Bobbidooley From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 64 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5282 times:
I have always wanted to do this. So I'll start. At the end, I hope to make a photoshop mock-up, and some drawings after I read the input.
My initial thoughts / specs -
Power - 4 GE90-115B
Decks - 2 or a mix of 2 / 3
Capacity - > 600 in three classes
Wing Span - =< A380
Length - > A380
Freight Lift - =< max takeoff 640,000kg (1,400,000lb)
Range - 16,500km (8,900nm) pax
Range - 12,370km (6,700nm) freight
Seating - Econ 3 x 4 x 4 x 3
Seating - Business 2 x 3 x 3 x 2
Suites - Emirates style > 15
Cabin Alt - < 6000ft
Please add more, when we reach some sort of consensus I will build a spec plane. Thanks.
What featues would you want to see? Suggest a different layout! How many exit doors? Tilt nose for loading?
Reach for the stars and help me out, you never know, one day we may get to fly on this thing (in FSX.)
Caveat - I know that this may be a dumb idea.
Lrdc9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 610 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5168 times:
For the nose section, do a 747 deseign so that it will lift up for freight and the cockpit will be up, out of the way. Also, a built in airstair in the nose would be wicked. And, uh, Landing lights, the ones that alternate, with small blue lights on the side! Also, don't even think of deseigning it in, but I wonder what a T-Tail would look like? Also, rear of plane, like on DC-9 series put in a wide staircase tha folds out. Almost the a/c width. Like on military cargo planes. Okay, Rumbaugh Out.
QFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2081 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5055 times:
I think the fuselage should be wider than the A380, with bigger wings.
This plane will be much bigger than the A380 unless you want a super powerful plane that can fly faster than the speed of sound quite easily. 280 000lbs of thrust versus your proposed 460 000lbs, I'd say make this plane bigger than the An-225.
For the cargo version we should have a nose gear that folds down like the An-225 because that is really cool. As for the engines they will be able to rotate backwards with enough clearance from the wing to not hit it. So it will look abit like the V-22 except with jet engines and they will not have the ability to run while in the vertical position.
So with Lrdc9's suggestion we can have a drive on drive off situation.
Infact this can be a feature of the pax version too, so pax can just walk off the plane. Will allow for much quicker turnarounds as the engines rotate around in a few seconds.
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3345 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5003 times:
Well, hell, lets do the 4-rear engined design of the IL-62/VC-10 ON TOP of the 6 GE engines on the wings! Gotta make the rear engines JT8Ds. at least 3 decks of 3-4-3 (in economy). We'll completely 1-up SQ with their suites by making the F configuration 0-1-0. As in only 1 seat per row. You have a true suite, with private toilet, queen sized bed, lounge chair (where you must sit for takeoff), flat screen tV (big, at least 40 inch).
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9533 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4974 times:
I've been an A.netter for 8 years and the one thing I've learned from the experts in the Civil Aviation forum is that winglets are essential. How could everyone have forgotten those? As long as you add winglets, it doesn't matter what else you do - ergonomically, technically, aerodynamically or operationally.
There's a problem, though - apparently in order to be "cool" an aircraft must have exectly three engines. We're going to need bigger engines.
Bobbidooley From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4879 times:
So far- (My summary) what I dig so far, as I see practical. Not that any of this is.
Tilt nose entry for freight.
Airstairs front and rear.
LED landing lights along the length of the fussalage.
Much longer than the A380 - yet still able to use current airports.
Sonic Cruiser Tail.
Huge wings. Not necessaley long- a hybrid BW and tube.
Probably not needed for the vast majority of operations. Any airport the plane is scheduled to will have gates that can support it, or at least mobile airstairs. Only worth the added weight on a VVIP version.
Added complexity, airlines would not be happy with this.
Quoting Bobbidooley (Reply 10): Much longer than the A380 - yet still able to use current airports.
Of course, being longer causes problems, but if you want to make a real 600+ passenger airplane, you will need to be longer than the A388. Will need careful design of the wheelbase (swiveling boogies?) to make it more maneuverable on the ground, and training/systems that allow a pilot to take advantage of that. After the A380, airports are going to be hesitant to make major capital investments for another VLA.
Just keep in mind a high aspect ratio is highly efficient. A stubby wing is not great for a typical airliner flight profile, structural complexity and the "80 meter box" are the big factors that lead to lower aspect wings.