Re: MD-17 vs. MD-11F/DC-10F

Date:         15 Jan 97 04:23:57 
From:         FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos)
Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium
References:   1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Don Stokes (don@rata.vuw.ac.nz) wrote:
: In article <airliners.1997.136@ohare.chicago.com>,
: Filip De Vos <FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be> wrote:

: >The latter will not have a nose-door: so will not be able to load 20ft
: >containers. Loading/unloading will take longer too. Whether that is enough

: Why not?  I thought the whole point of the 747's high cockpit was that
: the planes could be converted to freighters, complete with nose door,
: when they were obsoleted by the SST.

I think this mainly played in Boeing's calculations about building new
747s, not neccesarily about converting allready-built aircraft. So when
the Jumbo was obsoleted by SSTs, the 747 could continue to be built as a
freighter. That way, Boeing's investment was hedged against the
(possible) success of a SST.

: I wouldn't have thought adding the nose door would have required
: significant changes beyond the door itself and the structure immediately
: surrounding the hinge mechanism.  It's not as if it's a major
: load-bearing part of the aircraft.

Well, apparently it is. All 747 freight conversions I am aware of, only
add a rear side cargo door, in the SL/Combi fashion.

The 747-200 Convertible, however, was built with both the nose-opening
door of the 747 Freighter and the rear door in addition to all passenger
doors and windows. The Dutch carrier Martinair bought two.

Of course, no 'conversion' is neccesary to use these planes for cargo
transport. Removal of the interior is sufficient, and quite routine.

--
Filip De Vos                  Better, Faster, Cheaper means *NO SHUTTLE*
FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be                 -Cathy Mancus-