Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Psgr. Bay On Aircraft Like Space Shuttle?  
User currently offlinerightrudder From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 159 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4155 times:

Just curious why there has never been (of my own knowledge) an aircraft that has a cargo bay like the Space Shuttle? Have all the passengers ready in the cylinder shaped compartment and the mechanical arm would load and unload the pod into the aircraft. I am not an engineer but wouldn't it make things seamless during boarding and deplaning.


"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana".
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4145 times:

Quoting rightrudder (Thread starter):
Have all the passengers ready in the cylinder shaped compartment and the mechanical arm would load and unload the pod into the aircraft.

First, there is a reason that passengers are referred to as self loading cargo. There is no reason to add the cost, weight, and complexity when people can simply walk down a jetway.

Even for cargo, such a system makes no sense. If you look at cargo loading equipment, it is quite large and heavy, making it the sort of thing you would rather leave on the ground. I think I saw some snippets about the military looking at a loader that could be carried onboard the aircraft, but such a contraption would only be useful is specific circumstances where such equipment is unavailable at the destination.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4093 times:

BMI has it running.

And what are we truly saving. Time? Not much. Mainline boarding time in the US is rought 30 minutes for anything from a Mad Dog to a 757. About 5 minutes is added for widebodies. I've seen DL push a 763 with all seats occupied in about 30 minutes.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4075 times:

What would really save time at boarding is a device to extract passengers out of the duty free shops, coffee shops or bars and get them all to the gate on time.

User currently offlineDecromin From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4052 times:

You still have all the normal boarding issues you have now, just that they take place whilst you are getting onto the passenger cylinder instead of the aircraft itself. Next, you are adding a whole new layer of complexity and possible problem areas with the docking/undocking of the compartment. It seems an awful lot of trouble to go to to save a little time from the boarding process.

That said, I kind of like the idea from a cargo point of view. Rather than a pod, some sort of self supporting interlocked version of the LD3 pallets might have some use. If you could build a block of LD3's together on the ground, prebalanced, then simply push the whole thing onto a plane with nose or tail access, then that may shorten turnaround for a cargo carrier, but I'm sure I'm missing something there, and somehow I doubt it would translate to passengers.


User currently offlinerightrudder From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4027 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 2):
And what are we truly saving. Time?

Not just that but I would say security. Why not load them off campus in the parking lots and transport them in pre-screened and secure. By an engineering standpoint, can something like this fly?



"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana".
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3996 times:

Setting $$$ aside, sure, i think it's possibe. I mean, almost anything is in this day and age. You just have to find the right people to do it.

Take take the engineless taxi concept for example. That idea has been around for quite some time now. Problem was money and making it practical. I don't know where they are at now but last I heard, they were trying to figure out ways to reduce its weight.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3949 times:

Quoting rightrudder (Reply 5):
Why not load them off campus in the parking lots and transport them in pre-screened and secure. By an engineering standpoint, can something like this fly?

Now you're on to something I've wondered might be feasible.

Scratch the "people pod" idea. I think it would be a novel idea to offer a prescreen of passengers at some central location, say in a city center, and transport them in a "sterile" environment directly to the aircraft--or at least the secure area of the terminal. Even this way, there are probably just too many variables/added costs/etc to make it economically viable.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7979 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3937 times:

Kind of related, but will we ever see wide spread use of double jetways? Load from the front and back? I think it's ingenious, but the fact that it's hardly ever used probably means it's not as ingenious as I thought  


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinerightrudder From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3877 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8):
Kind of related, but will we ever see wide spread use of double jetways? Load from the front and back? I think it's ingenious, but the fact that it's hardly ever used probably means it's not as ingenious as I thought

Probably because of the caterers and other logistics. Also, the safety issues with not only the wing but the tail. Doubling chances of a mechanical with an aft passenger loading bridge.



"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana".
User currently offlinehomsar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3872 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 7):
Scratch the "people pod" idea. I think it would be a novel idea to offer a prescreen of passengers at some central location, say in a city center, and transport them in a "sterile" environment directly to the aircraft--or at least the secure area of the terminal. Even this way, there are probably just too many variables/added costs/etc to make it economically viable.

What do you gain by doing that?

You still have security screening, but now, instead of being able to focus your security resources in one spot, you have to have security facilities all over the place, miles away from the airport, and a way to transport people in a secure manner over those many miles.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6371 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3772 times:

Quoting rightrudder (Reply 5):
By an engineering standpoint, can something like this fly?

Here is the engineer in me: Anything can fly...it's a matter of doing it safely, effectively and efficiently. Anything that adds more possible fault areas than necessary can impact all three of those areas negatively.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3680 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 2):
And what are we truly saving. Time?

Not likely, since refueling an aircraft could take a half hour or so anyway.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why No Psgr. Bay On Aircraft Like Space Shuttle?
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...
Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL? posted Fri Feb 8 2008 17:12:26 by BR715-A1-30
Why No Wing Fences On Tailplanes? posted Thu Jan 3 2008 10:13:57 by Faro
Why No Retractable Gear On Aerobatics Planes? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 20:54:17 by QFA380
Fuel Selectors: Why No Both Position On Low Wings? posted Sat Nov 19 2005 22:35:45 by FLY2HMO
Why No Tail Antenna On 707-100B Originals? posted Sun Apr 3 2005 23:26:38 by Thrust
Why No Logo Lights On Most Flights? posted Sun Mar 20 2005 14:40:18 by Skywatch
Why No Upper Wings On Wide-bodies? posted Wed Sep 15 2004 14:17:51 by KLMCedric
Why No Wing Let On 744 Domestic? posted Thu Oct 31 2002 07:24:47 by Tsufang@ci
Why No Daylight Fluorescent Lighting On Aircraft? posted Mon Sep 3 2007 00:41:37 by 1337Delta764
Why No HUDs On Large Aircraft? posted Tue Aug 31 2004 05:52:04 by AndrewAir

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format