Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Wasting Space?  
User currently offlineKhenleyDIA From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6010 times:

After looking at earlier concepts of the A380, 747 and the final versions of both aircraft, it looks like the A380 is wasting some space. The flight deck is between both levels, which means neither level can run the full length of the aircraft, like the main level in the 747. Had they moved the flight deck up or down to match a level, wouldn't that have increased the number of paxs it could carry, and in the end, revenue?

KhenleyDIA


Why sit at home and do nothing when you can travel the world.
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5986 times:

Quoting KhenleyDIA (Thread starter):
Had they moved the flight deck up or down to match a level, wouldn't that have increased the number of paxs it could carry, and in the end, revenue?

This was done to keep pilot cabin compatibilty closer to their current products, so a pilot wouldn't have to relearn flying A380 as if it were a 747 as opposed to coming off of a A330/B767 type.

Quoting KhenleyDIA (Thread starter):
The flight deck is between both levels, which means neither level can run the full length of the aircraft, like the main level in the 747.

I wonder what if anything goes into the space in the crest above/behind the pilot's cabin forward of the upper deck? If maybe operational equipment, then nevermind.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineTrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 934 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5967 times:

You would think yes. This is a very good question maybe someone with better knowledge of the A380 design can chime in here. The 747 design in my opinion seems better as it allows seats to be placed literally all the way to the nose and also allows for an opening nose for cargo.

But at the same time I know that the engineers at Airbus know a little more than me when it comes to designing aircraft so obviously there is a valid reason anyone have any ideas?

J.T.

EDIT: woops you beat me to it...


what I dont understand is how having a cockpit slightly higher say on the second level would effect fleet commanality? Sure it would take some training since your sitting higher but I would think having much more passenger seating and the possibility of cargo door a much greater benefit over having a pilot sit 10 feet lower. There has to be another reason.

[Edited 2005-04-04 04:35:29]

User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17041 posts, RR: 66
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5923 times:

Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 2):
what I dont understand is how having a cockpit slightly higher say on the second level would effect fleet commanality? Sure it would take some training since your sitting higher but I would think having much more passenger seating and the possibility of cargo door a much greater benefit over having a pilot sit 10 feet lower. There has to be another reason.

Separation of the flight deck completely from the pax decks with the lobby between them is one.

A forward cargo door was never envisaged for the 380. Airbus figures the market for oversize cargo aircraft is not large enough for one more player. Normal cargo can be loaded quite easily through side doors.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineContinentalFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5856 times:

I think I saw a diagram of an A380, and in the "forehead" above the cockpit was some air conditioning equipment (not totally implausible considering the size of the thing).

User currently offlinePDXtriple7 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5826 times:

I thought I remember hearing on this site that the reason for the cockpit placement in the middle was that it was found to be more aero dynamic then the design on the B747. I think the "forehead" looks really awkward. Maybe airbus should add some hair  laughing 

User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5694 times:

ContinentalFan,
I have read the same as you posted, aircon equipment.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineN754PR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5647 times:

Yet another A380 topic. Seems our American Friends are very interested in this aircraft  cheerful 

I'm guessing this is at least the 100th A380 topic  scratchchin 


User currently offlineKhenleyDIA From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5255 times:

Quoting N754PR (Reply 7):
Yet another A380 topic. Seems our American Friends are very interested in this aircraft

Any plane that is that large and unique, is certainly interesting. It doesn't matter if people love just Airbus or just Boeing, they will find something of interest in the other companies designs. They might not be willing to admit it, but it is true!  Smile

KhenleyDIA



Why sit at home and do nothing when you can travel the world.
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3800 times:

Define wasting space. Do you think the primary reason for the 747's upper deck was to fit in more passengers on the main deck? Who says just because the two passenger decks don't run right to the very tip of the aircraft that there is 'wasted space'? But I guess had Boeing proposed this design, it would be unique and nobody would question it, right!?

User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 836 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3525 times:

I remember reading somewhere that the 747 would not be allowed to be certified today and current 747s are certified using grand father rights. The problem is today there must be an exit at the front and the rear of each section of the cabin and the first class section of 747s obviously don't meet this requirement, but the A380 does.

Rgds CCA



C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlineFilton216 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3460 times:

Is it true from what I have heard and that the flight deck has a special lift that goes down to it and only pilots and cabin crew can access?

filton216



Filton216 - The home of Concorde 216!
User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6145 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3354 times:

N754PR...who isn't interested in the A380? Though you may think Americans are anti-Airbus and all that BS, people are very interested in it. Its remarks like yours starting the A vs. B comment. I personally dislike the Airbus products, yet Im very intrested in the A380. Remember, there are probably more Americans posting for a few reason. First, its not an American product so information is a little farther away despite the internet. Second, the European interest in aviation is general is a lot stronger abroad.
-
So now back to the topic. It would be very interesting to get a Airbus engineer's input on this, yes! Good question DIA

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5733 posts, RR: 31
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3234 times:

Quoting EGGD (Reply 9):
Do you think the primary reason for the 747's upper deck was to fit in more passengers on the main deck?

The reason for the 747's upper level flight deck is because it was so much bigger than any other aircraft at the time Boeing wanted an upward hinging nose so it could be used as a freighter as well as a passenger aircraft. They weren't sure if the market at the time would sustain a passenger jet of that size. Heard that argument here recently?


User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3094 times:

Quoting PDXtriple7 (Reply 5):
I think the "forehead" looks really awkward. Maybe airbus should add some hair

 rotfl 



E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17041 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2875 times:

Quoting Filton216 (Reply 11):
Is it true from what I have heard and that the flight deck has a special lift that goes down to it and only pilots and cabin crew can access?

As far as I know there is a staircase.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 13):
Quoting EGGD (Reply 9):
Do you think the primary reason for the 747's upper deck was to fit in more passengers on the main deck?

The reason for the 747's upper level flight deck is because it was so much bigger than any other aircraft at the time Boeing wanted an upward hinging nose so it could be used as a freighter as well as a passenger aircraft. They weren't sure if the market at the time would sustain a passenger jet of that size. Heard that argument here recently?

Actually there was no doubt (on Boeing's part) about the need for a jet of the 747s size. The construction of the plane with cargo in mind was due to the expected takeover by SSTs by the late 70s. Also, while the upped deck allows for a cargo door, the main reason was to have the entire main deck dedicated to cargo.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5733 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2790 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 15):
Actually there was no doubt (on Boeing's part) about the need for a jet of the 747s size.

I remember reading at the time that it was a risk. It would be like Airbus or Boeing building a 1,000 seater (in its basic configuration) aircraft now. Remember in the mid-70s 747s were flying the Atlantic half-empty. Time magazine even did a cover-story on this, showing a diagram of two half-empty 747s passing each other.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6452 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2727 times:

The A380 flight deck is placed according to a compromise between

- being as low as possible for best view especially during landing (commonality with other Airbus types)
- aerodynamic shape - least possible drag.

The 747 flight deck is placed where it is to allow a large forward cargo door.

As stated by several posters the A380 was never intended for outsized cargo. The world is flooded with old An-124s etc. for that purpose. There simply is no market for an ultra long range outsize cargo plane, especially not with the price tag of a new A380. Outsized cargo on long distance must take the fuel stops needed with An-124s, B-747-200s and such.

The A380 fuselage is a unique triple bubble design. It relies on the two floors for structural integrity of the fuselage when pressurized. The floors cannot be moved one inch up or down, or the fuselage would take a funny shape when pressurized. That alone means that an A330 could probably be converted into a better outsize cargo plane than an A380.

That triple bubble design is very clever for a twin deck pax plane with plenty of baggage (and cargo) room below. But it is a show stopper when it comes to outsized cargo.

An efficient outsize cargo plane must have a circular fuselage - the only shape which allows a low floor and an unobstructed ceiling. To make it perfect it must also have a wing on top of the fuselage to make minimum obstruction in the fuselage by the wing main spar. That's how the An-124, the Lockheed C-5, C-141, C-130 and many other such planes were designed. Or it must have an unpressurized cargo compartment - A300ST Beluga.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5733 posts, RR: 31
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2635 times:

Very well explained, Prebennorholm.

User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4329 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1950 times:

With regards to the 747, you need to remember that it evolved from a military contract back in the mid-60's. Boeing was in competition with Lockheed and Douglas for what would eventually become the C-5. Boeing lost the competition to Lockheed in the design phase because of cost. They then simply took the military design concept and advanced it into a civilian version. That is the primary reason for the upper flight deck and end-to-end floor space on the main deck - to accommodate the original concept of carrying cargo.

When Boeing took the concept and migrated it to civilian use, they actually toyed with different floor concepts, some of which included a double-decker. One was a mid-wing (in between the two floors), which they discarded for fear no one would want to be on the lower floor in the event of a water landing. The second one was a low wing with two floors (a la A380), which was discarded because of concerns around emergency evacs. They eventually settled on a variation of the original military version, which was a high-mount cockpit that maximized floor space and allowed for loading from the nose of the aircraft.

There's a book that was published in 1970, "747 - Story of the Boeing Super Jet" that has pictures of the various versions they considered.

In any event, I think the version Airbus concocted is the ideal concept. No need for super-sized cargo and the emergency evacuation concerns have been addressed by modern technology via BF Goodrich. Keep in mind, this baby is so big that any additional floor space from repositioning of the cockpit would not necessarily translate into additional revenues. Airbus, or rather a client carrier, has enough floor space to play with as it is to add seats if they need additional revenue.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3660 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1686 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 19):
With regards to the 747, you need to remember that it evolved from a military contract back in the mid-60's. Boeing was in competition with Lockheed and Douglas for what would eventually become the C-5. Boeing lost the competition to Lockheed in the design phase because of cost. They then simply took the military design concept and advanced it into a civilian version.

Totally incorrect. The 747 looks nothing like what Boeing presented to the military for the large cargo transport competition. The military's large cargo transport competition and development of high bypass engines provided the idea of creating a large passenger aircraft. After Boeing lost the competition they immediately went to work on the 747, first showing three different size aircraft to airlines and asking which one they wanted. Only after that did Boeing start designing the 747 and they went through over 200 drawings before settling on a design. Most of the final designs were full double deckers.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1592 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 1):
This was done to keep pilot cabin compatibilty closer to their current products, so a pilot wouldn't have to relearn flying A380 as if it were a 747 as opposed to coming off of a A330/B767 type.

A pilot still has to be type rated on the A380 as a seperate type, meaning it takes just as much to go from an A340 to A380 as it does a 767 to a 747

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 17):
The world is flooded with old An-124s etc.

An-124s old? I don't think so

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 17):
There simply is no market for an ultra long range outsize cargo plane, especially not with the price tag of a new A380. Outsized cargo on long distance must take the fuel stops needed with An-124s, B-747-200s and such.

The A380 would not be ultra-long ranged in a maxed out MTOW version. It would need stops. As it is, the 772LRF will only have a max range of about 5500nm



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineKhenleyDIA From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1425 times:

Quoting EGGD (Reply 9):
Define wasting space. Do you think the primary reason for the 747's upper deck was to fit in more passengers on the main deck? Who says just because the two passenger decks don't run right to the very tip of the aircraft that there is 'wasted space'? But I guess had Boeing proposed this design, it would be unique and nobody would question it, right!?

EGGD, To me, wasting space of aircraft means "not using it to get the best seat per mile cost and/or giving it the best chance to for high revenues". Now, Airbus might have decided that the space was better used as something else, which is fine. They know what they are doing.

As for the Boeing comment, I don't think that was needed. If Boeing designed something like this, I would have had a similar question.

For most everyone else, thank you for the insight! I never knew Airbus didn't (or couldn't) make the A380 to have a opening in the nose. You learn a new thing everyday and that can be from reading on this site. Thanks again!

KhenleyDIA



Why sit at home and do nothing when you can travel the world.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380 Advertising Space posted Tue Apr 26 2005 10:12:45 by Mikoneill
A380 Seen From Space posted Fri Jun 17 2005 14:21:34 by Ringway
IHT: Airbus Saga:How Hubris/haste Snarled The A380 posted Mon Dec 11 2006 18:41:34 by N328KF
A380 MSN007 F-WWSD Re-registered? posted Sun Dec 10 2006 15:20:32 by Petera380
The Possible A380 Destinations! posted Sun Dec 10 2006 01:47:10 by B773ER
SIA Looks To More 77Ws To Cover A380 Delays? posted Sat Dec 9 2006 22:42:29 by Kaitak
A380-900 Worth To Develop? posted Sat Dec 9 2006 21:00:10 by LHStarAlliance
A380 Thai : First 3 European Routes posted Fri Dec 8 2006 11:42:48 by FCKC
What Is Airbus Doing To The A380?!? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 09:11:28 by Baron95
SIA A380 Newsletter posted Thu Dec 7 2006 23:29:19 by USADreamliner