jetskipper From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 352 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7215 times:
What was Boeings reason for putting the flight deck of the 747 on the second deck? Airbus positioned the flight deck of the A-380 on the first deck which seems to give the pilots a vantage point that they are more accustomed.
warden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 434 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7159 times:
Boeing put the flight deck on the second deck (and, for that matter, created the second deck hump in the first place) for cargo...so that the nose could swing open to allow full access to the main deck without interfering with the flight control linkage.
For comparison, the Aero Spacelines Guppy (Boeing 377 conversion) had a setup where the entire front of the airplane swung open...and, I've heard that the flight control linkages had to be re-adjusted every time the front was opened up.
IIRC even when they were still actively planning the A380F, Airbus wasn't planning to have an opening nose, so they decided it wasn't necessary to put the flight deck on the second deck...and, in the days of fly-by-wire, I imagine that it wouldn't make a difference on a modern aircraft anyways since you don't have to deal with adjusting control cables and linkages and whatnot. With that said, from an aesthetics standpoint, I think the flight deck on the A380 looks like it's lower than it should be and is the single biggest thing that makes the plane look ugly IMHO. It still looks better than the 777 does, though
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26961 posts, RR: 83 Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7138 times:
Quoting jetskipper (Thread starter): What was Boeings reason for putting the flight deck of the 747 on the second deck?
Boeing designed the 747 to be able to load cargo through the nose and that required the cockpit to be located above the main deck for clearance.
Boeing's early dual-deck 747 concepts had the cockpit on the upper deck, as well.
They did have a single-deck concept called "the anteater" where the cockpit extended out from the main fuselage to allow it to hang lower and offer better visibility for ground operations and landing.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3279 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days ago) and read 6837 times:
Quoting gigneil (Reply 4): Hey, did Boeing design the 747 to be able to load cargo through the nose?
I thought they were designing the 747 to be a military freighter transport to transport tanks and troops and made the cockpit where it is to be able to load large items through the nose for quick deployment in the battle theatre.
aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8394 posts, RR: 47 Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days ago) and read 6800 times:
Quoting gigneil (Reply 4): Hey, did Boeing design the 747 to be able to load cargo through the nose?
The legend goes that the common belief during the design stage of the 747 was that most future intercontinental passenger transport would be supersonic. So the 747 was designed to be able to load cargo through the nose, IIRC it was even considered to convert pax aircraft with fixed noses to open-nose freighters after the switch to SSTs.
I hope my memory isn't too rusty...
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days ago) and read 6738 times:
Yup.
The "SCD" portion of what you commonly see at the end of a 747 freighter's build code is for "Side Cargo Door" - The very first 747-200 freighters actually had the side cargo door as an option rather than a standard feature. I believe that the first 747-200 freighter, for Lufthansa, only had the nose door at first, and had the SCD added later. I don't think any other 747F's were delivered that way.
A small number of 747s with windows - the 747 Convertibles - were delivered with the nose door. In the above photos, you can see one of them. They were meant to be convertible between both full freighter and full pax, but in practice, this was not as practical for a 747 as it was for a 727 or 737 (the other convertible models in Boeing's lineup at that time).
srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16896 posts, RR: 51 Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6578 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 5): I thought they were designing the 747 to be a military freighter transport to transport tanks and troops and made the cockpit where it is to be able to load large items through the nose for quick deployment in the battle theatre.
The 747 design can be traced back to Boeing's failed bid for what eventually became the C-5. Lockheed, Douglas and Boeing were the three finalists for the CX-HLS project (Other manufacturers that submitted designs were General Dynamics and Martin Marietta.). The only reason why Lockheed won the contract was that their design had the lowest cost while the USAF preferred Boeing's design. You can definitely see elements of what became the 747 in Boeing's CX-HLS design:
Another thing to remember is that at the time the 747 entered service, conventional wisdom was that the SST (Concorde and B-2707) was the way passenger a/c would move towards and traditional jet a/c would be relegated to a cargo role. As we all know, this failed to happen.
ABpositive From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6406 times:
Quoting srbmod (Reply 8): Another thing to remember is that at the time the 747 entered service, conventional wisdom was that the SST (Concorde and B-2707) was the way passenger a/c would move towards and traditional jet a/c would be relegated to a cargo role. As we all know, this failed to happen.
With most airlines treating their passengers like cargo, there is some truth in it.
Jetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2462 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5417 times:
Quoting jetskipper (Thread starter): Airbus positioned the flight deck of the A-380 on the first deck which seems to give the pilots a vantage point that they are more accustomed
The A380 flightdeck is actually between the lower and upper deck. So it's still higher than would normally be the case in a wide body.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15904 posts, RR: 66 Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5360 times:
Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 10): The A380 flightdeck is actually between the lower and upper deck. So it's still higher than would normally be the case in a wide body.
It's up there to make space for the landing gear I think. The nose gear is further forward than on the 747, and the lower deck is lower in the fuselage. In any case it needs to be back a bit to make space for the radar.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5242 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 5): I thought they were designing the 747 to be a military freighter transport to transport tanks and troops and made the cockpit where it is to be able to load large items through the nose for quick deployment in the battle theatre.
The 747 was never designed for the miliary. It was designed to be a freighter since it was being developed concurrently with the 2707, which was widely assumed to be about to steal all the passenger traffic.
Quoting aloges (Reply 6): The legend goes that the common belief during the design stage of the 747 was that most future intercontinental passenger transport would be supersonic.
Not just legend; the original 747 chief engineer came right out and said it, on the record.
Quoting srbmod (Reply 8): The 747 design can be traced back to Boeing's failed bid for what eventually became the C-5.
Not really. They share engines and the 2nd deck flight deck location and that's about it. The same 747 chief engineer vehemently denies this repeated rumour that the 747 was just a "commercialized" version of Boeing's failed military airlifter.
Well, unless you're a T-tail, a fin is basically a fin but I agree they look similar.
The section I don't follow...the nose on the military model is clearly a different section than the 747 and the mid-cabin is high-wing rather than low-wing.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15904 posts, RR: 66 Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5166 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 15): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 14):
But the section and fin look very 747.
Well, unless you're a T-tail, a fin is basically a fin but I agree they look similar.
The section I don't follow...the nose on the military model is clearly a different section than the 747 and the mid-cabin is high-wing rather than low-wing.
I'm sorry. That should have read "tail section". The TAIL section and fin look very 747.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Jetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2462 posts, RR: 17 Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5136 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11): It's up there to make space for the landing gear I think. The nose gear is further forward than on the 747, and the lower deck is lower in the fuselage. In any case it needs to be back a bit to make space for the radar.
The nosegear retracts into the lower lobe, so it doesn't force the cockpit to be higher. The radar doesn't necessitate it to be any higher than a 777 flightdeck, for example. Main deck and upper deck height of the A380 is comparable to the 747, but the A380 decks are slightly higher in fact.
747 Main deck 4.74m - 5.18m, Upper deck 7.53m-7.91m
A380 Main deck 5.07m-5.34m, Upper deck 7.57m-8.36m
The A380 flightdeck window sill is 7.14m-7.42m above ground level. 747 flightdeck window sill height is around 8.3m-8.7m.
CALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 1603 posts, RR: 22 Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4713 times:
Quoting warden145 (Reply 2): flight deck on the A380 looks like it's lower than it should be and is the single biggest thing that makes the plane look ugly IMHO. It still looks better than the 777 does, though
There were two missing windows where the nose door met the rest of the fuselage. Second photo of the nose section interior while in use as a freighter, showing some of the passenger fittings including the forward bulkhead and window frames etc.
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2031 posts, RR: 56 Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4324 times:
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5962 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4047 times:
Quoting CALTECH (Reply 19): The 777 is just a bloated fat 767.
767 versus 777
You know, they do share the same Boeing section 41 (cockpit section) The 777 just has an adaptor section behind it to allow the 767 cockpit to mate to the 777 fuselage...
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
25 DocLightning: A Boeing engineer came on this site and said that this is not the case. They share cockpit windows only. They couldn't make the 767 Section 41 work a
26 Jetlagged: I pointed it out a while ago: but wingedmigrator's diagram shows the layout very clearly.
29 tdscanuck: Which one? As far as I know, it's common (aerodynamically) back to at least the end of the windows. Structurally it's probably different but that mak
30 DocLightning: I forget his name now. This was about five years ago.
31 KELPkid: IIRC, the radome is interchangeable between a '67 and a T7, too...someone correct me if I'm wrong
33 BigJKU: Yeah, the A380 looks like it has a bloated head from the front. It is not the planes fault, form over function after all, but it is not a pretty thin
34 Euclid: Those pictures in Viscount724's post does raise a question. The last picture of the interior of the convertible 747 shows it in cargo config with a cr
35 Viscount724: No, the normal stairway to the upper deck was installed when it was in all-passenger configuration and was removed (like the galleys, lavatories etc.
36 Euclid: Many thanks for the answer. Absolutely amazing how clever these things were designed to make provision for both the ladder access in cargo config and
37 CALTECH: That's correct. The 777 was the 767-X, until Boeing decided enough was changed that it deserved a new designation. Many things are interchangeable be
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 352 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21683 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3279 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8394 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 224 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2462 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15904 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1604 posts, 
From Poland, joined May 2007, 1603 posts, 
The 777 just has an adaptor section behind it to allow the 767 cockpit to mate to the 777 fuselage...
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
