longhauler wrote:Max Q wrote:Lhaul what was strange about AC’s 747 combis ?
It was only the -400s, as they were being considered when Air Canada was looking for a replacement for its -200 combis when this rule was being suggested. Boeing devised a version where the wall between the cargo and passengers was a fixed (air tight) part of the structure. It could withstand far greater smoke/fume and fire protection than the movable version. The hold also had it's own pack and outflow valve so they could "depressurize" the hold without depressurizing the rest of the cabin. There were other electrical variations too, allowing isolation of the hold.
When presented to Transport Canada, it was deemed acceptable and Air Canada placed the order for three.
However, during construction, Transport Canada announced they were not going to enforce this rule, allowing combi freighters in the arctic. While some of the features of the -400 combis could be reversed, the wall could not. It was a part of the structure. Some unlike most 747 combis where the wall could be placed at doors 4 or 3 or not at all, it was always at doors 4. It made the aircraft very difficult to sell when the time came.
Very interesting, if I understand correctly you could have a situation where the aft main deck of these aircraft could be depressurized while the passenger section in the front is unaffected with a normal cabin altitude
It sounds like a great idea with a main deck cargo fire but I can see how the immovable
bulkhead partition would greatly limit its flexibility and resale value
I assume converting this configuration to a regular combi would be uneconomic ?