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, 402 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11460 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, 25700 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11439 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, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11411 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, 31132 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11387 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, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 11147 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, 4316 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 11086 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, 8726 posts, RR: 43
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 11050 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, 1276 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10988 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 (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10827 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, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10654 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, 2565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9666 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, 17079 posts, RR: 66
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9608 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, 722 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9531 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 (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9487 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, 17079 posts, RR: 66
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9480 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 (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9416 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, 17079 posts, RR: 66
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9411 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, 1828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9394 times:

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

User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9381 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, 2299 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8958 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, 25700 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8609 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, 2225 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8569 times:

A380 nose arrangement


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10134 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8556 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, 2375 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8525 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 exactly 9 years ago today! , 6420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8292 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 :-)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20013 posts, RR: 59
Reply 25, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8539 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 24):
You know, they do share the same Boeing section 41 (cockpit section)

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 aerodynamically with the 777 fuselage.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 26, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8454 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 22):
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.

I pointed it out a while ago:

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.

but wingedmigrator's diagram shows the layout very clearly.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5432 posts, RR: 8
Reply 27, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8509 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 22):
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.

Me too...  


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10134 posts, RR: 26
Reply 28, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8471 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 26):
I pointed it out a while ago:

Ah, my apologies - I missed that!



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 29, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8478 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
A Boeing engineer came on this site and said that this is not the case.

Which one?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
They share cockpit windows only. They couldn't make the 767 Section 41 work aerodynamically with the 777 fuselage.

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 makes no difference to looks or flight deck placement.

Tom.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20013 posts, RR: 59
Reply 30, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8431 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
Which one?

I forget his name now. This was about five years ago.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6420 posts, RR: 3
Reply 31, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8235 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
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 makes no difference to looks or flight deck placement.

Tom.

IIRC, the radome is interchangeable between a '67 and a T7, too...someone correct me if I'm wrong  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3548 posts, RR: 67
Reply 32, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8193 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 24):
You know, they do share the same Boeing section 41 (cockpit section)
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):
As far as I know, it's common (aerodynamically) back to at least the end of the windows.

Both of you are correct.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 33, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7901 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 19):
747 versus 380, IMO the 747 looks more regal.

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 thing to look at.


User currently offlineEuclid From South Africa, joined Apr 2005, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7546 times:

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 crew ladder for accessing the upper deck. I therefore assume that when configured for passengers, the upper deck was not used for passenger seating.

First of all, I'm sure no airline would allow passengers to climb a ladder to reach their seats, or did the conversion process somehow include a removable set of regular stairs?

Secondly, the upper deck on freighters are usually configured for the crew, galley, toilet, some seats, rest bunks and so forth, and I'm sure this was not converted to accommodate fare paying passengers each time the plane was converted from freighter to passenger.

So, in short, am I right in saying that the upper deck was not used for passengers even in passenger carrying config? Anyone?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25700 posts, RR: 22
Reply 35, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7498 times:

Quoting Euclid (Reply 34):
So, in short, am I right in saying that the upper deck was not used for passengers even in passenger carrying config? Anyone?

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.) when converted to all-cargo configuration. That conversion was a pretty big job.


User currently offlineEuclid From South Africa, joined Apr 2005, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7435 times:

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 stair access in passenger config.

User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2299 posts, RR: 26
Reply 37, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7403 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 24):
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...

That's correct. The 777 was the 767-X, until Boeing decided enough was changed that it deserved a new designation.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 31):
IIRC, the radome is interchangeable between a '67 and a T7, too...someone correct me if I'm wrong

Many things are interchangeable between the two, including at least the main gear tires of the 767-400 and 777-200.



UNITED We Stand
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