JETPILOT
Topic Author
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

747 Natural Progression...

Sun Oct 24, 1999 12:28 pm

Wouldn't the natural progression for the increased capacity on the 747 be to just extend the upper deck instead of increasing legnth. Does anyone know why Boeing has foregone this option.

The stretch could only adversly affect ground handling.

 
Jack
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:58 am

RE: 747 Natural Progression...

Sun Oct 24, 1999 12:39 pm

yes, definetly, like the A-3xx!!!
However, bigger aircraft are not needed at all anyway...
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: 747 Natural Progression...

Sun Oct 24, 1999 12:46 pm

I've head something about problems with having the upper deck on the wing root frame.
 
hisham
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 1999 11:32 pm

RE: 747 Natural Progression...

Sun Oct 24, 1999 8:27 pm

Deplaning the passengers from a longer aircraft is much easier than from a streched upper deck one. I heard something about security problems resulting from doubledeckers.
Hisham.
 
william
Posts: 1622
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: 747 Natural Progression...

Mon Oct 25, 1999 10:02 am

I remember reading about this in a Popular Mechanics back in the early 80s. Its an idea that has been kicked around for some time. Why they have not done it yet? Who knows,could be airframe problems. If Boeing is to extend the "the Old Lady",it should go ahead with its 747xx project. Using parts from the 777 and lengthening the fuselage. Heck,they might call it 747 NG.
 
Guest

RE: 747 Natural Progression...

Mon Oct 25, 1999 11:07 am

It is an idea that has been kicked around ever since the 747 just existed on paper. The proplem is that it would cost more to develop and to tool the factory then it would to just strech the airplane. Every frame aft of the current hump would have to be redesigned and that is where the increased cost comes into play.
 
hmmmm...
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:32 am

RE: 747 Natural Progression...

Mon Oct 25, 1999 8:49 pm

In addition to the frames having to be all new, and they would all have to be new, as stretching the upper deck would affect the ones in the present hump too, as the present upper deck tapers off from the front to the back, the significant increase in weight would necessitate an all new wing, which is another big ticket item. They would end up with the cost of making a new airplane. The upper deck is quite small. It is only 6 seats abreast in economy, and even that is cramped. They could get the same extra seat capacity by stretching it, and that route would be more feasible.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
 
virgin747
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 1999 12:20 am

777-300

Wed Oct 27, 1999 12:12 am

Just remember the 777300 is longer now!!!!!!!!!!
Which one would be forced to ask
"what is worlds largest commerical aircraft???"

Matthew"747"Capina
 
Ilyushin96M
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 3:15 am

RE: 747 Natural Progression...

Wed Oct 27, 1999 12:35 am

It's interesting no one has mentioned the problems created by the oblong shape of the 747 forward fuselage. Older 747s have to undergo extensive overhaul and strengthening of the frames and stringers for that section because, as I read somewhere, "Mother Nature prefers curves rather than flat surfaces." Hence the structural failures which have occurred, albeit not often (UAL 747-200 out of Honolulu having part of the forward cabin wall disintegrate, for example). This leads me to wonder if the design of the 747 is not dated. Regarding the 777-300, it is indeed the world's largest airliner by virtue of its length. The 747-400 exceeds it in passenger capacity.