Re: MD-11F vs. 747-400F Design Philosophies

From:         eirikur@ix.netcom.com
Organization: Netcom
Date:         07 Mar 96 02:04:39 
References:   1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

etech@deltanet.com wrote:

>What about the 747-400F, on the other hand?  I've seen a number of these
>as well, and I'm puzzled about Boeing's decision to use the standard
>-100 and -200 upper deck instead of the stretched upper deck used in the
>passenger variant.  I understand that the SUD probably wouldn't be of
>much use in cargo operations.  But if a 747-400F operator decided that
>the cargo market was not worth pursuing and wanted to convert their
>freighters to a passenger configuration, wouldn't putting in the SUD be
>an expensive retrofit?

Something that you seem to have over looked is that passenger
operations are concerned with passenger revenue - the more passengers
the merrier, so to speak.  Whereas, cargo haulers earn their livings
by how much freight they can carry - in weight.  Since the upper deck
is not much of a benefit in cargo operations, it is unnecessary weight
added to the airframe, that could otherwise be saved for an increased
payload capacity on the main deck.
JCD USAF AVMAINT A&P