Re: 747 hump

Date:         28 Sep 97 20:59:09 
From:         drinkard@seattleu.edu (Terrell D. Drinkard)
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Hi Karl,
  Here is another one.

In article <airliners.1997.2193@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Burkhard & Birgit Domke <b.domke@coruscant.b.shuttle.de> wrote:
>
>Another reference stated that further extending the upper deck
>(-500/-600) would aggravate the problem of (instable, asymmetric)
>vortices being shed by the hump at low speed/high alpha, deteriorating
>airflow around the tail. Anyone to confirm/deny/comment that?

Not as far as I can recall.  We didn't want to extend the upper deck
too far for a couple of reasons.  One, we'd lose the drag benefit if
the hump were pushed any farther aft.  Two, the passenger to lower
deck volume ratio would have gotten screwed up and we'd have lost
a lot of revenue cargo capacity.

--
Terry
drinkard@seattleu.edu
"Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has
more lawyers than sense."