JAM747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 550 posts, RR: 1 Posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2678 times:
Some cargo operators like the the nose loading ability of the 747 , and the Dreamlifter ( converted 747 to carry 787 parts) has shown that a tail loading can work well too. Does any know if having this ability (nose/tail loading) for a cargo a/c is very important to have in the next VLA cargo a/c? . Otherwise could the cargo a/c market survive without having a/c with these abilities?
EI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2653 times:
This is a tough one.
Re: tail loading. A swinging tail like the LCF design cant work well in regular airline operations. Its heavy and takes a long time to turn around, and systems probably have to be disonnected/reconnected. There are also pressurisation issues although these could probably be resolved. Tail loading only suits high tailed aircraft as far as I have seen.
Re: nose loading. If Y3 was to have an opening nose it would likely have to have the cockpit in a similar configuration to the 747.
YVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
Quoting EI321 (Reply 1): Re: tail loading. A swinging tail like the LCF design cant work well in regular airline operations. Its heavy and takes a long time to turn around, and systems probably have to be disonnected/reconnected. There are also pressurisation issues although these could probably be resolved. Tail loading only suits high tailed aircraft as far as I have seen.
All Canadair CL44's were swingtail I believe plus there are a couple of DC6's in Alaska converted, which are low tail (if I have your meaning of low tail correctly). Im not a tech guy at all so no idea how they made that work.
As a freight forwarder, this would certainly be more than advantageous an option to have. The holds of a 747F are cavernous, yet we find the space can not be used as our cargo doesnt fit through the SCD. We often ship items in excess of 35' long and although they go through the door nose first, its too long to rotate 45 degrees to stow on deck. Although outsize cargo like this will certainly be in the minority compared to most carriers bread and butter, it is not uncommon, though I dont know that the freight carriers would demand such a plane to cater for a few freight forwarders... if something is really that huge and urgent that cant go by ocean, there will be enough $$ in the deal to pay for an Antonov or IL76, or even a 744F with a nose door from Atlas or Cargolux.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24917 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2543 times:
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 2): All Canadair CL44's were swingtail I believe
Except for 12 built for the RCAF, known as CL-44-6 by Canadair and CC-106 Yukon by the RCAF. They lacked the swing tail but had 2 large side cargo doors. They also had the Britannia's cockpit section/windows which differed from the commercial CL-44 which had a different cockpit section adapted from the Convair 880/990 with fewer but larger cockpit window panels. The US FAA wouldn't certify the original Britannia cockpit design for some reason.
At the time, General Dynamics was the parent company of both Convair and Canadair so adapting the 880/990 cockpit for the commercial CL-44 was a convenient solution to the problem. The RCAF model and the commercial model below:
Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 2): plus there are a couple of DC6's in Alaska converted,
One of them originated with Finnish carrier Kar-Air. They operated a DC-6B with swing-tail modification for several years in the 1970s/80s. It later operated in Alaska but as mentioned in one of the captions below it was written off in 2001.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21478 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2530 times:
Quoting EI321 (Reply 1): Re: nose loading. If Y3 was to have an opening nose it would likely have to have the cockpit in a similar configuration to the 747.
In theory, Y3 can have a cockpit in the "crown." There is enough space in a 10 abreast tube with a crown to almost fit a cockpit, so using the CRFP technology to create viable shapes with bulges, a real cockpit could be placed up there, with any avionics right behind, then crew rests and galley storage and such.
This leaves a complete main deck for pax or cargo. A 10Y aircraft with reclaimed cockpit space for the F section, would fit "425 pax" in the length of the 77W. At 6m longer (80m x 80m box), that's 50 more Y seats and 8-16 more J seats, making a "490 pax" jet. I would expect Y3 to be offered in 350 and 425 seat models, with an eye toward 490 pax down the road. Until that time, the 748I/F would remain available.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.