Nose of 747-8 vs A380

[JF Mezei]

http://www.newairplane.com/747/ shows pictures of the unveiling of the
747-8 intercontinental with the new orange colour. Personally, I much
prefer the blue colour scheme, but I guess Boeing must have gotten a
discount on Orange paint.

I am a bit puzzled by the original design of the 747's cockpit/nose
versus that of the A380.


I understand the rationale for the position of the cockpit on the 747
since it was originally to be a freighter and you want the nose to open
up to allow access to the whole height of the main deck.

However, it *appears* that the space is far more efficiently used on the
747, allowing lucrative first class section to be located below/ahead of
the cockpit.

On the 747, the space below the cockpit is used for highly profitable
first class. And it is a significant amount of space.


On the A380, the cockpit is mid-deck essentially occupying all of the
space ahead of the first door. (but does offer crew rest within that
space). The main stairs appear to follow the fuselage towards the top deck.

In fairness though, the first door on the A380 is quite near to the
nose. But looking at images, there seems to be a lot of wasted space
between the nose and the first windows on the upper deck.

I realise that all of this is an appearance.

Is there some objective evaluation of space use effectiveness between
the A380 and 747 for the front section of the plane ? Does the 747 offer
far more revenue space than the A380 or is the external appearance
misleading because on the 747, it does not show the amount of space
wasted by the stairs ?


I realise that the 380 cockpit offers an advantage in terms of pilot's
view of the ground, but is that really relevant anymore when you
consider cameras and high definition LCD displays that can be used by
pilots ? (which are on the A380 anyways).


Did Airbus end up putting the nose there for piloting reasons even
though it caused far less effective use of revenue space ? Or is that
design turning out to be as efficient as a coppit on the upper deck as
in the 747 ?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[Uwe Klein]

Post by JF Mezei
http://www.newairplane.com/747/ shows pictures of the unveiling of the
747-8 intercontinental with the new orange colour. Personally, I much
prefer the blue colour scheme, but I guess Boeing must have gotten a
discount on Orange paint.
I am a bit puzzled by the original design of the 747's cockpit/nose
versus that of the A380.
I understand the rationale for the position of the cockpit on the 747
since it was originally to be a freighter and you want the nose to open
up to allow access to the whole height of the main deck.
However, it *appears* that the space is far more efficiently used on the
747, allowing lucrative first class section to be located below/ahead of
the cockpit.
On the 747, the space below the cockpit is used for highly profitable
first class. And it is a significant amount of space.

You don't have the "away from the engines" criterium anymore.

With the 1+1/4 deck layout of the original 747 having _one_ full length
deck for pax gives you more space than the other way round.
Having a sloping front is good for a cockpit but less so for passenger
space.

Post by JF Mezei
On the A380, the cockpit is mid-deck essentially occupying all of the
space ahead of the first door. (but does offer crew rest within that
space). The main stairs appear to follow the fuselage towards the top deck.
In fairness though, the first door on the A380 is quite near to the
nose. But looking at images, there seems to be a lot of wasted space
between the nose and the first windows on the upper deck.

LH setup:
http://www.seatplans.com/airlines/Lufthansa/seatplans/A380-800
The comparable LH 747-8i setup seems to not be public yet. (only seatcounts)
So maybe compare to the -400 setup.
http://www.seatplans.com/airlines/Lufthansa/seatplans/B747-400-1
decks are narrower in general, much more so for the upper deck.

Post by JF Mezei
I realise that all of this is an appearance.
Is there some objective evaluation of space use effectiveness between
the A380 and 747 for the front section of the plane ? Does the 747 offer
far more revenue space than the A380 or is the external appearance
misleading because on the 747, it does not show the amount of space
wasted by the stairs ?
I realise that the 380 cockpit offers an advantage in terms of pilot's
view of the ground, but is that really relevant anymore when you
consider cameras and high definition LCD displays that can be used by
pilots ? (which are on the A380 anyways).
Did Airbus end up putting the nose there for piloting reasons even
though it caused far less effective use of revenue space ? Or is that
design turning out to be as efficient as a coppit on the upper deck as
in the 747 ?

Commonality? You can fix aircraft behaviour via FBW but not height over
ground for the pilots. This is significant imho.

And:
What about certification? Is it more difficult to have pax seating
in the nose than in 1970? ( Think the raised hurdles for Combi setups.)

G!
uwe
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[matt weber]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 05:51:57 -0500, JF Mezei

Post by JF Mezei
http://www.newairplane.com/747/ shows pictures of the unveiling of the
747-8 intercontinental with the new orange colour. Personally, I much
prefer the blue colour scheme, but I guess Boeing must have gotten a
discount on Orange paint.
I am a bit puzzled by the original design of the 747's cockpit/nose
versus that of the A380.
I understand the rationale for the position of the cockpit on the 747
since it was originally to be a freighter and you want the nose to open
up to allow access to the whole height of the main deck.
However, it *appears* that the space is far more efficiently used on the
747, allowing lucrative first class section to be located below/ahead of
the cockpit.
On the 747, the space below the cockpit is used for highly profitable
first class. And it is a significant amount of space.
On the A380, the cockpit is mid-deck essentially occupying all of the
space ahead of the first door. (but does offer crew rest within that
space). The main stairs appear to follow the fuselage towards the top deck.
In fairness though, the first door on the A380 is quite near to the
nose. But looking at images, there seems to be a lot of wasted space
between the nose and the first windows on the upper deck.
I realise that all of this is an appearance.
Is there some objective evaluation of space use effectiveness between
the A380 and 747 for the front section of the plane ? Does the 747 offer
far more revenue space than the A380 or is the external appearance
misleading because on the 747, it does not show the amount of space
wasted by the stairs ?

The A380 has considerably more volume than the 747-8F. The catch is
that the A380 airframe is quite heavy (and significantly overweight).
The result is while the A380-800F has more lift capacity than the
747-8, it isn't a lot more, and the 747-8's OEW is a lot lower than
the A380's OEW. 747-8F can carry about 130,000Kg, The A380-800F was
supposed to carry about 135,000Kg, only the OEW on the A380 is
probably about 70,000kg higher.

The unpleasant reality is by most measures, the A380-800F was never
going to be very attractive as a freighter.


The ratio of cargo lift to dead weight on the 747-8F is a lot higher.

At the end of the day the 747-8F gives you almost as much as lift as
the A380, with a much lower operating weight, and slightly better
engines, and at the extreme range that some of the package delivery
companies wanted for the A380-800F, the 777-200F can provide nearly
the same lift. The reality is while passenger care if their journey
takes an extra hour or two, most freight really doesn't care whether
it takes 12 hours or 14 hours to get there. So as long as you can fly
HNL-SYD or ANC-HKG with essentially a full cargo load, further
increases in range are not especially useful, particularly when they
eat into the payload.

When the A380-800F was the only choice for certain missions, it held
some attraction for both UPS and Fedex. Once there were alternatives
that had better operating costs, both UPS and Fedex dumped the
A380-800F's like the proverbial hot potato. EK converted their -800F's
to passenger aircraft orders long ago.

Post by JF Mezei
I realise that the 380 cockpit offers an advantage in terms of pilot's
view of the ground, but is that really relevant anymore when you
consider cameras and high definition LCD displays that can be used by
pilots ? (which are on the A380 anyways).
Did Airbus end up putting the nose there for piloting reasons even
though it caused far less effective use of revenue space ? Or is that
design turning out to be as efficient as a coppit on the upper deck as
in the 747 ?

On the A380, you tend to run out of lift capacity long before you run
out of volume to put either self loading or regular cargo anyway. If
you work the numbers, you'll discover there is a reason QF has nowhere
near 550 seats on the A380. It simply cannot carry that load on the
missions for which the aircraft was purchased. So the loss of space
due to the Cockpit location isn't meaningful. Lift limits make it
almost impossible to use the available volume anyway.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[Miles Bader]

Post by matt weber
On the A380, you tend to run out of lift capacity long before you run
out of volume to put either self loading or regular cargo anyway. If
you work the numbers, you'll discover there is a reason QF has nowhere
near 550 seats on the A380. It simply cannot carry that load on the
missions for which the aircraft was purchased. So the loss of space
due to the Cockpit location isn't meaningful. Lift limits make it
almost impossible to use the available volume anyway.

hmm, so there's no excuse for cramped coach seats on an A380!

-miles

[Uwe Klein]

Post by Miles Bader

Post by matt weber
On the A380, you tend to run out of lift capacity long before you run
out of volume to put either self loading or regular cargo anyway. If
you work the numbers, you'll discover there is a reason QF has nowhere
near 550 seats on the A380. It simply cannot carry that load on the
missions for which the aircraft was purchased. So the loss of space
due to the Cockpit location isn't meaningful. Lift limits make it
almost impossible to use the available volume anyway.

hmm, so there's no excuse for cramped coach seats on an A380!
-miles

The max freight density for the A380F isn't significantly lower
than for the 747-8F. That is a popular myth.

But just like old pax planes converted to freighters the
747-8F as a newly build old plane is a cheaper proposition
( and maybe available real soon now . )

The issue with pax plus freight is that underfloor storage is
proprotional to one deck but the A380 has 2 full decks equivalent
of accompanying pax baggage. This reduces revenue freight tonnage.
( There is one airline that will not take the A380-800 on that reason. )

uwe
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.