Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cargo On Top?  
User currently offlineDaleaholic From UK - England, joined Oct 2005, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1589 times:

Are we likely to see, or has it ever been tried to have cargo above the passengers? I can imagine a problem would be the fuel tank area and like roofing strength above the passengers. If anybody could enlighten me more on the problems or maybe even advantages of this would be that would be great!

Thanks
Daleaholic


Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2571 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1489 times:

It already happens, judging by the huge bags some people try and stuff into the overhead luggage bins  Smile

There's not actually a lot of empty space above the passenger cabin, except perhaps on the 777, 747 and A380. You might be able to stow small items in the "loft space", but loading and unloading would be a nightmare. Some airlines use the space for crew rest bunks, etc.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1442 times:

Wouldn't that make the Cabin Cramped.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineMatt72033 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1617 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1437 times:

Quoting Daleaholic (Thread starter):
Are we likely to see, or has it ever been tried to have cargo above the passengers? I can imagine a problem would be the fuel tank area and like roofing strength above the passengers. If anybody could enlighten me more on the problems or maybe even advantages of this would be that would be great!

are you suggesting seating pax in the cargo bay and having cargo on the main deck as it were?
i cant see any real reason why it couldnt happen, loading would be .....err different i imagine! lol

Also the centre fuel tank would decrease the amount of pax space!

Cargo bays are very low ceiling'ed, pax would be cramped unless the ceilings were made higher


User currently offlineDaleaholic From UK - England, joined Oct 2005, 3208 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1401 times:

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 3):
are you suggesting seating pax in the cargo bay and having cargo on the main deck as it were?

Yes, however I was thinking to raise the roof of the cargo hold to accomodate passengers comfortably. And about the fuel tanks, why not have them in the rear of the plane on top. I'm being a bit crazy here I think but I just got curious! Thanks for everybodies input!



Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2571 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1384 times:

I thought you were referring to using the empty space above the passengers in a widebody like the 777. Effectively you are arguing for a complete inversion of fuselage design. Unless you want to split the pax cabin into two halves that would mean having a high mounted wing, this would also help counteract the very much higher vertical CG.

All the airport cargo loading equipment would have to be modified to lift the heavy containers even higher.

Having done all that, what would be the advantages. Having fuel and cargo above the pax could be more dangerous in the event of an accident, although pax evacuation would be easier. Effectively you have now created some empty space beneath the pax floor, so what would you put there? Fuel? Cargo? We're back where we started  Smile



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineMatt72033 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1617 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1382 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 5):
although pax evacuation would be easier

would it?


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2571 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1372 times:

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 6):
Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 5):
although pax evacuation would be easier

would it?

Well, they would be nearer the ground, so slides would be shorter. Thinking about it, it's not a big difference. I was trying to come up with an advantage to offset the obvious disadvantages  Smile



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1263 times:

Can you flip containers upside-down ? If yes, you could place LD3-46 containers (used on the A32S) above the pax cabin of a 777 or partly, of a 747.


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1252 times:

Quoting Daleaholic (Reply 4):
And about the fuel tanks, why not have them in the rear of the plane on top

Well some aircraft have fuel tanks in the vertical tail plane, but not nuch more in the cabin.
If you were to have the fuel in the rear fuselage instead of in the centre tank, you'd have a very far aft CG and your aircraft would probably fall backwards every time you refuel!
And you would need the centre wingbox (assuming a low wing and not a high wing) to attach the wings to! And then your landing gear bay would be in the way too (this goes for high and low wing unless you have the gear in 'pods' like military transport aircraft - which increases drag).


User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 1224 times:

Quoting Daleaholic (Reply 4):
And about the fuel tanks, why not have them in the rear of the plane on top.

You want the fuel to be near the CoG of the aircraft to avoid having CoG shifts as you burn off fuel. Such shifts curtail your weight envelope and reduce the loadability of the aircraft severely.

Fuel in the stabilizer has been used (B744, Concorde to give two examples off the top of my head), but it is either as part of going all-out to squeeze fuel in after running out of volume or as a method of controlling the CoG of the aircraft in flight.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 5):
I thought you were referring to using the empty space above the passengers in a widebody like the 777. Effectively you are arguing for a complete inversion of fuselage design.

It has been suggested lately (Flight International last year) to use the crown space above the cabin for sleeper accomodation for crew and/or passengers on long-haul flights.

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

Quoting Matt72033 (Reply 6):
Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 5):
although pax evacuation would be easier

would it?

What about a belly landing  Smile
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Cargo On Top?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
777-300 Boxes On Top Of Fuselage posted Sun Nov 19 2006 17:10:06 by SABE
Typical Cargo On Cargo Planes posted Tue Sep 19 2006 18:53:17 by HKA
Funny Orange Cords On Top Of MD88 Wing posted Sun Jul 9 2006 03:10:32 by BuyantUkhaa
Cargo On The Emb 120-capacity posted Fri Apr 21 2006 18:11:57 by Mirrodie
What Are The Small Bars On Top Of Doors? posted Tue Apr 18 2006 14:45:08 by Keta
Lines On Top Of The Door posted Mon Oct 31 2005 02:10:06 by Kaitak744
Why Not Engines On Top Of The Wings? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 00:21:25 by Keta
Black Dots On Top Of Airplane? posted Tue Mar 29 2005 04:26:28 by AR1300
What Is This On Top Of The MCP (Red Led Display) posted Wed Apr 16 2003 04:01:18 by Rohan737
'vortex' On Top Of The Wing? posted Sun Apr 28 2002 14:29:22 by Staffan

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format