Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
NW727251ADV
Topic Author
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:55 pm

Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:50 am

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e24/Neno8403/Aviation/NewBoeingVLA.jpg

*HOPEFULLY YOU CAN CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO MAKE IT BIGGER*

Ok, so I hope that I don't get bashed for this topic (for whatever reason). I was bored one day so I created this seatmap of a brand new very large aircraft (VLA). Now, I am in no way an engineer or mathematician. So I didn't get into the technicalities and logistics of weight, size (length, width, height, etc.), or engines powerful enough to power this plane. I just pretty much made an airframe and worked within it.

So my question is, could this aircraft I designed be feasible/justifiable in either todays market or in the future? I'm assuming definitely not in today's world considering the A380 is having a tough time finding buyers. But could such an aircraft ever fly? Is there anyone able to estimate how long my plane is and how wide it would be based upon just looking at the layout? I designed the plane to be comfortably wider than the A380 seating 11-abreast as standard on the main-deck with a 12-abreast maximum ONLY for high-density configuration and 9-abreast standard/maximum on the Upper-Deck. There are also provisions for "sky suites" in the upper-deck crown of the aircraft.

Anyway, I am just wondering about the technical specs of such a plane were it ever to exist since with my limited knowledge I would not be able to figure it out on my own. Thanks in advance.
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2564
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:15 am

As a Boeing design it would be fine. If it were an Airbus it would of course be far too large.  Smile
 
FlyingColours
Posts: 2366
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 3:13 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:41 am

I like that design, but I just have a few points from a crewmembers standpoint.

On the upper deck (Level 2), by the 2nd set of exits & end of Buisness class, it may be better to relocate those buisness class toilets towards the front of the cabin. However its the 3rd exits where I think the toilets & galleys don't mix, just move the galley into the middle block and move the toilets to the outboard side, 1 on either side. Its because a galley split into two like that just wouldnt work.

On the lower deck, you would probably need a galley at the start of Zone A as it would make serving zone A more efficient. I love the large galley between zones B & C though  Smile

Perhaps at the aft of the aircraft you could place several lavatories like on the Tri-star?

They are just a few points, I could probably explain them a little better but I have a really bad headache and can't go on  Smile Smile

Good design, got any more?

Phil
FlyingColours
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 21182
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:50 am

Looks cool.

What's the total length? You would have serious problems getting anything above 80m x 80m footprint into service. Just too much cost of changing infrastructure. That's why the 380-900 is just a touch under 80m x 80m.

You might also consider stairs between the levels at the back.
 
NW727251ADV
Topic Author
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:55 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:14 am

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 1):
As a Boeing design it would be fine. If it were an Airbus it would of course be far too large.

LOL I like your sense of humor. To be honest, I am a huge BOEING fan and supporter and as much as I loathe the A388 I would absolutely LOVE for Airbus to build the A380-900!

Quoting FlyingColours (Reply 2):
On the upper deck (Level 2), by the 2nd set of exits & end of Buisness class, it may be better to relocate those buisness class toilets towards the front of the cabin. However its the 3rd exits where I think the toilets & galleys don't mix, just move the galley into the middle block and move the toilets to the outboard side, 1 on either side. Its because a galley split into two like that just wouldnt work.

I understand exactly what you are saying. Makes sense.

Quoting FlyingColours (Reply 2):
Perhaps at the aft of the aircraft you could place several lavatories like on the Tri-star?

Actually provisions for toilets are already there. You see how there are six divided sections at the very back? Those are the toilets. I just got too lazy to label them lol.

Quoting FlyingColours (Reply 2):
Good design, got any more?

I have several more designs for this same airframe if thats what you are inquiring. I can post a few if some of you all want me to. And thanks! Its good to know that I didn't come up with something TOTALLY wacky!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
What's the total length?

I don't know mate. Thats what I had asked in the beginning. If anyone could estimate the length. I know that it would be noticably longer than the A380-900 and I know that would be an issue. But I remember a time when someone was proposing a 320-foot supersonic aircraft!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
You would have serious problems getting anything above 80m x 80m footprint into service. Just too much cost of changing infrastructure. That's why the 380-900 is just a touch under 80m x 80m.

View above reply. But I agree with you.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
You might also consider stairs between the levels at the back.

You see the thing immediate aft of the large galley in Zone C? Those are rear airstairs leading to the upper deck.
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:47 am

Kinda wondering about the third deck...does the A380 have that much crown space? I thought that was one of the reasons Airbus tried a double-decker-no wasted crown space  Wink
 
FlyingColours
Posts: 2366
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 3:13 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:08 am

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5):
Kinda wondering about the third deck...does the A380 have that much crown space? I thought that was one of the reasons Airbus tried a double-decker-no wasted crown space

I think you are right there, but that area would be unusable during takeoff and landing as there are no exits, just a staircase.

Just noticed that in the crown there is a room labeled "S", what is that?

There needs to be a crew rest area, perhaps that would be better suited in the crown perhaps?

Phil
FlyingColours
 
zenarcade
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:08 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:24 am

Judging by comparison of 744 diagrams your design would need to be well off the ground to allow proper take off pitch. Otherwise it's tail strike heaven.

I think you might need more lavs on the first level.

Adam
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7207
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:37 am

I really like those SkySuites on top. But have you imagined what cross section that plane will have?

In case you want more that 3 or 4 feet to the ceiling in the SkySuites, then it would most likely have to be a quadro bubble fuselage design.

But if you make level 2 the wider one - exchange level 1 and level 2, then you might be able to make it a triple bubble fuselage (same as A380) with sufficient ceiling in the SkySuite.

Making it a triple bubble only will produce a more streamlined fuselage, less wetted area (less drag) and more fuselage volume for the same weight. A quadro bubble fuselage will also call for some very complicated (and probably heavy) fore and aft bulkheads.

I would also turn the stairs up front 90 degrees and separate the two stairs by a narrow floor beam. That alone would reduce the need for a thousand lbs of fuselage strengthening since the level 2 floor always will have to take up the stretch of the pressurization forces, never mind if you make it triple or quadro bubble.

Sorry, you said already in the beginning, that this was not anything technical. But I can't look upon such things without imagining how it has to be made to stick in one piece when pressurized.
 
BAE146QT
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:58 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:49 am

That really is a big old bird right there. Wouldn't want to be under it when it took a dump though.

Seriously though, did you have a market in mind when you created it? I think it would work well in the Pacific rim, given large-scale traffic between Japan and the US. It's a big area, financially important, and traffic is only going to get heavier.
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7863
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:22 pm

No... Boeing looked at a super jumbo about 15 years ago and decided the market wasn't there. As the A380 sales show right now, Boeing is right.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17398
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:09 pm

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 10):
No... Boeing looked at a super jumbo about 15 years ago and decided the market wasn't there. As the A380 sales show right now, Boeing is right.

Boeing documents updated recently say a market for 1000 aircraft exists of the next years in that size...

I guess with no market that is why we have the 380 in production, the AN124 going back into production, and the 747-8i going into production....
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7863
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:49 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 11):
I guess with no market that is why we have the 380 in production, the AN124 going back into production, and the 747-8i going into production....

The A380 sales are dismal and cost over runs, delays and cancellations are pushing Airbus into the Billions in debt.
The AN124 is for cargo....not passengers. The cargo market is very strong.
The 747-8 is not a super jumbo.... It's a new and updated basic old 747....

[Edited 2007-03-22 06:53:33]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17398
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:57 pm

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 12):
The 747-8 is not a super jumbo.... It's a new and updated basic old 747....

You must go to different briefings from Boeing than I do.....
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7863
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:10 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 13):
You must go to different briefings from Boeing than I do.....

What makes the 747-8 a super jumbo then...?? It's been my understanding that the super jumbo was 500+ passengers. The 747-8 falls just under that.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30184
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:34 pm

You need to consider What market are you catering to.how much will be the wing Span & MLG coverage of that Aircraft.Airports need to be upgraded to cater to it.
Weight is another Issue.
personally I feel Max 450 pax carrier is Satisfactory.
regds
MEL
 
EridanMan
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 12:49 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:14 pm

Wow, nice layout... you clearly put a lot of work into that.

Just .02 from a sophmoric wannabe aircraft designer...

Boarding/Deboarding that sucker would be hell through a single jetway, and a PITA through a standard double Jetway.

More than that though, I really think the days of the cylindrical fuselage are numbered... For all design and refinement that have gone into it over the past 70 years, its starting to show its age. Tube-and-wing designs by definition need to be very lanky (heavy cantilever structure)... They require plenty of hacks to make work in the transonic drag regime, and they make for a fairly awkward passenger space.

Boeing is publically betting on the BWB currently, and i've seen some rough sketches of BWB/3LS hybrids that were quite interesting (Basically an airfoil profile, diamond shaped fuselage with an Aft Mounted Wing, for-plane for Trim and T-Tail for Attitude Control/Stall safety) with the aft fuselage 'tapered' to keep a perfectly-shaped fuselage (by the area-rule).

In the past, such a complexly profiled/shaped fuselage wasn't economically (Connie) or metallurgically feasible, but I think you'll find as CAD/F gets more refined, aircraft are going to move away from 'traditional' layouts to more aerodynamically 'ideal' layouts, as A- the cost of doing so lessons and B- the cost of fuel continues to climb.
 
NW727251ADV
Topic Author
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:55 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:28 pm

Hey

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 8):
I really like those SkySuites on top. But have you imagined what cross section that plane will have?

Thank you. Let me address the upper-deck thing since thats a question most people have. The "3rd deck" if you can even call it that, isn't designed to be a "full-sized" deck. I got the concept from pictures that I saw on Boeings website of the proposed utilization of the crown space of both the 772LR and 748i. This is exactly what Boeing was proposing inc. the full sky suites. I didn't know how it was possible but they were actually able to accommodate these things in the crown space.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 8):
I would also turn the stairs up front 90 degrees and separate the two stairs by a narrow floor beam.

I am using the same stair config as on the A380 so are you proposing completely turning the entire staircase to face the passenger doors of the aircraft?

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 8):
Sorry, you said already in the beginning, that this was not anything technical. But I can't look upon such things without imagining how it has to be made to stick in one piece when pressurized.

Lol no problem at all. I appreciate the feedback.

Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 9):
Seriously though, did you have a market in mind when you created it? I think it would work well in the Pacific rim, given large-scale traffic between Japan and the US. It's a big area, financially important, and traffic is only going to get heavier.

Actually I did have the Pacific in mind as well as maybe some high-yield, high-density European markets as well.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 11):
Boeing documents updated recently say a market for 1000 aircraft exists of the next years in that size...

I don't know if this is true (but I am not trying to secondguess you) but I do know that over an extended period of time there is sort of a market for a VLA as you pointed out.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 15):
You need to consider What market are you catering to.how much will be the wing Span & MLG coverage of that Aircraft.Airports need to be upgraded to cater to it.
Weight is another Issue.
personally I feel Max 450 pax carrier is Satisfactory.

Absolutely correct. You bring up some very technical and valid points.

Quoting EridanMan (Reply 16):
Wow, nice layout... you clearly put a lot of work into that.

You know it actually wasn't as hard or time consuming as you would think. I did this in no time. I have about 10 other seating arrangements for this same aircraft. I will actually post another just to get some feedback. Thanks for the compliments you guys. I thought sure everyone was going to be calling me a nutt for even thinking such a plane could ever make sense lol.
 
Virgin747LGW
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:02 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:37 pm

lol if your unlucky to be in the middle of the skysuites, your gonna have to walk half the length of the plane to go to the toilet! other than that, looks great
 
NW727251ADV
Topic Author
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:55 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:48 pm

Here is one more seatmap. I kind of like this one a little better as my first one is more of a long-haul, luxury variant.

My only gripe with this one is that I didnt make provisions for enough lower-deck J-class and also there aren't enough lavs for the lower-deck Y-class passengers.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e24/Neno8403/Aviation/NewBoeingVLA2A.jpg

[Edited 2007-03-22 15:53:19]
 
WrenchBender
Posts: 1662
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 5:59 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:12 pm

I find the concept in principle is fine, even exciting.
But the reality of most airports being unable to deal with the shear volume of PAX and luggage. YYZ for instance, I have waited over an hour for luggage from an A320, seating for 140, actual PAX about 80. Now you want an A/C capable of 800+ PAX to offload luggage in a timely manner.......
To much infrastructure needs to be changed to handle A/C of this size/volume. If and when airports can come up with luggage handling to keep up with the current volume of PAX, then and only then should supersize A/c be considered.
Just my thoughts.

WrenchBender
 
ex52tech
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:28 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:45 pm

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 12):
The A380 sales are dismal and cost over runs, delays and cancellations are pushing Airbus into the Billions in debt.

That's ok, the countries that subsidise Airbus, will pick up the costs.

My other question is......How many main landing gear and wheels are this A/C going to need to land and taxi at the average airport.

Oh......and you better not crash anything with that many passengers on it.


Ex.
 
BAE146QT
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:58 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:15 am

Quoting Ex52Tech:
How many main landing gear and wheels are this A/C going to need to land and taxi at the average airport.

Hadn't thought of that. I guess you'd risk making it look like an AN-225.

At which point it would be so heavy that you'd end up with statistics like, "the diameter of the engine nacelle is the same as the cross section of a 747!" or somesuch.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4525
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:40 am

i think that the width of the fuselage is not enough to be strong at those lengths, slightly shorter and wide to give a better second moment of area and less moment stresses. looks fun though, imagine the wake it would produce!

Fred
 
NW727251ADV
Topic Author
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:55 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:47 am

Quoting Flipdewaf (Reply 23):
i think that the width of the fuselage is not enough to be strong at those lengths, slightly shorter and wide to give a better second moment of area and less moment stresses. looks fun though, imagine the wake it would produce!

I hadn't thought about momentum arm and all that either. And the wake would be tremendous!
 
trichos
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 10:42 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:50 am

There's been talk (or long range plans) of replacing the 747 Air Force Ones. Hmm. Imagine all the reporters and electronics you could cram in there.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17398
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:34 am

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 14):
What makes the 747-8 a super jumbo then...?? It's been my understanding that the super jumbo was 500+ passengers. The 747-8 falls just under that.

747s (744Ds in Japan) have been carrying over 500 pax for years....dont know where you got the 500 pax number from, but it is not something I had heard of before.
 
ex52tech
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:28 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:38 am

Quoting Trichos (Reply 25):
There's been talk (or long range plans) of replacing the 747 Air Force Ones

Now there is an airplane with a lot of hours on it.  birthday 

What a waste of taxpayer dollars..............replacing Air Force One.............lets spend some more money.  banghead 

Ex.
 
NW727251ADV
Topic Author
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:55 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:58 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
747s (744Ds in Japan) have been carrying over 500 pax for years....dont know where you got the 500 pax number from, but it is not something I had heard of before.

Not only that Zeke but technically the 747-400 has been certified to accommodate over 620 passengers. I can't remember the exact number but if you do some digging on Boeings website you can find out. And the 777-300 is certified for 550 passengers in high-density configuration. So based on EMBQA's logic both the 744 AND 773 are super jumbos.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17398
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:06 am

Quoting NW727251ADV (Reply 28):
I can't remember the exact number but if you do some digging on Boeings website you can find out.

660
 
NW727251ADV
Topic Author
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:55 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:09 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 29):
660

My man lol! Thats the number.
 
SP90
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 12:39 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:28 am

Damn that looks nice, good job.

Just a few questions, the "T" and "L" are same thing right? Why is the bar on the first level bigger than the one on the second level? What exactly are those two rooms in the forward section located on either side of the stairs leading to the flight deck?

Also I took the liberty of counting how many rows of economy seating you could fit on that floor plan. Including the area where the radar would be and the rear pressure bulkhead (I know, no seats there but I'm using Y-class seating as a scale here) I got 95 rows. So assuming your using 32-inch seating that would mean 3040 inches long (253 1/3 feet or around 84 meters). Now I assume there is additional structure behind the rear pressure bulkhead for stuff like APU and the horizontal stabilizers so the total length could go up to 95 -100 meters.

Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 22):
At which point it would be so heavy that you'd end up with statistics like, "the diameter of the engine nacelle is the same as the cross section of a 747!" or somesuch.

Ha ha! That's only if you plan to make this a twin. I think 4x GE90-115B should do nicely to lift this off the ground.

[Edited 2007-03-27 17:32:07]
 
NW727251ADV
Topic Author
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:55 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:53 am

Quoting SP90 (Reply 31):
SP90

WOW! Thank you sooo much. Very informative. Yes, the L and T mean the same. I have to confess that I used a lot of objects from actual seatplans of real life airlines. I believe the "T" came from a British Airways floorplan. Also, the bar on the 2nd floor is not bigger. The front part in front of the steps is sort of like a little gift shop or whatever an airline would want to make it. Honestly, I would consider the 2nd level more of an "Elite" deck as compared to the 1st. And you are also correct that there would be additional aircraft beyond what you see at the tail section of the aircraft. Again, very informative post and I appreciate it.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7207
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:21 am

Quoting Trichos (Reply 25):
There's been talk (or long range plans) of replacing the 747 Air Force Ones. Hmm. Imagine all the reporters and electronics you could cram in there.

Na, don't think so. Last time Air Force One visited CPH it consisted of 2 x VC-25A and 3 x C-5B.

Of course we knew that the "real" AF1 was not a C-5B, also because they arrived a few days early. But nobody knew which VC-25A was the real AF1 until we saw one of them taxi up to the red carpet.
 
787atPAE
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:40 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:02 am

You know, if you can find enough buyers to buy the plane, does it really matter how big it is?  Smile

I do see a couple issues though. One is emergency exits. That's always fun.

Another is the wing. What is the span? Is it the same as the 747 or 380? If so, since this design is much heavier (my assumption), what effects will be caused by the wing? One issue folks were scared about the A380 was the airflow from the wing. The lift generated by this threadstarter's design will have to be enormous; therefore, so will the strength of the tip vortices and the wing circulation. How will this affect other (smaller) planes?

There will also be enormous flexibility issues caused by such a large structure. What would happen when you pull back sharply on the control column and the rear fuse bends enough for the passengers to notice? That would be pretty cool, though. Now the elevators and stab are at different positions than what you controlled them to. Would this feed into the control laws?

These are just a smattering of questions that would need to be addressed before certification begins and to get us to think a little.  Smile
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 21182
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:45 pm

Quoting 787atPAE (Reply 34):
There will also be enormous flexibility issues caused by such a large structure. What would happen when you pull back sharply on the control column and the rear fuse bends enough for the passengers to notice? That would be pretty cool, though. Now the elevators and stab are at different positions than what you controlled them to. Would this feed into the control laws?

These issues already happen today. If you look out the window at a 747 banking at low speeds the low speed aileron will bend the wing more than roll the plane.

On the 345 and 346, the elevator compensates automatically for fuselage bending to alleviate stresses on the fuselage.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5782
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:19 am

I doubt that there will be demand for a plane this large in the forseeable future. The 80M box is a huge obstacle; getting around it would be almost as difficult as deciding that we would allow 12 foot wide trucks on the highway. The other problem is that the economics of VLA may appear good when the plane is full; they look atrocious when only half full. There just aren't enough routes that would consistently fill such an aircraft to justify its development. Presumably there could be engines to power it; I imagine 4 777 engines would do it. But as others have mentioned, would you want to wait for your luggage coming off of it?
 
NW727251ADV
Topic Author
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:55 pm

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:18 am

Quoting 787atPAE (Reply 34):
787atPAE



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 36):
SEPilot

Very good questions and informative posts. Thats why I created this thread to find out the logistics and feasibility of such an aircraft. As I said I just created it off of boredom mostly. I knew this thing would be a monster more than halfway through but it was too late to make any major adjustments so I just went with it.

Thanks for all the informative posts from everyone.
 
tommybp251b
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:21 am

RE: Could This Very Large Jumbo Be Justified?

Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:29 am

Quoting NW727251ADV (Reply 19):
My only gripe with this one is that I didnt make provisions for enough lower-deck J-class and also there aren't enough lavs for the lower-deck Y-class passengers.

Hi NW727241ADV!

I really like your plans. They look marvellous. May I add some little critics to your second seatplan you posted here?

1. Why are there just 14 First class seats?

2. Why is the main stairs from the upperdeck to the lowerdeck going into the first class section? I know that people will board, will do it through a bridge which leads to their assigned floor. But I know that people like to walk on a plane especially the ones in Economy. I think it's kind of disturbing for the first-class passengers, if every movement between the two floors will take place through their section.

Best regards. Tom

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos