Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Configuration Of Modern Transport Aircraft  
User currently offlineSpenceSaab From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 59 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6579 times:

Hi there guys,

I have an assignent to write at university. Its a small one at just 1500words and it is about the configuration of modern transport aircraft (i.e civilian pax & carg aircraft).

Basiclly almost all civilian aircraft are built to a generally accepted sandrd configuration (two wings, attached midway along the uselage, empenge consisting of vertical & horizotal stabilisers and two engines slung below the wings) although there are variations of this (4 engines, engines mounted aft of the wings etc).

I have to investigate WHY thi is, and also lookat possible alternatives.

Could anyone suggest any websites or books that would be worth reading for this?

As usual any help is much appreciated
thanks in advace

regards,
-Spence-


Silence is Golden when you don't know a good answer
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCAL764 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6547 times:

You might want to discuss the pros/cons of a T-tail configuration w/ engines in the rear...


1. Fly to Win 2. Fund Future 3. Reliability 4. Work Together CO: Work Hard, Fly Right...
User currently offlineSoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6447 times:

Look into Boeings "Blended Wing" concepts...complete departure form everything we currently see flying today...also during the second war Germany toyed around with many unusual concepts, many that are seen today and are thought to be revolutionary yet the ideas have been on paper for a long time. Airlines like aircraft that make them money, so economy, stability, cost of manufacturing and maintaining/reliability. All add to the final design, and safety of course is a concern but not the bottom line.

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17075 posts, RR: 66
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6444 times:



Quoting SpenceSaab (Thread starter):

I have to investigate WHY thi is, and also lookat possible alternatives.

Some random thoughts:

As mentioned, look at T-tails. Also interesting are the early 747 proposals which look quite different from what the plane ended up with.

http://rosboch.net/aviationmedia/Early747options_anteater.jpg
http://rosboch.net/aviationmedia/Early747options_doubledecker.jpg

You should definitely look at the relationship between structural weight and fuselage shape. IIRC there was an A380 proposal with two 340 fuselages set side by side, but the structural weight went through the roof.

You should also look at the relationship between structural weight and wing position, as well as wing spar obstruction in the fuselage and wing position.

Underslung engines on pylons have a lot to do with both maintenance and aerodynamics.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6417 times:



Quoting SpenceSaab (Thread starter):
I have to investigate WHY thi is, and also lookat possible alternatives.

Could anyone suggest any websites or books that would be worth reading for this?

Read Joe Sutter's 747 book...lots of insight there on the types of decisions and trades behind that particular aircraft configuration, and a lot is generalizable to other designs.

Tom.


User currently offlineSpenceSaab From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6349 times:

Thanks for all the advice guys, if there's anymore to come feel free to post!


Silence is Golden when you don't know a good answer
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6325 times:



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
Also interesting are the early 747 proposals which look quite different from what the plane ended up with.

Do you know anything about that first one?


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17075 posts, RR: 66
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6265 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):

Do you know anything about that first one?

I know it was nicknamed "The Anteater" because of the lowered cockpit. I believe the lowered cockpit was that way for the same reason as the raised one in the final plane: cargo clearance. Otherwise it was very similar from the final product.

The second one (yellow) is a double decker with a narrower cross section. Sort of like two 707s stacked on top of each other. Note also the mid wing. I believe there were evacuation issues if nothing else, and of course cargo space was not as good.

I have always found these kinds of studies fascinating. It is good that engineers go a bit wild on occasion and don't just take a configuration for granted.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6260 times:

Don't forget, not all lofting decisions are aerodynamic ones. Some are structural and some are economic based on things having little to do with flight.

At some point, for example, airplane design drove airport terminal and ramp design. Now there is some backfeed. Most airports are set up to enplane/deplane passengers from aircraft left and most other services are from the right - fuel, bags etc. If you want to design an airplane incompatible with that setup there had better be a good reason for it because there will be a cost.

For one example, I long suspected that some folks in Long Beach would like to have put canard elevators on the MD-80 but had they done so it is a statistical certainty that a jetway driver would have removed a substantial number of them in the first couple of years.

It might even be true that passenger acceptance might drive some considerations.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9525 posts, RR: 42
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6164 times:



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
The second one (yellow) is a double decker with a narrower cross section

I vaguely recall that Juan Trippe was keen on the double deck from a passenger novelty angle but someone from Boeing took a tape measure to a meeting and demonstrated that a single deck would be as wide as the meeting room they were in. Pan Am were apparently impressed.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20007 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5956 times:



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 8):

For one example, I long suspected that some folks in Long Beach would like to have put canard elevators on the MD-80 but had they done so it is a statistical certainty that a jetway driver would have removed a substantial number of them in the first couple of years.

It might even be true that passenger acceptance might drive some considerations.

THIS passenger would have GLADLY accepted canard elevators on a Mad Dog.

But I agree, that's just asking for a jetway to do some "unscheduled maintenance" on the A/C.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Configuration Of Modern Transport Aircraft
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...
Post-Production Support Of Nearly-Extinct Aircraft posted Mon Nov 17 2008 10:57:26 by 2H4
Effect Of Sand On Aircraft posted Tue Jun 12 2007 16:15:38 by OHLHD
Moment Of Inertia & Aircraft Rotation posted Thu Mar 22 2007 22:28:08 by Rush744
FAA's Flight Check/Transport Aircraft posted Sat Jun 3 2006 00:34:00 by 2H4
Modern Combi Aircraft posted Sun Apr 30 2006 10:03:55 by VC10DC10
Tcas Systems Detection Of No Transponder Aircraft posted Wed Nov 16 2005 23:33:23 by Julesmusician
Development Of The Silent Aircraft posted Thu Aug 18 2005 03:52:20 by Lazybones
Emission And Noise Levels Of Gen. Av. Aircraft? posted Wed Nov 17 2004 01:56:14 by Bahadir
Name Of The Configuration Of 747 posted Thu Nov 4 2004 18:15:46 by Checkerboard
Windmilling Of Engines While Aircraft Parked posted Mon Jan 19 2004 13:25:07 by HAWK21M

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format