1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 7092 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 27677 times:
I'm wondering, how do you like the idea of a tripledeck 747 successor/A380 competitor if the 747 Advanced fails. The aircraft would have two full decks and one partial deck, and would be made largely of composites.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
A350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1142 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 27553 times:
Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 1): I'm not sure if "vertical" is the most efficient direction to expand an airplane.
It's not about vertical or not. We know, one good shape is the round fuse cross section. However, if you increase diameter, you also get a higher fuse and more and more unusable room below the cargo deck and over the main deck. A wider fuse than that of the 747 just doesn't make sense on a single decker.
Therefore Airbus went for a double decker with the A380. Since the floors add some stability it was also possible to go for an oval cross section. Somebody who wants an even larger a/c than the WhaleJet can go for a round cross section and longer fuse before adding a third deck. A third deck would only be required in case of a truely giant airplane, and I'm absolutely sure such a plane won't come in the next years.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10512 posts, RR: 63
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 27422 times:
Quoting A350 (Reply 4): It's not about vertical or not. We know, one good shape is the round fuse cross section. However, if you increase diameter, you also get a higher fuse and more and more unusable room below the cargo deck and over the main deck. A wider fuse than that of the 747 just doesn't make sense on a single decker.
That's not necessarily true. If one just wants passenger seating, then a circular cross section much larger than the JumboJet probably doesn't make a lot of sense, however, if sleeping bunks are desired, then the space can be used effeciently. There are also ways of making effecient use of more space in the cargo hold. Ceiling height can be increased from the standard 66 inches needed for LD3s to 84 or 96 inches to accommodate a wider variety of pallets. A wider cargo bay can be configured to hold two laterally oriented 125 inch pallets side-by-side or three LD3s abreast.
GeorgiaAME From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1098 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 27106 times:
And to get practical for just a moment, Boeing is having a heck of a time trying to get the old model sold as minimally stretched version. I think there is a greater likelihood of Airbus adding a third level to their bird than Boeing doing it. And that isn't too likely, considering the rate at which the airlines are plucking up the current 380. My 2 cents
"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 26789 times:
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter): I'm wondering, how do you like the idea of a tripledeck 747 successor/A380 competitor if the 747 Advanced fails. The aircraft would have two full decks and one partial deck, and would be made largely of composites.
This will happen as soon as the world reaches 12 bilion population and all airports are out of room to expand.
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 26637 times:
The only way to proceed after the A389 would be for radical new designs or revisiting the blended wing. There's only so much you can do with existing structures and formats before major problems will start cropping up.
A theatre body blended wing aircraft could easily accomodate over a thousand passengers, but that does not yet look like it will happen. Maybe when more innovative propulsion starts happening the concept can be revisited.
Bushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 26496 times:
I am of the school of that that the current jumbos the 747 and A380 are the last of thier types. If you look back to 50-60 years ago when the jet age was really begining you had the likes of the Constellation, DC-7 etc where the thought was build a bigger more effiecient prop engine plane. For the record I think the A380 will make money, as for the gleaming success the 747 has been, not sure if it will live up to it. But I think before you see a triple decker or something even bigger than an A389 you will see a dramatic development in engines or other manufacturing materials to make several smaller (737-A320 type) aircraft more efficient and economical that the jumbo. I dont know what the future holds, but I doubt it is more obese multidecked aircraft. PS....I like the blended wing idea as well.
Lemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 26331 times:
Quoting A350 (Reply 4): It's not about vertical or not. We know, one good shape is the round fuse cross section.
Round is good for structural weight and complexity reasons when working with aluminum. There is no reason for it to remain that way once fuselage design goes to all composites however. The cross-sections posted here have shown that Boeing already recognizes this. They are acomplishing their extra head-level space on the 787 by using an inverted ovoid (egg) shape, not a circle or double-bubble. There's no reason future large wide-body designs can't be optimized in the same fashion to keep them at one or two decks with more passenger floor space than the 747.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10512 posts, RR: 63
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 26319 times:
The WhaleJet already has extreme proportions. For its fuselage height (331 inches), it is quite short and the fuselage is narrow (281 inches). If one scales that up to three decks using the same proportions, then seating on the middle deck would be 3-5-5-3 (unless four aisles were used) and 3-4-4-3 on the lower deck. Overall length would be well over 100 meters and total seating in a 3-class cabin would be over 2000.
In the unlikely event that an airliner larger than an A380-900 were ever needed, it would make far more sense to go with a circular fuselage of about 320 inches in diameter. That would probably be a spacious 2-4-4-2 on the main deck or 3-4-4-3 in a charter type seating with 3-3-3 or 3-4-3 on the upper deck.
MD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2801 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 25215 times:
With a blended wing though....there is a passenger escape advantage if you think about it. The central core of pax will be far from the emergency window exits, but why not also have exits on the ceiling so they can climb out on the top of the fuselage? It would be quite easy to implement a rope ladder that drops from the ceiling.
If the emergency-stricken plane were to land wheels-down the central pax could slide down specially made "permanent" escape chutes built into the cargo hold....emerging under the plane's belly.
ElGreco From France, joined Nov 2005, 164 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 23674 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15): Overall length would be well over 100 meters and total seating in a 3-class cabin would be over 2000.
Maximum dimensions are 80m by 80m for airports.
The 380-900 will be close to 900 passagers with 30" seat pitch, may be it's possible to add some passagers in the cargo area with beds as it is made for crew, but without windows (only for frequent flyers or with some drinks).
When you are right alone, you are wrong
: In theory, that's the current limit, however, few if any airports can handle an 80x80 airliner today. My point was that a triple-decker is not going
: Now that looks ugly! Did they use the 747SP as the base? More like 1000 seats. If you scale up the A388´s 555 3-class layout to its maximum 853 seat
: How about "break away" wings? In the event of a crash, explosive bolts could be activated to detach and push the fuel containing sections of the BWB