ContinentalFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2650 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.
174thfwff From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2643 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. ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 41
Reply 8, posted (12 years 6 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2421 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
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh