Re: Why not a full length upper deck on a 747-600X

From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
Date:         17 Sep 96 02:24:43 
References:   1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>Why does the 747 have a upper deck in the first place? Was it
>for futre expansion?

This has come up in this newsgroup a number of times -- it's there so
the 747 could be converted to freighters and have an unimpeded main
deck.  More details are in the newsgroup archives, which can be found
at http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html.

>Why does Boeing not want to extend the upperdeck the full length of
>the aircraft, is it not economical, aerodynamic, weight penalty?

Certainly weight is a factor, and a full-length upper deck would also
mean a redesign of at least the verticle tail if not the empenage in
its entirety.  A double-deck design also poses problems for entry and
egress, both at gates and in emergencies.

--
Karl Swartz	|Home	kls@chicago.com
		|Work	kls@netapp.com
		|WWW	http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills