

When the Boeing 747 Entered Service, The Technology to Build Electric Engines Didn't Exist

[@dave8599]

weight is a big issue, the batteries are very weighty.

[@dave8599]

@@sheereenaali8448 battery weight is the problem. electric motors are not the issue, back then or now.

[@randominternet8198]

3:13 I heard that and was like “what the.are the L.A police gonna track down criminals with massive loud jets”

[@mastergun57]

make videos about SR-71 black bird

[@waqqashanafi]

too cliche

[@dogspacer3525]

Your subs are rising sooo fast. (1.5k a day)

[@FoundAndExplained]

I’m very lucky! Thanks for all your support

[@foxgaming76yt24]

@@FoundAndExplained no problem man. You’ve been churning about a decent amount of videos about planes I’ve never heard of before.

[@hposnansky4222]

No the real reason was that the transonic drag was higher, resulting in lower range. ( Deviation from the area rule ) The 747 - 400 cruises at M = o.85, the 747X around M = o.81 With better engines and new wings and stretched fuselage, the dash8 performed well. Lufthansa bought 20 as I recall.

[@johngoscinski1995]

This post probably went right over the heads of most posters. No one notices that the hump, even on the extended upper deck, tails-off before the main wing == area rule.

[@Ampersandrascott]

@@johngoscinski1995The -8i upper deck extends over the wing stub.

[@donaldstorm4959]

Boeing should make that! The sooner the better! That would be a big moneymaker and Boeing would forever rule the skies

[@allanoluko2390]

But it could have brought a healthy competitions between Airbus and Boeing

[@gooner72]

It's a good job these mammoth aircraft designs never went any further than the drawing board, had they actually been built the number of quad jets now going to the scrap yards would've mind boggling. Aircraft lovers adore quad jets but the airline bean counters and eco nuts don't..... unfortunately, saving dolphins is more important than technology.

[@mariauzcategui5347]

Probably the A380's successor

[@Dcc357]

The only way the 747 can be improved is by turning the whole thing into a composite jet like the 787. Imagine a 747 being so damn light it only needs 2 engines, particularly those huge ones from the new 777x.

[@megamanmuppet]

Or just make a double-deck 777x 😉

[@danielmeador1991]

@@megamanmuppet then your to heavy for 2 jet engines you’d need 4 jet engines

[@dataisbrilliant]

What App does this guy use to make this Amazing planes?

[@FoundAndExplained]

Blender! It’s free!

[@mrrolandlawrence]

id more say that boeing skillfully and cleverly sold airbus a pup... making them go down the a380 route when really boeing were all about the b777!!!! one of the most clever moves of all time on beoing behalf.

[@Роман1973-е1л]

"Эрбас" не знает, кому "А-380" продавать, не помогла даже кардинально модернизированная версия "А-380нео" (через пару лет завод по производству модели собираются закрыть или перепрофилировать), на вторичном рынке их б/у собратьев так же очень трудно кому-нибудь втюхать /разве что переделав в грузовую версию/, а "Боинг" вдруг проснулся и включил позднее зажигание 000

[@karlthemel2678]

At the time Boeing still was a legitimate company.

[@beyondthedetails]

Lmao. They still are. Being 1 or 2 in an industry isn’t legitimate? What a 🤡 statement.

[@kingboagart899]

Just because you're in Seattle and butthurt doesn't make Boeing go away. Everybody got greedy up there, we used to call Everett the "Lazy B Ranch". Going to work was more fun than the paid month-long vacation at christmastime. Union was strangling both sides from the middle. Boeing got sick of it, merged itself with MD and now is teaching everybody a lesson while it's now a truly international corporation. Seattle's just lucky Bill Gates likes it there or it'd be a ghost town.

[@yourfuneraldirector6432]

Seeing the perils of the A380, this should have never had money spent on designing it.

[@allanoluko2390]

How many passengers sits would Boeing 747X would have?

[@slopedouche5460]

I heard the same rumor so must be urban legend stuff!!!

[@phong0den]

Should convert the lower deck to carry more cargo

[@winniethepooh3800]

Put it to 1.25 speed and it’ll still sound normal

[@FoundAndExplained]

40% of my viewers are from countries who don’t speak English

[@davidsheriff8989]

Combined body wings aircraft now flying...

[@ethansaviation2672]

They aren't

[@dickynurahman2292]

Boeing make a B747X concept and design Airbus: copy now, build now!! 🤣😂🤣😂

[@aviationgaming1564]

If the A380 never worked out then this would never work out

[@foxgaming76yt24]

Well that’s not really true. Unless you’re saying Boeing is a company that has worse planes that Airbus.

[@aviationgaming1564]

@@foxgaming76yt24 well yeah they kinda do (in my opinion) Airbus’s are more advanced and in like 30 something years Airbus has sold more A320s than Boeing has sold 737s in its over 50 years the 737 has been built

[@foxgaming76yt24]

@@aviationgaming1564 more doesn’t necessarily mean better. It could just also be good marketing.

[@aviationgaming1564]

@@foxgaming76yt24 well airlines clearly prefer the A320 as it’s safer, more advanced but who’s to argue both are very good aircrafts

[@aviationgaming1564]

@@foxgaming76yt24 although there are aircrafts that Boeing made that are far better than Airbus’s in terms of what customers think like the 747

[@Cjdhej]

Meanwilne KZbinr boeing:😳A 747X?!

[@beckiverson1531]

How do you make these aircraft animations?

[@FoundAndExplained]

Blender!

[@beckiverson1531]

@@FoundAndExplained thanks

[@susannzhang8507]

Antonov: guys have you ever would a plane with 8 engines?

[@johnserrano9689]

The 747 uses big block Chevy 454 engines. I'm sorry for correcting you Infront of everyone here I just figured you knew

[@sarasperikavin5555]

Large airplanes are useful in Cargo transportation. But, nobody (like FedEx, DHL...) order this.

[@rinazzle]

You said the 747X had a range of 8,700 nm but the text said 7,800.

[@tonysaberwal8895]

You have to look and learn! If the 500 seater Airbus A380 was a failure due to it’s big 500 seats capacity - surely Boeing making a 650 seater has got to be a bigger disaster!

[@dwightlooi]

LOL... not only did airlines not need or want a BIGGER PLANE with very long range, they want a SMALLER PLANE than the 777 or A350. This is why the B777-200LR failed and the A340-500 failed. They were still too big for the very long distance, but relatively low capacity needs of routes that mainstream high capacity twins like the 777-300ER, 787 A330, A350 could not serve. There simply are NOT that many passengers who want to get on a 18-20 hour direct flight from Sydney to London or NY to Singapore. Singapore Airlines never made money on their A340-500 service from SIN-EWR because the planes were never more than about half full! -- The perfect aircraft for such very long and thin routes is not the 777-8X but a 787-8LR. That aircraft is simple enough to build -- just take the 787-8 and upgrade it to the 787-9's MTOW and its improvements like the active boundary tail and structural lightening. A 787-8 built from shortening the 787-9 but otherwise common in all parts will have a range of about 8,800 nm with auxiliary tanks in the cargo hold ahead and behind the wing box or about 8,000 nm without. That, and its 220 seat 3-class capacity is perfect for such missions.

[@wyattgonnerman2536]

Why does the blueprint at 5:20 look like a c17 globe master

[@blankseventydrei]

wider or longer?

[@commerce-usa]

Boeing defunded the LAPD? Who knew? 🤣

[@FoundAndExplained]

Haha damn that’s a good joke!

[@laurieannrogan1317]

That's beautiful, this plane is absolutely magnificent it's a shame it never got built. The regular 747 is Just as nice and magnificent though.