Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Does The 747 Have It's Abnormal Structure?  
User currently offlineLegolars From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 89 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2779 times:

allow me for being stupid.

but why is it that it's economic to have a structure like the 747.

I mean, having one like the 777 (or 380 if two floors) seems to be more economic, or am i wrong?

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 1, posted (12 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

allow me for being stupid.

We can't allow that! Big grin

Actually I believe the 747 was originally designed to be a military transport and not a passenger jet. The Lockheed C-5A Galaxy won the competition.

If I am wrong, someone correct me.  Smile



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineContinentalFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2700 times:

Yeah, the intent was to have the cockpit, etc., above the cargo area. If you ever see a 747F w/ a nose door, it works pretty well. I remember seeing a pic of a McD heavy lift proposal that looked a lot like the 747 too, only with side opening nose door.

Mike.


User currently offline174thfwff From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2693 times:

Yes, the 747 was origionaly built to hull crap, not people because Boeing thought that supersonic travel was the new generation of travel. But we all know why it's not. ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)


User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2792 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2682 times:

I've been saying for years that if Boeing wanted to make a bigger 747 they should just stretch the upper deck while keeping the length the same. That would be efficient.


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineGregg From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2673 times:

Ironically enough, the "hump" also produces lift.

User currently offlineLegolars From Denmark, joined Sep 2001, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2589 times:

So that one will see another aicraft (eg. if boeing choose to make a 787 ,380competitor) with this hump is unlikely, because the 380 structure is more economical?

User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 377 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

Pan Am helped develop the upper deck concept on the 747 to allow cargo loading from the nose in the freighter version Smile


.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 40
Reply 8, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2471 times:

747-600X - actually, stretching the upper deck too much will make the aircraft less efficient. Why? Well, when the upper deck was stretched to its current length from what was seen originally, it was found to improve efficiency, because it increased the 'area rule effect'. I am not very knowledgable on this, however I believe it basically means that the fuselage around the wings should be narrower than the rest to achieve better efficiency. So, by having the upper deck extend until the wings, you make use of this area ruling. However, if you exten the upper deck further, behind the wing, then you give up this effect, and lose some efficency.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this subject could explain in more technical detail, but I hope this is helpful in someway

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
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...
Why Does The 747-400 Have Three APs? posted Fri Mar 2 2001 01:05:37 by Timbo
Why Does The 777 Have 3 Rear Nav Lights? posted Fri Dec 12 2003 19:41:31 by AV8AJET
Why Does The CRJ Have A High Angle Of Attack posted Fri Feb 18 2000 21:49:44 by LH423
Why Does The Newest SAA A346 Have Older J Class? posted Sat Feb 7 2004 07:16:13 by SAA201
Why Does The BAe-146 Have 4 Engines? posted Thu Jun 27 2002 05:37:54 by Brons2
Why Does Airplane Ice Have Holes In It? posted Wed Jun 12 2002 06:51:05 by ILUV767
Does The A340 Have A Longer Range Than A 747? posted Wed Sep 6 2000 01:45:58 by Jm-airbus320
Why Wouldn't The 747-500+ Have Winglets? posted Fri Feb 18 2000 03:49:48 by 747-600X
Why Are The 747-777 On Domestic In Japan? posted Fri Dec 15 2006 02:01:00 by Montenegro
Father Of The 747 Says It Puts A380 In The Shade posted Thu Jul 20 2006 09:49:12 by Leelaw