Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B-747 Vs A-380 Flight Deck Placement  
User currently offlinejetskipper From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 381 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10017 times:

What was Boeings reason for putting the flight deck of the 747 on the second deck? Airbus positioned the flight deck of the A-380 on the first deck which seems to give the pilots a vantage point that they are more accustomed.

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9994 times:

Because the 747F has a flip-up nose door. Don't think it would be very practical for the flight deck to be part of the cargo door.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim de Groot - AirTeamImages



User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 496 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9965 times:

Boeing put the flight deck on the second deck (and, for that matter, created the second deck hump in the first place) for cargo...so that the nose could swing open to allow full access to the main deck without interfering with the flight control linkage.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon Collection-Pima Air and Space Museum
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Allan Rossmore


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Greg Yates
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bernd Sturm



For comparison, the Aero Spacelines Guppy (Boeing 377 conversion) had a setup where the entire front of the airplane swung open...and, I've heard that the flight control linkages had to be re-adjusted every time the front was opened up.

IIRC even when they were still actively planning the A380F, Airbus wasn't planning to have an opening nose, so they decided it wasn't necessary to put the flight deck on the second deck...and, in the days of fly-by-wire, I imagine that it wouldn't make a difference on a modern aircraft anyways since you don't have to deal with adjusting control cables and linkages and whatnot. With that said, from an aesthetics standpoint, I think the flight deck on the A380 looks like it's lower than it should be and is the single biggest thing that makes the plane look ugly IMHO. It still looks better than the 777 does, though   



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29672 posts, RR: 84
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9943 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jetskipper (Thread starter):
What was Boeings reason for putting the flight deck of the 747 on the second deck?

Boeing designed the 747 to be able to load cargo through the nose and that required the cockpit to be located above the main deck for clearance.

Boeing's early dual-deck 747 concepts had the cockpit on the upper deck, as well.

They did have a single-deck concept called "the anteater" where the cockpit extended out from the main fuselage to allow it to hang lower and offer better visibility for ground operations and landing.

http://www.socialwelfareagency.org/Public/Graphics/Aviation/Boeing_747_Anteater.jpg


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9704 times:

Hey, did Boeing design the 747 to be able to load cargo through the nose?

NS


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4057 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9642 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 4):
Hey, did Boeing design the 747 to be able to load cargo through the nose?

I thought they were designing the 747 to be a military freighter transport to transport tanks and troops and made the cockpit where it is to be able to load large items through the nose for quick deployment in the battle theatre.

[Edited 2012-05-14 16:10:47]


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8616 posts, RR: 43
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9605 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 4):
Hey, did Boeing design the 747 to be able to load cargo through the nose?

The legend goes that the common belief during the design stage of the 747 was that most future intercontinental passenger transport would be supersonic. So the 747 was designed to be able to load cargo through the nose, IIRC it was even considered to convert pax aircraft with fixed noses to open-nose freighters after the switch to SSTs.

I hope my memory isn't too rusty...



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineCargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1251 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9544 times:

Yup.

The "SCD" portion of what you commonly see at the end of a 747 freighter's build code is for "Side Cargo Door" - The very first 747-200 freighters actually had the side cargo door as an option rather than a standard feature. I believe that the first 747-200 freighter, for Lufthansa, only had the nose door at first, and had the SCD added later. I don't think any other 747F's were delivered that way.

A small number of 747s with windows - the 747 Convertibles - were delivered with the nose door. In the above photos, you can see one of them. They were meant to be convertible between both full freighter and full pax, but in practice, this was not as practical for a 747 as it was for a 727 or 737 (the other convertible models in Boeing's lineup at that time).

That same aircraft as it appeared in 1974:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Juhani Sipilä



It too, looks like it doesn't have the SCD.

[Edited 2012-05-14 16:27:04]

User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9384 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 5):
I thought they were designing the 747 to be a military freighter transport to transport tanks and troops and made the cockpit where it is to be able to load large items through the nose for quick deployment in the battle theatre.

The 747 design can be traced back to Boeing's failed bid for what eventually became the C-5. Lockheed, Douglas and Boeing were the three finalists for the CX-HLS project (Other manufacturers that submitted designs were General Dynamics and Martin Marietta.). The only reason why Lockheed won the contract was that their design had the lowest cost while the USAF preferred Boeing's design. You can definitely see elements of what became the 747 in Boeing's CX-HLS design:

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=114238&stc=1&d=1285608482

Another thing to remember is that at the time the 747 entered service, conventional wisdom was that the SST (Concorde and B-2707) was the way passenger a/c would move towards and traditional jet a/c would be relegated to a cargo role. As we all know, this failed to happen.


User currently offlineABpositive From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9211 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 8):
Another thing to remember is that at the time the 747 entered service, conventional wisdom was that the SST (Concorde and B-2707) was the way passenger a/c would move towards and traditional jet a/c would be relegated to a cargo role. As we all know, this failed to happen.

With most airlines treating their passengers like cargo, there is some truth in it.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8222 times:

Quoting jetskipper (Thread starter):
Airbus positioned the flight deck of the A-380 on the first deck which seems to give the pilots a vantage point that they are more accustomed

The A380 flightdeck is actually between the lower and upper deck. So it's still higher than would normally be the case in a wide body.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8165 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 10):
The A380 flightdeck is actually between the lower and upper deck. So it's still higher than would normally be the case in a wide body.

It's up there to make space for the landing gear I think. The nose gear is further forward than on the 747, and the lower deck is lower in the fuselage. In any case it needs to be back a bit to make space for the radar.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 625 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8088 times:

It's amusing for me to see that -200C with windows in the nose door. Didn't realize that was possible!

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8044 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 5):
I thought they were designing the 747 to be a military freighter transport to transport tanks and troops and made the cockpit where it is to be able to load large items through the nose for quick deployment in the battle theatre.

The 747 was never designed for the miliary. It was designed to be a freighter since it was being developed concurrently with the 2707, which was widely assumed to be about to steal all the passenger traffic.

Quoting aloges (Reply 6):
The legend goes that the common belief during the design stage of the 747 was that most future intercontinental passenger transport would be supersonic.

Not just legend; the original 747 chief engineer came right out and said it, on the record.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 8):
The 747 design can be traced back to Boeing's failed bid for what eventually became the C-5.

Not really. They share engines and the 2nd deck flight deck location and that's about it. The same 747 chief engineer vehemently denies this repeated rumour that the 747 was just a "commercialized" version of Boeing's failed military airlifter.

Tom.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8037 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 13):
Quoting srbmod (Reply 8):
The 747 design can be traced back to Boeing's failed bid for what eventually became the C-5.

Not really. They share engines and the 2nd deck flight deck location and that's about it.

Perhaps. But the section and fin look very 747.



"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 15, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7973 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 14):
But the section and fin look very 747.

Well, unless you're a T-tail, a fin is basically a fin but I agree they look similar.

The section I don't follow...the nose on the military model is clearly a different section than the 747 and the mid-cabin is high-wing rather than low-wing.

Tom.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7968 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 15):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 14):
But the section and fin look very 747.

Well, unless you're a T-tail, a fin is basically a fin but I agree they look similar.

The section I don't follow...the nose on the military model is clearly a different section than the 747 and the mid-cabin is high-wing rather than low-wing.

I'm sorry. That should have read "tail section". The TAIL section and fin look very 747.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7951 times:

Yeah the tail looks very much 747, but the front looks a lot wider.

User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7938 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11):
It's up there to make space for the landing gear I think. The nose gear is further forward than on the 747, and the lower deck is lower in the fuselage. In any case it needs to be back a bit to make space for the radar.

The nosegear retracts into the lower lobe, so it doesn't force the cockpit to be higher. The radar doesn't necessitate it to be any higher than a 777 flightdeck, for example. Main deck and upper deck height of the A380 is comparable to the 747, but the A380 decks are slightly higher in fact.

747 Main deck 4.74m - 5.18m, Upper deck 7.53m-7.91m
A380 Main deck 5.07m-5.34m, Upper deck 7.57m-8.36m

The A380 flightdeck window sill is 7.14m-7.42m above ground level. 747 flightdeck window sill height is around 8.3m-8.7m.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7474sec2.pdf
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...ata/AC/Airbus-AC-A380-20111101.pdf
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7772sec2.pdf



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2004 posts, RR: 27
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7515 times:

Quoting warden145 (Reply 2):
flight deck on the A380 looks like it's lower than it should be and is the single biggest thing that makes the plane look ugly IMHO. It still looks better than the 777 does, though

The 777 is just a bloated fat 767.
767 versus 777


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeff Miller
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Globalpics


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Erwin van Dijck
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gabe Pfeiffer



747 versus 380, IMO the 747 looks more regal.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Julian Whitelaw
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Markman


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Lim
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Karl Nixon



No way, no how.
777 versus 380


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kay Hansen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Markman


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Globalpics
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Karl Nixon




UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7166 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 12):
It's amusing for me to see that -200C with windows in the nose door. Didn't realize that was possible!

Boeing built 13 -200C Convertibles -- 3 each for Iraqi Airways, Transamerica Airlines and World Airways, and 2 each for El Al and Martinair.

Martinair -200C below while in use as a freighter and in all-passenger configuration.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thomas Millard
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Kelley



There were two missing windows where the nose door met the rest of the fuselage. Second photo of the nose section interior while in use as a freighter, showing some of the passenger fittings including the forward bulkhead and window frames etc.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © acinorev
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerardo Wals



User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2132 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7126 times:

A380 nose arrangement


User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9393 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 7113 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 21):

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out! The A380 cockpit is technically on a mid-deck, slightly above the lower deck.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 4):
Hey, did Boeing design the 747 to be able to load cargo through the nose?

Don't worry Neil, I laughed.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2238 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7082 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 21):

The tire (a 1270x455 on the A380 nosegear, IIRC) seems far out of proportion with the pilot in that illustration.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6264 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6849 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 19):
The 777 is just a bloated fat 767.
767 versus 777

You know, they do share the same Boeing section 41 (cockpit section)   The 777 just has an adaptor section behind it to allow the 767 cockpit to mate to the 777 fuselage...



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
25 DocLightning : A Boeing engineer came on this site and said that this is not the case. They share cockpit windows only. They couldn't make the 767 Section 41 work a
26 Jetlagged : I pointed it out a while ago: but wingedmigrator's diagram shows the layout very clearly.
27 Post contains images bond007 : Me too... Jimbo
28 vikkyvik : Ah, my apologies - I missed that!
29 tdscanuck : Which one? As far as I know, it's common (aerodynamically) back to at least the end of the windows. Structurally it's probably different but that mak
30 DocLightning : I forget his name now. This was about five years ago.
31 Post contains images KELPkid : IIRC, the radome is interchangeable between a '67 and a T7, too...someone correct me if I'm wrong
32 OldAeroGuy : Both of you are correct.
33 BigJKU : Yeah, the A380 looks like it has a bloated head from the front. It is not the planes fault, form over function after all, but it is not a pretty thin
34 Euclid : Those pictures in Viscount724's post does raise a question. The last picture of the interior of the convertible 747 shows it in cargo config with a cr
35 Viscount724 : No, the normal stairway to the upper deck was installed when it was in all-passenger configuration and was removed (like the galleys, lavatories etc.
36 Euclid : Many thanks for the answer. Absolutely amazing how clever these things were designed to make provision for both the ladder access in cargo config and
37 CALTECH : That's correct. The 777 was the 767-X, until Boeing decided enough was changed that it deserved a new designation. Many things are interchangeable be
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B-747 Vs A-380 Flight Deck Placement
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...
State-of-the-Art Flight Deck For 747-8 posted Tue Apr 20 2010 00:54:43 by propilot83
747-400 Flight Deck Question posted Wed Dec 27 2006 16:07:42 by Gkyip
747-400LCF Flight Deck posted Mon Dec 25 2006 01:56:46 by Gkyip
Oxygen Masks In 747 Flight Deck posted Tue Sep 13 2005 07:30:21 by TG992
Handwritten 4 Letters In DL 763 Flight Deck posted Thu Nov 10 2011 09:51:14 by Ychocky
737NG Flight Deck Display Configurations posted Thu Sep 15 2011 16:05:15 by WestJetForLife
Boeing Flight Deck Colour Code. posted Sat Sep 10 2011 14:41:53 by HAWK21M
Flight Deck Conditions posted Thu Aug 11 2011 06:35:22 by goinv
Old-School Phones On The Flight Deck Still? posted Mon Jul 19 2010 05:42:33 by nitepilot79
Flight Deck Window Blinds posted Wed Feb 24 2010 10:42:56 by Speedbird174
Flight Deck Conditions posted Thu Aug 11 2011 06:35:22 by goinv
Old-School Phones On The Flight Deck Still? posted Mon Jul 19 2010 05:42:33 by nitepilot79

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format