Seats at different heights allow armrests to overlap / stacked, better comfort for the same seat width. When slightly reclined, pax shoulders will not bump into each other.
Arch floor can support more weight for the same amount of floor material than flat floor.
Is AKH designed to be flippable?

With a curved cabin floor, how are the passengers supposed to walk to their seats. Also, how do you get the cargo containers on the top out.

Deathtrap in an emergency.

Not to mention food and drink carts would be unstable, and would at best only be able to service one side of the plane (ie. not interchangeable, which is much *less* efficient).

AirKevin wrote:

With a curved cabin floor, how are the passengers supposed to walk to their seats.

The beams supporting the floor would be curved, but the cabin floor itself would have to be stepped for it to work. Also, you'd need fewer, wider steps in first than in the main cabin.

spacecadet wrote:

Deathtrap in an emergency.

Not to mention food and drink carts would be unstable, and would at best only be able to service one side of the plane (ie. not interchangeable, which is much *less* efficient).

With a stepped floor surface the same carts could be used as today, but steps leading down to the emergency exits would probably make it a no-go before the first drawings were even finished.

AirKevin wrote:

Also, how do you get the cargo containers on the top out.

That was my main question as well.

AirKevin wrote:

how do you get the cargo containers on the top out.

Hold top container, drag bottom container out. then lower top container diagonally and drag it out. Cargo door may need rework.

TSS wrote:

but steps leading down to the emergency exits

No seats on exit row, so the entire section of the floor can be raised.

IQuit wrote:

AirKevin wrote:

how do you get the cargo containers on the top out.

Hold top container, drag bottom container out. then lower top container diagonally and drag it out. Cargo door may need rework.

With what.

AirKevin wrote:

IQuit wrote:

AirKevin wrote:

how do you get the cargo containers on the top out.

Hold top container, drag bottom container out. then lower top container diagonally and drag it out. Cargo door may need rework.

With what.

Well, you see, a plane flies because of all the lift being generated. I say we simply take some of that lift and move it into the cargo hold to help move the containers around. In fact if there is some spare lift free after that we can use it to help people get in and out of their seats.

Not sure what the overhead bins look like but if you make the arch have a smaller radius and lower the bins, you might be able to hang a few seats from the ceiling. Or maybe double-stack the window seats.

DaProf wrote:

AirKevin wrote:

IQuit wrote:

Hold top container, drag bottom container out. then lower top container diagonally and drag it out. Cargo door may need rework.

With what.

Well, you see, a plane flies because of all the lift being generated. I say we simply take some of that lift and move it into the cargo hold to help move the containers around. In fact if there is some spare lift free after that we can use it to help people get in and out of their seats.

I’m with you.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit!

Armadillo1 wrote:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070267544A1/en

Thanks! It seems a bit wasteful to me that a huge portion of the lower deck is used for walking during embark / disembark only, however.

Talking about making better use of the fuselage space, I have been thinking that with the technological progress, it could be possible to move the pilots in the belly of the aircraft (wide-body ones). The main benefit would be that the space currently occupied by the cockpit could be turned into a super-premium area, by providing fairly large forward facing windows in a secluded section of the aircraft. Trading belly space for an extended cabin area could be worth in terms of revenue potential. This concept could also allow a reduction of the cockpit windows area (retaining 2 large windows instead of the current 4 to 6), leading to weight and maintenance savings.

tomcat wrote:

Talking about making better use of the fuselage space, I have been thinking that with the technological progress, it could be possible to move the pilots in the belly of the aircraft (wide-body ones). The main benefit would be that the space currently occupied by the cockpit could be turned into a super-premium area, by providing fairly large forward facing windows in a secluded section of the aircraft. Trading belly space for an extended cabin area could be worth in terms of revenue potential. This concept could also allow a reduction of the cockpit windows area (retaining 2 large windows instead of the current 4 to 6), leading to weight and maintenance savings.

You'd still need a door ahead of the seats in order to satisfy evacuation rules. Also, 2 large windows with the same area as 4-6 smaller ones probably means more weight.

Starlionblue wrote:

tomcat wrote:

Talking about making better use of the fuselage space, I have been thinking that with the technological progress, it could be possible to move the pilots in the belly of the aircraft (wide-body ones). The main benefit would be that the space currently occupied by the cockpit could be turned into a super-premium area, by providing fairly large forward facing windows in a secluded section of the aircraft. Trading belly space for an extended cabin area could be worth in terms of revenue potential. This concept could also allow a reduction of the cockpit windows area (retaining 2 large windows instead of the current 4 to 6), leading to weight and maintenance savings.

You'd still need a door ahead of the seats in order to satisfy evacuation rules. Also, 2 large windows with the same area as 4-6 smaller ones probably means more weight.

About a door ahead of the seats, yep this seems a difficult point. When you think that the 747-8 could still get away without it on both decks!

About the 2 large windows, I meant keeping 2 out of the usual 4 or 6. The overall window area would be much reduced compared to typical cockpit windows but they could still be "big" compared to the typical passenger windows.

Otherwise, if not usable for passenger seats, the cockpit area could be used for anything like galleys / lavatories / passenger amenities, whatever would help to optimize the main deck use and increase the income per flight.

The 747-8i could get away with with the door ahead of the seats because the type certificate us from the 1960s, before the regulation existed. A new design could not do omit a door both forward and aft of every passenger seat.

Starlionblue wrote:

The 747-8i could get away with with the door ahead of the seats because the type certificate is from the 1960s, before the regulation existed. A new design could not do omit a door both forward and aft of every passenger seat.

I'm tempted to suggest adding an emergency exit behind the radome on 747s not unlike the tailcone of DC-9s, etc., but that might involve more weight and complexity than it would be worth plus it still wouldn't provide the desired view directly ahead for passengers.

TSS wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

The 747-8i could get away with with the door ahead of the seats because the type certificate is from the 1960s, before the regulation existed. A new design could not do omit a door both forward and aft of every passenger seat.

I'm tempted to suggest adding an emergency exit behind the radome on 747s not unlike the tailcone of DC-9s, etc., but that might involve more weight and complexity than it would be worth plus it still wouldn't provide the desired view directly ahead for passengers.

At the end of the day, most passengers don't care enough about the view for this kind of idea to be economically viable.

Starlionblue wrote:

TSS wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

The 747-8i could get away with with the door ahead of the seats because the type certificate is from the 1960s, before the regulation existed. A new design could not do omit a door both forward and aft of every passenger seat.

I'm tempted to suggest adding an emergency exit behind the radome on 747s not unlike the tailcone of DC-9s, etc., but that might involve more weight and complexity than it would be worth plus it still wouldn't provide the desired view directly ahead for passengers.

At the end of the day, most passengers don't care enough about the view for this kind of idea to be economically viable.

Agreed. I do care very much for a view, just not that particular one because as soon as anything got close enough for you to see any detail it would move out of sight. I would, however, happily pay extra for a seat that had a view down as well as forward such as in the "lower cockpit/bomb sight/whatever they called it" area on older Russian airliners, even if it meant laying on my belly for the whole flight.

As camera tech improves, panoramic windows for pax can become virtual, if you will.

IQuit wrote:

Seats at different heights allow armrests to overlap / stacked, better comfort for the same seat width. When slightly reclined, pax shoulders will not bump into each other.
Arch floor can support more weight for the same amount of floor material than flat floor.
Is AKH designed to be flippable?

In what world would the FAA certify that? Did you think of how the floor beams would be Manufactured? And what about the Cargo Loading systems or the cabin ventilation system?? I take it you have NO IDEA what's behind the sidewalls walls of the cargo compartment, That idea is completely off the mark, Why don't you try again?

strfyr51 wrote:

IQuit wrote:

Seats at different heights allow armrests to overlap / stacked, better comfort for the same seat width. When slightly reclined, pax shoulders will not bump into each other.
Arch floor can support more weight for the same amount of floor material than flat floor.
Is AKH designed to be flippable?

In what world would the FAA certify that? Did you think of how the floor beams would be Manufactured? And what about the Cargo Loading systems or the cabin ventilation system?? I take it you have NO IDEA what's behind the sidewalls walls of the cargo compartment, That idea is completely off the mark, Why don't you try again?

Did I see single Post seats?? So where is the 9G protection of the passengers? Or? Were they also an afterthought?

IQuit wrote:

Seats at different heights allow armrests to overlap / stacked, better comfort for the same seat width. When slightly reclined, pax shoulders will not bump into each other.
Arch floor can support more weight for the same amount of floor material than flat floor.
Is AKH designed to be flippable?

strfyr51 wrote:

In what world would the FAA certify that? Did you think of how the floor beams would be Manufactured? And what about the Cargo Loading systems or the cabin ventilation system?? I take it you have NO IDEA what's behind the sidewalls walls of the cargo compartment, That idea is completely off the mark, Why don't you try again?

strfyr51 wrote:

Did I see single Post seats?? So where is the 9G protection of the passengers? Or? Were they also an afterthought?

Dude, take a deep breath! I think IQuit's original posted image was just meant to be a very basic illustration of his concept, not a detailed technical drawing. While his concept does present numerous technical obstacles to overcome, many of which are enumerated within this thread and several of which make the idea a non-starter before it even gets to the gate, at least he is using his imagination when trying to solve a problem. Just because this idea doesn't or won't work doesn't mean the next one or the one after that won't have a real-world application.

tomcat wrote:

Talking about making better use of the fuselage space, I have been thinking that with the technological progress, it could be possible to move the pilots in the belly of the aircraft (wide-body ones). The main benefit would be that the space currently occupied by the cockpit could be turned into a super-premium area, by providing fairly large forward facing windows in a secluded section of the aircraft. Trading belly space for an extended cabin area could be worth in terms of revenue potential. This concept could also allow a reduction of the cockpit windows area (retaining 2 large windows instead of the current 4 to 6), leading to weight and maintenance savings.

Ain’t no snob going to replace what I will have had worked for years to earn, if I get that far, and many probably will agree.

You want super-premium, make a glass-humped airplane .

CarlosSi wrote:

You want super-premium, make a glass-humped airplane .

Not glass-humped, glass-bottomed. What can you see from the top of an airplane that you wouldn't be able to see from the ground as well? Up close or far away, the bottom side of clouds look pretty much the same at any distance.